Dermatology News

The COVID-19 literature has been peppered with reports about myocarditis accompanying the disease. If true, this could, in part, explain some of the observed cardiac injury and arrhythmias in seriously ill patients, but also have implications for prognosis.

But endomyocardial biopsies and autopsies, the gold-standard confirmation tests, have been few and far between. That has led some cardiologists to question the true rate of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2, or even if there is definitive proof the virus causes myocarditis.

Predictors of death in COVID-19 are older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and elevated troponin or NT-proBNP – none of which actually fit well with the epidemiology of myocarditis due to other causes, Alida L.P. Caforio, MD, of Padua (Italy) University said in an interview. Myocarditis is traditionally a disease of the young, and most cases are immune-mediated and do not release troponin.

Moreover, myocarditis is a diagnosis of exclusion. For it to be made with any certainty requires proof, by biopsy or autopsy, of inflammatory infiltrates within the myocardium with myocyte necrosis not typical of myocardial infarction, said Dr. Caforio, who chaired the European Society of Cardiology’s writing committee for its 2013 position statement on myocardial and pericardial diseases.

“We have one biopsy-proven case, and in this case there were no viruses in the myocardium, including COVID-19,” she said. “There’s no proof that we have COVID-19 causing myocarditis because it has not been found in the cardiomyocytes.”
 

Emerging evidence

The virus-negative case from Lombardy, Italy, followed an early case series suggesting fulminant myocarditis was involved in 7% of COVID-related deaths in Wuhan, China.

Other case reports include cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings typical of acute myocarditis in a man with no lung involvement or fever but a massive troponin spike, and myocarditis presenting as reverse takotsubo syndrome in a woman undergoing CMR and endomyocardial biopsy.

A CMR analysis in May said acute myocarditis, by 2018 Lake Louise Criteria, was present in eight of 10 patients with “myocarditis-like syndrome,” and a study just out June 30 said the coronavirus can infect heart cells in a lab dish.

Among the few autopsy series, a preprint on 12 patients with COVID-19 in the Seattle area showed coronavirus in the heart tissue of 1 patient.

“It was a low level, so there’s the possibility that it could be viremia, but the fact we do see actual cardiomyocyte injury associated with inflammation, that’s a myocarditis pattern. So it could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Desiree Marshall, MD, director of autopsy and after-death services, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.

The “waters are a little bit muddy,” however, because the patient had a coinfection clinically with influenza and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, which raises the specter that influenza could also have contributed, she said.

Data pending publication from two additional patients show no coronavirus in the heart. Acute respiratory distress syndrome pathology was common in all patients, but there was no evidence of vascular inflammation, such as endotheliitis, Dr. Marshall said.

SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is widely expressed in the heart and on endothelial cells and is linked to inflammatory activation. Autopsy data from three COVID-19 patients showed endothelial cell infection in the heart and diffuse endothelial inflammation, but no sign of lymphocytic myocarditis.
 

Defining myocarditis

“There are some experts who believe we’re likely still dealing with myocarditis but with atypical features, while others suggest there is no myocarditis by strict classic criteria,” said Peter Liu, MD, chief scientific officer/vice president of research, University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

“I don’t think either extreme is accurate,” he said. “The truth is likely somewhere in between, with evidence of both cardiac injury and inflammation. But nothing in COVID-19, as we know today, is classic; it’s a new disease, so we need to be more open minded as new data emerge.”

Part of the divide may indeed stem from the way myocarditis is defined. “Based on traditional Dallas criteria, classic myocarditis requires evidence of myocyte necrosis, which we have, but also inflammatory cell infiltrate, which we don’t consistently have,” he said. “But on the other hand, there is evidence of inflammation-induced cardiac damage, often aggregated around blood vessels.”

The situation is evolving in recent days, and new data under review demonstrated inflammatory infiltrates, which fits the traditional myocarditis criteria, Dr. Liu noted. Yet the viral etiology for the inflammation is still elusive in definitive proof.

In traditional myocarditis, there is an abundance of lymphocytes and foci of inflammation in the myocardium, but COVID-19 is very unusual, in that these lymphocytes are not as exuberant, he said. Lymphopenia or low lymphocyte counts occur in up to 80% of patients. Also, older patients, who initially made up the bulk of the severe COVID-19 cases, are less T-lymphocyte responsive.

“So the lower your lymphocyte count, the worse your outcome is going to be and the more likely you’re going to get cytokine storm,” Dr. Liu said. “And that may be the reason the suspected myocarditis in COVID-19 is atypical because the lymphocytes, in fact, are being suppressed and there is instead more vasculitis.”

Recent data from myocardial gene expression analysis showed that the viral receptor ACE2 is present in the myocardium, and can be upregulated in conditions such as heart failure, he said. However, the highest ACE2 expression is found in pericytes around blood vessels, not myocytes. “This may explain the preferential vascular involvement often observed.”
 

Cardiac damage in the young

Evidence started evolving in early April that young COVID-19 patients without lung disease, generally in their 20s and 30s, can have very high troponin peaks and a form of cardiac damage that does not appear to be related to sepsis, systemic shock, or cytokine storm.

“That’s the group that I do think has some myocarditis, but it’s different. It’s not lymphocytic myocarditis, like enteroviral myocarditis,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, said in an interview.

“The data to date suggest that most SARS cardiac injury is related to stress or high circulating cytokine levels. However, myocarditis probably does affect some patients, he added. “The few published cases suggest a role for macrophages or endothelial cells, which could affect cardiac myocyte function. This type of injury could cause the ST-segment elevation MI-like patterns we have seen in young people with normal epicardial coronary arteries.”

Dr. Cooper, who coauthored a report on the management of COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, pointed out that it’s been hard for researchers to isolate genome from autopsy samples because of RNA degradation prior to autopsy and the use of formalin fixation for tissues prior to RNA extraction.

“Most labs are not doing next-generation sequencing, and even with that, RNA protection and fresh tissue may be required to detect viral genome,” he said.
 

No proven therapy

Although up to 50% of acute myocarditis cases undergo spontaneous healing, recognition and multidisciplinary management of clinically suspected myocarditis is important. The optimal treatment remains unclear.

An early case report suggested use of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin helped spare the life of a 37-year-old with clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

In a related commentary, Dr. Caforio and colleagues pointed out that the World Health Organization considers the use of IV corticosteroids controversial, even in pneumonia due to COVID-19, because it may reduce viral clearance and increase sepsis risk. Intravenous immunoglobulin is also questionable because there is no IgG response to COVID-19 in the plasma donors’ pool.

“Immunosuppression should be reserved for only virus-negative non-COVID myocarditis,” Dr. Caforio said in an interview. “There is no appropriate treatment nowadays for clinically suspected COVID-19 myocarditis. There is no proven therapy for COVID-19, even less for COVID-19 myocarditis.”

Although definitive publication of the RECOVERY trial is still pending, the benefits of dexamethasone – a steroid that works predominantly through its anti-inflammatory effects – appear to be in the sickest patients, such as those requiring ICU admission or respiratory support.

“Many of the same patients would have systemic inflammation and would have also shown elevated cardiac biomarkers,” Dr. Liu observed. “Therefore, it is conceivable that a subset who had cardiac inflammation also benefited from the treatment. Further data, possibly through subgroup analysis and eventually meta-analysis, may help us to understand if dexamethasone also benefited patients with dominant cardiac injury.”

Dr. Caforio, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Cooper reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The COVID-19 literature has been peppered with reports about myocarditis accompanying the disease. If true, this could, in part, explain some of the observed cardiac injury and arrhythmias in seriously ill patients, but also have implications for prognosis.

But endomyocardial biopsies and autopsies, the gold-standard confirmation tests, have been few and far between. That has led some cardiologists to question the true rate of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2, or even if there is definitive proof the virus causes myocarditis.

Predictors of death in COVID-19 are older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and elevated troponin or NT-proBNP – none of which actually fit well with the epidemiology of myocarditis due to other causes, Alida L.P. Caforio, MD, of Padua (Italy) University said in an interview. Myocarditis is traditionally a disease of the young, and most cases are immune-mediated and do not release troponin.

Moreover, myocarditis is a diagnosis of exclusion. For it to be made with any certainty requires proof, by biopsy or autopsy, of inflammatory infiltrates within the myocardium with myocyte necrosis not typical of myocardial infarction, said Dr. Caforio, who chaired the European Society of Cardiology’s writing committee for its 2013 position statement on myocardial and pericardial diseases.

“We have one biopsy-proven case, and in this case there were no viruses in the myocardium, including COVID-19,” she said. “There’s no proof that we have COVID-19 causing myocarditis because it has not been found in the cardiomyocytes.”
 

Emerging evidence

The virus-negative case from Lombardy, Italy, followed an early case series suggesting fulminant myocarditis was involved in 7% of COVID-related deaths in Wuhan, China.

Other case reports include cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings typical of acute myocarditis in a man with no lung involvement or fever but a massive troponin spike, and myocarditis presenting as reverse takotsubo syndrome in a woman undergoing CMR and endomyocardial biopsy.

A CMR analysis in May said acute myocarditis, by 2018 Lake Louise Criteria, was present in eight of 10 patients with “myocarditis-like syndrome,” and a study just out June 30 said the coronavirus can infect heart cells in a lab dish.

Among the few autopsy series, a preprint on 12 patients with COVID-19 in the Seattle area showed coronavirus in the heart tissue of 1 patient.

“It was a low level, so there’s the possibility that it could be viremia, but the fact we do see actual cardiomyocyte injury associated with inflammation, that’s a myocarditis pattern. So it could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Desiree Marshall, MD, director of autopsy and after-death services, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.

The “waters are a little bit muddy,” however, because the patient had a coinfection clinically with influenza and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, which raises the specter that influenza could also have contributed, she said.

Data pending publication from two additional patients show no coronavirus in the heart. Acute respiratory distress syndrome pathology was common in all patients, but there was no evidence of vascular inflammation, such as endotheliitis, Dr. Marshall said.

SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is widely expressed in the heart and on endothelial cells and is linked to inflammatory activation. Autopsy data from three COVID-19 patients showed endothelial cell infection in the heart and diffuse endothelial inflammation, but no sign of lymphocytic myocarditis.
 

Defining myocarditis

“There are some experts who believe we’re likely still dealing with myocarditis but with atypical features, while others suggest there is no myocarditis by strict classic criteria,” said Peter Liu, MD, chief scientific officer/vice president of research, University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

“I don’t think either extreme is accurate,” he said. “The truth is likely somewhere in between, with evidence of both cardiac injury and inflammation. But nothing in COVID-19, as we know today, is classic; it’s a new disease, so we need to be more open minded as new data emerge.”

Part of the divide may indeed stem from the way myocarditis is defined. “Based on traditional Dallas criteria, classic myocarditis requires evidence of myocyte necrosis, which we have, but also inflammatory cell infiltrate, which we don’t consistently have,” he said. “But on the other hand, there is evidence of inflammation-induced cardiac damage, often aggregated around blood vessels.”

The situation is evolving in recent days, and new data under review demonstrated inflammatory infiltrates, which fits the traditional myocarditis criteria, Dr. Liu noted. Yet the viral etiology for the inflammation is still elusive in definitive proof.

In traditional myocarditis, there is an abundance of lymphocytes and foci of inflammation in the myocardium, but COVID-19 is very unusual, in that these lymphocytes are not as exuberant, he said. Lymphopenia or low lymphocyte counts occur in up to 80% of patients. Also, older patients, who initially made up the bulk of the severe COVID-19 cases, are less T-lymphocyte responsive.

“So the lower your lymphocyte count, the worse your outcome is going to be and the more likely you’re going to get cytokine storm,” Dr. Liu said. “And that may be the reason the suspected myocarditis in COVID-19 is atypical because the lymphocytes, in fact, are being suppressed and there is instead more vasculitis.”

Recent data from myocardial gene expression analysis showed that the viral receptor ACE2 is present in the myocardium, and can be upregulated in conditions such as heart failure, he said. However, the highest ACE2 expression is found in pericytes around blood vessels, not myocytes. “This may explain the preferential vascular involvement often observed.”
 

Cardiac damage in the young

Evidence started evolving in early April that young COVID-19 patients without lung disease, generally in their 20s and 30s, can have very high troponin peaks and a form of cardiac damage that does not appear to be related to sepsis, systemic shock, or cytokine storm.

“That’s the group that I do think has some myocarditis, but it’s different. It’s not lymphocytic myocarditis, like enteroviral myocarditis,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, said in an interview.

“The data to date suggest that most SARS cardiac injury is related to stress or high circulating cytokine levels. However, myocarditis probably does affect some patients, he added. “The few published cases suggest a role for macrophages or endothelial cells, which could affect cardiac myocyte function. This type of injury could cause the ST-segment elevation MI-like patterns we have seen in young people with normal epicardial coronary arteries.”

Dr. Cooper, who coauthored a report on the management of COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, pointed out that it’s been hard for researchers to isolate genome from autopsy samples because of RNA degradation prior to autopsy and the use of formalin fixation for tissues prior to RNA extraction.

“Most labs are not doing next-generation sequencing, and even with that, RNA protection and fresh tissue may be required to detect viral genome,” he said.
 

No proven therapy

Although up to 50% of acute myocarditis cases undergo spontaneous healing, recognition and multidisciplinary management of clinically suspected myocarditis is important. The optimal treatment remains unclear.

An early case report suggested use of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin helped spare the life of a 37-year-old with clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

In a related commentary, Dr. Caforio and colleagues pointed out that the World Health Organization considers the use of IV corticosteroids controversial, even in pneumonia due to COVID-19, because it may reduce viral clearance and increase sepsis risk. Intravenous immunoglobulin is also questionable because there is no IgG response to COVID-19 in the plasma donors’ pool.

“Immunosuppression should be reserved for only virus-negative non-COVID myocarditis,” Dr. Caforio said in an interview. “There is no appropriate treatment nowadays for clinically suspected COVID-19 myocarditis. There is no proven therapy for COVID-19, even less for COVID-19 myocarditis.”

Although definitive publication of the RECOVERY trial is still pending, the benefits of dexamethasone – a steroid that works predominantly through its anti-inflammatory effects – appear to be in the sickest patients, such as those requiring ICU admission or respiratory support.

“Many of the same patients would have systemic inflammation and would have also shown elevated cardiac biomarkers,” Dr. Liu observed. “Therefore, it is conceivable that a subset who had cardiac inflammation also benefited from the treatment. Further data, possibly through subgroup analysis and eventually meta-analysis, may help us to understand if dexamethasone also benefited patients with dominant cardiac injury.”

Dr. Caforio, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Cooper reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The COVID-19 literature has been peppered with reports about myocarditis accompanying the disease. If true, this could, in part, explain some of the observed cardiac injury and arrhythmias in seriously ill patients, but also have implications for prognosis.

But endomyocardial biopsies and autopsies, the gold-standard confirmation tests, have been few and far between. That has led some cardiologists to question the true rate of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2, or even if there is definitive proof the virus causes myocarditis.

Predictors of death in COVID-19 are older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and elevated troponin or NT-proBNP – none of which actually fit well with the epidemiology of myocarditis due to other causes, Alida L.P. Caforio, MD, of Padua (Italy) University said in an interview. Myocarditis is traditionally a disease of the young, and most cases are immune-mediated and do not release troponin.

Moreover, myocarditis is a diagnosis of exclusion. For it to be made with any certainty requires proof, by biopsy or autopsy, of inflammatory infiltrates within the myocardium with myocyte necrosis not typical of myocardial infarction, said Dr. Caforio, who chaired the European Society of Cardiology’s writing committee for its 2013 position statement on myocardial and pericardial diseases.

“We have one biopsy-proven case, and in this case there were no viruses in the myocardium, including COVID-19,” she said. “There’s no proof that we have COVID-19 causing myocarditis because it has not been found in the cardiomyocytes.”
 

Emerging evidence

The virus-negative case from Lombardy, Italy, followed an early case series suggesting fulminant myocarditis was involved in 7% of COVID-related deaths in Wuhan, China.

Other case reports include cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings typical of acute myocarditis in a man with no lung involvement or fever but a massive troponin spike, and myocarditis presenting as reverse takotsubo syndrome in a woman undergoing CMR and endomyocardial biopsy.

A CMR analysis in May said acute myocarditis, by 2018 Lake Louise Criteria, was present in eight of 10 patients with “myocarditis-like syndrome,” and a study just out June 30 said the coronavirus can infect heart cells in a lab dish.

Among the few autopsy series, a preprint on 12 patients with COVID-19 in the Seattle area showed coronavirus in the heart tissue of 1 patient.

“It was a low level, so there’s the possibility that it could be viremia, but the fact we do see actual cardiomyocyte injury associated with inflammation, that’s a myocarditis pattern. So it could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Desiree Marshall, MD, director of autopsy and after-death services, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.

The “waters are a little bit muddy,” however, because the patient had a coinfection clinically with influenza and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, which raises the specter that influenza could also have contributed, she said.

Data pending publication from two additional patients show no coronavirus in the heart. Acute respiratory distress syndrome pathology was common in all patients, but there was no evidence of vascular inflammation, such as endotheliitis, Dr. Marshall said.

SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is widely expressed in the heart and on endothelial cells and is linked to inflammatory activation. Autopsy data from three COVID-19 patients showed endothelial cell infection in the heart and diffuse endothelial inflammation, but no sign of lymphocytic myocarditis.
 

Defining myocarditis

“There are some experts who believe we’re likely still dealing with myocarditis but with atypical features, while others suggest there is no myocarditis by strict classic criteria,” said Peter Liu, MD, chief scientific officer/vice president of research, University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

“I don’t think either extreme is accurate,” he said. “The truth is likely somewhere in between, with evidence of both cardiac injury and inflammation. But nothing in COVID-19, as we know today, is classic; it’s a new disease, so we need to be more open minded as new data emerge.”

Part of the divide may indeed stem from the way myocarditis is defined. “Based on traditional Dallas criteria, classic myocarditis requires evidence of myocyte necrosis, which we have, but also inflammatory cell infiltrate, which we don’t consistently have,” he said. “But on the other hand, there is evidence of inflammation-induced cardiac damage, often aggregated around blood vessels.”

The situation is evolving in recent days, and new data under review demonstrated inflammatory infiltrates, which fits the traditional myocarditis criteria, Dr. Liu noted. Yet the viral etiology for the inflammation is still elusive in definitive proof.

In traditional myocarditis, there is an abundance of lymphocytes and foci of inflammation in the myocardium, but COVID-19 is very unusual, in that these lymphocytes are not as exuberant, he said. Lymphopenia or low lymphocyte counts occur in up to 80% of patients. Also, older patients, who initially made up the bulk of the severe COVID-19 cases, are less T-lymphocyte responsive.

“So the lower your lymphocyte count, the worse your outcome is going to be and the more likely you’re going to get cytokine storm,” Dr. Liu said. “And that may be the reason the suspected myocarditis in COVID-19 is atypical because the lymphocytes, in fact, are being suppressed and there is instead more vasculitis.”

Recent data from myocardial gene expression analysis showed that the viral receptor ACE2 is present in the myocardium, and can be upregulated in conditions such as heart failure, he said. However, the highest ACE2 expression is found in pericytes around blood vessels, not myocytes. “This may explain the preferential vascular involvement often observed.”
 

Cardiac damage in the young

Evidence started evolving in early April that young COVID-19 patients without lung disease, generally in their 20s and 30s, can have very high troponin peaks and a form of cardiac damage that does not appear to be related to sepsis, systemic shock, or cytokine storm.

“That’s the group that I do think has some myocarditis, but it’s different. It’s not lymphocytic myocarditis, like enteroviral myocarditis,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, said in an interview.

“The data to date suggest that most SARS cardiac injury is related to stress or high circulating cytokine levels. However, myocarditis probably does affect some patients, he added. “The few published cases suggest a role for macrophages or endothelial cells, which could affect cardiac myocyte function. This type of injury could cause the ST-segment elevation MI-like patterns we have seen in young people with normal epicardial coronary arteries.”

Dr. Cooper, who coauthored a report on the management of COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, pointed out that it’s been hard for researchers to isolate genome from autopsy samples because of RNA degradation prior to autopsy and the use of formalin fixation for tissues prior to RNA extraction.

“Most labs are not doing next-generation sequencing, and even with that, RNA protection and fresh tissue may be required to detect viral genome,” he said.
 

No proven therapy

Although up to 50% of acute myocarditis cases undergo spontaneous healing, recognition and multidisciplinary management of clinically suspected myocarditis is important. The optimal treatment remains unclear.

An early case report suggested use of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin helped spare the life of a 37-year-old with clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

In a related commentary, Dr. Caforio and colleagues pointed out that the World Health Organization considers the use of IV corticosteroids controversial, even in pneumonia due to COVID-19, because it may reduce viral clearance and increase sepsis risk. Intravenous immunoglobulin is also questionable because there is no IgG response to COVID-19 in the plasma donors’ pool.

“Immunosuppression should be reserved for only virus-negative non-COVID myocarditis,” Dr. Caforio said in an interview. “There is no appropriate treatment nowadays for clinically suspected COVID-19 myocarditis. There is no proven therapy for COVID-19, even less for COVID-19 myocarditis.”

Although definitive publication of the RECOVERY trial is still pending, the benefits of dexamethasone – a steroid that works predominantly through its anti-inflammatory effects – appear to be in the sickest patients, such as those requiring ICU admission or respiratory support.

“Many of the same patients would have systemic inflammation and would have also shown elevated cardiac biomarkers,” Dr. Liu observed. “Therefore, it is conceivable that a subset who had cardiac inflammation also benefited from the treatment. Further data, possibly through subgroup analysis and eventually meta-analysis, may help us to understand if dexamethasone also benefited patients with dominant cardiac injury.”

Dr. Caforio, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Cooper reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

As more jurisdictions mandate facial coverings in public, questions have arisen about whether it’s safe for everyone – including those with lung disease – to wear masks. Stories about people who claim to be unable to wear masks because of breathing problems are appearing in the news with increasing frequency, and patients are starting to call their doctors to request medical exemptions to public mask requirements.

David Fuentes Prieto/Shutterstock

To address these issues, Medscape spoke with the chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, Dr. Albert Rizzo.
 

The CDC recommendations on mask wearing say, “Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.” Does this language suggest that there indeed is a subset of the adult population with lung disease who shouldn’t wear masks?

It makes sense to say that if it makes you uncomfortable to wear a mask because it affects your breathing, you should think twice about getting in a situation where you would have to wear a mask.

I’ve told many of my high-risk patients, “The best way to avoid getting COVID-19 is to stay home and stay away from sick people, especially if you feel that you are not going to be able to wear a mask or facial covering of some sort.”

The reason that some people have trouble with a mask is that they haven’t tried the right style of mask – by that I mean how tightly it fits and the material it’s made out of. Sometimes it really is just that people with lung disease don’t like to have anything covering their faces. Many of these patients feel better where there is air blowing across their faces – they will have a fan blowing even in the middle of winter because they feel more comfortable.

I won’t say it’s all in their heads, but sometimes it’s a matter of desensitizing themselves to wearing a mask. I liken it to people who have sleep apnea. We often have to desensitize them to wearing a mask for sleeping. We tell them to put it on while they are watching TV — don’t hook it up to anything yet, just get used to having something on your face.

I’ve told my patients the same thing about masks for COVID-19. Put on the mask, see how it feels. If you become uncomfortable breathing with it on, take it off, but maybe you can handle it for a half hour or 45 minutes. Find out how much time you have for a trip to the grocery store based on how comfortable you are wearing it at home.

It’s a matter of training the patient, giving them options of how to get comfortable with it, and then making them realize that they have to weigh the benefits and risks of wearing the mask and feeling out of breath versus going out in public and being potentially exposed to coronavirus. And the bottom line is, anybody who is wearing a mask and starts to feel uncomfortable, they can take the mask off.
 

You mentioned different types of masks. Is there a type of mask that is typically more breathable that clinicians can recommend to patients with lung disease?

First, I remind patients who think they will have trouble breathing with a mask on that they are choosing a mask not so much to protect themselves – that would take an N95 mask to filter out the virus. The mask is worn so that when they cough or drink or speak, they aren’t sending respiratory droplets out into the environment. Even when we speak, respiratory droplets can easily go out as far as 6 feet, or further with coughing or sneezing. With facial coverings, we try to keep those respiratory droplets from getting out and infecting others.

So when choosing a mask, you don’t have to worry as much about a tight-fitting mask. I recommend a loose-fitting mask that covers the nose and mouth and isn’t going to fall off but isn’t so tight around the ears and neck to make them feel uncomfortable. Even though it doesn’t really protect the wearer, it is cutting down on the ability to breathe in droplets – maybe not microscopic particles, but it’s better than nothing.
 

Is a face shield a reasonable alternative for someone who feels they can’t breathe with a mask on?

Yes. I’m surprised that face shields don’t get more attention. I’ve tried them out, and they are actually more comfortable than masks. They do impede the spilling out of droplets into the public, but they are not as close fitting to the face as a mask. If you want to protect others, the face shield should be adequate. It is not as good at preventing you from breathing in viral particles.

Some people have claimed that wearing a mask makes them hyperventilate and feel like they are going to pass out, or the mask causes them to become hypoxic. Are these valid concerns?

We get two questions about masks from patients who feel that they are short of breath or are worried about wearing a mask. One is whether their oxygen level is dropping. It’s usually not that. It’s usually because they feel that the mask is an impediment to getting air in. Their oxygen levels are stable.

The other question is whether the mask causes CO₂ retention. For the mask to trap enough exhaled CO₂ and for us to breathe enough of that CO₂ back in to raise our CO₂ level, it has to be a pretty tight-fitting mask. With the type of masks we are suggesting that people wear, that’s very unlikely to occur.
 

What can clinicians do to reassure patients with some type of lung disease that they can safely wear masks?

There are a few things they can do right in the office. Have them put the mask on for a few minutes and make sure they feel comfortable with it. With an oximeter, patients can see that their oxygen levels don’t change when they are breathing through the mask for a period of time.

You can’t really measure CO₂ retention that easily, but most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis don’t have an elevated CO₂ at baseline. A little more education is helpful in those situations. In most cases, they aren’t going to retain enough CO₂ to have problems wearing a mask.

Only a small percentage of patients with lung disease are CO₂ retainers, and many of those patients are being seen by pulmonary specialists. Those are the patients you might want to be more cautious with, to make sure they aren’t wearing anything that is tight fitting or that makes them work harder to breathe. It’s not that the mask is causing CO₂ retention, but the increased work of breathing may make it harder to exhale the CO₂.
 

Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?

Supplemental oxygen is typically supplied through a nasal cannula, so 100% oxygen is still getting to the nasal passages and entrained down into the airway, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Some of the resistance to wearing masks has come from people with asthma. Is it safe for patients with asthma to wear masks, or should these patients be exempt from wearing masks?

In general, the breathing of people with mild asthma, both young and old, should not be impeded by the wearing of facial coverings. The concerns about oxygen and carbon dioxide among patients with more severe lung disease should not play a role in asthma.

Since younger adults with COVID-19 seem to have fewer or no symptoms and may actually be carrying the virus unknowingly, this should be the main population who should wear masks to prevent transmission to others.

Exemptions for mask wearing for mild asthma should be discouraged and dealt with on a case-by-case basis if there is a particular concern for that individual.
 

How do you respond if a patient asks you for a formal medical exemption to wearing a mask?

We’ve been asked to do a lot of letter writing for patients around going back to work, as well as the issue of wearing masks. The discussion usually revolves around trying to avoid going somewhere where you would have to wear a mask if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

I do not recommend automatically exempting individuals from wearing masks, even many of my pulmonary patients. There needs to be an understanding by the patient regarding the purpose of the mask and the overall advice to stay out of situations where social distancing is not being practiced. If you can take the time to discuss options as mentioned above – mask styles, desensitization, etc – the patient usually understands and will try wearing a mask.

On a case-by-case basis, some individuals may need to be exempted, but I feel this is a small number. I prefer my high-risk (older, chronic disease, etc) patients do everything they can to avoid infection – handwashing, mask wearing, and socially distancing.

They should also realize that even with a note, it is not going to help if they are in the middle of the grocery store and someone confronts them about not wearing a mask. It may help as they enter a store that says “masks required” and they can show it to someone monitoring the door. But I’m not really sure in what situations having that note is going to be helpful if confrontations occur.

Patients are also asking how safe is it for them to go back to work and be out in public. I tell them, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Until we have an effective vaccine, we are all going to have to weigh the potential risks of going to an area where social distancing isn’t maintained, people aren’t wearing face masks, and you can’t wash your hands as much as you’d like to. That’s going to be a struggle for all of us to get back out into situations where people interact socially.

Albert A. Rizzo, MD, is chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, chief of the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Delaware, and a member of Christiana Care Pulmonary Associates. He is board certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and sleep medicine and is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Philadelphia.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As more jurisdictions mandate facial coverings in public, questions have arisen about whether it’s safe for everyone – including those with lung disease – to wear masks. Stories about people who claim to be unable to wear masks because of breathing problems are appearing in the news with increasing frequency, and patients are starting to call their doctors to request medical exemptions to public mask requirements.

David Fuentes Prieto/Shutterstock

To address these issues, Medscape spoke with the chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, Dr. Albert Rizzo.
 

The CDC recommendations on mask wearing say, “Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.” Does this language suggest that there indeed is a subset of the adult population with lung disease who shouldn’t wear masks?

It makes sense to say that if it makes you uncomfortable to wear a mask because it affects your breathing, you should think twice about getting in a situation where you would have to wear a mask.

I’ve told many of my high-risk patients, “The best way to avoid getting COVID-19 is to stay home and stay away from sick people, especially if you feel that you are not going to be able to wear a mask or facial covering of some sort.”

The reason that some people have trouble with a mask is that they haven’t tried the right style of mask – by that I mean how tightly it fits and the material it’s made out of. Sometimes it really is just that people with lung disease don’t like to have anything covering their faces. Many of these patients feel better where there is air blowing across their faces – they will have a fan blowing even in the middle of winter because they feel more comfortable.

I won’t say it’s all in their heads, but sometimes it’s a matter of desensitizing themselves to wearing a mask. I liken it to people who have sleep apnea. We often have to desensitize them to wearing a mask for sleeping. We tell them to put it on while they are watching TV — don’t hook it up to anything yet, just get used to having something on your face.

I’ve told my patients the same thing about masks for COVID-19. Put on the mask, see how it feels. If you become uncomfortable breathing with it on, take it off, but maybe you can handle it for a half hour or 45 minutes. Find out how much time you have for a trip to the grocery store based on how comfortable you are wearing it at home.

It’s a matter of training the patient, giving them options of how to get comfortable with it, and then making them realize that they have to weigh the benefits and risks of wearing the mask and feeling out of breath versus going out in public and being potentially exposed to coronavirus. And the bottom line is, anybody who is wearing a mask and starts to feel uncomfortable, they can take the mask off.
 

You mentioned different types of masks. Is there a type of mask that is typically more breathable that clinicians can recommend to patients with lung disease?

First, I remind patients who think they will have trouble breathing with a mask on that they are choosing a mask not so much to protect themselves – that would take an N95 mask to filter out the virus. The mask is worn so that when they cough or drink or speak, they aren’t sending respiratory droplets out into the environment. Even when we speak, respiratory droplets can easily go out as far as 6 feet, or further with coughing or sneezing. With facial coverings, we try to keep those respiratory droplets from getting out and infecting others.

So when choosing a mask, you don’t have to worry as much about a tight-fitting mask. I recommend a loose-fitting mask that covers the nose and mouth and isn’t going to fall off but isn’t so tight around the ears and neck to make them feel uncomfortable. Even though it doesn’t really protect the wearer, it is cutting down on the ability to breathe in droplets – maybe not microscopic particles, but it’s better than nothing.
 

Is a face shield a reasonable alternative for someone who feels they can’t breathe with a mask on?

Yes. I’m surprised that face shields don’t get more attention. I’ve tried them out, and they are actually more comfortable than masks. They do impede the spilling out of droplets into the public, but they are not as close fitting to the face as a mask. If you want to protect others, the face shield should be adequate. It is not as good at preventing you from breathing in viral particles.

Some people have claimed that wearing a mask makes them hyperventilate and feel like they are going to pass out, or the mask causes them to become hypoxic. Are these valid concerns?

We get two questions about masks from patients who feel that they are short of breath or are worried about wearing a mask. One is whether their oxygen level is dropping. It’s usually not that. It’s usually because they feel that the mask is an impediment to getting air in. Their oxygen levels are stable.

The other question is whether the mask causes CO₂ retention. For the mask to trap enough exhaled CO₂ and for us to breathe enough of that CO₂ back in to raise our CO₂ level, it has to be a pretty tight-fitting mask. With the type of masks we are suggesting that people wear, that’s very unlikely to occur.
 

What can clinicians do to reassure patients with some type of lung disease that they can safely wear masks?

There are a few things they can do right in the office. Have them put the mask on for a few minutes and make sure they feel comfortable with it. With an oximeter, patients can see that their oxygen levels don’t change when they are breathing through the mask for a period of time.

You can’t really measure CO₂ retention that easily, but most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis don’t have an elevated CO₂ at baseline. A little more education is helpful in those situations. In most cases, they aren’t going to retain enough CO₂ to have problems wearing a mask.

Only a small percentage of patients with lung disease are CO₂ retainers, and many of those patients are being seen by pulmonary specialists. Those are the patients you might want to be more cautious with, to make sure they aren’t wearing anything that is tight fitting or that makes them work harder to breathe. It’s not that the mask is causing CO₂ retention, but the increased work of breathing may make it harder to exhale the CO₂.
 

Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?

Supplemental oxygen is typically supplied through a nasal cannula, so 100% oxygen is still getting to the nasal passages and entrained down into the airway, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Some of the resistance to wearing masks has come from people with asthma. Is it safe for patients with asthma to wear masks, or should these patients be exempt from wearing masks?

In general, the breathing of people with mild asthma, both young and old, should not be impeded by the wearing of facial coverings. The concerns about oxygen and carbon dioxide among patients with more severe lung disease should not play a role in asthma.

Since younger adults with COVID-19 seem to have fewer or no symptoms and may actually be carrying the virus unknowingly, this should be the main population who should wear masks to prevent transmission to others.

Exemptions for mask wearing for mild asthma should be discouraged and dealt with on a case-by-case basis if there is a particular concern for that individual.
 

How do you respond if a patient asks you for a formal medical exemption to wearing a mask?

We’ve been asked to do a lot of letter writing for patients around going back to work, as well as the issue of wearing masks. The discussion usually revolves around trying to avoid going somewhere where you would have to wear a mask if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

I do not recommend automatically exempting individuals from wearing masks, even many of my pulmonary patients. There needs to be an understanding by the patient regarding the purpose of the mask and the overall advice to stay out of situations where social distancing is not being practiced. If you can take the time to discuss options as mentioned above – mask styles, desensitization, etc – the patient usually understands and will try wearing a mask.

On a case-by-case basis, some individuals may need to be exempted, but I feel this is a small number. I prefer my high-risk (older, chronic disease, etc) patients do everything they can to avoid infection – handwashing, mask wearing, and socially distancing.

They should also realize that even with a note, it is not going to help if they are in the middle of the grocery store and someone confronts them about not wearing a mask. It may help as they enter a store that says “masks required” and they can show it to someone monitoring the door. But I’m not really sure in what situations having that note is going to be helpful if confrontations occur.

Patients are also asking how safe is it for them to go back to work and be out in public. I tell them, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Until we have an effective vaccine, we are all going to have to weigh the potential risks of going to an area where social distancing isn’t maintained, people aren’t wearing face masks, and you can’t wash your hands as much as you’d like to. That’s going to be a struggle for all of us to get back out into situations where people interact socially.

Albert A. Rizzo, MD, is chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, chief of the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Delaware, and a member of Christiana Care Pulmonary Associates. He is board certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and sleep medicine and is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Philadelphia.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As more jurisdictions mandate facial coverings in public, questions have arisen about whether it’s safe for everyone – including those with lung disease – to wear masks. Stories about people who claim to be unable to wear masks because of breathing problems are appearing in the news with increasing frequency, and patients are starting to call their doctors to request medical exemptions to public mask requirements.

David Fuentes Prieto/Shutterstock

To address these issues, Medscape spoke with the chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, Dr. Albert Rizzo.
 

The CDC recommendations on mask wearing say, “Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.” Does this language suggest that there indeed is a subset of the adult population with lung disease who shouldn’t wear masks?

It makes sense to say that if it makes you uncomfortable to wear a mask because it affects your breathing, you should think twice about getting in a situation where you would have to wear a mask.

I’ve told many of my high-risk patients, “The best way to avoid getting COVID-19 is to stay home and stay away from sick people, especially if you feel that you are not going to be able to wear a mask or facial covering of some sort.”

The reason that some people have trouble with a mask is that they haven’t tried the right style of mask – by that I mean how tightly it fits and the material it’s made out of. Sometimes it really is just that people with lung disease don’t like to have anything covering their faces. Many of these patients feel better where there is air blowing across their faces – they will have a fan blowing even in the middle of winter because they feel more comfortable.

I won’t say it’s all in their heads, but sometimes it’s a matter of desensitizing themselves to wearing a mask. I liken it to people who have sleep apnea. We often have to desensitize them to wearing a mask for sleeping. We tell them to put it on while they are watching TV — don’t hook it up to anything yet, just get used to having something on your face.

I’ve told my patients the same thing about masks for COVID-19. Put on the mask, see how it feels. If you become uncomfortable breathing with it on, take it off, but maybe you can handle it for a half hour or 45 minutes. Find out how much time you have for a trip to the grocery store based on how comfortable you are wearing it at home.

It’s a matter of training the patient, giving them options of how to get comfortable with it, and then making them realize that they have to weigh the benefits and risks of wearing the mask and feeling out of breath versus going out in public and being potentially exposed to coronavirus. And the bottom line is, anybody who is wearing a mask and starts to feel uncomfortable, they can take the mask off.
 

You mentioned different types of masks. Is there a type of mask that is typically more breathable that clinicians can recommend to patients with lung disease?

First, I remind patients who think they will have trouble breathing with a mask on that they are choosing a mask not so much to protect themselves – that would take an N95 mask to filter out the virus. The mask is worn so that when they cough or drink or speak, they aren’t sending respiratory droplets out into the environment. Even when we speak, respiratory droplets can easily go out as far as 6 feet, or further with coughing or sneezing. With facial coverings, we try to keep those respiratory droplets from getting out and infecting others.

So when choosing a mask, you don’t have to worry as much about a tight-fitting mask. I recommend a loose-fitting mask that covers the nose and mouth and isn’t going to fall off but isn’t so tight around the ears and neck to make them feel uncomfortable. Even though it doesn’t really protect the wearer, it is cutting down on the ability to breathe in droplets – maybe not microscopic particles, but it’s better than nothing.
 

Is a face shield a reasonable alternative for someone who feels they can’t breathe with a mask on?

Yes. I’m surprised that face shields don’t get more attention. I’ve tried them out, and they are actually more comfortable than masks. They do impede the spilling out of droplets into the public, but they are not as close fitting to the face as a mask. If you want to protect others, the face shield should be adequate. It is not as good at preventing you from breathing in viral particles.

Some people have claimed that wearing a mask makes them hyperventilate and feel like they are going to pass out, or the mask causes them to become hypoxic. Are these valid concerns?

We get two questions about masks from patients who feel that they are short of breath or are worried about wearing a mask. One is whether their oxygen level is dropping. It’s usually not that. It’s usually because they feel that the mask is an impediment to getting air in. Their oxygen levels are stable.

The other question is whether the mask causes CO₂ retention. For the mask to trap enough exhaled CO₂ and for us to breathe enough of that CO₂ back in to raise our CO₂ level, it has to be a pretty tight-fitting mask. With the type of masks we are suggesting that people wear, that’s very unlikely to occur.
 

What can clinicians do to reassure patients with some type of lung disease that they can safely wear masks?

There are a few things they can do right in the office. Have them put the mask on for a few minutes and make sure they feel comfortable with it. With an oximeter, patients can see that their oxygen levels don’t change when they are breathing through the mask for a period of time.

You can’t really measure CO₂ retention that easily, but most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis don’t have an elevated CO₂ at baseline. A little more education is helpful in those situations. In most cases, they aren’t going to retain enough CO₂ to have problems wearing a mask.

Only a small percentage of patients with lung disease are CO₂ retainers, and many of those patients are being seen by pulmonary specialists. Those are the patients you might want to be more cautious with, to make sure they aren’t wearing anything that is tight fitting or that makes them work harder to breathe. It’s not that the mask is causing CO₂ retention, but the increased work of breathing may make it harder to exhale the CO₂.
 

Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?

Supplemental oxygen is typically supplied through a nasal cannula, so 100% oxygen is still getting to the nasal passages and entrained down into the airway, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Some of the resistance to wearing masks has come from people with asthma. Is it safe for patients with asthma to wear masks, or should these patients be exempt from wearing masks?

In general, the breathing of people with mild asthma, both young and old, should not be impeded by the wearing of facial coverings. The concerns about oxygen and carbon dioxide among patients with more severe lung disease should not play a role in asthma.

Since younger adults with COVID-19 seem to have fewer or no symptoms and may actually be carrying the virus unknowingly, this should be the main population who should wear masks to prevent transmission to others.

Exemptions for mask wearing for mild asthma should be discouraged and dealt with on a case-by-case basis if there is a particular concern for that individual.
 

How do you respond if a patient asks you for a formal medical exemption to wearing a mask?

We’ve been asked to do a lot of letter writing for patients around going back to work, as well as the issue of wearing masks. The discussion usually revolves around trying to avoid going somewhere where you would have to wear a mask if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

I do not recommend automatically exempting individuals from wearing masks, even many of my pulmonary patients. There needs to be an understanding by the patient regarding the purpose of the mask and the overall advice to stay out of situations where social distancing is not being practiced. If you can take the time to discuss options as mentioned above – mask styles, desensitization, etc – the patient usually understands and will try wearing a mask.

On a case-by-case basis, some individuals may need to be exempted, but I feel this is a small number. I prefer my high-risk (older, chronic disease, etc) patients do everything they can to avoid infection – handwashing, mask wearing, and socially distancing.

They should also realize that even with a note, it is not going to help if they are in the middle of the grocery store and someone confronts them about not wearing a mask. It may help as they enter a store that says “masks required” and they can show it to someone monitoring the door. But I’m not really sure in what situations having that note is going to be helpful if confrontations occur.

Patients are also asking how safe is it for them to go back to work and be out in public. I tell them, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Until we have an effective vaccine, we are all going to have to weigh the potential risks of going to an area where social distancing isn’t maintained, people aren’t wearing face masks, and you can’t wash your hands as much as you’d like to. That’s going to be a struggle for all of us to get back out into situations where people interact socially.

Albert A. Rizzo, MD, is chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, chief of the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Delaware, and a member of Christiana Care Pulmonary Associates. He is board certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and sleep medicine and is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Philadelphia.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

During a family medicine rotation at Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, third-year medical students are preparing for a patient visit. Only, instead of entering a clinic room, students sit down at a computer. The patient they’re virtually examining – a 42-year-old male cattle rancher with knee problems – is an actor.

He asks for an MRI. A student explains that kneecap pain calls for rehab rather than a scan. The patient pushes back. “It would ease my mind,” he says. “I really need to make sure I can keep the ranch running.” The student must now try to digitally maintain rapport while explaining why imaging isn’t necessary.

When COVID-19 hit, telehealth training and remote learning became major parts of medical education, seemingly overnight. Since the start of the pandemic, students have contended with canceled classes, missed rotations, and revised training timelines, even as the demand for new doctors grows ever more pressing.

Institutions have been forced to rethink how to best establish solid, long-term foundations to ensure that young doctors are adequately trained. “They may find themselves the only doctors to be practicing in a small town,” said Stephen G. Post, PhD, bioethicist and professor at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University. “They have to be ready.”

With limited hands-on access to patients, students must learn in ways most never have before. Medical schools are now test-driving a mix of new and reimagined teaching strategies that aim to produce doctors who will enter medicine just as prepared as their more seasoned peers.

Hands-off education

Soon after starting her pediatrics rotation in March, recent Stanford (Calif.) University graduate Paloma Marin-Nevarez, MD, heard that children were being admitted to her hospital for evaluation to rule out COVID-19. Dr. Marin-Nevarez was assigned to help care for them but never physically met any – an approach called “virtual rounding.”

In virtual rounding, a provider typically goes in, examines a patient, and uses a portable device such as an iPad to send video or take notes about the encounter. Students or others in another room then give input on the patient’s care. “It was bizarre doing rounds on patients I had not met yet, discussing their treatment plans in one of the team rooms,” Dr. Marin-Nevarez said. “There was something very eerie about passing that particular unit that said: ‘Do not enter,’ and never being able to go inside.”

Within weeks, the Association of American Medical Colleges advised medical schools to suspend any activities – including clinical rotations – that involved direct student contact with patients, even those who weren’t COVID-19 positive.

Many schools hope to have students back and participating in some degree of patient care at non–COVID-19 hospital wards as early as July 1, said Michael Gisondi, MD, vice chair of education at Stanford’s department of emergency medicine. Returning students must now adapt to a restricted training environment, often while scrambling to make up training time. “This is uncharted territory for medical schools. Elective cases are down, surgical cases are down. That’s potentially going to decrease exposure to training opportunities.”

When students come back, lectures are still likely to remain on hold at most schools, replaced by Zoom conferences and virtual presentations. That’s not completely new: A trend away from large, traditional classes predated the pandemic. In a 2017-2018 AAMC survey, one in four second-year medical students said they almost never went to in-person lectures. COVID-19 has accelerated this shift.

For faculty who have long emphasized hands-on, in-person learning, the shift presents “a whole pedagogical issue – you don’t necessarily know how to adjust your practices to an online format,” Dr. Gisondi said. Instructors have to be even more flexible in order to engage students. “Every week I ask the students: ‘What’s working? What’s not working?’ ” Dr. Gisondi said about his online classes. “We have to solicit feedback.”

Changes to lectures are the easy part, says Elisabeth Fassas, a second-year student at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Before the pandemic, she was taking a clinical medicine course that involved time in the hospital, something that helped link the academic with the practical. “You really get to see the stuff you’re learning being relevant: ‘Here’s a patient who has a cardiology problem,’ ” she said. “[Capturing] that piece of connection to what you’re working toward is going to be tricky, I think.”

Some students who graduated this past spring worry about that clinical time they lost. Many remain acutely conscious of specific knowledge gaps. “I did not get a ton of experience examining crying children or holding babies,” said Dr. Marin-Nevarez, who starts an emergency medicine residency this year. “I am going to have to be transparent with my future instructors and let them know I missed out because of the pandemic.”

Such knowledge gaps mean new doctors will have to make up ground, said Jeremiah Tao, MD, who trains ophthalmology residents at the University of California, Irvine. But Dr. Tao doesn’t see these setbacks as a major long-term problem. His residents are already starting to make up the patient hours they missed in the spring and are refining the skills that got short shrift earlier on. For eligibility, “most boards require a certain number of days of experience. But most of the message from our board is [that] they’re understanding, and they’re going to leave it to the program directors to declare someone competent.”

Robert Johnson, MD, dean of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said short-term setbacks in training likely won’t translate into longer-term skill deficits. “What most schools have done is overprepare students. We’re sure they have acquired all the skills they need to practice.”

Closing the gaps

To fill existing knowledge gaps and prevent future deficits, institutions hope to strike a balance between keeping trainees safe and providing necessary on-site learning. In line with ongoing AAMC recommendations, which suggest schools curtail student involvement in direct patient care in areas with significant COVID-19 spread, virtual rounding will likely continue.

Many schools may use a hybrid approach, in which students take turns entering patient rooms to perform checkups or observations while other students and instructors watch a video broadcast. “It’s not that different from when I go into the room and supervise a trainee,” Dr. Gisondi said.

Some schools are going even further, transforming education in ways that reflect the demands of a COVID-19–era medical marketplace. Institutions such as Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and OHSU have invested in telemedicine training for years, but COVID-19 has given telehealth education an additional boost. These types of visits have surged dramatically, underscoring the importance of preparing new doctors to practice in a virtual setting – something that wasn’t common previously. In a 2019 survey, only about a quarter of sampled medical schools offered a telemedicine curriculum.

Simulated telehealth consults such as OHSU’s knee-pain scenario serve several purposes, says Ryan Palmer, EdD, associate dean of education at Northeast Ohio Universities, Rootstown. They virtually teach skills that students need – such as clearly explaining to patients why a care plan is called for – while allowing the trainees to practice forging an emotional connection with patients they are treating remotely.

“It’s less about how you use a specific system,” said Dr. Palmer, who developed OHSU’s TeleOSCE, a telehealth training system that has interested other schools. He sees this as an opportunity, inasmuch as telemedicine is likely to remain an important part of practice for the foreseeable future.

To that end, the AAMC recently hosted an online seminar to help faculty with telehealth instruction. But training such as this can only go so far, said Dr. Johnson. “There are techniques you do have to learn at the patient’s side.”

Dr. Johnson says that a traditional part of medical school at Rutgers has been having students spend time in general practitioners’ offices early on to see what the experience is like. “That’s going to be a problem – I expect many primary care practices will go out of business. Those types of shadowing experiences will probably go away. They may be replaced by experiences at larger clinics.”

Some learning in clinics may soon resume. Although fears about COVID-19 still loom large, Dr. Tao’s ophthalmology residents have started taking on something closer to a normal workload, thanks to patients returning for regular office visits. As people return to medical facilities in larger numbers, hospitals around the country have started separating patients with COVID-19 from others. Dr. Gisondi suggested that this means medical students may be able to circulate in non–COVID-19 wards, provided the institution has enough personal protective equipment. “The inpatient wards are really safe – there’s a low risk of transmission. That’s where core rotations occur.”

The road ahead

In settings where patients’ viral status remains uncertain, such as emergency wards and off-site clinics without rapid testing, in-person learning may be slower to resume. That’s where longer-term changes may come into play. Some schools are preparing digital learning platforms that have the potential to transform medical education.

For example, Haru Okuda, MD, an emergency medicine doctor and director of the Center for Advanced Medical Learning and Simulation at the University of South Florida, Tampa, is testing a new virtual-reality platform called Immertec. Dr. Okuda said that, unlike older teaching tools, the system is not a stale, static virtual environment that will become obsolete. Instead, it uses a live camera to visually teleport students into the space of a real clinic or operating room.

“Let’s say you have students learning gross anatomy, how to dissect the chest. You’d have a cadaver on the table, demonstrating anatomy. The student has a headset – you can see like you’re in the room.” The wraparound visual device allows students to watch surgical maneuvers close up or view additional input from devices such as laparoscopes.

Dr. Okuda acknowledges that educators don’t yet know whether this works as well as older, hands-on methods. As yet, no virtual reality system has touch-based sensors sophisticated enough to simulate even skills such as tying a basic surgical knot, Dr. Gisondi said. And immersive platforms are expensive, which means a gap may occur between schools that can afford them and those that can’t.

The long-term consequences of COVID-19 go beyond costs that institutions may have to bear. Some students are concerned that the pandemic is affecting their mental well-being in ways that may make training a tougher slog. A few students graduated early to serve on the COVID-19 front lines. Others, rather than planning trips to celebrate the gap between medical school and residency, watched from home as young doctors they knew worked under abusive and unsafe conditions.

“Many of us felt powerless, given what we saw happening around us,” said recent University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, graduate Marina Haque, MD. She thinks those feelings, along with the rigors of practicing medicine during a pandemic, may leave her and her colleagues more prone to burnout.

The pandemic has also had a galvanizing effect on students – some excited new doctors are eager to line up for duty on COVID-19 wards. But supervisors say they must weigh young doctors’ desire to serve against the possible risks. “You don’t want people who have a big future ahead of them rushing into these situations and getting severely ill,” said Dr. Post. “There is a balance.”

All these changes, temporary or lasting, have led many to question whether doctors who complete their training under the cloud of the pandemic will be more – or less – prepared than those who came before them. But it’s not really a question of better or worse, says Dr. Johnson, who stresses that medical education has always required flexibility.

“You come into medicine with a plan in mind, but things happen,” he said. He reflected on the HIV pandemic of the late 1980s and early 1990s that influenced his medical career. He hopes young doctors come through the COVID-19 crucible more seasoned, resilient, and confident in crisis situations. “This is a pivotal event in their lives, and it will shape many careers.”

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

During a family medicine rotation at Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, third-year medical students are preparing for a patient visit. Only, instead of entering a clinic room, students sit down at a computer. The patient they’re virtually examining – a 42-year-old male cattle rancher with knee problems – is an actor.

He asks for an MRI. A student explains that kneecap pain calls for rehab rather than a scan. The patient pushes back. “It would ease my mind,” he says. “I really need to make sure I can keep the ranch running.” The student must now try to digitally maintain rapport while explaining why imaging isn’t necessary.

When COVID-19 hit, telehealth training and remote learning became major parts of medical education, seemingly overnight. Since the start of the pandemic, students have contended with canceled classes, missed rotations, and revised training timelines, even as the demand for new doctors grows ever more pressing.

Institutions have been forced to rethink how to best establish solid, long-term foundations to ensure that young doctors are adequately trained. “They may find themselves the only doctors to be practicing in a small town,” said Stephen G. Post, PhD, bioethicist and professor at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University. “They have to be ready.”

With limited hands-on access to patients, students must learn in ways most never have before. Medical schools are now test-driving a mix of new and reimagined teaching strategies that aim to produce doctors who will enter medicine just as prepared as their more seasoned peers.

Hands-off education

Soon after starting her pediatrics rotation in March, recent Stanford (Calif.) University graduate Paloma Marin-Nevarez, MD, heard that children were being admitted to her hospital for evaluation to rule out COVID-19. Dr. Marin-Nevarez was assigned to help care for them but never physically met any – an approach called “virtual rounding.”

In virtual rounding, a provider typically goes in, examines a patient, and uses a portable device such as an iPad to send video or take notes about the encounter. Students or others in another room then give input on the patient’s care. “It was bizarre doing rounds on patients I had not met yet, discussing their treatment plans in one of the team rooms,” Dr. Marin-Nevarez said. “There was something very eerie about passing that particular unit that said: ‘Do not enter,’ and never being able to go inside.”

Within weeks, the Association of American Medical Colleges advised medical schools to suspend any activities – including clinical rotations – that involved direct student contact with patients, even those who weren’t COVID-19 positive.

Many schools hope to have students back and participating in some degree of patient care at non–COVID-19 hospital wards as early as July 1, said Michael Gisondi, MD, vice chair of education at Stanford’s department of emergency medicine. Returning students must now adapt to a restricted training environment, often while scrambling to make up training time. “This is uncharted territory for medical schools. Elective cases are down, surgical cases are down. That’s potentially going to decrease exposure to training opportunities.”

When students come back, lectures are still likely to remain on hold at most schools, replaced by Zoom conferences and virtual presentations. That’s not completely new: A trend away from large, traditional classes predated the pandemic. In a 2017-2018 AAMC survey, one in four second-year medical students said they almost never went to in-person lectures. COVID-19 has accelerated this shift.

For faculty who have long emphasized hands-on, in-person learning, the shift presents “a whole pedagogical issue – you don’t necessarily know how to adjust your practices to an online format,” Dr. Gisondi said. Instructors have to be even more flexible in order to engage students. “Every week I ask the students: ‘What’s working? What’s not working?’ ” Dr. Gisondi said about his online classes. “We have to solicit feedback.”

Changes to lectures are the easy part, says Elisabeth Fassas, a second-year student at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Before the pandemic, she was taking a clinical medicine course that involved time in the hospital, something that helped link the academic with the practical. “You really get to see the stuff you’re learning being relevant: ‘Here’s a patient who has a cardiology problem,’ ” she said. “[Capturing] that piece of connection to what you’re working toward is going to be tricky, I think.”

Some students who graduated this past spring worry about that clinical time they lost. Many remain acutely conscious of specific knowledge gaps. “I did not get a ton of experience examining crying children or holding babies,” said Dr. Marin-Nevarez, who starts an emergency medicine residency this year. “I am going to have to be transparent with my future instructors and let them know I missed out because of the pandemic.”

Such knowledge gaps mean new doctors will have to make up ground, said Jeremiah Tao, MD, who trains ophthalmology residents at the University of California, Irvine. But Dr. Tao doesn’t see these setbacks as a major long-term problem. His residents are already starting to make up the patient hours they missed in the spring and are refining the skills that got short shrift earlier on. For eligibility, “most boards require a certain number of days of experience. But most of the message from our board is [that] they’re understanding, and they’re going to leave it to the program directors to declare someone competent.”

Robert Johnson, MD, dean of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said short-term setbacks in training likely won’t translate into longer-term skill deficits. “What most schools have done is overprepare students. We’re sure they have acquired all the skills they need to practice.”

Closing the gaps

To fill existing knowledge gaps and prevent future deficits, institutions hope to strike a balance between keeping trainees safe and providing necessary on-site learning. In line with ongoing AAMC recommendations, which suggest schools curtail student involvement in direct patient care in areas with significant COVID-19 spread, virtual rounding will likely continue.

Many schools may use a hybrid approach, in which students take turns entering patient rooms to perform checkups or observations while other students and instructors watch a video broadcast. “It’s not that different from when I go into the room and supervise a trainee,” Dr. Gisondi said.

Some schools are going even further, transforming education in ways that reflect the demands of a COVID-19–era medical marketplace. Institutions such as Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and OHSU have invested in telemedicine training for years, but COVID-19 has given telehealth education an additional boost. These types of visits have surged dramatically, underscoring the importance of preparing new doctors to practice in a virtual setting – something that wasn’t common previously. In a 2019 survey, only about a quarter of sampled medical schools offered a telemedicine curriculum.

Simulated telehealth consults such as OHSU’s knee-pain scenario serve several purposes, says Ryan Palmer, EdD, associate dean of education at Northeast Ohio Universities, Rootstown. They virtually teach skills that students need – such as clearly explaining to patients why a care plan is called for – while allowing the trainees to practice forging an emotional connection with patients they are treating remotely.

“It’s less about how you use a specific system,” said Dr. Palmer, who developed OHSU’s TeleOSCE, a telehealth training system that has interested other schools. He sees this as an opportunity, inasmuch as telemedicine is likely to remain an important part of practice for the foreseeable future.

To that end, the AAMC recently hosted an online seminar to help faculty with telehealth instruction. But training such as this can only go so far, said Dr. Johnson. “There are techniques you do have to learn at the patient’s side.”

Dr. Johnson says that a traditional part of medical school at Rutgers has been having students spend time in general practitioners’ offices early on to see what the experience is like. “That’s going to be a problem – I expect many primary care practices will go out of business. Those types of shadowing experiences will probably go away. They may be replaced by experiences at larger clinics.”

Some learning in clinics may soon resume. Although fears about COVID-19 still loom large, Dr. Tao’s ophthalmology residents have started taking on something closer to a normal workload, thanks to patients returning for regular office visits. As people return to medical facilities in larger numbers, hospitals around the country have started separating patients with COVID-19 from others. Dr. Gisondi suggested that this means medical students may be able to circulate in non–COVID-19 wards, provided the institution has enough personal protective equipment. “The inpatient wards are really safe – there’s a low risk of transmission. That’s where core rotations occur.”

The road ahead

In settings where patients’ viral status remains uncertain, such as emergency wards and off-site clinics without rapid testing, in-person learning may be slower to resume. That’s where longer-term changes may come into play. Some schools are preparing digital learning platforms that have the potential to transform medical education.

For example, Haru Okuda, MD, an emergency medicine doctor and director of the Center for Advanced Medical Learning and Simulation at the University of South Florida, Tampa, is testing a new virtual-reality platform called Immertec. Dr. Okuda said that, unlike older teaching tools, the system is not a stale, static virtual environment that will become obsolete. Instead, it uses a live camera to visually teleport students into the space of a real clinic or operating room.

“Let’s say you have students learning gross anatomy, how to dissect the chest. You’d have a cadaver on the table, demonstrating anatomy. The student has a headset – you can see like you’re in the room.” The wraparound visual device allows students to watch surgical maneuvers close up or view additional input from devices such as laparoscopes.

Dr. Okuda acknowledges that educators don’t yet know whether this works as well as older, hands-on methods. As yet, no virtual reality system has touch-based sensors sophisticated enough to simulate even skills such as tying a basic surgical knot, Dr. Gisondi said. And immersive platforms are expensive, which means a gap may occur between schools that can afford them and those that can’t.

The long-term consequences of COVID-19 go beyond costs that institutions may have to bear. Some students are concerned that the pandemic is affecting their mental well-being in ways that may make training a tougher slog. A few students graduated early to serve on the COVID-19 front lines. Others, rather than planning trips to celebrate the gap between medical school and residency, watched from home as young doctors they knew worked under abusive and unsafe conditions.

“Many of us felt powerless, given what we saw happening around us,” said recent University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, graduate Marina Haque, MD. She thinks those feelings, along with the rigors of practicing medicine during a pandemic, may leave her and her colleagues more prone to burnout.

The pandemic has also had a galvanizing effect on students – some excited new doctors are eager to line up for duty on COVID-19 wards. But supervisors say they must weigh young doctors’ desire to serve against the possible risks. “You don’t want people who have a big future ahead of them rushing into these situations and getting severely ill,” said Dr. Post. “There is a balance.”

All these changes, temporary or lasting, have led many to question whether doctors who complete their training under the cloud of the pandemic will be more – or less – prepared than those who came before them. But it’s not really a question of better or worse, says Dr. Johnson, who stresses that medical education has always required flexibility.

“You come into medicine with a plan in mind, but things happen,” he said. He reflected on the HIV pandemic of the late 1980s and early 1990s that influenced his medical career. He hopes young doctors come through the COVID-19 crucible more seasoned, resilient, and confident in crisis situations. “This is a pivotal event in their lives, and it will shape many careers.”

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

During a family medicine rotation at Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, third-year medical students are preparing for a patient visit. Only, instead of entering a clinic room, students sit down at a computer. The patient they’re virtually examining – a 42-year-old male cattle rancher with knee problems – is an actor.

He asks for an MRI. A student explains that kneecap pain calls for rehab rather than a scan. The patient pushes back. “It would ease my mind,” he says. “I really need to make sure I can keep the ranch running.” The student must now try to digitally maintain rapport while explaining why imaging isn’t necessary.

When COVID-19 hit, telehealth training and remote learning became major parts of medical education, seemingly overnight. Since the start of the pandemic, students have contended with canceled classes, missed rotations, and revised training timelines, even as the demand for new doctors grows ever more pressing.

Institutions have been forced to rethink how to best establish solid, long-term foundations to ensure that young doctors are adequately trained. “They may find themselves the only doctors to be practicing in a small town,” said Stephen G. Post, PhD, bioethicist and professor at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University. “They have to be ready.”

With limited hands-on access to patients, students must learn in ways most never have before. Medical schools are now test-driving a mix of new and reimagined teaching strategies that aim to produce doctors who will enter medicine just as prepared as their more seasoned peers.

Hands-off education

Soon after starting her pediatrics rotation in March, recent Stanford (Calif.) University graduate Paloma Marin-Nevarez, MD, heard that children were being admitted to her hospital for evaluation to rule out COVID-19. Dr. Marin-Nevarez was assigned to help care for them but never physically met any – an approach called “virtual rounding.”

In virtual rounding, a provider typically goes in, examines a patient, and uses a portable device such as an iPad to send video or take notes about the encounter. Students or others in another room then give input on the patient’s care. “It was bizarre doing rounds on patients I had not met yet, discussing their treatment plans in one of the team rooms,” Dr. Marin-Nevarez said. “There was something very eerie about passing that particular unit that said: ‘Do not enter,’ and never being able to go inside.”

Within weeks, the Association of American Medical Colleges advised medical schools to suspend any activities – including clinical rotations – that involved direct student contact with patients, even those who weren’t COVID-19 positive.

Many schools hope to have students back and participating in some degree of patient care at non–COVID-19 hospital wards as early as July 1, said Michael Gisondi, MD, vice chair of education at Stanford’s department of emergency medicine. Returning students must now adapt to a restricted training environment, often while scrambling to make up training time. “This is uncharted territory for medical schools. Elective cases are down, surgical cases are down. That’s potentially going to decrease exposure to training opportunities.”

When students come back, lectures are still likely to remain on hold at most schools, replaced by Zoom conferences and virtual presentations. That’s not completely new: A trend away from large, traditional classes predated the pandemic. In a 2017-2018 AAMC survey, one in four second-year medical students said they almost never went to in-person lectures. COVID-19 has accelerated this shift.

For faculty who have long emphasized hands-on, in-person learning, the shift presents “a whole pedagogical issue – you don’t necessarily know how to adjust your practices to an online format,” Dr. Gisondi said. Instructors have to be even more flexible in order to engage students. “Every week I ask the students: ‘What’s working? What’s not working?’ ” Dr. Gisondi said about his online classes. “We have to solicit feedback.”

Changes to lectures are the easy part, says Elisabeth Fassas, a second-year student at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Before the pandemic, she was taking a clinical medicine course that involved time in the hospital, something that helped link the academic with the practical. “You really get to see the stuff you’re learning being relevant: ‘Here’s a patient who has a cardiology problem,’ ” she said. “[Capturing] that piece of connection to what you’re working toward is going to be tricky, I think.”

Some students who graduated this past spring worry about that clinical time they lost. Many remain acutely conscious of specific knowledge gaps. “I did not get a ton of experience examining crying children or holding babies,” said Dr. Marin-Nevarez, who starts an emergency medicine residency this year. “I am going to have to be transparent with my future instructors and let them know I missed out because of the pandemic.”

Such knowledge gaps mean new doctors will have to make up ground, said Jeremiah Tao, MD, who trains ophthalmology residents at the University of California, Irvine. But Dr. Tao doesn’t see these setbacks as a major long-term problem. His residents are already starting to make up the patient hours they missed in the spring and are refining the skills that got short shrift earlier on. For eligibility, “most boards require a certain number of days of experience. But most of the message from our board is [that] they’re understanding, and they’re going to leave it to the program directors to declare someone competent.”

Robert Johnson, MD, dean of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said short-term setbacks in training likely won’t translate into longer-term skill deficits. “What most schools have done is overprepare students. We’re sure they have acquired all the skills they need to practice.”

Closing the gaps

To fill existing knowledge gaps and prevent future deficits, institutions hope to strike a balance between keeping trainees safe and providing necessary on-site learning. In line with ongoing AAMC recommendations, which suggest schools curtail student involvement in direct patient care in areas with significant COVID-19 spread, virtual rounding will likely continue.

Many schools may use a hybrid approach, in which students take turns entering patient rooms to perform checkups or observations while other students and instructors watch a video broadcast. “It’s not that different from when I go into the room and supervise a trainee,” Dr. Gisondi said.

Some schools are going even further, transforming education in ways that reflect the demands of a COVID-19–era medical marketplace. Institutions such as Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and OHSU have invested in telemedicine training for years, but COVID-19 has given telehealth education an additional boost. These types of visits have surged dramatically, underscoring the importance of preparing new doctors to practice in a virtual setting – something that wasn’t common previously. In a 2019 survey, only about a quarter of sampled medical schools offered a telemedicine curriculum.

Simulated telehealth consults such as OHSU’s knee-pain scenario serve several purposes, says Ryan Palmer, EdD, associate dean of education at Northeast Ohio Universities, Rootstown. They virtually teach skills that students need – such as clearly explaining to patients why a care plan is called for – while allowing the trainees to practice forging an emotional connection with patients they are treating remotely.

“It’s less about how you use a specific system,” said Dr. Palmer, who developed OHSU’s TeleOSCE, a telehealth training system that has interested other schools. He sees this as an opportunity, inasmuch as telemedicine is likely to remain an important part of practice for the foreseeable future.

To that end, the AAMC recently hosted an online seminar to help faculty with telehealth instruction. But training such as this can only go so far, said Dr. Johnson. “There are techniques you do have to learn at the patient’s side.”

Dr. Johnson says that a traditional part of medical school at Rutgers has been having students spend time in general practitioners’ offices early on to see what the experience is like. “That’s going to be a problem – I expect many primary care practices will go out of business. Those types of shadowing experiences will probably go away. They may be replaced by experiences at larger clinics.”

Some learning in clinics may soon resume. Although fears about COVID-19 still loom large, Dr. Tao’s ophthalmology residents have started taking on something closer to a normal workload, thanks to patients returning for regular office visits. As people return to medical facilities in larger numbers, hospitals around the country have started separating patients with COVID-19 from others. Dr. Gisondi suggested that this means medical students may be able to circulate in non–COVID-19 wards, provided the institution has enough personal protective equipment. “The inpatient wards are really safe – there’s a low risk of transmission. That’s where core rotations occur.”

The road ahead

In settings where patients’ viral status remains uncertain, such as emergency wards and off-site clinics without rapid testing, in-person learning may be slower to resume. That’s where longer-term changes may come into play. Some schools are preparing digital learning platforms that have the potential to transform medical education.

For example, Haru Okuda, MD, an emergency medicine doctor and director of the Center for Advanced Medical Learning and Simulation at the University of South Florida, Tampa, is testing a new virtual-reality platform called Immertec. Dr. Okuda said that, unlike older teaching tools, the system is not a stale, static virtual environment that will become obsolete. Instead, it uses a live camera to visually teleport students into the space of a real clinic or operating room.

“Let’s say you have students learning gross anatomy, how to dissect the chest. You’d have a cadaver on the table, demonstrating anatomy. The student has a headset – you can see like you’re in the room.” The wraparound visual device allows students to watch surgical maneuvers close up or view additional input from devices such as laparoscopes.

Dr. Okuda acknowledges that educators don’t yet know whether this works as well as older, hands-on methods. As yet, no virtual reality system has touch-based sensors sophisticated enough to simulate even skills such as tying a basic surgical knot, Dr. Gisondi said. And immersive platforms are expensive, which means a gap may occur between schools that can afford them and those that can’t.

The long-term consequences of COVID-19 go beyond costs that institutions may have to bear. Some students are concerned that the pandemic is affecting their mental well-being in ways that may make training a tougher slog. A few students graduated early to serve on the COVID-19 front lines. Others, rather than planning trips to celebrate the gap between medical school and residency, watched from home as young doctors they knew worked under abusive and unsafe conditions.

“Many of us felt powerless, given what we saw happening around us,” said recent University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, graduate Marina Haque, MD. She thinks those feelings, along with the rigors of practicing medicine during a pandemic, may leave her and her colleagues more prone to burnout.

The pandemic has also had a galvanizing effect on students – some excited new doctors are eager to line up for duty on COVID-19 wards. But supervisors say they must weigh young doctors’ desire to serve against the possible risks. “You don’t want people who have a big future ahead of them rushing into these situations and getting severely ill,” said Dr. Post. “There is a balance.”

All these changes, temporary or lasting, have led many to question whether doctors who complete their training under the cloud of the pandemic will be more – or less – prepared than those who came before them. But it’s not really a question of better or worse, says Dr. Johnson, who stresses that medical education has always required flexibility.

“You come into medicine with a plan in mind, but things happen,” he said. He reflected on the HIV pandemic of the late 1980s and early 1990s that influenced his medical career. He hopes young doctors come through the COVID-19 crucible more seasoned, resilient, and confident in crisis situations. “This is a pivotal event in their lives, and it will shape many careers.”

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

The World Health Organization is preparing a scientific brief to address the continually emerging evidence on transmission of COVID-19 and plans to release its guidance “in the coming days.”

WHO will likely address airborne transmission of the virus after a commentary from almost 240 multidisciplinary scientists raised the alarm that virus particles could remain airborne longer that previously appreciated, particularly in poorly ventilated indoor spaces.

“Airborne route of infection transmission is significant, but so far completely undermined, and not recognized by the decision makers and bodies responsible for infection control,” lead commentary author Lidia Morawska, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“This means that no control measures are taken to mitigate airborne transmission and, as a consequence, people are infected and can die,” said Morawska, director of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. “We wanted to bring this to the attention of the world to prevent this from happening.”

The commentary was published July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

WHO leaders defended their progress in announcing any changes regarding how COVID-19 can be transmitted during a virtual press briefing today. They have collaborated since April with some of the scientists who coauthored the commentary, for example, said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19.

“We have been working on a scientific brief ... to consolidate knowledge around transmission,” she added.

One focus will be on how masks protect healthcare workers. “We are also looking at the possible role of airborne transmission in other settings,” Van Kerkhove said. “We will be releasing our brief in the coming days.”

“We acknowledge there is emerging evidence in this field,” Benedetta Allegranzi, MD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19, said during the briefing from Geneva. “Therefore, we believe we have to be open to this evidence and its implications.”

WHO participated in an international research meeting last week that addressed means for controlling modes of COVID-19 transmission, Allegranzi said. “Our group and others really highlighted importance of research on different modes of transmission, including droplets of different sizes and their relative importance,” she said. Another aim was determining the dose of the virus required for airborne transmission.

“These fields of research are really growing but not definitive. More evidence needs to be gathered and evaluated,” she explained.

In the meantime, Allegranzi said, “the possibility of airborne transmission in public settings – especially closed, poorly ventilated settings – cannot be ruled out.”

Morawska said the evidence already exists. “A continuous surprise is that it takes the world such a long time to accept this, while this has such solid scientific foundation.” As an example, she cited an April report she coauthored in the journal Environment International. She and colleagues call for “national authorities to acknowledge the reality that the virus spreads through air and recommend that adequate control measures be implemented to prevent further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, in particularly removal of the virus-laden droplets from indoor air by ventilation.”

The take-home message from the commentary, Morawska said, is a call to action. The authors state there is a need “to provide sufficient and effective ventilation (supply clean outdoor air, minimize recirculating air) particularly in public buildings, workplace environments, schools, hospitals, and aged care homes.”

WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, explained why the organization remains cautious about making premature pronouncements regarding airborne transmission. “Any guidance we put out has implications for billions of people around the world, so we want to be as careful as possible,” she said during the press briefing. “We have to consider the weight of the evidence.”

“We are constantly looking for information on how we can do better,” Swaminathan added. WHO officials are reviewing hundreds of scientific reports every day, she said, and not all are of good quality. For this reason, she and other scientists at WHO perform a “living systematic review” – updating the consensus of evidence on a weekly basis.  

“This process on COVID-19 will, I am sure, continue for the weeks and months to come,” she added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The World Health Organization is preparing a scientific brief to address the continually emerging evidence on transmission of COVID-19 and plans to release its guidance “in the coming days.”

WHO will likely address airborne transmission of the virus after a commentary from almost 240 multidisciplinary scientists raised the alarm that virus particles could remain airborne longer that previously appreciated, particularly in poorly ventilated indoor spaces.

“Airborne route of infection transmission is significant, but so far completely undermined, and not recognized by the decision makers and bodies responsible for infection control,” lead commentary author Lidia Morawska, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“This means that no control measures are taken to mitigate airborne transmission and, as a consequence, people are infected and can die,” said Morawska, director of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. “We wanted to bring this to the attention of the world to prevent this from happening.”

The commentary was published July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

WHO leaders defended their progress in announcing any changes regarding how COVID-19 can be transmitted during a virtual press briefing today. They have collaborated since April with some of the scientists who coauthored the commentary, for example, said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19.

“We have been working on a scientific brief ... to consolidate knowledge around transmission,” she added.

One focus will be on how masks protect healthcare workers. “We are also looking at the possible role of airborne transmission in other settings,” Van Kerkhove said. “We will be releasing our brief in the coming days.”

“We acknowledge there is emerging evidence in this field,” Benedetta Allegranzi, MD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19, said during the briefing from Geneva. “Therefore, we believe we have to be open to this evidence and its implications.”

WHO participated in an international research meeting last week that addressed means for controlling modes of COVID-19 transmission, Allegranzi said. “Our group and others really highlighted importance of research on different modes of transmission, including droplets of different sizes and their relative importance,” she said. Another aim was determining the dose of the virus required for airborne transmission.

“These fields of research are really growing but not definitive. More evidence needs to be gathered and evaluated,” she explained.

In the meantime, Allegranzi said, “the possibility of airborne transmission in public settings – especially closed, poorly ventilated settings – cannot be ruled out.”

Morawska said the evidence already exists. “A continuous surprise is that it takes the world such a long time to accept this, while this has such solid scientific foundation.” As an example, she cited an April report she coauthored in the journal Environment International. She and colleagues call for “national authorities to acknowledge the reality that the virus spreads through air and recommend that adequate control measures be implemented to prevent further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, in particularly removal of the virus-laden droplets from indoor air by ventilation.”

The take-home message from the commentary, Morawska said, is a call to action. The authors state there is a need “to provide sufficient and effective ventilation (supply clean outdoor air, minimize recirculating air) particularly in public buildings, workplace environments, schools, hospitals, and aged care homes.”

WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, explained why the organization remains cautious about making premature pronouncements regarding airborne transmission. “Any guidance we put out has implications for billions of people around the world, so we want to be as careful as possible,” she said during the press briefing. “We have to consider the weight of the evidence.”

“We are constantly looking for information on how we can do better,” Swaminathan added. WHO officials are reviewing hundreds of scientific reports every day, she said, and not all are of good quality. For this reason, she and other scientists at WHO perform a “living systematic review” – updating the consensus of evidence on a weekly basis.  

“This process on COVID-19 will, I am sure, continue for the weeks and months to come,” she added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The World Health Organization is preparing a scientific brief to address the continually emerging evidence on transmission of COVID-19 and plans to release its guidance “in the coming days.”

WHO will likely address airborne transmission of the virus after a commentary from almost 240 multidisciplinary scientists raised the alarm that virus particles could remain airborne longer that previously appreciated, particularly in poorly ventilated indoor spaces.

“Airborne route of infection transmission is significant, but so far completely undermined, and not recognized by the decision makers and bodies responsible for infection control,” lead commentary author Lidia Morawska, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“This means that no control measures are taken to mitigate airborne transmission and, as a consequence, people are infected and can die,” said Morawska, director of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. “We wanted to bring this to the attention of the world to prevent this from happening.”

The commentary was published July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

WHO leaders defended their progress in announcing any changes regarding how COVID-19 can be transmitted during a virtual press briefing today. They have collaborated since April with some of the scientists who coauthored the commentary, for example, said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19.

“We have been working on a scientific brief ... to consolidate knowledge around transmission,” she added.

One focus will be on how masks protect healthcare workers. “We are also looking at the possible role of airborne transmission in other settings,” Van Kerkhove said. “We will be releasing our brief in the coming days.”

“We acknowledge there is emerging evidence in this field,” Benedetta Allegranzi, MD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19, said during the briefing from Geneva. “Therefore, we believe we have to be open to this evidence and its implications.”

WHO participated in an international research meeting last week that addressed means for controlling modes of COVID-19 transmission, Allegranzi said. “Our group and others really highlighted importance of research on different modes of transmission, including droplets of different sizes and their relative importance,” she said. Another aim was determining the dose of the virus required for airborne transmission.

“These fields of research are really growing but not definitive. More evidence needs to be gathered and evaluated,” she explained.

In the meantime, Allegranzi said, “the possibility of airborne transmission in public settings – especially closed, poorly ventilated settings – cannot be ruled out.”

Morawska said the evidence already exists. “A continuous surprise is that it takes the world such a long time to accept this, while this has such solid scientific foundation.” As an example, she cited an April report she coauthored in the journal Environment International. She and colleagues call for “national authorities to acknowledge the reality that the virus spreads through air and recommend that adequate control measures be implemented to prevent further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, in particularly removal of the virus-laden droplets from indoor air by ventilation.”

The take-home message from the commentary, Morawska said, is a call to action. The authors state there is a need “to provide sufficient and effective ventilation (supply clean outdoor air, minimize recirculating air) particularly in public buildings, workplace environments, schools, hospitals, and aged care homes.”

WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, explained why the organization remains cautious about making premature pronouncements regarding airborne transmission. “Any guidance we put out has implications for billions of people around the world, so we want to be as careful as possible,” she said during the press briefing. “We have to consider the weight of the evidence.”

“We are constantly looking for information on how we can do better,” Swaminathan added. WHO officials are reviewing hundreds of scientific reports every day, she said, and not all are of good quality. For this reason, she and other scientists at WHO perform a “living systematic review” – updating the consensus of evidence on a weekly basis.  

“This process on COVID-19 will, I am sure, continue for the weeks and months to come,” she added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved collagenase clostridium histolyticum–aaes (Qwo, Endo International) for the treatment of moderate to severe cellulite in the buttocks of adult women. The drug is the first injectable treatment for cellulite to receive regulatory approval.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

In cellulite, fibrous septae are a primary contributing factor. The septae make up the fibrous connective tissue that connects the skin perpendicularly to the fascia below and tether the skin, drawing it downward and leading to a mattress-like appearance, commonly referred to as “dimpling.” When injected into the treatment area, Qwo is thought to release the fibrous septae enzymatically by specifically targeting types 1 and 3 collagen, which may result in smoothing of the skin and an improved appearance of cellulite.

The most common side effects of Qwo include injection site bruising, pain, areas of hardness, itching, redness, discoloration, swelling, and warmth in the treatment area.

Qwo is expected to be available throughout the United States at aesthetic health care practitioner’s offices starting in Spring 2021.

“Qwo could be a game-changer for many women with cellulite,” Anne Chapas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Union Square Laser Dermatology in New York, said in a press release. “I am thrilled there will now be an FDA-approved injectable treatment option proven to address a root cause of cellulite. What is exciting about Qwo is that it is a cutting-edge cellulite treatment, without the cutting,” Dr. Chapas, said.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved collagenase clostridium histolyticum–aaes (Qwo, Endo International) for the treatment of moderate to severe cellulite in the buttocks of adult women. The drug is the first injectable treatment for cellulite to receive regulatory approval.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

In cellulite, fibrous septae are a primary contributing factor. The septae make up the fibrous connective tissue that connects the skin perpendicularly to the fascia below and tether the skin, drawing it downward and leading to a mattress-like appearance, commonly referred to as “dimpling.” When injected into the treatment area, Qwo is thought to release the fibrous septae enzymatically by specifically targeting types 1 and 3 collagen, which may result in smoothing of the skin and an improved appearance of cellulite.

The most common side effects of Qwo include injection site bruising, pain, areas of hardness, itching, redness, discoloration, swelling, and warmth in the treatment area.

Qwo is expected to be available throughout the United States at aesthetic health care practitioner’s offices starting in Spring 2021.

“Qwo could be a game-changer for many women with cellulite,” Anne Chapas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Union Square Laser Dermatology in New York, said in a press release. “I am thrilled there will now be an FDA-approved injectable treatment option proven to address a root cause of cellulite. What is exciting about Qwo is that it is a cutting-edge cellulite treatment, without the cutting,” Dr. Chapas, said.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has approved collagenase clostridium histolyticum–aaes (Qwo, Endo International) for the treatment of moderate to severe cellulite in the buttocks of adult women. The drug is the first injectable treatment for cellulite to receive regulatory approval.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

In cellulite, fibrous septae are a primary contributing factor. The septae make up the fibrous connective tissue that connects the skin perpendicularly to the fascia below and tether the skin, drawing it downward and leading to a mattress-like appearance, commonly referred to as “dimpling.” When injected into the treatment area, Qwo is thought to release the fibrous septae enzymatically by specifically targeting types 1 and 3 collagen, which may result in smoothing of the skin and an improved appearance of cellulite.

The most common side effects of Qwo include injection site bruising, pain, areas of hardness, itching, redness, discoloration, swelling, and warmth in the treatment area.

Qwo is expected to be available throughout the United States at aesthetic health care practitioner’s offices starting in Spring 2021.

“Qwo could be a game-changer for many women with cellulite,” Anne Chapas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Union Square Laser Dermatology in New York, said in a press release. “I am thrilled there will now be an FDA-approved injectable treatment option proven to address a root cause of cellulite. What is exciting about Qwo is that it is a cutting-edge cellulite treatment, without the cutting,” Dr. Chapas, said.

lfranki@mdedge.com

Of the many psoriasis mimicker clinicians are likely to encounter, atopic dermatitis is likely the most common one, especially the nummular eczema variant form.

“It has an earlier age of onset, usually in infancy, and can occur with the atopic triad that presents with asthma and seasonal allergies as well,” Israel David “Izzy” Andrews, MD, said at the virtual Pediatric Dermatology 2020: Best Practices and Innovations Conference. “There is typically a very strong family history, as this is an autosomal dominant condition, and it’s far more common than psoriasis. The annual incidence is estimated to be 10%-15% of pediatric patients. It has classic areas of involvement depending on the age of the patient, and lesions are intensely pruritic at all times. There is induration and crust, but it’s important to distinguish crust from scale. Whereas crust is dried exudate, and scale is usually secondary to a hyperproliferation of the skin. Initially, treatments (especially topical) are similar and may also delay the formalized diagnosis of either of the two.”

Another psoriasis mimicker, pityriasis rosea, is thought to be secondary to human herpes virus 6 or 7 infection, said Dr. Andrews, of the department of dermatology at Phoenix Children’s Hospital. It typically appears in the teens and tweens and usually presents as a large herald patch or plaque on the trunk. As the herald patch resolves, smaller lesions will develop on the trunk following skin folds. “It’s rarely symptomatic and it’s very short lived, and clears within 6-12 weeks,” Dr. Andrews noted. “It can present with an inverse pattern involving the face, neck, and groin, but sparing the trunk. This variant, termed inverse pityriasis rosea, can be confused with inverse psoriasis, which has a similar distribution. However, the inverse pattern of pityriasis rosea will still resolve in a similar time frame to its more classic variant.”

Pityriasis lichenoides can also be mistaken for psoriasis. The acute form can present with erythematous, scaly papules and plaques, but lesions are often found in different phases of resolution or healing. “This benign lymphoproliferative skin disorder can be very difficult to distinguish from psoriasis and may require a biopsy to rule in or out,” Dr. Andrews said. “It can last months to years and there are few treatments that are effective. It is typically nonresponsive to topical steroids and other treatments that would be more effective for psoriasis, helping to distinguish the two. It is thought to exist in the spectrum with other lymphoproliferative diseases including cutaneous T-cell lymphoma [CTCL]. However, there are only a few cases in the literature that support a transformation from pityriasis lichenoides to CTCL.”

Seborrheic dermatitis is more common than atopic dermatitis and psoriasis, but it can be mistaken for psoriasis. It is caused by an inflammatory response secondary to overgrowth of Malassezia yeast and has a bimodal age distribution. “Seborrheic dermatitis affects babies, teens, and tweens, and can persist into adulthood,” he said. “Infants with cradle cap usually resolve with moisturization, gentle brushing, and occasional antifungal shampoos.” Petaloid seborrheic dermatitis can predominately involve the face with psoriatic-appearing induration, plaques, and varying degrees of scales. “In skin of color, this can be confused with discoid lupus, sarcoidosis, and psoriasis, occasionally requiring a biopsy to distinguish,” said Dr. Andrews, who is also an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Another psoriasis mimicker, pityriasis amiantacea, is thought to be a more severe form of seborrheic dermatitis. It presents with concretions of scale around hair follicles that are highly adherent and are sometimes called sebopsoriasis. “It may be associated with cutaneous findings of psoriasis elsewhere, but may also be found with secondarily infected atopic dermatitis and tinea capitis; however, in my clinical experience, it is most often found in isolation,” he said. “There may be a seasonal association with exacerbation in warm temperatures, and treatment often consists of humectants like salicylic acid for loosening scale, topical steroids for inflammation, and gentle combing out of scale.”

Infections can also mimic psoriasis. For example, tinea infections are often misdiagnosed as eczema or psoriasis and treated with topical steroids. “This can lead to tinea incognito, making it harder to diagnose either condition without attention to detail,” Dr. Andrews said. “On the body, look for expanding lesions with more raised peripheral edges, and central flattening, giving a classic annular appearance. It’s also important to inquire about family history and contacts including pets, contact sports/mat sports (think yoga, gymnastics, martial arts), or other contacts with similar rashes.” Work-up typically includes a fungal culture and starting empiric oral antifungal medications. “It is important to be able to distinguish scalp psoriasis from tinea capitis to prevent the more inflammatory form of tinea capitis, kerion (a deeper more symptomatic, painful and purulent dermatitis), which can lead to permanent scarring alopecia,” he said.

Bacterial infections can also mimic psoriasis, specifically nonbullous impetigo and ecthyma, the more ulcerative form of impetigo. The most frequent associations are group A Streptococcus, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S. aureus.

Dr. Andrews closed his presentation by noting that tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor–induced psoriasiform drug eruptions can occur in psoriasis-naive patients or unmask a predilection for psoriasis in patients with Crohn’s disease, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, or other autoinflammatory or autoimmune conditions. “They may improve with continued treatment and resolve with switching treatments,” he said. “Early biopsy in psoriasiform drug eruptions can appear like atopic dermatitis on pathology. When suspecting psoriasis in a pediatric patient, it is important to consider the history and physical exam as well as family history and associated comorbidities. While a biopsy may aide in the work-up, diagnosis can be made clinically.”

Dr. Andrews reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Of the many psoriasis mimicker clinicians are likely to encounter, atopic dermatitis is likely the most common one, especially the nummular eczema variant form.

“It has an earlier age of onset, usually in infancy, and can occur with the atopic triad that presents with asthma and seasonal allergies as well,” Israel David “Izzy” Andrews, MD, said at the virtual Pediatric Dermatology 2020: Best Practices and Innovations Conference. “There is typically a very strong family history, as this is an autosomal dominant condition, and it’s far more common than psoriasis. The annual incidence is estimated to be 10%-15% of pediatric patients. It has classic areas of involvement depending on the age of the patient, and lesions are intensely pruritic at all times. There is induration and crust, but it’s important to distinguish crust from scale. Whereas crust is dried exudate, and scale is usually secondary to a hyperproliferation of the skin. Initially, treatments (especially topical) are similar and may also delay the formalized diagnosis of either of the two.”

Another psoriasis mimicker, pityriasis rosea, is thought to be secondary to human herpes virus 6 or 7 infection, said Dr. Andrews, of the department of dermatology at Phoenix Children’s Hospital. It typically appears in the teens and tweens and usually presents as a large herald patch or plaque on the trunk. As the herald patch resolves, smaller lesions will develop on the trunk following skin folds. “It’s rarely symptomatic and it’s very short lived, and clears within 6-12 weeks,” Dr. Andrews noted. “It can present with an inverse pattern involving the face, neck, and groin, but sparing the trunk. This variant, termed inverse pityriasis rosea, can be confused with inverse psoriasis, which has a similar distribution. However, the inverse pattern of pityriasis rosea will still resolve in a similar time frame to its more classic variant.”

Pityriasis lichenoides can also be mistaken for psoriasis. The acute form can present with erythematous, scaly papules and plaques, but lesions are often found in different phases of resolution or healing. “This benign lymphoproliferative skin disorder can be very difficult to distinguish from psoriasis and may require a biopsy to rule in or out,” Dr. Andrews said. “It can last months to years and there are few treatments that are effective. It is typically nonresponsive to topical steroids and other treatments that would be more effective for psoriasis, helping to distinguish the two. It is thought to exist in the spectrum with other lymphoproliferative diseases including cutaneous T-cell lymphoma [CTCL]. However, there are only a few cases in the literature that support a transformation from pityriasis lichenoides to CTCL.”

Seborrheic dermatitis is more common than atopic dermatitis and psoriasis, but it can be mistaken for psoriasis. It is caused by an inflammatory response secondary to overgrowth of Malassezia yeast and has a bimodal age distribution. “Seborrheic dermatitis affects babies, teens, and tweens, and can persist into adulthood,” he said. “Infants with cradle cap usually resolve with moisturization, gentle brushing, and occasional antifungal shampoos.” Petaloid seborrheic dermatitis can predominately involve the face with psoriatic-appearing induration, plaques, and varying degrees of scales. “In skin of color, this can be confused with discoid lupus, sarcoidosis, and psoriasis, occasionally requiring a biopsy to distinguish,” said Dr. Andrews, who is also an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Another psoriasis mimicker, pityriasis amiantacea, is thought to be a more severe form of seborrheic dermatitis. It presents with concretions of scale around hair follicles that are highly adherent and are sometimes called sebopsoriasis. “It may be associated with cutaneous findings of psoriasis elsewhere, but may also be found with secondarily infected atopic dermatitis and tinea capitis; however, in my clinical experience, it is most often found in isolation,” he said. “There may be a seasonal association with exacerbation in warm temperatures, and treatment often consists of humectants like salicylic acid for loosening scale, topical steroids for inflammation, and gentle combing out of scale.”

Infections can also mimic psoriasis. For example, tinea infections are often misdiagnosed as eczema or psoriasis and treated with topical steroids. “This can lead to tinea incognito, making it harder to diagnose either condition without attention to detail,” Dr. Andrews said. “On the body, look for expanding lesions with more raised peripheral edges, and central flattening, giving a classic annular appearance. It’s also important to inquire about family history and contacts including pets, contact sports/mat sports (think yoga, gymnastics, martial arts), or other contacts with similar rashes.” Work-up typically includes a fungal culture and starting empiric oral antifungal medications. “It is important to be able to distinguish scalp psoriasis from tinea capitis to prevent the more inflammatory form of tinea capitis, kerion (a deeper more symptomatic, painful and purulent dermatitis), which can lead to permanent scarring alopecia,” he said.

Bacterial infections can also mimic psoriasis, specifically nonbullous impetigo and ecthyma, the more ulcerative form of impetigo. The most frequent associations are group A Streptococcus, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S. aureus.

Dr. Andrews closed his presentation by noting that tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor–induced psoriasiform drug eruptions can occur in psoriasis-naive patients or unmask a predilection for psoriasis in patients with Crohn’s disease, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, or other autoinflammatory or autoimmune conditions. “They may improve with continued treatment and resolve with switching treatments,” he said. “Early biopsy in psoriasiform drug eruptions can appear like atopic dermatitis on pathology. When suspecting psoriasis in a pediatric patient, it is important to consider the history and physical exam as well as family history and associated comorbidities. While a biopsy may aide in the work-up, diagnosis can be made clinically.”

Dr. Andrews reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Of the many psoriasis mimicker clinicians are likely to encounter, atopic dermatitis is likely the most common one, especially the nummular eczema variant form.

“It has an earlier age of onset, usually in infancy, and can occur with the atopic triad that presents with asthma and seasonal allergies as well,” Israel David “Izzy” Andrews, MD, said at the virtual Pediatric Dermatology 2020: Best Practices and Innovations Conference. “There is typically a very strong family history, as this is an autosomal dominant condition, and it’s far more common than psoriasis. The annual incidence is estimated to be 10%-15% of pediatric patients. It has classic areas of involvement depending on the age of the patient, and lesions are intensely pruritic at all times. There is induration and crust, but it’s important to distinguish crust from scale. Whereas crust is dried exudate, and scale is usually secondary to a hyperproliferation of the skin. Initially, treatments (especially topical) are similar and may also delay the formalized diagnosis of either of the two.”

Another psoriasis mimicker, pityriasis rosea, is thought to be secondary to human herpes virus 6 or 7 infection, said Dr. Andrews, of the department of dermatology at Phoenix Children’s Hospital. It typically appears in the teens and tweens and usually presents as a large herald patch or plaque on the trunk. As the herald patch resolves, smaller lesions will develop on the trunk following skin folds. “It’s rarely symptomatic and it’s very short lived, and clears within 6-12 weeks,” Dr. Andrews noted. “It can present with an inverse pattern involving the face, neck, and groin, but sparing the trunk. This variant, termed inverse pityriasis rosea, can be confused with inverse psoriasis, which has a similar distribution. However, the inverse pattern of pityriasis rosea will still resolve in a similar time frame to its more classic variant.”

Pityriasis lichenoides can also be mistaken for psoriasis. The acute form can present with erythematous, scaly papules and plaques, but lesions are often found in different phases of resolution or healing. “This benign lymphoproliferative skin disorder can be very difficult to distinguish from psoriasis and may require a biopsy to rule in or out,” Dr. Andrews said. “It can last months to years and there are few treatments that are effective. It is typically nonresponsive to topical steroids and other treatments that would be more effective for psoriasis, helping to distinguish the two. It is thought to exist in the spectrum with other lymphoproliferative diseases including cutaneous T-cell lymphoma [CTCL]. However, there are only a few cases in the literature that support a transformation from pityriasis lichenoides to CTCL.”

Seborrheic dermatitis is more common than atopic dermatitis and psoriasis, but it can be mistaken for psoriasis. It is caused by an inflammatory response secondary to overgrowth of Malassezia yeast and has a bimodal age distribution. “Seborrheic dermatitis affects babies, teens, and tweens, and can persist into adulthood,” he said. “Infants with cradle cap usually resolve with moisturization, gentle brushing, and occasional antifungal shampoos.” Petaloid seborrheic dermatitis can predominately involve the face with psoriatic-appearing induration, plaques, and varying degrees of scales. “In skin of color, this can be confused with discoid lupus, sarcoidosis, and psoriasis, occasionally requiring a biopsy to distinguish,” said Dr. Andrews, who is also an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Another psoriasis mimicker, pityriasis amiantacea, is thought to be a more severe form of seborrheic dermatitis. It presents with concretions of scale around hair follicles that are highly adherent and are sometimes called sebopsoriasis. “It may be associated with cutaneous findings of psoriasis elsewhere, but may also be found with secondarily infected atopic dermatitis and tinea capitis; however, in my clinical experience, it is most often found in isolation,” he said. “There may be a seasonal association with exacerbation in warm temperatures, and treatment often consists of humectants like salicylic acid for loosening scale, topical steroids for inflammation, and gentle combing out of scale.”

Infections can also mimic psoriasis. For example, tinea infections are often misdiagnosed as eczema or psoriasis and treated with topical steroids. “This can lead to tinea incognito, making it harder to diagnose either condition without attention to detail,” Dr. Andrews said. “On the body, look for expanding lesions with more raised peripheral edges, and central flattening, giving a classic annular appearance. It’s also important to inquire about family history and contacts including pets, contact sports/mat sports (think yoga, gymnastics, martial arts), or other contacts with similar rashes.” Work-up typically includes a fungal culture and starting empiric oral antifungal medications. “It is important to be able to distinguish scalp psoriasis from tinea capitis to prevent the more inflammatory form of tinea capitis, kerion (a deeper more symptomatic, painful and purulent dermatitis), which can lead to permanent scarring alopecia,” he said.

Bacterial infections can also mimic psoriasis, specifically nonbullous impetigo and ecthyma, the more ulcerative form of impetigo. The most frequent associations are group A Streptococcus, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S. aureus.

Dr. Andrews closed his presentation by noting that tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor–induced psoriasiform drug eruptions can occur in psoriasis-naive patients or unmask a predilection for psoriasis in patients with Crohn’s disease, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, or other autoinflammatory or autoimmune conditions. “They may improve with continued treatment and resolve with switching treatments,” he said. “Early biopsy in psoriasiform drug eruptions can appear like atopic dermatitis on pathology. When suspecting psoriasis in a pediatric patient, it is important to consider the history and physical exam as well as family history and associated comorbidities. While a biopsy may aide in the work-up, diagnosis can be made clinically.”

Dr. Andrews reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The American Gastroenterological Association has released a new guideline for consultative management of patients with COVID-19.

The recommendations, which were written by Shahnaz Sultan, MD, AGAF, chair of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues, were based on a meta-analysis of data from 47 studies involving 10,890 unique patients.

“We seek to summarize international data on the GI and liver manifestations of COVID-19 infection and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Gastroenterology. “Additionally, this document provides evidence-based clinical guidance on clinical questions that gastroenterologists may be consulted for.”

The guideline includes seven best practice statements.

The first three statements relate to COVID-19–related GI symptoms, which are estimated to occur in less than 10% of patients, and rarely in the absence of other COVID-19–related symptoms, according to Dr. Sultan and her copanelists.

“The overall prevalence of GI symptoms in the context of COVID-19, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, is lower than estimated previously,” the panelists wrote, referencing a previous meta-analysis by Ka Shing Cheung, MBBS, and colleagues that showed a prevalence of 17.6%.

“It is important to note that the majority of studies were focused on hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the prevalence of diarrhea in patients with mild symptoms who were not hospitalized is not known.”

Since GI issues may precede other symptoms of COVID-19, the guideline recommends questioning outpatients with new-onset GI symptoms about other symptoms of COVID-19, with viral testing recommended in areas of high prevalence. Conversely, the panelists recommended that patients with suspected or known COVID-19 should undergo thorough history taking for GI symptoms, “including onset, characteristics, duration, and severity.”

The fourth practice statement advises against COVID-19 stool testing in routine clinical practice, either for diagnostic or monitoring purposes.

Although Dr. Cheung and colleagues reported that 48.1% of fecal specimens from patients with COVID-19 contained viral RNA, the panelists concluded that the practical relevance of this finding remains unknown.

“Stool infectivity and transmission have not been confirmed,” the panelists wrote, citing a lack of evidence and conflicting findings.

The final three practice statements address liver concerns.

First, any patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who has elevated liver function tests should be evaluated for alternative etiologies. Second, hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should undergo baseline liver function testing, followed by liver monitoring throughout their stay, “particularly in the context of drug treatment for COVID-19.” And third, any patient receiving drugs to treat COVID-19 should be monitored for treatment-related hepatic and GI adverse effects.

Dr. Sultan and colleagues found that approximately 15% of patients with COVID-19 included in their meta-analysis had abnormal liver function tests, more often because of secondary effects rather than virally induced liver injury.

Although liver function test abnormalities were inconsistently reported across studies, and when available, often lacked relevant contextual data, such as information about underlying liver disease, published data suggest that abnormal liver values could predict more severe COVID-19, supporting baseline and serial liver testing, the panelists wrote.

Following these recommendations, the guideline includes a discussion of GI and hepatic adverse effects related to specific COVID-19 treatments.

According to the panelists, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine may infrequently lead to GI disturbances, and rarely, liver injury, with the latter thought to be a sequela of a hypersensitivity reaction; among antiviral medications, lopinavir/ritonavir and favipiravir may cause GI adverse effects in approximately 5%-15% of patients, with potentially higher rates in children and those receiving higher doses.

“In particular, GI adverse events are poorly understood for both favipiravir and remdesivir,” the panelists wrote.

Hepatic adverse effects, ranging from mild elevations in aminotransferases to acute liver failure, have been documented, albeit rarely, among patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir, according to the panelists. For remdesivir, liver injury has also been reported, although frequency is unknown, and for favipiravir, hepatic adverse events may be seen in 3% of patients, although, again, the panelists noted a scarcity of relevant findings.

In their concluding remarks, Dr. Sultan and colleagues called for more high-quality data, and encouraged clinicians to contribute to international registries, as these could help guide COVID-19 recommendations for patient subgroups.

The article was funded by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute.

SOURCE: Sultan S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.001.

The American Gastroenterological Association has released a new guideline for consultative management of patients with COVID-19.

The recommendations, which were written by Shahnaz Sultan, MD, AGAF, chair of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues, were based on a meta-analysis of data from 47 studies involving 10,890 unique patients.

“We seek to summarize international data on the GI and liver manifestations of COVID-19 infection and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Gastroenterology. “Additionally, this document provides evidence-based clinical guidance on clinical questions that gastroenterologists may be consulted for.”

The guideline includes seven best practice statements.

The first three statements relate to COVID-19–related GI symptoms, which are estimated to occur in less than 10% of patients, and rarely in the absence of other COVID-19–related symptoms, according to Dr. Sultan and her copanelists.

“The overall prevalence of GI symptoms in the context of COVID-19, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, is lower than estimated previously,” the panelists wrote, referencing a previous meta-analysis by Ka Shing Cheung, MBBS, and colleagues that showed a prevalence of 17.6%.

“It is important to note that the majority of studies were focused on hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the prevalence of diarrhea in patients with mild symptoms who were not hospitalized is not known.”

Since GI issues may precede other symptoms of COVID-19, the guideline recommends questioning outpatients with new-onset GI symptoms about other symptoms of COVID-19, with viral testing recommended in areas of high prevalence. Conversely, the panelists recommended that patients with suspected or known COVID-19 should undergo thorough history taking for GI symptoms, “including onset, characteristics, duration, and severity.”

The fourth practice statement advises against COVID-19 stool testing in routine clinical practice, either for diagnostic or monitoring purposes.

Although Dr. Cheung and colleagues reported that 48.1% of fecal specimens from patients with COVID-19 contained viral RNA, the panelists concluded that the practical relevance of this finding remains unknown.

“Stool infectivity and transmission have not been confirmed,” the panelists wrote, citing a lack of evidence and conflicting findings.

The final three practice statements address liver concerns.

First, any patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who has elevated liver function tests should be evaluated for alternative etiologies. Second, hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should undergo baseline liver function testing, followed by liver monitoring throughout their stay, “particularly in the context of drug treatment for COVID-19.” And third, any patient receiving drugs to treat COVID-19 should be monitored for treatment-related hepatic and GI adverse effects.

Dr. Sultan and colleagues found that approximately 15% of patients with COVID-19 included in their meta-analysis had abnormal liver function tests, more often because of secondary effects rather than virally induced liver injury.

Although liver function test abnormalities were inconsistently reported across studies, and when available, often lacked relevant contextual data, such as information about underlying liver disease, published data suggest that abnormal liver values could predict more severe COVID-19, supporting baseline and serial liver testing, the panelists wrote.

Following these recommendations, the guideline includes a discussion of GI and hepatic adverse effects related to specific COVID-19 treatments.

According to the panelists, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine may infrequently lead to GI disturbances, and rarely, liver injury, with the latter thought to be a sequela of a hypersensitivity reaction; among antiviral medications, lopinavir/ritonavir and favipiravir may cause GI adverse effects in approximately 5%-15% of patients, with potentially higher rates in children and those receiving higher doses.

“In particular, GI adverse events are poorly understood for both favipiravir and remdesivir,” the panelists wrote.

Hepatic adverse effects, ranging from mild elevations in aminotransferases to acute liver failure, have been documented, albeit rarely, among patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir, according to the panelists. For remdesivir, liver injury has also been reported, although frequency is unknown, and for favipiravir, hepatic adverse events may be seen in 3% of patients, although, again, the panelists noted a scarcity of relevant findings.

In their concluding remarks, Dr. Sultan and colleagues called for more high-quality data, and encouraged clinicians to contribute to international registries, as these could help guide COVID-19 recommendations for patient subgroups.

The article was funded by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute.

SOURCE: Sultan S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.001.

The American Gastroenterological Association has released a new guideline for consultative management of patients with COVID-19.

The recommendations, which were written by Shahnaz Sultan, MD, AGAF, chair of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues, were based on a meta-analysis of data from 47 studies involving 10,890 unique patients.

“We seek to summarize international data on the GI and liver manifestations of COVID-19 infection and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Gastroenterology. “Additionally, this document provides evidence-based clinical guidance on clinical questions that gastroenterologists may be consulted for.”

The guideline includes seven best practice statements.

The first three statements relate to COVID-19–related GI symptoms, which are estimated to occur in less than 10% of patients, and rarely in the absence of other COVID-19–related symptoms, according to Dr. Sultan and her copanelists.

“The overall prevalence of GI symptoms in the context of COVID-19, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, is lower than estimated previously,” the panelists wrote, referencing a previous meta-analysis by Ka Shing Cheung, MBBS, and colleagues that showed a prevalence of 17.6%.

“It is important to note that the majority of studies were focused on hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the prevalence of diarrhea in patients with mild symptoms who were not hospitalized is not known.”

Since GI issues may precede other symptoms of COVID-19, the guideline recommends questioning outpatients with new-onset GI symptoms about other symptoms of COVID-19, with viral testing recommended in areas of high prevalence. Conversely, the panelists recommended that patients with suspected or known COVID-19 should undergo thorough history taking for GI symptoms, “including onset, characteristics, duration, and severity.”

The fourth practice statement advises against COVID-19 stool testing in routine clinical practice, either for diagnostic or monitoring purposes.

Although Dr. Cheung and colleagues reported that 48.1% of fecal specimens from patients with COVID-19 contained viral RNA, the panelists concluded that the practical relevance of this finding remains unknown.

“Stool infectivity and transmission have not been confirmed,” the panelists wrote, citing a lack of evidence and conflicting findings.

The final three practice statements address liver concerns.

First, any patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who has elevated liver function tests should be evaluated for alternative etiologies. Second, hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should undergo baseline liver function testing, followed by liver monitoring throughout their stay, “particularly in the context of drug treatment for COVID-19.” And third, any patient receiving drugs to treat COVID-19 should be monitored for treatment-related hepatic and GI adverse effects.

Dr. Sultan and colleagues found that approximately 15% of patients with COVID-19 included in their meta-analysis had abnormal liver function tests, more often because of secondary effects rather than virally induced liver injury.

Although liver function test abnormalities were inconsistently reported across studies, and when available, often lacked relevant contextual data, such as information about underlying liver disease, published data suggest that abnormal liver values could predict more severe COVID-19, supporting baseline and serial liver testing, the panelists wrote.

Following these recommendations, the guideline includes a discussion of GI and hepatic adverse effects related to specific COVID-19 treatments.

According to the panelists, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine may infrequently lead to GI disturbances, and rarely, liver injury, with the latter thought to be a sequela of a hypersensitivity reaction; among antiviral medications, lopinavir/ritonavir and favipiravir may cause GI adverse effects in approximately 5%-15% of patients, with potentially higher rates in children and those receiving higher doses.

“In particular, GI adverse events are poorly understood for both favipiravir and remdesivir,” the panelists wrote.

Hepatic adverse effects, ranging from mild elevations in aminotransferases to acute liver failure, have been documented, albeit rarely, among patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir, according to the panelists. For remdesivir, liver injury has also been reported, although frequency is unknown, and for favipiravir, hepatic adverse events may be seen in 3% of patients, although, again, the panelists noted a scarcity of relevant findings.

In their concluding remarks, Dr. Sultan and colleagues called for more high-quality data, and encouraged clinicians to contribute to international registries, as these could help guide COVID-19 recommendations for patient subgroups.

The article was funded by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute.

SOURCE: Sultan S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.001.

Incorporating skin toxicity protocols at a cancer center significantly increased the rate of prophylactic treatment for rashes resulting from cancer therapies, and lowered the risk of interrupting or changing the dose of cancer treatment, according to the results of a retrospective study of 208 adults treated at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, or affiliated sites.

The benefits of prophylactic treatment for treatment-related skin rash in cancer patients are well established, based largely on the Skin Toxicity Evaluation Protocol With Panitumumab (STEPP) trial published in 2012, which led to the development of guidelines for preventing and managing skin toxicity associated with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRi) treatment, wrote Zizi Yu of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors. However, they added, “awareness of and adherence to these guidelines among oncology clinicians are thus far poorly understood.” They pointed out that 90% of patients treated with an EGFRi develop cutaneous toxicities, which can affect quality of life, increase the risk of infection, and require dose modification, interruption, or discontinuation of treatment.

In the study, published in JAMA Dermatology, the researchers compared adherence to protocols at Dana-Farber before and after the 2014-2015 initiation of a Skin Toxicities from Anticancer Therapies (STAT) program at Dana-Farber established in 2014 by the department of dermatology.

The study population included 208 adult cancer patients with colorectal cancer, head and neck cancer, or cutaneous squamous cell cancer, treated with at least one dose of cetuximab (Erbitux); the average age of the patients was 62 years and the majority were men. Most had stage IV disease. The STAT program included the integration of 9 oncodermatologists in the head and neck, genitourinary, and cutaneous oncology clinics for 7 of 10 cancer treatment sessions per week, as well as the creation of urgent access time slots in oncodermatology clinics for 10 of 10 sessions per week.

Overall, significantly more patients were treated prophylactically for skin toxicity at the start of cetuximab treatment in 2017 vs. 2012 (47% vs. 25%, P less than .001) after the initiation of a dermatology protocol.

In addition, the preemptive use of tetracycline increased significantly from 45% to 71% (P = .02) between the two time periods, as did the use of topical corticosteroids (from 7% to 57%, P less than .001), while the use of topical antibiotics decreased from 79% to 43% (P = .02). Rates of dose changes or interruptions were significantly lower among those on prophylaxis (5% vs. 19%, P =.01), a 79% lower risk. Patients treated prophylactically were 94% less likely to need a first rescue treatment and 74% less likely to need a second rescue treatment for rash.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, use of data from a single institution, and incomplete documentation of some patients, the researchers noted. However, the results “highlight the value of integrating dermatologic care and education into oncology centers by increasing adherence to evidence-based prophylaxis protocols for rash and appropriate treatment agent selection, which may minimize toxicity-associated chemotherapy interruptions and improve quality of life,” they concluded.

“As novel cancer treatment options for patients continue to develop, and as patients with cancer live longer, the spectrum and prevalence of dermatologic toxic effects will continue to expand,” Bernice Y. Kwong, MD, director of the supportive dermato-oncology program at Stanford (Calif.) University, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE: Yu Z et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 July 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1795. Kwong BY. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1794.

Incorporating skin toxicity protocols at a cancer center significantly increased the rate of prophylactic treatment for rashes resulting from cancer therapies, and lowered the risk of interrupting or changing the dose of cancer treatment, according to the results of a retrospective study of 208 adults treated at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, or affiliated sites.

The benefits of prophylactic treatment for treatment-related skin rash in cancer patients are well established, based largely on the Skin Toxicity Evaluation Protocol With Panitumumab (STEPP) trial published in 2012, which led to the development of guidelines for preventing and managing skin toxicity associated with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRi) treatment, wrote Zizi Yu of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors. However, they added, “awareness of and adherence to these guidelines among oncology clinicians are thus far poorly understood.” They pointed out that 90% of patients treated with an EGFRi develop cutaneous toxicities, which can affect quality of life, increase the risk of infection, and require dose modification, interruption, or discontinuation of treatment.

In the study, published in JAMA Dermatology, the researchers compared adherence to protocols at Dana-Farber before and after the 2014-2015 initiation of a Skin Toxicities from Anticancer Therapies (STAT) program at Dana-Farber established in 2014 by the department of dermatology.

The study population included 208 adult cancer patients with colorectal cancer, head and neck cancer, or cutaneous squamous cell cancer, treated with at least one dose of cetuximab (Erbitux); the average age of the patients was 62 years and the majority were men. Most had stage IV disease. The STAT program included the integration of 9 oncodermatologists in the head and neck, genitourinary, and cutaneous oncology clinics for 7 of 10 cancer treatment sessions per week, as well as the creation of urgent access time slots in oncodermatology clinics for 10 of 10 sessions per week.

Overall, significantly more patients were treated prophylactically for skin toxicity at the start of cetuximab treatment in 2017 vs. 2012 (47% vs. 25%, P less than .001) after the initiation of a dermatology protocol.

In addition, the preemptive use of tetracycline increased significantly from 45% to 71% (P = .02) between the two time periods, as did the use of topical corticosteroids (from 7% to 57%, P less than .001), while the use of topical antibiotics decreased from 79% to 43% (P = .02). Rates of dose changes or interruptions were significantly lower among those on prophylaxis (5% vs. 19%, P =.01), a 79% lower risk. Patients treated prophylactically were 94% less likely to need a first rescue treatment and 74% less likely to need a second rescue treatment for rash.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, use of data from a single institution, and incomplete documentation of some patients, the researchers noted. However, the results “highlight the value of integrating dermatologic care and education into oncology centers by increasing adherence to evidence-based prophylaxis protocols for rash and appropriate treatment agent selection, which may minimize toxicity-associated chemotherapy interruptions and improve quality of life,” they concluded.

“As novel cancer treatment options for patients continue to develop, and as patients with cancer live longer, the spectrum and prevalence of dermatologic toxic effects will continue to expand,” Bernice Y. Kwong, MD, director of the supportive dermato-oncology program at Stanford (Calif.) University, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE: Yu Z et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 July 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1795. Kwong BY. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1794.

Incorporating skin toxicity protocols at a cancer center significantly increased the rate of prophylactic treatment for rashes resulting from cancer therapies, and lowered the risk of interrupting or changing the dose of cancer treatment, according to the results of a retrospective study of 208 adults treated at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, or affiliated sites.

The benefits of prophylactic treatment for treatment-related skin rash in cancer patients are well established, based largely on the Skin Toxicity Evaluation Protocol With Panitumumab (STEPP) trial published in 2012, which led to the development of guidelines for preventing and managing skin toxicity associated with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRi) treatment, wrote Zizi Yu of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors. However, they added, “awareness of and adherence to these guidelines among oncology clinicians are thus far poorly understood.” They pointed out that 90% of patients treated with an EGFRi develop cutaneous toxicities, which can affect quality of life, increase the risk of infection, and require dose modification, interruption, or discontinuation of treatment.

In the study, published in JAMA Dermatology, the researchers compared adherence to protocols at Dana-Farber before and after the 2014-2015 initiation of a Skin Toxicities from Anticancer Therapies (STAT) program at Dana-Farber established in 2014 by the department of dermatology.

The study population included 208 adult cancer patients with colorectal cancer, head and neck cancer, or cutaneous squamous cell cancer, treated with at least one dose of cetuximab (Erbitux); the average age of the patients was 62 years and the majority were men. Most had stage IV disease. The STAT program included the integration of 9 oncodermatologists in the head and neck, genitourinary, and cutaneous oncology clinics for 7 of 10 cancer treatment sessions per week, as well as the creation of urgent access time slots in oncodermatology clinics for 10 of 10 sessions per week.

Overall, significantly more patients were treated prophylactically for skin toxicity at the start of cetuximab treatment in 2017 vs. 2012 (47% vs. 25%, P less than .001) after the initiation of a dermatology protocol.

In addition, the preemptive use of tetracycline increased significantly from 45% to 71% (P = .02) between the two time periods, as did the use of topical corticosteroids (from 7% to 57%, P less than .001), while the use of topical antibiotics decreased from 79% to 43% (P = .02). Rates of dose changes or interruptions were significantly lower among those on prophylaxis (5% vs. 19%, P =.01), a 79% lower risk. Patients treated prophylactically were 94% less likely to need a first rescue treatment and 74% less likely to need a second rescue treatment for rash.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, use of data from a single institution, and incomplete documentation of some patients, the researchers noted. However, the results “highlight the value of integrating dermatologic care and education into oncology centers by increasing adherence to evidence-based prophylaxis protocols for rash and appropriate treatment agent selection, which may minimize toxicity-associated chemotherapy interruptions and improve quality of life,” they concluded.

“As novel cancer treatment options for patients continue to develop, and as patients with cancer live longer, the spectrum and prevalence of dermatologic toxic effects will continue to expand,” Bernice Y. Kwong, MD, director of the supportive dermato-oncology program at Stanford (Calif.) University, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE: Yu Z et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 July 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1795. Kwong BY. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jul 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1794.

In the clinical experience of Anthony J. Mancini, MD, one option for children and adolescents who present with common warts is to do nothing, since they may resolve on their own.

“Many effective treatments that we have are painful and poorly tolerated, especially in younger children,” Dr. Mancini, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said during the virtual Pediatric Dermatology 2020: Best Practices and Innovations Conference. “However, while they’re harmless and often self-limited, warts often form a social stigma, and parents often desire therapy.”

He characterized classic warts as verrucous, flesh-colored papules that are sometimes extensive in immunocompromised patients and that can be associated with maceration and nail dystrophy. Even though warts may spontaneously resolve in up to 65% of patients at 2 years and 80% at 4 years, the goals of treatment are to eradicate them, minimize pain, avoid scarring, and help prevent recurrence.

One effective topical therapy he highlighted is WartPEEL cream, which is a proprietary, compounded formulation of 17% salicylic acid and 2% 5-fluorouracil. “It’s in a sustained release vehicle called Remedium, and is available from a compounding pharmacy, but not FDA approved,” said Dr. Mancini, who is also head of pediatric dermatology at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. “It’s applied nightly with plastic tape occlusion and rinsed off each morning.”

WartPEEL is available through NuCara Pharmacy at 877-268-2272. It is not covered by most insurance plans and it costs around $80. “It is very effective, tends to be totally painless, and has a much quicker response than over-the-counter salicylic acid-based treatments for warts,” he said.

Another treatment option is oral cimetidine, especially in patients who have multiple or recalcitrant warts. The recommended dosing is 30-40 mg/kg per day, divided into twice-daily dosing. “You have to give it for at least 8-12 weeks to determine whether it’s working or not,” Dr. Mancini said. “In the initial report, [investigators] described an 81% complete response rate, but subsequent randomized, controlled trials were not able to confirm that data against placebo or topical treatments. I will say, though, that cimetidine is well tolerated. It’s always worth a try but, if you do use it, always consider other medications the patient may be taking and potential drug-drug interactions.”

For flat warts, verrucous papules that commonly occur on the face, Dr. Mancini recommends off-label treatment with 5% 5-fluorouracil cream (Efudex), which is normally indicated for actinic keratoses in adults. “I have patients apply this for 3 nights per week and work their way up gradually to nightly application,” he said. “It’s really important that parents and patients understand the importance of sun protection when they’re using Efudex, and they need to know that some irritation is possible. Overall, this treatment seems to be very well tolerated.”

Other treatment options for common warts, in addition to over-the-counter products that contain salicylic acid, are home cryotherapy kits that contain a mixture of diethyl ether and propane. “These can be effective for small warts,” Dr. Mancini said. “But for larger, thicker lesions, they’re not going to quite as effective.”

Treatment options best reserved for dermatologists, he continued, include in-office liquid nitrogen cryotherapy, “if it’s tolerated,” he said. “I have a no-hold policy, so if we have to hold a child down who’s flailing and crying and screaming during treatment, we’re probably not going to use liquid nitrogen.” He also mentioned topical immunotherapy with agents like squaric acid dibutylester. “This is almost like putting poison ivy on your warts to get the immune system revved up,” he said. “It can be very effective.” Other treatment options include intralesional immune therapy, topical cidofovir, and even pulsed-dye laser.

Dr. Mancini disclosed that he is a consultant to and a member of the scientific advisory board for Verrica Pharmaceuticals.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

In the clinical experience of Anthony J. Mancini, MD, one option for children and adolescents who present with common warts is to do nothing, since they may resolve on their own.

“Many effective treatments that we have are painful and poorly tolerated, especially in younger children,” Dr. Mancini, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said during the virtual Pediatric Dermatology 2020: Best Practices and Innovations Conference. “However, while they’re harmless and often self-limited, warts often form a social stigma, and parents often desire therapy.”

He characterized classic warts as verrucous, flesh-colored papules that are sometimes extensive in immunocompromised patients and that can be associated with maceration and nail dystrophy. Even though warts may spontaneously resolve in up to 65% of patients at 2 years and 80% at 4 years, the goals of treatment are to eradicate them, minimize pain, avoid scarring, and help prevent recurrence.

One effective topical therapy he highlighted is WartPEEL cream, which is a proprietary, compounded formulation of 17% salicylic acid and 2% 5-fluorouracil. “It’s in a sustained release vehicle called Remedium, and is available from a compounding pharmacy, but not FDA approved,” said Dr. Mancini, who is also head of pediatric dermatology at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. “It’s applied nightly with plastic tape occlusion and rinsed off each morning.”

WartPEEL is available through NuCara Pharmacy at 877-268-2272. It is not covered by most insurance plans and it costs around $80. “It is very effective, tends to be totally painless, and has a much quicker response than over-the-counter salicylic acid-based treatments for warts,” he said.

Another treatment option is oral cimetidine, especially in patients who have multiple or recalcitrant warts. The recommended dosing is 30-40 mg/kg per day, divided into twice-daily dosing. “You have to give it for at least 8-12 weeks to determine whether it’s working or not,” Dr. Mancini said. “In the initial report, [investigators] described an 81% complete response rate, but subsequent randomized, controlled trials were not able to confirm that data against placebo or topical treatments. I will say, though, that cimetidine is well tolerated. It’s always worth a try but, if you do use it, always consider other medications the patient may be taking and potential drug-drug interactions.”

For flat warts, verrucous papules that commonly occur on the face, Dr. Mancini recommends off-label treatment with 5% 5-fluorouracil cream (Efudex), which is normally indicated for actinic keratoses in adults. “I have patients apply this for 3 nights per week and work their way up gradually to nightly application,” he said. “It’s really important that parents and patients understand the importance of sun protection when they’re using Efudex, and they need to know that some irritation is possible. Overall, this treatment seems to be very well tolerated.”

Other treatment options for common warts, in addition to over-the-counter products that contain salicylic acid, are home cryotherapy kits that contain a mixture of diethyl ether and propane. “These can be effective for small warts,” Dr. Mancini said. “But for larger, thicker lesions, they’re not going to quite as effective.”

Treatment options best reserved for dermatologists, he continued, include in-office liquid nitrogen cryotherapy, “if it’s tolerated,” he said. “I have a no-hold policy, so if we have to hold a child down who’s flailing and crying and screaming during treatment, we’re probably not going to use liquid nitrogen.” He also mentioned topical immunotherapy with agents like squaric acid dibutylester. “This is almost like putting poison ivy on your warts to get the immune system revved up,” he said. “It can be very effective.” Other treatment options include intralesional immune therapy, topical cidofovir, and even pulsed-dye laser.

Dr. Mancini disclosed that he is a consultant to and a member of the scientific advisory board for Verrica Pharmaceuticals.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

In the clinical experience of Anthony J. Mancini, MD, one option for children and adolescents who present with common warts is to do nothing, since they may resolve on their own.

“Many effective treatments that we have are painful and poorly tolerated, especially in younger children,” Dr. Mancini, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said during the virtual Pediatric Dermatology 2020: Best Practices and Innovations Conference. “However, while they’re harmless and often self-limited, warts often form a social stigma, and parents often desire therapy.”

He characterized classic warts as verrucous, flesh-colored papules that are sometimes extensive in immunocompromised patients and that can be associated with maceration and nail dystrophy. Even though warts may spontaneously resolve in up to 65% of patients at 2 years and 80% at 4 years, the goals of treatment are to eradicate them, minimize pain, avoid scarring, and help prevent recurrence.

One effective topical therapy he highlighted is WartPEEL cream, which is a proprietary, compounded formulation of 17% salicylic acid and 2% 5-fluorouracil. “It’s in a sustained release vehicle called Remedium, and is available from a compounding pharmacy, but not FDA approved,” said Dr. Mancini, who is also head of pediatric dermatology at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. “It’s applied nightly with plastic tape occlusion and rinsed off each morning.”

WartPEEL is available through NuCara Pharmacy at 877-268-2272. It is not covered by most insurance plans and it costs around $80. “It is very effective, tends to be totally painless, and has a much quicker response than over-the-counter salicylic acid-based treatments for warts,” he said.

Another treatment option is oral cimetidine, especially in patients who have multiple or recalcitrant warts. The recommended dosing is 30-40 mg/kg per day, divided into twice-daily dosing. “You have to give it for at least 8-12 weeks to determine whether it’s working or not,” Dr. Mancini said. “In the initial report, [investigators] described an 81% complete response rate, but subsequent randomized, controlled trials were not able to confirm that data against placebo or topical treatments. I will say, though, that cimetidine is well tolerated. It’s always worth a try but, if you do use it, always consider other medications the patient may be taking and potential drug-drug interactions.”

For flat warts, verrucous papules that commonly occur on the face, Dr. Mancini recommends off-label treatment with 5% 5-fluorouracil cream (Efudex), which is normally indicated for actinic keratoses in adults. “I have patients apply this for 3 nights per week and work their way up gradually to nightly application,” he said. “It’s really important that parents and patients understand the importance of sun protection when they’re using Efudex, and they need to know that some irritation is possible. Overall, this treatment seems to be very well tolerated.”

Other treatment options for common warts, in addition to over-the-counter products that contain salicylic acid, are home cryotherapy kits that contain a mixture of diethyl ether and propane. “These can be effective for small warts,” Dr. Mancini said. “But for larger, thicker lesions, they’re not going to quite as effective.”

Treatment options best reserved for dermatologists, he continued, include in-office liquid nitrogen cryotherapy, “if it’s tolerated,” he said. “I have a no-hold policy, so if we have to hold a child down who’s flailing and crying and screaming during treatment, we’re probably not going to use liquid nitrogen.” He also mentioned topical immunotherapy with agents like squaric acid dibutylester. “This is almost like putting poison ivy on your warts to get the immune system revved up,” he said. “It can be very effective.” Other treatment options include intralesional immune therapy, topical cidofovir, and even pulsed-dye laser.

Dr. Mancini disclosed that he is a consultant to and a member of the scientific advisory board for Verrica Pharmaceuticals.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

In the opinion of Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, the initial assessment of patients who present with acne should include five quick steps.

olavs/Thinkstock

First, determine the types of lesions they have. “Do they have comedones, papules/pustules, and nodules present?” she asked during the virtual Pediatric Dermatology 2020: Best Practices and Innovations Conference. Second, quantify the number of lesions that they have. Is it few? Several? Many? Third, determine the extent of their acne. “Is it limited to half the face, or is it generalized to the face, back, chest, and shoulders?” added Dr. Zaenglein, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Penn State University, Hershey.

Fourth, identify postinflammatory changes such as erythema, hyperpigmentation, and scarring “because that’s going to influence your management,” she said. “Finally, you want to give a quick investigative global assessment of the acne severity where you quantify them as being clear, almost clear, mild, moderate, or severe. You want to do this with each patient at every visit so you can determine what their initial treatment’s going to be and what their management going forward is going to be.”

According to Dr. Zaenglein, the best acne treatments are based on the pathogenesis of the skin condition and trying to target as many pathogenic factors as possible. The four main pathogenic factors in acne include hyperkeratinization, increased sebum production, cutibacterium, and inflammation. “This is not a stepwise process; there’s an interplay between all of those factors,” she said. “All acne is inflammatory, but each of the treatments we have target specific factors. Retinoids target hyperkeratinization and inflammation, whereas the hormonal therapies will address decreased sebum production. Antimicrobial agents like benzoyl peroxide and antibiotics will work to decrease cutibacterium acnes. All of these are influenced by the exposome. This includes your genetics, external factors like pollution or changes in seasons that can affect your skin and the severity of your acne.” A state of hyperandrogenism, she added, “can definitely increase acne” and is seen in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

For patients with mild acne, initial treatment should consist of a topical retinoid and, almost always, benzoyl peroxide, “unless it’s a pure comedonal form of acne,” Dr. Zaenglein said. She recommended using the combination of a topical retinoid and benzoyl peroxide, noting that while it used to be difficult to find benzoyl peroxide, “nowadays there are numerous manufacturers and different formulations of benzoyl peroxide. We also have over-the-counter adapalene now, which is great. So now we have a complete routine for patients with adapalene and benzoyl peroxide that you can combine together in a cost-effective way.”

If the initial regimen fails to improve the patient’s mild acne, a second-line treatment would be to change the retinoid and continue on the existing benzoyl peroxide formulation or to add dapsone gel if the patient is experiencing skin irritation. The four retinoids currently available include adapalene, tretinoin, tazarotene, and trifarotene. “These normalize keratinocyte differentiation, reduce keratinocyte proliferation, and decrease expression of inflammatory markers,” Dr. Zaenglein noted. “They also prevent scarring. Adapalene is considered to be the most tolerable, whereas tazarotene may have an edge on efficacy. There’s a lot of overlap; head-to-head studies may not always match them up exactly, but generally this is how it’s considered. Picking the right retinoid for your patient based on efficacy and tolerability is most important.”

The newest topical retinoid, trifarotene 50 mcg/g cream, is a fourth-generation retinoid which is retinoic acid receptor gamma selective. Pivotal trials were conducted in patients aged 9 years and older with moderate facial and truncal acne. With monotherapy there was a success rate of 36% at 12 weeks and 60% at 52 weeks based on the Investigator’s Global Assessment. Another newcomer, tazarotene 0.045% lotion, is a third-generation retinoid which is retinoic acid receptor alpha beta gamma selective. It’s approved for moderate to severe facial acne in patients 9 years and older.

To optimize tolerance to retinoids, Dr. Zaenglein asks patients about their typical skin care regimen. “I ask them what they’re washing their face with,” she said. “Are they using apricot scrubs or harsh cleansers? Make sure they’re applying it to the entire face and not spot-treating. You get less irritation when it’s applied to dry skin, so you can recommend that. Make sure that they use a bland unscented moisturizer in the morning and apply it over top of their retinoid. I always warn them that irritation usually peaks at about 2 weeks. If they can power through, the irritation will improve with continued use.”

To optimize adherence to retinoids, she asks patients how many nights per week that they apply it. If they are using it all seven nights, “they’re good at using it,” she said. “If they say three nights, then they need to work on getting it on more frequently.”

Topical dapsone gel (5% and 7.5%) is mainly used for patients with papular-pustular acne. “Its mechanism of action for acne is not known, but presumptively it’s anti-inflammatory,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “It doesn’t require G6PD [glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase] testing. It can cause some orange discoloration of your skin or fabrics if you use it with benzoyl peroxide, so you want to apply them at different times of the day. It’s well tolerated. I tend to use it in patients who have problems tolerating any topical retinoid or any benzoyl peroxide but have mild to moderate acne.”

For patients with moderate acne, consider combination therapy to target as many pathogenic factors as possible. “Use a topical retinoid plus benzoyl peroxide with or without a systemic antibiotic,” Dr. Zaenglein advised. “I may give them an oral antibiotic if their acne is not responsive to the routine. But you wouldn’t want to combine the systemic antibiotic with a topical antibiotic, like clindamycin with doxycycline, because you don’t need two antibiotics. Make sure that you treat aggressively up front. It can take up to 3 months to see improvement. I counsel my patients that we’ll rescue with the antibiotic and then we maintain, but we’re going to stop that antibiotic after 3 months.”

Systemic antibiotic options for acne include tetracyclines, doxycycline, minocycline, and sarecycline. “Tetracycline itself we don’t use too much because you have to take it on an empty stomach, and availability is sometimes an issue,” she said. “Primarily, we use doxycycline. You can take it with food, so that helps. The main side effects are gastrointestinal upset and photosensitivity. Alternately, you can use minocycline, which is also okay to take with food. It does have more potentially worrisome side effects, including pseudotumor cerebri, blue pigmentation, autoimmune hepatitis, and DRESS [drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms].”

Sarecycline is the first narrow spectrum tetracycline for acne, with fewer vestibular and phototoxic side effects, compared with other tetracyclines. “It also has less effect on the GI flora,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “It’s a good alternative but it can be costly, so make sure to check the pricing for your patients.” She does not use other antibiotics such as TMP/SMX, penicillins, or cephalosporins for acne patients. “The reason is, the tetracyclines are not only antibacterial, but they’re anti-inflammatory,” she explained. “They also are lipophilic, so they will penetrate into the sebaceous unit where the heart of the acne is.”

For patients who don’t want to take an oral antibiotic, consider minocycline 4% foam, which was studied in moderate to severe acne in patients aged 9 years and older. The pooled results from the three studies showed a 47% mean improvement in inflammatory acne, compared with 37% among those in the vehicle arm. “You wouldn’t use this as monotherapy; you’d use this in combination with the topical retinoid and the benzoyl peroxide,” Dr. Zaenglein said.

Most primary care providers do not prescribe isotretinoin for patients with severe acne, but they can start patients on triple therapy with a topical retinoid, benzoyl peroxide, and a systemic antibiotic at its full dose. “The efficacy of triple therapy in patients you would typically deem as isotretinoin worthy is actually pretty good,” she said. “There have been several studies looking at this, and about 70%-80% of patients will respond to triple therapy, where they are no longer deemed isotretinoin candidates. They still may need to move on to isotretinoin, but they will be improved.”

Dr. Zaenglein disclosed that she is a consultant for Cassiopea, Novartis, and Pfizer. She has also received grants or research support from AbbVie, Incyte, and Pfizer.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

In the opinion of Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, the initial assessment of patients who present with acne should include five quick steps.

olavs/Thinkstock

First, determine the types of lesions they have. “Do they have comedones, papules/pustules, and nodules present?” she asked during the virtual Pediatric Dermatology 2020: Best Practices and Innovations Conference. Second, quantify the number of lesions that they have. Is it few? Several? Many? Third, determine the extent of their acne. “Is it limited to half the face, or is it generalized to the face, back, chest, and shoulders?” added Dr. Zaenglein, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Penn State University, Hershey.

Fourth, identify postinflammatory changes such as erythema, hyperpigmentation, and scarring “because that’s going to influence your management,” she said. “Finally, you want to give a quick investigative global assessment of the acne severity where you quantify them as being clear, almost clear, mild, moderate, or severe. You want to do this with each patient at every visit so you can determine what their initial treatment’s going to be and what their management going forward is going to be.”

According to Dr. Zaenglein, the best acne treatments are based on the pathogenesis of the skin condition and trying to target as many pathogenic factors as possible. The four main pathogenic factors in acne include hyperkeratinization, increased sebum production, cutibacterium, and inflammation. “This is not a stepwise process; there’s an interplay between all of those factors,” she said. “All acne is inflammatory, but each of the treatments we have target specific factors. Retinoids target hyperkeratinization and inflammation, whereas the hormonal therapies will address decreased sebum production. Antimicrobial agents like benzoyl peroxide and antibiotics will work to decrease cutibacterium acnes. All of these are influenced by the exposome. This includes your genetics, external factors like pollution or changes in seasons that can affect your skin and the severity of your acne.” A state of hyperandrogenism, she added, “can definitely increase acne” and is seen in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

For patients with mild acne, initial treatment should consist of a topical retinoid and, almost always, benzoyl peroxide, “unless it’s a pure comedonal form of acne,” Dr. Zaenglein said. She recommended using the combination of a topical retinoid and benzoyl peroxide, noting that while it used to be difficult to find benzoyl peroxide, “nowadays there are numerous manufacturers and different formulations of benzoyl peroxide. We also have over-the-counter adapalene now, which is great. So now we have a complete routine for patients with adapalene and benzoyl peroxide that you can combine together in a cost-effective way.”

If the initial regimen fails to improve the patient’s mild acne, a second-line treatment would be to change the retinoid and continue on the existing benzoyl peroxide formulation or to add dapsone gel if the patient is experiencing skin irritation. The four retinoids currently available include adapalene, tretinoin, tazarotene, and trifarotene. “These normalize keratinocyte differentiation, reduce keratinocyte proliferation, and decrease expression of inflammatory markers,” Dr. Zaenglein noted. “They also prevent scarring. Adapalene is considered to be the most tolerable, whereas tazarotene may have an edge on efficacy. There’s a lot of overlap; head-to-head studies may not always match them up exactly, but generally this is how it’s considered. Picking the right retinoid for your patient based on efficacy and tolerability is most important.”

The newest topical retinoid, trifarotene 50 mcg/g cream, is a fourth-generation retinoid which is retinoic acid receptor gamma selective. Pivotal trials were conducted in patients aged 9 years and older with moderate facial and truncal acne. With monotherapy there was a success rate of 36% at 12 weeks and 60% at 52 weeks based on the Investigator’s Global Assessment. Another newcomer, tazarotene 0.045% lotion, is a third-generation retinoid which is retinoic acid receptor alpha beta gamma selective. It’s approved for moderate to severe facial acne in patients 9 years and older.

To optimize tolerance to retinoids, Dr. Zaenglein asks patients about their typical skin care regimen. “I ask them what they’re washing their face with,” she said. “Are they using apricot scrubs or harsh cleansers? Make sure they’re applying it to the entire face and not spot-treating. You get less irritation when it’s applied to dry skin, so you can recommend that. Make sure that they use a bland unscented moisturizer in the morning and apply it over top of their retinoid. I always warn them that irritation usually peaks at about 2 weeks. If they can power through, the irritation will improve with continued use.”

To optimize adherence to retinoids, she asks patients how many nights per week that they apply it. If they are using it all seven nights, “they’re good at using it,” she said. “If they say three nights, then they need to work on getting it on more frequently.”

Topical dapsone gel (5% and 7.5%) is mainly used for patients with papular-pustular acne. “Its mechanism of action for acne is not known, but presumptively it’s anti-inflammatory,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “It doesn’t require G6PD [glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase] testing. It can cause some orange discoloration of your skin or fabrics if you use it with benzoyl peroxide, so you want to apply them at different times of the day. It’s well tolerated. I tend to use it in patients who have problems tolerating any topical retinoid or any benzoyl peroxide but have mild to moderate acne.”

For patients with moderate acne, consider combination therapy to target as many pathogenic factors as possible. “Use a topical retinoid plus benzoyl peroxide with or without a systemic antibiotic,” Dr. Zaenglein advised. “I may give them an oral antibiotic if their acne is not responsive to the routine. But you wouldn’t want to combine the systemic antibiotic with a topical antibiotic, like clindamycin with doxycycline, because you don’t need two antibiotics. Make sure that you treat aggressively up front. It can take up to 3 months to see improvement. I counsel my patients that we’ll rescue with the antibiotic and then we maintain, but we’re going to stop that antibiotic after 3 months.”

Systemic antibiotic options for acne include tetracyclines, doxycycline, minocycline, and sarecycline. “Tetracycline itself we don’t use too much because you have to take it on an empty stomach, and availability is sometimes an issue,” she said. “Primarily, we use doxycycline. You can take it with food, so that helps. The main side effects are gastrointestinal upset and photosensitivity. Alternately, you can use minocycline, which is also okay to take with food. It does have more potentially worrisome side effects, including pseudotumor cerebri, blue pigmentation, autoimmune hepatitis, and DRESS [drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms].”

Sarecycline is the first narrow spectrum tetracycline for acne, with fewer vestibular and phototoxic side effects, compared with other tetracyclines. “It also has less effect on the GI flora,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “It’s a good alternative but it can be costly, so make sure to check the pricing for your patients.” She does not use other antibiotics such as TMP/SMX, penicillins, or cephalosporins for acne patients. “The reason is, the tetracyclines are not only antibacterial, but they’re anti-inflammatory,” she explained. “They also are lipophilic, so they will penetrate into the sebaceous unit where the heart of the acne is.”

For patients who don’t want to take an oral antibiotic, consider minocycline 4% foam, which was studied in moderate to severe acne in patients aged 9 years and older. The pooled results from the three studies showed a 47% mean improvement in inflammatory acne, compared with 37% among those in the vehicle arm. “You wouldn’t use this as monotherapy; you’d use this in combination with the topical retinoid and the benzoyl peroxide,” Dr. Zaenglein said.

Most primary care providers do not prescribe isotretinoin for patients with severe acne, but they can start patients on triple therapy with a topical retinoid, benzoyl peroxide, and a systemic antibiotic at its full dose. “The efficacy of triple therapy in patients you would typically deem as isotretinoin worthy is actually pretty good,” she said. “There have been several studies looking at this, and about 70%-80% of patients will respond to triple therapy, where they are no longer deemed isotretinoin candidates. They still may need to move on to isotretinoin, but they will be improved.”

Dr. Zaenglein disclosed that she is a consultant for Cassiopea, Novartis, and Pfizer. She has also received grants or research support from AbbVie, Incyte, and Pfizer.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

In the opinion of Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, the initial assessment of patients who present with acne should include five quick steps.

olavs/Thinkstock

First, determine the types of lesions they have. “Do they have comedones, papules/pustules, and nodules present?” she asked during the virtual Pediatric Dermatology 2020: Best Practices and Innovations Conference. Second, quantify the number of lesions that they have. Is it few? Several? Many? Third, determine the extent of their acne. “Is it limited to half the face, or is it generalized to the face, back, chest, and shoulders?” added Dr. Zaenglein, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Penn State University, Hershey.

Fourth, identify postinflammatory changes such as erythema, hyperpigmentation, and scarring “because that’s going to influence your management,” she said. “Finally, you want to give a quick investigative global assessment of the acne severity where you quantify them as being clear, almost clear, mild, moderate, or severe. You want to do this with each patient at every visit so you can determine what their initial treatment’s going to be and what their management going forward is going to be.”

According to Dr. Zaenglein, the best acne treatments are based on the pathogenesis of the skin condition and trying to target as many pathogenic factors as possible. The four main pathogenic factors in acne include hyperkeratinization, increased sebum production, cutibacterium, and inflammation. “This is not a stepwise process; there’s an interplay between all of those factors,” she said. “All acne is inflammatory, but each of the treatments we have target specific factors. Retinoids target hyperkeratinization and inflammation, whereas the hormonal therapies will address decreased sebum production. Antimicrobial agents like benzoyl peroxide and antibiotics will work to decrease cutibacterium acnes. All of these are influenced by the exposome. This includes your genetics, external factors like pollution or changes in seasons that can affect your skin and the severity of your acne.” A state of hyperandrogenism, she added, “can definitely increase acne” and is seen in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

For patients with mild acne, initial treatment should consist of a topical retinoid and, almost always, benzoyl peroxide, “unless it’s a pure comedonal form of acne,” Dr. Zaenglein said. She recommended using the combination of a topical retinoid and benzoyl peroxide, noting that while it used to be difficult to find benzoyl peroxide, “nowadays there are numerous manufacturers and different formulations of benzoyl peroxide. We also have over-the-counter adapalene now, which is great. So now we have a complete routine for patients with adapalene and benzoyl peroxide that you can combine together in a cost-effective way.”

If the initial regimen fails to improve the patient’s mild acne, a second-line treatment would be to change the retinoid and continue on the existing benzoyl peroxide formulation or to add dapsone gel if the patient is experiencing skin irritation. The four retinoids currently available include adapalene, tretinoin, tazarotene, and trifarotene. “These normalize keratinocyte differentiation, reduce keratinocyte proliferation, and decrease expression of inflammatory markers,” Dr. Zaenglein noted. “They also prevent scarring. Adapalene is considered to be the most tolerable, whereas tazarotene may have an edge on efficacy. There’s a lot of overlap; head-to-head studies may not always match them up exactly, but generally this is how it’s considered. Picking the right retinoid for your patient based on efficacy and tolerability is most important.”

The newest topical retinoid, trifarotene 50 mcg/g cream, is a fourth-generation retinoid which is retinoic acid receptor gamma selective. Pivotal trials were conducted in patients aged 9 years and older with moderate facial and truncal acne. With monotherapy there was a success rate of 36% at 12 weeks and 60% at 52 weeks based on the Investigator’s Global Assessment. Another newcomer, tazarotene 0.045% lotion, is a third-generation retinoid which is retinoic acid receptor alpha beta gamma selective. It’s approved for moderate to severe facial acne in patients 9 years and older.

To optimize tolerance to retinoids, Dr. Zaenglein asks patients about their typical skin care regimen. “I ask them what they’re washing their face with,” she said. “Are they using apricot scrubs or harsh cleansers? Make sure they’re applying it to the entire face and not spot-treating. You get less irritation when it’s applied to dry skin, so you can recommend that. Make sure that they use a bland unscented moisturizer in the morning and apply it over top of their retinoid. I always warn them that irritation usually peaks at about 2 weeks. If they can power through, the irritation will improve with continued use.”

To optimize adherence to retinoids, she asks patients how many nights per week that they apply it. If they are using it all seven nights, “they’re good at using it,” she said. “If they say three nights, then they need to work on getting it on more frequently.”

Topical dapsone gel (5% and 7.5%) is mainly used for patients with papular-pustular acne. “Its mechanism of action for acne is not known, but presumptively it’s anti-inflammatory,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “It doesn’t require G6PD [glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase] testing. It can cause some orange discoloration of your skin or fabrics if you use it with benzoyl peroxide, so you want to apply them at different times of the day. It’s well tolerated. I tend to use it in patients who have problems tolerating any topical retinoid or any benzoyl peroxide but have mild to moderate acne.”

For patients with moderate acne, consider combination therapy to target as many pathogenic factors as possible. “Use a topical retinoid plus benzoyl peroxide with or without a systemic antibiotic,” Dr. Zaenglein advised. “I may give them an oral antibiotic if their acne is not responsive to the routine. But you wouldn’t want to combine the systemic antibiotic with a topical antibiotic, like clindamycin with doxycycline, because you don’t need two antibiotics. Make sure that you treat aggressively up front. It can take up to 3 months to see improvement. I counsel my patients that we’ll rescue with the antibiotic and then we maintain, but we’re going to stop that antibiotic after 3 months.”

Systemic antibiotic options for acne include tetracyclines, doxycycline, minocycline, and sarecycline. “Tetracycline itself we don’t use too much because you have to take it on an empty stomach, and availability is sometimes an issue,” she said. “Primarily, we use doxycycline. You can take it with food, so that helps. The main side effects are gastrointestinal upset and photosensitivity. Alternately, you can use minocycline, which is also okay to take with food. It does have more potentially worrisome side effects, including pseudotumor cerebri, blue pigmentation, autoimmune hepatitis, and DRESS [drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms].”

Sarecycline is the first narrow spectrum tetracycline for acne, with fewer vestibular and phototoxic side effects, compared with other tetracyclines. “It also has less effect on the GI flora,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “It’s a good alternative but it can be costly, so make sure to check the pricing for your patients.” She does not use other antibiotics such as TMP/SMX, penicillins, or cephalosporins for acne patients. “The reason is, the tetracyclines are not only antibacterial, but they’re anti-inflammatory,” she explained. “They also are lipophilic, so they will penetrate into the sebaceous unit where the heart of the acne is.”

For patients who don’t want to take an oral antibiotic, consider minocycline 4% foam, which was studied in moderate to severe acne in patients aged 9 years and older. The pooled results from the three studies showed a 47% mean improvement in inflammatory acne, compared with 37% among those in the vehicle arm. “You wouldn’t use this as monotherapy; you’d use this in combination with the topical retinoid and the benzoyl peroxide,” Dr. Zaenglein said.

Most primary care providers do not prescribe isotretinoin for patients with severe acne, but they can start patients on triple therapy with a topical retinoid, benzoyl peroxide, and a systemic antibiotic at its full dose. “The efficacy of triple therapy in patients you would typically deem as isotretinoin worthy is actually pretty good,” she said. “There have been several studies looking at this, and about 70%-80% of patients will respond to triple therapy, where they are no longer deemed isotretinoin candidates. They still may need to move on to isotretinoin, but they will be improved.”

Dr. Zaenglein disclosed that she is a consultant for Cassiopea, Novartis, and Pfizer. She has also received grants or research support from AbbVie, Incyte, and Pfizer.

dbrunk@mdedge.com