· Neurologists from AOU Mater Domini - Magna Græcia University in Italy distributed a self-administered questionnaire to healthcare providers assessing facemask associated headaches. They found 26.5% (44/166) without a previous headache disorder (NHG) reported a de novo headache disorder, and that those with pre-existing migraine or tension-type headache endorsed more frequent headaches during a 4 month time frame (T0 to T1) (37.2% [51/137] and 21.3% [17/80], respectively). There was no association between duration of mask use and headache symptoms. Authors suggest wearing protective face masks may contribute to the development or worsening of headache disorders in healthcare workers, though there are a number of other potential contributing factors.
· A letter to the editor from the department of Dermatology and Venereology, Bispebjerg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark specifies the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis' (ETFAD) position on COVID-19 vaccine administration in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) being treated with systemic immuno-suppressive medication and biologics. The ETFAD state vaccines currently in use are not contraindicated in patients with AD as they do not suspect worsening of AD symptoms with its use. Although there is no clear evidence to recommend suspension of systemic AD medication before vaccine administration, the authors advise physicians to consider pausing immunosuppressants beforehand to improve the chances of vaccine response.
· Pharmacists and pediatric infectious disease physicians from 20 North American institutions offer guidance on the use of antivirals in the setting of pediatric COVID-19 infection. They recommend using remdesivir only for severely or critically ill children and supportive care alone for mild cases, which compromise the majority of pediatric COVID-19. The authors stress that most pediatric patients do not need antiviral therapy and suggest their guidelines will assist in clinical decision making regarding their use.
R&D: Diagnosis & Treatments
A letter to the editor from University of Miami physicians highlights the limitations of Lanser et al.'s 2020 article evaluating the clinical utility and sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing in relation to RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values. Some of the limitations outlined include unreported statistical comparisons of the antigen test results for test subjects with Ct above or below 33 and no reported data regarding antigen test results in patients with negative RT-PCR swabs. With this letter, the authors hope to correctly assess a plausible correlation between antigen test results and Ct in order to properly inform infection control and public health policies.