Saturday, August 08, 2020

MMWR: COVID-19–Associated Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children — U.S., March–July 2020


#15,404

After six months of economic and societal upheaval due to COVID-19, our nation - and many others around the world - continue to debate over how and when it will be `safe' to send kids back to the classroom.
 
Yesterday we looked at the ECDC's Technical Report: COVID-19 In Children & The Role Of School Transmission, which - while finding school closures have little impact on community spread of the pandemic - acknowledged `. . . . . the role of children in SARS-CoV-2 transmission remains unclear, especially in the context of educational settings.'

Although children and adolescents are less likely to experience severe illness with COVID-19 than an adult, they are hardly immune.  And when they do get sick enough to be hospitalized, they often end up in intensive care (see MMWR Hospitalization Rates and Characteristics of Children Aged <18 Years Hospitalized with Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19).

(EXCERPT)

Analysis of pediatric COVID-19 hospitalization data from 14 states found that although the cumulative rate of COVID-19–associated hospitalization among children (8.0 per 100,000 population) is low compared with that in adults (164.5), one in three hospitalized children was admitted to an intensive care unit.

Children are at risk for severe COVID-19. Public health authorities and clinicians should continue to track pediatric SARS-CoV-2 infections. Reinforcement of prevention efforts is essential in congregate settings that serve children, including childcare centers and schools.

While many of these very sick kids are suffering from severe COVID-19, a subset of them go on to develop a Kawasaki-like life threatening syndrome called MIS-C (Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children), which we first saw described in the UK back in April (see PICS: NHS Alert On Possible Severe Pediatric COVID-19 Complication).

A week later the CDC would issue their first alert (see CDC HAN: Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome In Children (MIS-C)), which was followed up with a CDC COCA Call : Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) four days later. 

Since then, this syndrome has been identified in hundreds of children around the world - and while the numbers remain small - surveillance and reporting are still in their infancy. 

The CDC describes the syndrome on their MIS-C website as:
What is MIS-C?

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a condition where different body parts can become inflamed, including the heart, lungs, kidneys, brain, skin, eyes, or gastrointestinal organs. Children with MIS-C may have a fever and various symptoms, including abdominal (gut) pain, vomiting, diarrhea, neck pain, rash, bloodshot eyes, or feeling extra tired. We do not yet know what causes MIS-C. However, many children with MIS-C had the virus that causes COVID-19, or had been around someone with COVID-19.

Up until yesterday, the number of U.S. cases reported on the CDC's website (current through May 20th) was 186, reported across 26 states.  According to the following MMWR report, that number has since tripled to nearly 600 known cases across 40 states (through July 29th). 

Once again, we see stark racial disparities in the numbers, with Hispanic and black patients accounting for 73.6% of reported MIS-C patients.  The median age was 8, and two-thirds of these cases did not have preexisting underlying medical conditions.

While the percentage of COVID-19 cases that go on to develop MIS-C is minuscule, to put it in some kind of perspective - compared to the total number of Acute Flaccid Myelitis cases reported in the United States (see CDC MMWR/Vital Signs) - we've seen more MIS-C cases in the past 6 months than AFM cases over the past 6 years.

Due to its length I've only posted some excepts from yesterday's report.  Follow the link to read it in its entirety. 

COVID-19–Associated Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children — United States, March–July 2020

Early Release / August 7, 2020 / 69


Shana Godfred-Cato, DO1; Bobbi Bryant, MPH1,2; Jessica Leung, MPH1; Matthew E. Oster, MD1; Laura Conklin, MD1; Joseph Abrams, PhD1; Katherine Roguski, MPH1; Bailey Wallace, MPH1,2; Emily Prezzato, MPH1; Emilia H. Koumans, MD1; Ellen H. Lee, MD3; Anita Geevarughese, MD3; Maura K. Lash, MPH3; Kathleen H. Reilly, PhD3; Wendy P. Pulver, MS4; Deepam Thomas, MPH5; Kenneth A. Feder, PhD6; Katherine K. Hsu, MD7; Nottasorn Plipat, MD, PhD8; Gillian Richardson, MPH9; Heather Reid10; Sarah Lim, MBBCh11; Ann Schmitz, DVM12,13; Timmy Pierce, MPH1,2; Susan Hrapcak, MD1; Deblina Datta, MD1; Sapna Bamrah Morris, MD1; Kevin Clarke, MD1; Ermias Belay, MD1; California MIS-C Response Team (View author affiliations)View suggested citation


Summary

What is already known about this topic?

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a rare but severe condition that has been reported approximately 2–4 weeks after the onset of COVID-19 in children and adolescents.

What is added by this report?

Most cases of MIS-C have features of shock, with cardiac involvement, gastrointestinal symptoms, and significantly elevated markers of inflammation, with positive laboratory test results for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 565 patients who underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing, all had a positive test result by RT-PCR or serology.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Distinguishing MIS-C from other severe infectious or inflammatory conditions poses a challenge to clinicians caring for children and adolescents. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to expand in many jurisdictions, health care provider awareness of MIS-C will facilitate early recognition, early diagnosis, and prompt treatment.

PDF pdf icon[195K]


(EXCERPT)

As of July 29, 2020, a total of 570 MIS-C patients with onset dates from March 2 to July 18, 2020, had been reported from 40 state health departments, the District of Columbia, and New York City (Figure). The median patient age was 8 years (range = 2 weeks–20 years); 55.4% were male, 40.5% were Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic), 33.1% were non-Hispanic black (black), and 13.2% non-Hispanic white (white) (Table 1). Obesity was the most commonly reported underlying medical condition, occurring in 30.5% of Hispanic, 27.5% of black, and 6.6% of white MIS-C patients.

Overall, the illness in 490 (86.0%) patients involved four or more organ systems. Approximately two thirds did not have preexisting underlying medical conditions before MIS-C onset. The most common signs and symptoms reported during illness course were abdominal pain (61.9%), vomiting (61.8%), skin rash (55.3%), diarrhea (53.2%), hypotension (49.5%), and conjunctival injection (48.4%). Most patients had gastrointestinal (90.9%), cardiovascular (86.5%), or dermatologic or mucocutaneous (70.9%) involvement. Substantial numbers of MIS-C patients had severe complications, including cardiac dysfunction (40.6%), shock (35.4%), myocarditis (22.8%), coronary artery dilatation or aneurysm (18.6%), and acute kidney injury (18.4%). The majority of patients (63.9%) were admitted to an ICU. The median length of ICU stay was 5 days (interquartile range = 3–7 days).

Of the 565 (99.1%) patients who underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing, all had a positive test result by RT-PCR or serology; 46.1% had only serologic evidence of infection and 25.8% had only positive RT-PCR test results. Five patients (0.9%) did not have testing performed but had an epidemiologic link as indicated in the MIS-C case definition.

Among all 570 patients, 527 (92.5%) were treated, including 424 (80.5%) who received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), 331 (62.8%) who received steroids, 309 (58.6%) who received antiplatelet medication, 233 (44.2%) who received anticoagulation medication, and 221 (41.9%) who were treated with vasoactive medication. Ten (1.8%) patients were reported to have died (Table 1).

(SNIP) 
Discussion

Initial reports of MIS-C patients described varied clinical signs and symptoms at initial evaluation, but most cases included features of shock, cardiac dysfunction, gastrointestinal symptoms, significantly elevated markers of inflammation and cardiac damage, and positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 by serology (3,6–8).
Because the case definition is nonspecific and confirmatory laboratory testing does not exist, it might be difficult to distinguish MIS-C from other conditions with overlapping clinical manifestations such as severe acute COVID-19 and Kawasaki disease (9). Latent class analysis is particularly well-suited to describe differing manifestations of a novel clinical syndrome. It divides patients into groups that might have been previously unrecognized, based on shared characteristics, allowing for an unbiased determination of disease manifestations.
Patients identified in class 1 had little overlap with acute COVID-19 or Kawasaki disease, whereas patients in class 2 had clinical and laboratory manifestations that overlapped with acute COVID-19. This overlap might result from the development of MIS-C soon after symptomatic acute COVID-19 illness. However, the presence of isolated severe acute COVID-19 illness cannot be ruled out in some of these patients. Patients in class 3 generally seemed to have less severe MIS-C illness and clinical manifestations that overlapped with Kawasaki disease, and distinguishing class 3 patients from those with true Kawasaki disease could be difficult (4). As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads, and more children are exposed to SARS-CoV-2 with subsequent seroconversion, patients with Kawasaki disease might be misidentified as MIS-C because of an incidental finding of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.

Overall, the age distribution of the patients in this analysis is similar to that described elsewhere, but there are differences in the clinical manifestations and laboratory findings, perhaps due to differences in inclusion criteria (6,7). Increases in COVID-19 incidence might result in increased occurrence of MIS-C which might not be apparent immediately because of the 2–4-week delay in the development of MIS-C after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection (8). The proportion of Hispanic, black, and white MIS-C patients with obesity is slightly higher than that reported in the general pediatric population.¶
Hispanic and black patients accounted for the largest proportion (73.6%) of reported MIS-C patients. Acute COVID-19 has been reported to disproportionately affect Hispanics and blacks (10). Long-standing inequities in the social determinants of health, such as housing, economic instability, insurance status, and work circumstances of patients and their family members have systematically placed social, racial, and ethnic minority populations at higher risk for COVID-19 and more severe illness, possibly including MIS-C.**

The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, there is a possibility of case identification and reporting bias, including variability in diagnosis, testing, and management of patients by different jurisdictions. Second, inconsistency in completion of case report forms, with some patients still hospitalized at the time of reporting, might have affected data completeness (e.g., race and ethnicity were not reported for 18.9% of cases). Third, access to SARS-CoV-2 testing at the time of onset might have varied by regions, hospitals, and time. Finally, CDC’s case definition was broad, with the intention of being more inclusive, which might have led to the unintentional inclusion of patients whose illnesses overlapped with acute COVID-19 and Kawasaki disease.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, with the number of cases increasing in many jurisdictions, health care providers should continue to monitor patients to identify children with a hyperinflammatory syndrome with shock and cardiac involvement. Suspected MIS-C patients should be reported to local and state health departments. Distinguishing patients with MIS-C from those with acute COVID-19 and other hyperinflammatory conditions is critical for early diagnosis and appropriate management. It is also critical for monitoring potential adverse events of a COVID-19 vaccine when one becomes widely available. Studies to define the clinical and laboratory characteristics of MIS-C should continue, including identification of parameters that will help distinguish the illness from other similar conditions.
(Continue . . . )

 

Friday, August 07, 2020

Australia: 2nd Victoria Farm Hit By HPAI H7N7

 Victoria State - Credit Wikipedia

#15,403

A couple of days ago, in A Disturbing Dearth Of Data, I wrote about the slowdown in reporting of a wide variety of non-COVID diseases, including seasonal influenza, MERS-CoV, and avian flu.  

In it, I mentioned the the recent H7N7 outbreak in Victoria Australia, and a report of H5N8 from Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russia, but overall avian flu reporting has been sparse.

Overnight Victoria's Agriculture Department reported a second farm has tested positive for H7N7, a week after the first one was reported.

While sporadic bird-to-human transmissions of H7N7 have been reported, it is not considered nearly as dangerous as either H5Nx or H7N9, as it usually produces pm;u mild symptoms in humans.  Two notable outbreaks include:

The CDC continues to carry avian H7N7 on their IRAT (Influenza Risk Assessment Tool) list of zoonotic influenza viruses with pandemic potential. Until 2013, all avian H7 viruses were considered less of a public health threat than avian H5 viruses, but that all changed when H7N9 emerged in China. 

For now H7N7 remains primarily a threat to the poultry industry.  
 
Second Victorian property positive for avian influenza

7 August 2020

Following a farm testing positive for H7N7 avian influenza virus (AI) on 31 July, a second egg farm near Lethbridge has now also tested positive.

The farm is within the existing Restricted Area and has been under movement restrictions and regular surveillance which has enabled rapid identification and containment of the disease.

Agriculture Victoria’s AgriBio lab confirmed overnight that the latest batch of surveillance samples from birds from the property had returned positive for AI.

Avian influenza (sometimes known as ‘bird flu’) is a highly contagious disease that predominantly affects chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, guinea fowl, quail, pheasants and ostriches. Many species of wild birds, including waterfowl and seabirds, can also carry the virus without symptoms.

The H7N7 virus is not a risk to food safety or the public as it rarely affects humans unless there is direct and close contact with sick birds.

          (Continue . . . )

 

ECDC Technical Report: COVID-19 In Children & The Role Of School Transmission

 

#15,402

Going into this fall there is probably no greater hot-button issue than deciding how and when schools should be reopened during our ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. 

  • Proponents of re-opening point out that kids tend to be less seriously affected by SARS-CoV-2, and that keeping schools closed is not only bad for kids, it is a barrier to economic recovery - particularly for families where both parents work.
  • Opponents point out that opening schools not only put kids at risk, but also their teachers and other school personnel, and carries the very real danger of bringing the virus home to infect older, more vulnerable family members. 
Complicating matters, each side of this debate can offer up `evidence' supportive of their viewpoint, although often much of that evidence is either anecdotal or weak. The initial success stories coming out of Taiwan, Sweden, and Finland are encouraging, but aren't necessarily applicable to the United States, or other countries where the virus is literally out of control.

Adding to the concern, seven months into this pandemic we are still learning how the virus spreads in the community, along with its immediate and long-term health consequences.

Saying that kids are `less affected' by the virus sounds reassuring, unless it happens to be your kid that is seriously ill (see COCA Call - Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). And over the past couple of months early assumptions about low infection rates, transmission, and viral loads in children have been replaced by new research showing quite the opposite.  

MMWR: SARS=CoV-2 Transmission At A Summer Day Camp - Georgia, June 2020

JAMA PEDS: Nasopharyngeal Viral RNA Higher In Young Children Than Adults

Yesterday the ECDC published a technical report on COVID-19's impact on children and the role of school attendance in its transmission.  The full 31-page PDF is well worth reading, but I've posted the key messages below.  

I'll have a brief postscript when you return.

COVID-19 in children and the role of school settings in COVID-19 transmission
Technical report
6 Aug 2020 

The aim of this document is to provide an overview of the epidemiology and disease characteristics of COVID-19 in children (0-18 years) in EU/EEA countries and the United Kingdom (UK), and an assessment of the role of childcare (preschools; ages 0-<5 years) and educational (primary and secondary schools; ages 5-18 years) settings in COVID-19 transmission.

Executive summary

Key messages
  • A small proportion (<5%) of overall COVID-19 cases reported in the EU/EEA and the UK are among children (those aged 18 years and under). When diagnosed with COVID-19, children are much less likely to be hospitalised or have fatal outcomes than adults.
  • Children are more likely to have a mild or asymptomatic infection, meaning that the infection may go undetected or undiagnosed.
  • When symptomatic, children shed virus in similar quantities to adults and can infect others in a similar way to adults. It is unknown how infectious asymptomatic children are.
  • While very few significant outbreaks of COVID-19 in schools have been documented, they do occur, and may be difficult to detect due to the relative lack of symptoms in children.
  • In general, the majority of countries report slightly lower seroprevalence in children than in adult groups, however these differences are small and uncertain. More specialised studies need to be performed with the focus on children to better understand infection and antibody dynamics.
  • Investigations of cases identified in school settings suggest that child to child transmission in schools is uncommon and not the primary cause of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children whose onset of infection coincides with the period during which they are attending school, particularly in preschools and primary schools.
  • If appropriate physical distancing and hygiene measures are applied, schools are unlikely to be more effective propagating environments than other occupational or leisure settings with similar densities of people.
  • There is conflicting published evidence on the impact of school closure/re-opening on community transmission levels, although the evidence from contact tracing in schools, and observational data from a number of EU countries suggest that re-opening schools has not been associated with significant increases in community transmission.
  • Available evidence also indicates that closures of childcare and educational institutions are unlikely to be an effective single control measure for community transmission of COVID-19 and such closures would be unlikely to provide significant additional protection of children’s health, since most develop a very mild form of COVID-19, if any.
  • Decisions on control measures in schools and school closures/openings should be consistent with decisions on other physical distancing and public health response measures within the community.
COVID-19 in children and the role of school settings in COVID-19 transmission - EN - [PDF-1.75 MB]

While this report acknowledges  `. . . . . the role of children in SARS-CoV-2 transmission remains unclear, especially in the context of educational settings.', their overriding message appears to be that closing schools provides limited benefits in curbing community transmission or protecting children's health. 

And that may be absolutely true. 

But during the short history of this pandemic we've seen a lot of well-meaning experts underestimate this novel virus; dismissing early concerns over potential aerosol spread or the role of asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and discounting the value of universal masking in public. 

Which is why I'm less than sanguine when it comes to assuming the best case scenario.

Opening schools during a pandemic carries with it enough unknowns to make the outcomes unpredictable. It may go well in some places, and not so well in others. And those results may vary widely depending upon a variety of factors (NPI compliance, level of community transmission, etc.). 

Sending kids back to school this fall may succeed in some places, but it remains very much a gamble in others. And that worries me, because - while I've never been much of a gambler - I do know the one cardinal rule.

Never wager anything you can't afford to lose.

Thursday, August 06, 2020

CSU Updated (August) Hurricane Forecast


Atlantic Development Areas - Aug & Sept -Credit NOAA


#15,401

Although long-range forecasting of tropical or hurricane activity is far from precise, it's come a long way in the past few years.  Improved weather satellites, better models, and faster computers have all enhanced the ability to forecast - with reasonable accuracy - the likelihood of near term (60-90 days) tropical development. 

Last April and May we looked at a procession of early season forecast models released by forecasters at Colorado State University, Pennsylvania State University ESSC, the Weather Channel, and the experts at University College London Tropical Storm Risk center all calling for a particularly active Atlantic Hurricane season.

In mid-May, NOAA released their outlook, calling for a Busy 2020 Atlantic Hurricane Season.


Just two months into the 6-month Atlantic Hurricane season, we've already seen 9 named storms, two of which became hurricanes. With the peak of hurricane activity expected during August, September and October, even those aggressive forecasts are beginning to look like underestimates. 
Yesterday, Colorado State University’s Tropical Meteorology Project released their August update, which ups their ante on seeing an even more active tropical season than previously predicted, increasing their June forecast from 19 named storms to 24.

We have increased our forecast and now call for an extremely active 2020 Atlantic hurricane season.

Sea surface temperatures averaged across the tropical Atlantic are much warmer than normal, and vertical wind shear is well below average. Current cool neutral ENSO conditions may transition to weak La Niña conditions by later this summer. We anticipate an above-normal probability for major hurricanes making landfall along the continental United States coastline and in the Caribbean.

As is the case with all hurricane seasons, coastal residents are reminded that it only takes one hurricane making landfall to make it an active season for them. They should prepare the same for every season, regardless of how much activity is predicted.

Although these forecasts can't tell us where hurricanes will strike this year, it only takes one serious storm in a highly populated area to cause a major disaster. And while it is possible that we'll avoid a major (CAT 3+) landfalling hurricane over the next 2 or 3 months, we'd have to get very lucky indeed. 

Whether you live in the Caribbean, or within a few hundred miles of the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic coast, you need to be taking this forecast seriously. 

It predicts more 15 named storms in as many weeks, with 10 of them becoming hurricanes, and 5 becoming major (CAT 3+) storms.  That's a lot of activity to cram into the next 3 (or possibly 4) months. 

And all of this will come as we deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, making both situations worse. 
 
As we've discussed often since mid-May (see Why Preparing For This Year's Hurricane Season Will Be `Different'), preparing for - or dealing with - any sort of natural disaster in the midst of a pandemic immediately becomes problematic. 

I would strongly urge anyone who could possibly be impacted by these storms to begin to plan and prepare today, and not wait until a threat looms on the horizon. By then, you may find store shelves emptied, and your options limited. 

 

CDC MMWR/Vital Signs: Acute Flaccid Myelitis (2020 Edition)




#15,400

With many schools planning to reopen this month, the primary concern is naturally over COVID-19; How risky will it be for kid's health - and even if we get lucky, and kids are only mildly affected - how will it affect the transmission of the virus in the larger community?

But the return to school each fall is also associated with an uptick in other infectious (mostly mild respiratory) diseases - and while enhanced COVID precautions should dampen those illnesses as well - in rare cases some of these illnesses can be life-threatening. 

Six years ago, in the early fall of 2014, we saw a nationwide outbreak of EV-D68 (49 states), producing a wide range of illness, including severe respiratory distress, resulting in the hospitalization of hundreds of children (see CDC HAN Advisory On EV-D68). 
At the same time, doctors around the country reported a concurrent spike in polio-like paralysis in children (e.g. AFP or AFM (Acute Flaccid Myelitis)) often following a viral illness.
While the exact causes of Acute flaccid myelitis aren't fully understood, it has been linked to a number of viral infections, including West Nile Virus, Adenoviruses, and a number of (polio and non-polio) enteroviruses, including EV-71 and more recently, EV-D68. 

Every two years since then (fall of 2016 and 2018) we've seen an increase in AFM cases (see above graphic), with the largest wave (n=233) reported in 2018. While the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on AFM is unknowable, this rare neurological disease is expected to return again this fall. 

Even though 2019 was an `off year' for AFM. we revisited the topic several times, looking at the latest research, including:

EID Journal: Association of EV-D68 with Acute Flaccid Myelitis, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2009–2018

CDC Vital Signs: Acute Flaccid Myelitis (AFM)

mBio: Acute Flaccid Myelitis (AFM) - Something Old and Something New

While tens of thousands of children may contract EV-D68, most will come away with little more than a summer `cold'. Only a few hundred will go on to develop AFM. But for those few, it can be life threatening illness, and many who do survive can end up with lasting paralysis or limb weakness. 

Early recognition is key, both for learning more about the causes of AFM, and for expediting emergency treatment. 
 
Because the calendar suggests another wave of EV-D68 is likely to occur this fall, and concerns that our concurrent COVID-19 pandemic could delay diagnosis and treatment of AFM, this week the CDC has launched a new Vital Signs report on AFM, along with publishing a new MMWR report, and holding a press briefing. 

First stop, the audio recording and transcript of a press briefing held on Tuesday, Aug 4th.

CDC Expects 2020 Outbreak of Life-Threatening Acute Flaccid Myelitis Transcript
Press Briefing Transcript

Please Note: This transcript is not edited and may contain errors.

 

Next stop, a link and some excerpts from this month's Vital Signs Report.

Acute Flaccid Myelitis (AFM)
Recognize symptoms. Hospitalize immediately. 

 
Overview

Acute flaccid myelitis (AFM) is an uncommon, but life-threatening neurologic condition that affects mostly children and can lead to permanent paralysis. Enteroviruses, particularly EV-D68, are likely responsible for the increase in cases every two years since 2014. AFM is a medical emergency and patients must be hospitalized and monitored in case they progress to respiratory failure. Prompt recognition and immediate action by pediatricians, and emergency department and urgent care providers are critical to achieving the best possible outcomes. 
  • AFM typically presents with sudden limb weakness. Most patients had respiratory illness or fever before AFM onset.
  • Patient health can decline quickly, resulting in paralysis or the need for a ventilator. 
  • AFM can lead to permanent disability.Patients who tested positive for EV-D68 typically had more severe AFM illness, requiring hospitalized intensive care and ventilation. 
  • Most cases occur between August and November.
 
And lastly, a link and summary from this week's MMWR Early Release on clinical characteristics of patients with confirmed AFM.



Early Release / August 4, 2020 / 69

Sarah Kidd, MD1; Adriana Lopez, MHS1; W. Allan Nix1; Gloria Anyalechi, MD2; Megumi Itoh, MD3; Eileen Yee, MD1; M. Steven Oberste, PhD1; Janell Routh, MD1 (View author affiliations)View suggested citation

Summary

What is already known about this topic?

Since U.S. surveillance for acute flaccid myelitis (AFM) began in 2014, reported cases have peaked biennially. Most cases occur in children during late summer and early fall.

What is added by this report?

Among 238 patients with confirmed AFM during 2018, most (92%) had prodromal fever, respiratory illness, or both. In addition to weakness, common symptoms were gait difficulty (52%), neck or back pain (47%), fever (35%), and limb pain (34%). Among 211 who were outpatients when weakness began, 64% sought treatment at an emergency department. Overall, 23% required endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Clinicians should suspect AFM in children with acute flaccid limb weakness, especially when accompanied by neck or back pain and a recent history of febrile respiratory illness. Increasing awareness in frontline settings such as emergency departments should aid rapid recognition and hospitalization for AFM.
 

While EV-D68 was discovered nearly 60 years ago in California, until 2014 it was considered both rare, and a fairly innocuous cause of mild summer `cold-like' illnesses, primarily in children. 

In the past decade EV-D68 appears to have evolved into a more pathogenic (and neurotropic) virus  (see mBio: Contemporary EV-D68 Strains Have Acquired The Ability To Infect Human Neuronal Cells). 

Similarlly, last year Priyanka Uprety et al. from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia wrote in an EID Journal Article:
These data suggest that the EV-D68 genome has changed over time to enable neurotropism or possibly increased virulence resulting in more widespread disease.
Some researchers are even asking if EV-D68 has the potential to become the next `polio' (see Enterovirus D68 – The New Polio?).  Similar questions have been asked over EV-71, which has caused numerous large scale outbreaks (with AFM) - mostly in Asia - over the past 20 years. 
 
This isn't the first (nor will it be the last) time that we've seen a previously obscure, and relatively benign, infectious disease evolve into a deadlier threat.
 
As we've discussed many times (see The Third Epidemiological Transition), we are thought to be living in the age pandemics, and of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases.
 
While full blown pandemics - like COVID-19 and pandemic influenza - have been infrequent events, we can expect to be continually challenged by less dramatic, but nevertheless serious public health threats going forward.  

EV-D68 is just one of many that have either emerged or re-emerged over the past 20 years or so.  Others include:
  • Nipah & Hendra
  • SARS
  • MERS-CoV
  • H5Nx & H7Nx avian Influenza
  • Ebola 
  • EV-71 
  • West Nile Virus
  • Monkeypox
  • Hantavirus 
  • Chikungunya 
  • Dengue
  • Zika
All of these threats, while limited in impact so far, continue to evolve. As does an ever growing roster of antimicrobial resistant bacteria and fungi.  And of course, to this list we can add Clade X, the virus we don't know about yet. 
COVID-19 has shown that it doesn't require a zombie apocalypse or a 30% CFR avian flu pandemic to crash our economy and turn our world upside down. Our stunning lack of preparedness going into this pandemic has only made matters worse. 
Nature's laboratory keeps firing warning shots across our bow, and for the most part, we've ignored them.  One has to wonder how much damage we have to take before we begin to treat emerging infectious diseases like the national security threats they really are. 

 

Wednesday, August 05, 2020

Pregnancy & COVID-19: Still More Questions Than Answers















#15,399

Historically, influenza pandemics have been particularly dangerous for pregnant women and their unborn children, and in 2016 we saw the tragic - and wholly unexpected - impacts of maternal Zika infection on developing fetuses (primarily) in South America (see CDC Vital Signs - Zika Virus Update).

In a Perspective written by 3 CDC physicians (Sonja A. Rasmussen, Denise J. Jamieson, Joseph S. Bresee) published in 2008 (see Pandemic Influenza and Pregnant Women) we get the following assessment of the historic impact of influenza on pregnant women.

Although appropriate nonpregnant control groups were generally not available, mortality rates among pregnant women in the pandemics of 1918 and 1957 appeared to be abnormally high (5,7). Among 1,350 reported cases of influenza among pregnant women during the pandemic of 1918, the proportion of deaths was reported to be 27% (5). 

Similarly, among a small case series of 86 pregnant women hospitalized in Chicago for influenza in 1918, 45% died (6). Among pregnancy-associated deaths in Minnesota during the 1957 pandemic, influenza was the leading cause of death, accounting for nearly 20% of deaths associated with pregnancy during the pandemic period; half of women of reproductive age who died were pregnant

The following year, the 2009 H1N1 pandemic virus emerged, and once again we saw numerous reports of a disproportionate impact on pregnant women, and their unborn child (see 2009's Pregnancy & Flu: A Bad Combination).
In 2011's  BMJ: Perinatal Outcomes After Maternal 2009 H1N1 Infection we saw a study showing women who were admitted to the hospital with maternal H1N1 infection experienced a 3 to 4 times higher rate of preterm birth, 4 to 5 times greater risk of stillbirth, and a 4 to 6 times higher rate of neonatal death.
ABSTRACT: Severely ill women with 2009 H1N1 influenza during pregnancy were more likely to have adverse birth outcomes than women without influenza, providing more support for influenza vaccination during pregnancy.
Given this somber history, there are understandable concerns over the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on pregnant women and their child they carry.  Given how new COVID-19 is, we have limited data on which to rely.

But a couple of weeks ago, Nature Communications carried a report of a woman's infection in her 3rd trimester and the apparent infection of her child in utero. The child was born in March, and the neonate displayed temporary neurological manifestations, but has reportedly since recovered. 
Alexandre J. Vivanti, Christelle Vauloup-Fellous, Sophie Prevot, Veronique Zupan, Cecile Suffee, Jeremy Do Cao, Alexandra Benachi & Daniele De Luca 

Nature Communications volume 11, Article number: 3572 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 outbreak is the first pandemic of the century. SARS-CoV-2 infection is transmitted through droplets; other transmission routes are hypothesized but not confirmed. So far, it is unclear whether and how SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted from the mother to the fetus. 

We demonstrate the transplacental transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a neonate born to a mother infected in the last trimester and presenting with neurological compromise.
The transmission is confirmed by comprehensive virological and pathological investigations. In detail, SARS-CoV-2 causes: (1) maternal viremia, (2) placental infection demonstrated by immunohistochemistry and very high viral load; placental inflammation, as shown by histological examination and immunohistochemistry, and (3) neonatal viremia following placental infection. The neonate is studied clinically, through imaging, and followed up. The neonate presented with neurological manifestations, similar to those described in adult patients.
          (SNIP)
In conclusion, we have demonstrated that the transplacental transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection is possible during the last weeks of pregnancy. Transplacental transmission may cause placental inflammation and neonatal viremia. Neurological symptoms due to cerebral vasculitis may also be associated.

Another report, presented at a COVID-centric session of the 2020 virtual International AIDS Conference in July, described 31 pregnant women in Italy who were infected with the virus late in their 3rd trimester, with two of them giving birth to babies infected with SARS-CoV-2  (see MedPage Today  Report: COVID-19 Transmitted to Babies in Utero). 

While the evidence for in utero infection with SARS-COV-2 remains limited, as does proof of lasting harm to the unborn child, the evidence that COVID-19 is more dangerous for the mother than for non-pregnant women is a little more solid. 

In late June the CDC's MMWR reported:
Characteristics of Women of Reproductive Age with Laboratory-Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Pregnancy Status — United States, January 22–June 7, 2020

Weekly / June 26, 2020 / 69(25);769–775

Sascha Ellington, PhD1; Penelope Strid, MPH1; Van T. Tong, MPH1; Kate Woodworth, MD1; Romeo R. Galang, MD1; Laura D. Zambrano, PhD1; John Nahabedian, MS1; Kayla Anderson, PhD1; Suzanne M. Gilboa, PhD1 (View author affiliations)View suggested citation

Summary

What is already known about this topic?

Limited information is available about SARS-CoV-2 infection in U.S. pregnant women.

What is added by this report?

Hispanic and non-Hispanic black pregnant women appear to be disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy. Among reproductive-age women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, pregnancy was associated with hospitalization and increased risk for intensive care unit admission, and receipt of mechanical ventilation, but not with death.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Pregnant women might be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness. To reduce severe COVID-19–associated illness, pregnant women should be aware of their potential risk for severe COVID-19 illness. Prevention of COVID-19 should be emphasized for pregnant women and potential barriers to adherence to these measures need to be addressed.
          (Continue . . . )

The CDC maintains a Data on COVID-19 during Pregnancy website, but cautions that:
Because only about a quarter of case report forms include information on pregnancy status, these numbers likely do not include all pregnant women with COVID-19 in the United States and must be interpreted with caution. The completeness of this variable continues to improve each week.
The CDC's `living document' Evidence used to update the list of underlying medical conditions that increase a person’s risk of severe illness from COVID-19, continues to list pregnancy as a 2nd tier (mixed evidence) risk group for severe illness due to COVID-19.  But their guidance for People with Certain Medical Conditions advises:
Pregnancy

Based on what we know at this time, pregnant people might be at an increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19 compared to non-pregnant people. Additionally, there may be an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm birth, among pregnant people with COVID-19.

Actions to take
  • Do not skip your prenatal care appointments.
  • Make sure that you have at least a 30-day supply of your medicines.
  • Talk to your healthcare provider about how to stay healthy and take care of yourself during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • If you don’t have a healthcare provider, contact your nearest community health centerexternal icon or health department.
  • Call your healthcare provider if you have any questions related to your health.
  • Seek care immediately if you have a medical emergency.
  • You may feel increased stress during this pandemic. Fear and anxiety can be overwhelming and cause strong emotions. Learn about stress and coping.

Admittedly, almost all of the guidance published so far are moderated by words like `might', and `may'.  While the data `may suggest' a heightened risk, it is too limited to base solid conclusions on. 

Frustratingly, we probably won't have a good handle on the actual risks to pregnant women - or their unborn child - for months to come.  And long-term sequelae (if any) make take years to assess. 

I would only add that practically every day we learn about more non-trivial complications from SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that until we know a lot more, avoiding infection if you can - particularly if you are in a high risk group - just makes sense.  

For now, you'll find the latest pregnancy-related guidance from the CDC below.