MDedge Cardiology

The first study to suggest benefit from low-dose radiotherapy for severe COVID-19–induced pneumonia involved only 20 patients, but the results were so promising that two larger randomized trials are now underway.

“RESCUE-119 was a trial based on the hypothesis that low-dose radiation therapy may help eliminate the stormy cytokine release and unchecked edema in hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” said Mohammed Khan, MD, PhD, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta.

“We found patients had a quicker improvement in their time to clinical recovery with low-dose radiation therapy, compared to controls, and this was significant even in this small cohort of patients,” he said.

Dr. Khan was speaking at a special press briefing held during the virtual American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

A total of 20 patients were involved in the trial. Ten patients were treated with low-dose radiotherapy; 10 others, who served as control patients, were treated with the best supportive care and COVID-directed therapies. The control patients were matched for age and comorbidities. All these patients were hospitalized and were oxygen dependent, Dr. Khan noted. In addition, for all patients, serial x-rays demonstrated consolidation and damage in the lung.

The intervention consisted of whole-lung low-dose radiotherapy delivered at a dose of 1.5 Gy.

The first five patients were assessed at an interim endpoint of 7 days to confirm the safety of the procedure. Subsequently, a total of 10 patients were treated with radiotherapy and were followed to day 28.

The main study endpoints were time to clinical recovery, determined on the basis of the patient’s being taken off oxygen, and improvement, evidenced on either serial x-rays or by inflammatory biomarkers.

The median time to clinical recovery was almost three times faster for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, at a median of 3 days; for control patients, the median was 12 days (P = .048).

“We also saw a trend toward getting patients out of hospital sooner,” Dr. Khan added. The mean time to hospital discharge was 12 days for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, compared with 20 days for control patients (P = .19).

Only one patient required intubation after receiving low-dose radiotherapy, whereas 4 of 10 control patients required some sort of intubation (P = .12), he noted.

Investigators also saw improvements on serial x-rays in 9 of 10 patients treated with low-dose radiotherapy, compared with only 4 patients in the control group. There was also a significant improvement in delirium among the low-dose radiotherapy group compared with control patients (P < .01). Before receiving low-dose radiotherapy, C-reactive protein levels increased by 22% per day. After receiving the 1.5-Gy radiation treatment, there was a sharp reduction in C-reactive protein levels (P < .01) as well as in lactate dehydrogenase levels (P = .03).

Overall survival, however, did not differ between the two treatment groups; 90% of both groups were alive at day 28.

“By focally dampening cytokine hyperactivation, [low-dose radiotherapy] may improve COVID-19 outcomes through immunomodulation,” Dr. Khan explained.
 

VENTED and PRE-VENT trials

These results from the small RESCUE-119 trial led to the launch of two larger phase 2 trials, the VENTED and the PRE-VENT trials, noted Arnab Chakravarti, MD, professor and chair of radiation oncology, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

To be enrolled in the VENTED trial, patients must have received mechanical ventilation. They will receive at least one dose of ultra-low-dose bilateral whole-lung radiotherapy, with the option of receiving a second dose. The primary objective is 30-day mortality rate.

“The hypothesis is that low-dose thoracic radiation will decrease inflammation and improve outcomes for these intubated COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Chakravarti explained.

The PRE-VENT trial will explore low-dose thoracic radiotherapy for hospitalized patients with severe respiratory compromise who have not yet been intubated. Two doses of low-dose radiotherapy will be tested and compared. The primary study objective is to determine which of the two doses appears to be the most efficacious, Dr. Chakravarti noted.

“The ultimate question to which we remain agnostic is whether the potential benefits of low-dose radiation therapy outweigh the risks,” he said.

Low-dose radiotherapy is readily available in most countries, unlike the newly developed COVID-19 drugs, which are only available in the developed world, he noted. “This creates a bit more economic equity in terms of COVID-19 treatment.”

In addition, it may offer a therapeutic option that could be useful in the future, “as low-dose radiation therapy does not discriminate against various viruses that may cause another pandemic,” he commented. It could offer “a stopgap measure where we don’t have to shut down society completely, which, as we have all witnessed, can cause tremendous financial and social unrest.”
 

Reasonable question

Whether or not radiotherapy has value for the short-term management of severe pulmonary inflammation caused by COVID-19 is a reasonable question to evaluate in clinical trials, commented discussant Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of radiation oncology, University of Washington, Seattle.

He noted that inflammatory cells are highly sensitive to radiation, and low-dose radiotherapy has been used effectively in other inflammatory conditions, such as arthritis. Indeed, before the discovery of antibiotics, low-dose radiation was used with reasonable efficacy to treat pneumonia.

“The pneumonia associated with this viral infection is a bit unique in that what happens is the infection triggers an inflammatory cascade – the so-called cytokine storm – that essentially overwhelms the lungs, thereby leading, unfortunately, to mortality,” Dr. Rengan noted. “So a big focus of our energy is how to stop this inflammatory cascade from occurring.”

Corticosteroids are currently the only therapeutic intervention that has shown any mortality benefit in COVID-19, he pointed out.

The question now being asked is: “Can we suppress inflammation specifically within the lung?” Dr. Rengan continued. The main problem with radiotherapy is that it has different effects on various tissues, both immediately and over the long term.

“The immediate benefit that we will likely see from these studies is the immediate sterilization of inflammatory cells,” he said. However, injury to normal lung tissue from low-dose radiotherapy could lead to inflammation weeks or months later, and this could contribute to the disease burden and increase the risk of dying.

Dr. Rengan also noted that there are some very real practical concerns about offering radiotherapy to COVID-19 patients, including potential COVID-19 transmission to vulnerable cancer patients.

Nevertheless, Dr. Rengan said the results to date are very important and that ongoing trials will provide important new information about the long-term impact of this particular treatment in high-risk patients.

“This is a race to the bottom – we are trying to find the lowest possible dose of radiation therapy that we can deliver to sterilize these inflammatory cells without creating any harm to the surrounding tissue,” he said.

“It also brings radiation oncologists into the fight against this deadly disease,” he added.

Dr. Rengan has received honoraria from Novocur and has served as a consultant to AstraZeneca.

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

The first study to suggest benefit from low-dose radiotherapy for severe COVID-19–induced pneumonia involved only 20 patients, but the results were so promising that two larger randomized trials are now underway.

“RESCUE-119 was a trial based on the hypothesis that low-dose radiation therapy may help eliminate the stormy cytokine release and unchecked edema in hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” said Mohammed Khan, MD, PhD, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta.

“We found patients had a quicker improvement in their time to clinical recovery with low-dose radiation therapy, compared to controls, and this was significant even in this small cohort of patients,” he said.

Dr. Khan was speaking at a special press briefing held during the virtual American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

A total of 20 patients were involved in the trial. Ten patients were treated with low-dose radiotherapy; 10 others, who served as control patients, were treated with the best supportive care and COVID-directed therapies. The control patients were matched for age and comorbidities. All these patients were hospitalized and were oxygen dependent, Dr. Khan noted. In addition, for all patients, serial x-rays demonstrated consolidation and damage in the lung.

The intervention consisted of whole-lung low-dose radiotherapy delivered at a dose of 1.5 Gy.

The first five patients were assessed at an interim endpoint of 7 days to confirm the safety of the procedure. Subsequently, a total of 10 patients were treated with radiotherapy and were followed to day 28.

The main study endpoints were time to clinical recovery, determined on the basis of the patient’s being taken off oxygen, and improvement, evidenced on either serial x-rays or by inflammatory biomarkers.

The median time to clinical recovery was almost three times faster for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, at a median of 3 days; for control patients, the median was 12 days (P = .048).

“We also saw a trend toward getting patients out of hospital sooner,” Dr. Khan added. The mean time to hospital discharge was 12 days for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, compared with 20 days for control patients (P = .19).

Only one patient required intubation after receiving low-dose radiotherapy, whereas 4 of 10 control patients required some sort of intubation (P = .12), he noted.

Investigators also saw improvements on serial x-rays in 9 of 10 patients treated with low-dose radiotherapy, compared with only 4 patients in the control group. There was also a significant improvement in delirium among the low-dose radiotherapy group compared with control patients (P < .01). Before receiving low-dose radiotherapy, C-reactive protein levels increased by 22% per day. After receiving the 1.5-Gy radiation treatment, there was a sharp reduction in C-reactive protein levels (P < .01) as well as in lactate dehydrogenase levels (P = .03).

Overall survival, however, did not differ between the two treatment groups; 90% of both groups were alive at day 28.

“By focally dampening cytokine hyperactivation, [low-dose radiotherapy] may improve COVID-19 outcomes through immunomodulation,” Dr. Khan explained.
 

VENTED and PRE-VENT trials

These results from the small RESCUE-119 trial led to the launch of two larger phase 2 trials, the VENTED and the PRE-VENT trials, noted Arnab Chakravarti, MD, professor and chair of radiation oncology, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

To be enrolled in the VENTED trial, patients must have received mechanical ventilation. They will receive at least one dose of ultra-low-dose bilateral whole-lung radiotherapy, with the option of receiving a second dose. The primary objective is 30-day mortality rate.

“The hypothesis is that low-dose thoracic radiation will decrease inflammation and improve outcomes for these intubated COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Chakravarti explained.

The PRE-VENT trial will explore low-dose thoracic radiotherapy for hospitalized patients with severe respiratory compromise who have not yet been intubated. Two doses of low-dose radiotherapy will be tested and compared. The primary study objective is to determine which of the two doses appears to be the most efficacious, Dr. Chakravarti noted.

“The ultimate question to which we remain agnostic is whether the potential benefits of low-dose radiation therapy outweigh the risks,” he said.

Low-dose radiotherapy is readily available in most countries, unlike the newly developed COVID-19 drugs, which are only available in the developed world, he noted. “This creates a bit more economic equity in terms of COVID-19 treatment.”

In addition, it may offer a therapeutic option that could be useful in the future, “as low-dose radiation therapy does not discriminate against various viruses that may cause another pandemic,” he commented. It could offer “a stopgap measure where we don’t have to shut down society completely, which, as we have all witnessed, can cause tremendous financial and social unrest.”
 

Reasonable question

Whether or not radiotherapy has value for the short-term management of severe pulmonary inflammation caused by COVID-19 is a reasonable question to evaluate in clinical trials, commented discussant Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of radiation oncology, University of Washington, Seattle.

He noted that inflammatory cells are highly sensitive to radiation, and low-dose radiotherapy has been used effectively in other inflammatory conditions, such as arthritis. Indeed, before the discovery of antibiotics, low-dose radiation was used with reasonable efficacy to treat pneumonia.

“The pneumonia associated with this viral infection is a bit unique in that what happens is the infection triggers an inflammatory cascade – the so-called cytokine storm – that essentially overwhelms the lungs, thereby leading, unfortunately, to mortality,” Dr. Rengan noted. “So a big focus of our energy is how to stop this inflammatory cascade from occurring.”

Corticosteroids are currently the only therapeutic intervention that has shown any mortality benefit in COVID-19, he pointed out.

The question now being asked is: “Can we suppress inflammation specifically within the lung?” Dr. Rengan continued. The main problem with radiotherapy is that it has different effects on various tissues, both immediately and over the long term.

“The immediate benefit that we will likely see from these studies is the immediate sterilization of inflammatory cells,” he said. However, injury to normal lung tissue from low-dose radiotherapy could lead to inflammation weeks or months later, and this could contribute to the disease burden and increase the risk of dying.

Dr. Rengan also noted that there are some very real practical concerns about offering radiotherapy to COVID-19 patients, including potential COVID-19 transmission to vulnerable cancer patients.

Nevertheless, Dr. Rengan said the results to date are very important and that ongoing trials will provide important new information about the long-term impact of this particular treatment in high-risk patients.

“This is a race to the bottom – we are trying to find the lowest possible dose of radiation therapy that we can deliver to sterilize these inflammatory cells without creating any harm to the surrounding tissue,” he said.

“It also brings radiation oncologists into the fight against this deadly disease,” he added.

Dr. Rengan has received honoraria from Novocur and has served as a consultant to AstraZeneca.

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

The first study to suggest benefit from low-dose radiotherapy for severe COVID-19–induced pneumonia involved only 20 patients, but the results were so promising that two larger randomized trials are now underway.

“RESCUE-119 was a trial based on the hypothesis that low-dose radiation therapy may help eliminate the stormy cytokine release and unchecked edema in hospitalized COVID-19 patients,” said Mohammed Khan, MD, PhD, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta.

“We found patients had a quicker improvement in their time to clinical recovery with low-dose radiation therapy, compared to controls, and this was significant even in this small cohort of patients,” he said.

Dr. Khan was speaking at a special press briefing held during the virtual American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

A total of 20 patients were involved in the trial. Ten patients were treated with low-dose radiotherapy; 10 others, who served as control patients, were treated with the best supportive care and COVID-directed therapies. The control patients were matched for age and comorbidities. All these patients were hospitalized and were oxygen dependent, Dr. Khan noted. In addition, for all patients, serial x-rays demonstrated consolidation and damage in the lung.

The intervention consisted of whole-lung low-dose radiotherapy delivered at a dose of 1.5 Gy.

The first five patients were assessed at an interim endpoint of 7 days to confirm the safety of the procedure. Subsequently, a total of 10 patients were treated with radiotherapy and were followed to day 28.

The main study endpoints were time to clinical recovery, determined on the basis of the patient’s being taken off oxygen, and improvement, evidenced on either serial x-rays or by inflammatory biomarkers.

The median time to clinical recovery was almost three times faster for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, at a median of 3 days; for control patients, the median was 12 days (P = .048).

“We also saw a trend toward getting patients out of hospital sooner,” Dr. Khan added. The mean time to hospital discharge was 12 days for the patients who received low-dose radiotherapy, compared with 20 days for control patients (P = .19).

Only one patient required intubation after receiving low-dose radiotherapy, whereas 4 of 10 control patients required some sort of intubation (P = .12), he noted.

Investigators also saw improvements on serial x-rays in 9 of 10 patients treated with low-dose radiotherapy, compared with only 4 patients in the control group. There was also a significant improvement in delirium among the low-dose radiotherapy group compared with control patients (P < .01). Before receiving low-dose radiotherapy, C-reactive protein levels increased by 22% per day. After receiving the 1.5-Gy radiation treatment, there was a sharp reduction in C-reactive protein levels (P < .01) as well as in lactate dehydrogenase levels (P = .03).

Overall survival, however, did not differ between the two treatment groups; 90% of both groups were alive at day 28.

“By focally dampening cytokine hyperactivation, [low-dose radiotherapy] may improve COVID-19 outcomes through immunomodulation,” Dr. Khan explained.
 

VENTED and PRE-VENT trials

These results from the small RESCUE-119 trial led to the launch of two larger phase 2 trials, the VENTED and the PRE-VENT trials, noted Arnab Chakravarti, MD, professor and chair of radiation oncology, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus.

To be enrolled in the VENTED trial, patients must have received mechanical ventilation. They will receive at least one dose of ultra-low-dose bilateral whole-lung radiotherapy, with the option of receiving a second dose. The primary objective is 30-day mortality rate.

“The hypothesis is that low-dose thoracic radiation will decrease inflammation and improve outcomes for these intubated COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Chakravarti explained.

The PRE-VENT trial will explore low-dose thoracic radiotherapy for hospitalized patients with severe respiratory compromise who have not yet been intubated. Two doses of low-dose radiotherapy will be tested and compared. The primary study objective is to determine which of the two doses appears to be the most efficacious, Dr. Chakravarti noted.

“The ultimate question to which we remain agnostic is whether the potential benefits of low-dose radiation therapy outweigh the risks,” he said.

Low-dose radiotherapy is readily available in most countries, unlike the newly developed COVID-19 drugs, which are only available in the developed world, he noted. “This creates a bit more economic equity in terms of COVID-19 treatment.”

In addition, it may offer a therapeutic option that could be useful in the future, “as low-dose radiation therapy does not discriminate against various viruses that may cause another pandemic,” he commented. It could offer “a stopgap measure where we don’t have to shut down society completely, which, as we have all witnessed, can cause tremendous financial and social unrest.”
 

Reasonable question

Whether or not radiotherapy has value for the short-term management of severe pulmonary inflammation caused by COVID-19 is a reasonable question to evaluate in clinical trials, commented discussant Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of radiation oncology, University of Washington, Seattle.

He noted that inflammatory cells are highly sensitive to radiation, and low-dose radiotherapy has been used effectively in other inflammatory conditions, such as arthritis. Indeed, before the discovery of antibiotics, low-dose radiation was used with reasonable efficacy to treat pneumonia.

“The pneumonia associated with this viral infection is a bit unique in that what happens is the infection triggers an inflammatory cascade – the so-called cytokine storm – that essentially overwhelms the lungs, thereby leading, unfortunately, to mortality,” Dr. Rengan noted. “So a big focus of our energy is how to stop this inflammatory cascade from occurring.”

Corticosteroids are currently the only therapeutic intervention that has shown any mortality benefit in COVID-19, he pointed out.

The question now being asked is: “Can we suppress inflammation specifically within the lung?” Dr. Rengan continued. The main problem with radiotherapy is that it has different effects on various tissues, both immediately and over the long term.

“The immediate benefit that we will likely see from these studies is the immediate sterilization of inflammatory cells,” he said. However, injury to normal lung tissue from low-dose radiotherapy could lead to inflammation weeks or months later, and this could contribute to the disease burden and increase the risk of dying.

Dr. Rengan also noted that there are some very real practical concerns about offering radiotherapy to COVID-19 patients, including potential COVID-19 transmission to vulnerable cancer patients.

Nevertheless, Dr. Rengan said the results to date are very important and that ongoing trials will provide important new information about the long-term impact of this particular treatment in high-risk patients.

“This is a race to the bottom – we are trying to find the lowest possible dose of radiation therapy that we can deliver to sterilize these inflammatory cells without creating any harm to the surrounding tissue,” he said.

“It also brings radiation oncologists into the fight against this deadly disease,” he added.

Dr. Rengan has received honoraria from Novocur and has served as a consultant to AstraZeneca.

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

A smartphone app that combines passively collected physiologic data from wearable devices, such as fitness trackers, and self-reported symptoms can discriminate between COVID-19–positive and –negative individuals among those who report symptoms, new data suggest.

LDProd/Getty Images

After analyzing data from more than 30,000 participants, researchers from the Digital Engagement and Tracking for Early Control and Treatment (DETECT) study concluded that adding individual changes in sensor data improves models based on symptoms alone for differentiating symptomatic persons who are COVID-19 positive and symptomatic persons who are COVID-19 negative.

The combination can potentially identify infection clusters before wider community spread occurs, Giorgio Quer, PhD, and colleagues report in an article published online Oct. 29 in Nature Medicine. DETECT investigators note that marrying participant-reported symptoms with personal sensor data, such as deviation from normal sleep duration and resting heart rate, resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.73-0.86) for differentiating between symptomatic individuals who were positive and those who were negative for COVID-19.

“By better characterizing each individual’s unique baseline, you can then identify changes that may indicate that someone has a viral illness,” said Dr. Quer, director of artificial intelligence at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. “In previous research, we found that the proportion of individuals with elevated resting heart rate and sleep duration compared with their normal could significantly improve real-time detection of influenza-like illness rates at the state level,” he said in an interview.

Thus, continuous passively captured data may be a useful adjunct to bricks-and-mortar site testing, which is generally a one-off or infrequent sampling assay and is not always easily accessible, he added. Furthermore, traditional screening with temperature and symptom reporting is inadequate. An elevation in temperature is not as common as frequently believed for people who test positive for COVID-19, Dr. Quer continued. “Early identification via sensor variables of those who are presymptomatic or even asymptomatic would be especially valuable, as people may potentially be infectious during this period, and early detection is the ultimate goal,” Dr. Quer said.

According to his group, adding these physiologic changes from baseline values significantly outperformed detection (P < .01) using a British model described in an earlier study by by Cristina Menni, PhD, and associates. That method, in which symptoms were considered alone, yielded an AUC of 0.71 (IQR, 0.63-0.79).

According to Dr. Quer, one in five Americans currently wear an electronic device. “If we could enroll even a small percentage of these individuals, we’d be able to potentially identify clusters before they have the opportunity to spread,” he said.
 

DETECT study details

During the period March 15 to June 7, 2020, the study enrolled 30,529 participants from all 50 states. They ranged in age from younger than 35 years (23.1%) to older than 65 years (12.8%); the majority (63.5%) were aged 35-65 years, and 62% were women. Sensor devices in use by the cohort included Fitbit activity trackers (78.4%) and Apple HealthKit (31.2%).

Participants downloaded an app called MyDataHelps, which collects smartwatch and activity tracker information, including self-reported symptoms and diagnostic testing results. The app also monitors changes from baseline in resting heart rate, sleep duration, and physical activity, as measured by steps.

Overall, 3,811 participants reported having at least one symptom of some kind (e.g., fatigue, cough, dyspnea, loss of taste or smell). Of these, 54 reported testing positive for COVID-19, and 279 reported testing negative.

Sleep and activity were significantly different for the positive and negative groups, with an AUC of 0.68 (IQR, 0.57-0.79) for the sleep metric and 0.69 (IQR, 0.61-0.77) for the activity metric, suggesting that these parameters were more affected in COVID-19–positive participants.

When the investigators combined resting heart rate, sleep, and activity into a single metric, predictive performance improved to an AUC of 0.72 (IQR, 0.64-0.80).

The next step, Dr. Quer said, is to include an alert to notify users of possible infection.
 

Alerting users to possible COVID-19 infection

In a similar study, an alert feature was already incorporated. The study, led by Michael P. Snyder, PhD, director of the Center for Genomics and Personalized Medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, will soon be published online in Nature Biomedical Engineering. In that study, presymptomatic detection of COVID-19 was achieved in more than 80% of participants using resting heart rate.

“The median is 4 days prior to symptom formation,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We have an alarm system to notify people when their heart rate is elevated. So a positive signal from a smartwatch can be used to follow up by polymerase chain reaction [testing].”

Dr. Snyder said these approaches offer a roadmap to containing widespread infections. “Public health authorities need to be open to these technologies and begin incorporating them into their tracking,” he said. “Right now, people do temperature checks, which are of limited value. Resting heart rate is much better information.”

Although the DETECT researchers have not yet received feedback on their results, they believe public health authorities could recommend the use of such apps. “These are devices that people routinely wear for tracking their fitness and sleep, so it would be relatively easy to use the data for viral illness tracking,” said co–lead author Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps. “Testing resources are still limited and don’t allow for routine serial testing of individuals who may be asymptomatic or presymptomatic. Wearables can offer a different way to routinely monitor and screen people for changes in their data that may indicate COVID-19.”

The marshaling of data through consumer digital platforms to fight the coronavirus is gaining ground. New York State and New Jersey are already embracing smartphone apps to alert individuals to possible exposure to the virus.

More than 710,000 New Yorkers have downloaded the COVID NY Alert app, launched in October to help protect individuals and communities from COVID-19 by sending alerts without compromising privacy or personal information. “Upon receiving a notification about a potential exposure, users are then able to self-quarantine, get tested, and reduce the potential exposure risk to family, friends, coworkers, and others,” Jonah Bruno, a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Health, said in an interview.

And recently the Mayo Clinic and Safe Health Systems launched a platform to store COVID-19 testing and vaccination data.

Both the Scripps and Stanford platforms are part of a global technologic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospective studies, led by device manufacturers and academic institutions, allow individuals to voluntarily share sensor and clinical data to address the crisis. Similar approaches have been used to track COVID-19 in large populations in Germany via the Corona Data Donation app.

The study by Dr. Quer and colleagues was funded by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported grants from Janssen and personal fees from Otsuka and Livongo outside of the submitted work. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Snyder has ties to Personalis, Qbio, January, SensOmics, Protos, Mirvie, and Oralome.
 

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

A smartphone app that combines passively collected physiologic data from wearable devices, such as fitness trackers, and self-reported symptoms can discriminate between COVID-19–positive and –negative individuals among those who report symptoms, new data suggest.

LDProd/Getty Images

After analyzing data from more than 30,000 participants, researchers from the Digital Engagement and Tracking for Early Control and Treatment (DETECT) study concluded that adding individual changes in sensor data improves models based on symptoms alone for differentiating symptomatic persons who are COVID-19 positive and symptomatic persons who are COVID-19 negative.

The combination can potentially identify infection clusters before wider community spread occurs, Giorgio Quer, PhD, and colleagues report in an article published online Oct. 29 in Nature Medicine. DETECT investigators note that marrying participant-reported symptoms with personal sensor data, such as deviation from normal sleep duration and resting heart rate, resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.73-0.86) for differentiating between symptomatic individuals who were positive and those who were negative for COVID-19.

“By better characterizing each individual’s unique baseline, you can then identify changes that may indicate that someone has a viral illness,” said Dr. Quer, director of artificial intelligence at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. “In previous research, we found that the proportion of individuals with elevated resting heart rate and sleep duration compared with their normal could significantly improve real-time detection of influenza-like illness rates at the state level,” he said in an interview.

Thus, continuous passively captured data may be a useful adjunct to bricks-and-mortar site testing, which is generally a one-off or infrequent sampling assay and is not always easily accessible, he added. Furthermore, traditional screening with temperature and symptom reporting is inadequate. An elevation in temperature is not as common as frequently believed for people who test positive for COVID-19, Dr. Quer continued. “Early identification via sensor variables of those who are presymptomatic or even asymptomatic would be especially valuable, as people may potentially be infectious during this period, and early detection is the ultimate goal,” Dr. Quer said.

According to his group, adding these physiologic changes from baseline values significantly outperformed detection (P < .01) using a British model described in an earlier study by by Cristina Menni, PhD, and associates. That method, in which symptoms were considered alone, yielded an AUC of 0.71 (IQR, 0.63-0.79).

According to Dr. Quer, one in five Americans currently wear an electronic device. “If we could enroll even a small percentage of these individuals, we’d be able to potentially identify clusters before they have the opportunity to spread,” he said.
 

DETECT study details

During the period March 15 to June 7, 2020, the study enrolled 30,529 participants from all 50 states. They ranged in age from younger than 35 years (23.1%) to older than 65 years (12.8%); the majority (63.5%) were aged 35-65 years, and 62% were women. Sensor devices in use by the cohort included Fitbit activity trackers (78.4%) and Apple HealthKit (31.2%).

Participants downloaded an app called MyDataHelps, which collects smartwatch and activity tracker information, including self-reported symptoms and diagnostic testing results. The app also monitors changes from baseline in resting heart rate, sleep duration, and physical activity, as measured by steps.

Overall, 3,811 participants reported having at least one symptom of some kind (e.g., fatigue, cough, dyspnea, loss of taste or smell). Of these, 54 reported testing positive for COVID-19, and 279 reported testing negative.

Sleep and activity were significantly different for the positive and negative groups, with an AUC of 0.68 (IQR, 0.57-0.79) for the sleep metric and 0.69 (IQR, 0.61-0.77) for the activity metric, suggesting that these parameters were more affected in COVID-19–positive participants.

When the investigators combined resting heart rate, sleep, and activity into a single metric, predictive performance improved to an AUC of 0.72 (IQR, 0.64-0.80).

The next step, Dr. Quer said, is to include an alert to notify users of possible infection.
 

Alerting users to possible COVID-19 infection

In a similar study, an alert feature was already incorporated. The study, led by Michael P. Snyder, PhD, director of the Center for Genomics and Personalized Medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, will soon be published online in Nature Biomedical Engineering. In that study, presymptomatic detection of COVID-19 was achieved in more than 80% of participants using resting heart rate.

“The median is 4 days prior to symptom formation,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We have an alarm system to notify people when their heart rate is elevated. So a positive signal from a smartwatch can be used to follow up by polymerase chain reaction [testing].”

Dr. Snyder said these approaches offer a roadmap to containing widespread infections. “Public health authorities need to be open to these technologies and begin incorporating them into their tracking,” he said. “Right now, people do temperature checks, which are of limited value. Resting heart rate is much better information.”

Although the DETECT researchers have not yet received feedback on their results, they believe public health authorities could recommend the use of such apps. “These are devices that people routinely wear for tracking their fitness and sleep, so it would be relatively easy to use the data for viral illness tracking,” said co–lead author Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps. “Testing resources are still limited and don’t allow for routine serial testing of individuals who may be asymptomatic or presymptomatic. Wearables can offer a different way to routinely monitor and screen people for changes in their data that may indicate COVID-19.”

The marshaling of data through consumer digital platforms to fight the coronavirus is gaining ground. New York State and New Jersey are already embracing smartphone apps to alert individuals to possible exposure to the virus.

More than 710,000 New Yorkers have downloaded the COVID NY Alert app, launched in October to help protect individuals and communities from COVID-19 by sending alerts without compromising privacy or personal information. “Upon receiving a notification about a potential exposure, users are then able to self-quarantine, get tested, and reduce the potential exposure risk to family, friends, coworkers, and others,” Jonah Bruno, a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Health, said in an interview.

And recently the Mayo Clinic and Safe Health Systems launched a platform to store COVID-19 testing and vaccination data.

Both the Scripps and Stanford platforms are part of a global technologic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospective studies, led by device manufacturers and academic institutions, allow individuals to voluntarily share sensor and clinical data to address the crisis. Similar approaches have been used to track COVID-19 in large populations in Germany via the Corona Data Donation app.

The study by Dr. Quer and colleagues was funded by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported grants from Janssen and personal fees from Otsuka and Livongo outside of the submitted work. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Snyder has ties to Personalis, Qbio, January, SensOmics, Protos, Mirvie, and Oralome.
 

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

A smartphone app that combines passively collected physiologic data from wearable devices, such as fitness trackers, and self-reported symptoms can discriminate between COVID-19–positive and –negative individuals among those who report symptoms, new data suggest.

LDProd/Getty Images

After analyzing data from more than 30,000 participants, researchers from the Digital Engagement and Tracking for Early Control and Treatment (DETECT) study concluded that adding individual changes in sensor data improves models based on symptoms alone for differentiating symptomatic persons who are COVID-19 positive and symptomatic persons who are COVID-19 negative.

The combination can potentially identify infection clusters before wider community spread occurs, Giorgio Quer, PhD, and colleagues report in an article published online Oct. 29 in Nature Medicine. DETECT investigators note that marrying participant-reported symptoms with personal sensor data, such as deviation from normal sleep duration and resting heart rate, resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.73-0.86) for differentiating between symptomatic individuals who were positive and those who were negative for COVID-19.

“By better characterizing each individual’s unique baseline, you can then identify changes that may indicate that someone has a viral illness,” said Dr. Quer, director of artificial intelligence at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. “In previous research, we found that the proportion of individuals with elevated resting heart rate and sleep duration compared with their normal could significantly improve real-time detection of influenza-like illness rates at the state level,” he said in an interview.

Thus, continuous passively captured data may be a useful adjunct to bricks-and-mortar site testing, which is generally a one-off or infrequent sampling assay and is not always easily accessible, he added. Furthermore, traditional screening with temperature and symptom reporting is inadequate. An elevation in temperature is not as common as frequently believed for people who test positive for COVID-19, Dr. Quer continued. “Early identification via sensor variables of those who are presymptomatic or even asymptomatic would be especially valuable, as people may potentially be infectious during this period, and early detection is the ultimate goal,” Dr. Quer said.

According to his group, adding these physiologic changes from baseline values significantly outperformed detection (P < .01) using a British model described in an earlier study by by Cristina Menni, PhD, and associates. That method, in which symptoms were considered alone, yielded an AUC of 0.71 (IQR, 0.63-0.79).

According to Dr. Quer, one in five Americans currently wear an electronic device. “If we could enroll even a small percentage of these individuals, we’d be able to potentially identify clusters before they have the opportunity to spread,” he said.
 

DETECT study details

During the period March 15 to June 7, 2020, the study enrolled 30,529 participants from all 50 states. They ranged in age from younger than 35 years (23.1%) to older than 65 years (12.8%); the majority (63.5%) were aged 35-65 years, and 62% were women. Sensor devices in use by the cohort included Fitbit activity trackers (78.4%) and Apple HealthKit (31.2%).

Participants downloaded an app called MyDataHelps, which collects smartwatch and activity tracker information, including self-reported symptoms and diagnostic testing results. The app also monitors changes from baseline in resting heart rate, sleep duration, and physical activity, as measured by steps.

Overall, 3,811 participants reported having at least one symptom of some kind (e.g., fatigue, cough, dyspnea, loss of taste or smell). Of these, 54 reported testing positive for COVID-19, and 279 reported testing negative.

Sleep and activity were significantly different for the positive and negative groups, with an AUC of 0.68 (IQR, 0.57-0.79) for the sleep metric and 0.69 (IQR, 0.61-0.77) for the activity metric, suggesting that these parameters were more affected in COVID-19–positive participants.

When the investigators combined resting heart rate, sleep, and activity into a single metric, predictive performance improved to an AUC of 0.72 (IQR, 0.64-0.80).

The next step, Dr. Quer said, is to include an alert to notify users of possible infection.
 

Alerting users to possible COVID-19 infection

In a similar study, an alert feature was already incorporated. The study, led by Michael P. Snyder, PhD, director of the Center for Genomics and Personalized Medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, will soon be published online in Nature Biomedical Engineering. In that study, presymptomatic detection of COVID-19 was achieved in more than 80% of participants using resting heart rate.

“The median is 4 days prior to symptom formation,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We have an alarm system to notify people when their heart rate is elevated. So a positive signal from a smartwatch can be used to follow up by polymerase chain reaction [testing].”

Dr. Snyder said these approaches offer a roadmap to containing widespread infections. “Public health authorities need to be open to these technologies and begin incorporating them into their tracking,” he said. “Right now, people do temperature checks, which are of limited value. Resting heart rate is much better information.”

Although the DETECT researchers have not yet received feedback on their results, they believe public health authorities could recommend the use of such apps. “These are devices that people routinely wear for tracking their fitness and sleep, so it would be relatively easy to use the data for viral illness tracking,” said co–lead author Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps. “Testing resources are still limited and don’t allow for routine serial testing of individuals who may be asymptomatic or presymptomatic. Wearables can offer a different way to routinely monitor and screen people for changes in their data that may indicate COVID-19.”

The marshaling of data through consumer digital platforms to fight the coronavirus is gaining ground. New York State and New Jersey are already embracing smartphone apps to alert individuals to possible exposure to the virus.

More than 710,000 New Yorkers have downloaded the COVID NY Alert app, launched in October to help protect individuals and communities from COVID-19 by sending alerts without compromising privacy or personal information. “Upon receiving a notification about a potential exposure, users are then able to self-quarantine, get tested, and reduce the potential exposure risk to family, friends, coworkers, and others,” Jonah Bruno, a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Health, said in an interview.

And recently the Mayo Clinic and Safe Health Systems launched a platform to store COVID-19 testing and vaccination data.

Both the Scripps and Stanford platforms are part of a global technologic response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospective studies, led by device manufacturers and academic institutions, allow individuals to voluntarily share sensor and clinical data to address the crisis. Similar approaches have been used to track COVID-19 in large populations in Germany via the Corona Data Donation app.

The study by Dr. Quer and colleagues was funded by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor reported grants from Janssen and personal fees from Otsuka and Livongo outside of the submitted work. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Snyder has ties to Personalis, Qbio, January, SensOmics, Protos, Mirvie, and Oralome.
 

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

Editors in chief at 10 leading family medicine journals have banded together to address systemic racism in research, health care, and the medical profession.

Sumi Sexton, MD, editor in chief of American Family Physician (AFP), said in an interview she had been working on changes at her journal that would answer the need for action that was made clear by this summer’s Black Lives Matter protests and realized the issue was much bigger than one journal. She proposed the collaboration with the other editors.

The editors wrote a joint statement explaining what they plan to do collectively. It was published online Oct. 15 ahead of print and will be published in all 10 journals at the beginning of the year.

Following the action by family medicine editors, the American College of Physicians issued a statement expressing commitment to being an antiracist organization. It calls on all doctors to speak out against hate and discrimination and to act against institutional and systemic racism. The statement also apologizes for the organization’s own past actions: “ACP acknowledges and regrets its own historical organizational injustices and inequities, and past racism, discrimination and exclusionary practices throughout its history, whether intentional or unintentional, by act or omission.”


 

Family medicine journals plan changes

Changes will differ at each family medicine publication, according to Sexton and other interviewees. Some specific changes at AFP, for example, include creating a medical editor role dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion to ensure that content is not only accurate but also that more content addresses racism, Dr. Sexton said.

AFP is creating a Web page dedicated to diversity and will now capitalize the word “Black” in racial and cultural references. Recent calls for papers have included emphasis on finding authors from underrepresented groups and on mentoring new authors.

“We really need to enable our colleagues,” Dr. Sexton said.

The journals are also pooling their published research on topics of racism and inclusion and have established a joint bibliography.

The steps are important, Dr. Sexton said, because reform in research will start a “cascade of action” that will result in better patient care.

“Our mission is to care for the individual as a whole person,” Dr. Sexton said. “This is part of that mission.”
 

Increasing diversity on editorial boards

Family physician Kameron Leigh Matthews, MD, chief medical officer for the Veterans Health Administration, praised the journals’ plan.

She noted that the groups are addressing diversity on their editorial boards, as well as evaluating content. Effective change must also happen regarding the people reviewing the content, she said in an interview. “It has to be both.

“I’m very proud as a family physician that our editors came together and are giving the right response. It’s not enough to say we stand against racism. They’re actually offering concrete actions that they will take as editors, and that will influence health care,” she said.

Dr. Matthews pointed to an example of what can happen when the editorial process fails and racism is introduced in research.

She cited the retraction of an article in the Journal of the American Heart Association entitled, “Evolution of Race and Ethnicity Considerations for the Cardiology Workforce.” The article advocated for ending racial and ethnic preferences in undergraduate and medical school admissions.

The American Heart Association said the article concluded “incorrectly that Black and Hispanic trainees in medicine are less qualified than White and Asian trainees.” The article had “rightfully drawn criticism for its misrepresentations and conclusions,” the AHA said, adding that it would launch an investigation into how the article came to be published.

Dr. Matthews says that’s why it’s so important that, in their statement, the family medicine editors vow to address not only the content but also the editing process to avoid similar systemic lapses.

Dr. Matthews added that, because the proportion of physicians from underrepresented groups is small – only 5% of physicians are Black and 6% are Hispanic – it is vital, as recommended in the editors’ statement, to mentor researchers from underrepresented groups and to reach out to students and residents to be coauthors.

“To sit back and say there’s not enough to recruit from is not sufficient,” Dr. Matthews said. “You need to recognize that you need to assist with expanding the pool.”

She also said she would like to see the journals focus more heavily on solutions to racial disparities in health care rather than on pointing them out.

At the Journal of Family Practice (JFP), Editor in Chief John Hickner, MD, said adding diversity to the editorial board is a top priority. He also reiterated that diversity in top leadership is a concern across all the journals, inasmuch as only 1 of the 10 editors in chief is a person of color.

As an editor, he said, he will personally, as well as through family medicine department chairs, be seeking authors who are members of underrepresented groups and that he will be assisting those who need help.

“I’m committed to giving them special attention in the editorial process,” he said.

Dr. Hickner said the 10 journals have also committed to periodically evaluate whether their approaches are making substantial changes. He said the editors have vowed to meet at least once a year to review progress “and hold each other accountable.”

Statement authors, in addition to Dr. Sexton and Dr. Hickner, include these editors in chief: Caroline R. Richardson, MD, Annals of Family Medicine; Sarina B. Schrager, MD, FPM; Marjorie A. Bowman, MD, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine; Christopher P. Morley, PhD, PRiMER; Nicholas Pimlott, MD, PhD, Canadian Family Physician; John W. Saultz, MD, Family Medicine; and Barry D. Weiss, MD, FP Essentials.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The Journal of Family Practice is owned by the same news organization as this publication.
 

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

Editors in chief at 10 leading family medicine journals have banded together to address systemic racism in research, health care, and the medical profession.

Sumi Sexton, MD, editor in chief of American Family Physician (AFP), said in an interview she had been working on changes at her journal that would answer the need for action that was made clear by this summer’s Black Lives Matter protests and realized the issue was much bigger than one journal. She proposed the collaboration with the other editors.

The editors wrote a joint statement explaining what they plan to do collectively. It was published online Oct. 15 ahead of print and will be published in all 10 journals at the beginning of the year.

Following the action by family medicine editors, the American College of Physicians issued a statement expressing commitment to being an antiracist organization. It calls on all doctors to speak out against hate and discrimination and to act against institutional and systemic racism. The statement also apologizes for the organization’s own past actions: “ACP acknowledges and regrets its own historical organizational injustices and inequities, and past racism, discrimination and exclusionary practices throughout its history, whether intentional or unintentional, by act or omission.”


 

Family medicine journals plan changes

Changes will differ at each family medicine publication, according to Sexton and other interviewees. Some specific changes at AFP, for example, include creating a medical editor role dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion to ensure that content is not only accurate but also that more content addresses racism, Dr. Sexton said.

AFP is creating a Web page dedicated to diversity and will now capitalize the word “Black” in racial and cultural references. Recent calls for papers have included emphasis on finding authors from underrepresented groups and on mentoring new authors.

“We really need to enable our colleagues,” Dr. Sexton said.

The journals are also pooling their published research on topics of racism and inclusion and have established a joint bibliography.

The steps are important, Dr. Sexton said, because reform in research will start a “cascade of action” that will result in better patient care.

“Our mission is to care for the individual as a whole person,” Dr. Sexton said. “This is part of that mission.”
 

Increasing diversity on editorial boards

Family physician Kameron Leigh Matthews, MD, chief medical officer for the Veterans Health Administration, praised the journals’ plan.

She noted that the groups are addressing diversity on their editorial boards, as well as evaluating content. Effective change must also happen regarding the people reviewing the content, she said in an interview. “It has to be both.

“I’m very proud as a family physician that our editors came together and are giving the right response. It’s not enough to say we stand against racism. They’re actually offering concrete actions that they will take as editors, and that will influence health care,” she said.

Dr. Matthews pointed to an example of what can happen when the editorial process fails and racism is introduced in research.

She cited the retraction of an article in the Journal of the American Heart Association entitled, “Evolution of Race and Ethnicity Considerations for the Cardiology Workforce.” The article advocated for ending racial and ethnic preferences in undergraduate and medical school admissions.

The American Heart Association said the article concluded “incorrectly that Black and Hispanic trainees in medicine are less qualified than White and Asian trainees.” The article had “rightfully drawn criticism for its misrepresentations and conclusions,” the AHA said, adding that it would launch an investigation into how the article came to be published.

Dr. Matthews says that’s why it’s so important that, in their statement, the family medicine editors vow to address not only the content but also the editing process to avoid similar systemic lapses.

Dr. Matthews added that, because the proportion of physicians from underrepresented groups is small – only 5% of physicians are Black and 6% are Hispanic – it is vital, as recommended in the editors’ statement, to mentor researchers from underrepresented groups and to reach out to students and residents to be coauthors.

“To sit back and say there’s not enough to recruit from is not sufficient,” Dr. Matthews said. “You need to recognize that you need to assist with expanding the pool.”

She also said she would like to see the journals focus more heavily on solutions to racial disparities in health care rather than on pointing them out.

At the Journal of Family Practice (JFP), Editor in Chief John Hickner, MD, said adding diversity to the editorial board is a top priority. He also reiterated that diversity in top leadership is a concern across all the journals, inasmuch as only 1 of the 10 editors in chief is a person of color.

As an editor, he said, he will personally, as well as through family medicine department chairs, be seeking authors who are members of underrepresented groups and that he will be assisting those who need help.

“I’m committed to giving them special attention in the editorial process,” he said.

Dr. Hickner said the 10 journals have also committed to periodically evaluate whether their approaches are making substantial changes. He said the editors have vowed to meet at least once a year to review progress “and hold each other accountable.”

Statement authors, in addition to Dr. Sexton and Dr. Hickner, include these editors in chief: Caroline R. Richardson, MD, Annals of Family Medicine; Sarina B. Schrager, MD, FPM; Marjorie A. Bowman, MD, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine; Christopher P. Morley, PhD, PRiMER; Nicholas Pimlott, MD, PhD, Canadian Family Physician; John W. Saultz, MD, Family Medicine; and Barry D. Weiss, MD, FP Essentials.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The Journal of Family Practice is owned by the same news organization as this publication.
 

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

Editors in chief at 10 leading family medicine journals have banded together to address systemic racism in research, health care, and the medical profession.

Sumi Sexton, MD, editor in chief of American Family Physician (AFP), said in an interview she had been working on changes at her journal that would answer the need for action that was made clear by this summer’s Black Lives Matter protests and realized the issue was much bigger than one journal. She proposed the collaboration with the other editors.

The editors wrote a joint statement explaining what they plan to do collectively. It was published online Oct. 15 ahead of print and will be published in all 10 journals at the beginning of the year.

Following the action by family medicine editors, the American College of Physicians issued a statement expressing commitment to being an antiracist organization. It calls on all doctors to speak out against hate and discrimination and to act against institutional and systemic racism. The statement also apologizes for the organization’s own past actions: “ACP acknowledges and regrets its own historical organizational injustices and inequities, and past racism, discrimination and exclusionary practices throughout its history, whether intentional or unintentional, by act or omission.”


 

Family medicine journals plan changes

Changes will differ at each family medicine publication, according to Sexton and other interviewees. Some specific changes at AFP, for example, include creating a medical editor role dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion to ensure that content is not only accurate but also that more content addresses racism, Dr. Sexton said.

AFP is creating a Web page dedicated to diversity and will now capitalize the word “Black” in racial and cultural references. Recent calls for papers have included emphasis on finding authors from underrepresented groups and on mentoring new authors.

“We really need to enable our colleagues,” Dr. Sexton said.

The journals are also pooling their published research on topics of racism and inclusion and have established a joint bibliography.

The steps are important, Dr. Sexton said, because reform in research will start a “cascade of action” that will result in better patient care.

“Our mission is to care for the individual as a whole person,” Dr. Sexton said. “This is part of that mission.”
 

Increasing diversity on editorial boards

Family physician Kameron Leigh Matthews, MD, chief medical officer for the Veterans Health Administration, praised the journals’ plan.

She noted that the groups are addressing diversity on their editorial boards, as well as evaluating content. Effective change must also happen regarding the people reviewing the content, she said in an interview. “It has to be both.

“I’m very proud as a family physician that our editors came together and are giving the right response. It’s not enough to say we stand against racism. They’re actually offering concrete actions that they will take as editors, and that will influence health care,” she said.

Dr. Matthews pointed to an example of what can happen when the editorial process fails and racism is introduced in research.

She cited the retraction of an article in the Journal of the American Heart Association entitled, “Evolution of Race and Ethnicity Considerations for the Cardiology Workforce.” The article advocated for ending racial and ethnic preferences in undergraduate and medical school admissions.

The American Heart Association said the article concluded “incorrectly that Black and Hispanic trainees in medicine are less qualified than White and Asian trainees.” The article had “rightfully drawn criticism for its misrepresentations and conclusions,” the AHA said, adding that it would launch an investigation into how the article came to be published.

Dr. Matthews says that’s why it’s so important that, in their statement, the family medicine editors vow to address not only the content but also the editing process to avoid similar systemic lapses.

Dr. Matthews added that, because the proportion of physicians from underrepresented groups is small – only 5% of physicians are Black and 6% are Hispanic – it is vital, as recommended in the editors’ statement, to mentor researchers from underrepresented groups and to reach out to students and residents to be coauthors.

“To sit back and say there’s not enough to recruit from is not sufficient,” Dr. Matthews said. “You need to recognize that you need to assist with expanding the pool.”

She also said she would like to see the journals focus more heavily on solutions to racial disparities in health care rather than on pointing them out.

At the Journal of Family Practice (JFP), Editor in Chief John Hickner, MD, said adding diversity to the editorial board is a top priority. He also reiterated that diversity in top leadership is a concern across all the journals, inasmuch as only 1 of the 10 editors in chief is a person of color.

As an editor, he said, he will personally, as well as through family medicine department chairs, be seeking authors who are members of underrepresented groups and that he will be assisting those who need help.

“I’m committed to giving them special attention in the editorial process,” he said.

Dr. Hickner said the 10 journals have also committed to periodically evaluate whether their approaches are making substantial changes. He said the editors have vowed to meet at least once a year to review progress “and hold each other accountable.”

Statement authors, in addition to Dr. Sexton and Dr. Hickner, include these editors in chief: Caroline R. Richardson, MD, Annals of Family Medicine; Sarina B. Schrager, MD, FPM; Marjorie A. Bowman, MD, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine; Christopher P. Morley, PhD, PRiMER; Nicholas Pimlott, MD, PhD, Canadian Family Physician; John W. Saultz, MD, Family Medicine; and Barry D. Weiss, MD, FP Essentials.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The Journal of Family Practice is owned by the same news organization as this publication.
 

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

The latest recommendations from sports cardiologists on getting athletes with COVID-19 back on the playing field safely emphasize a more judicious approach to screening for cardiac injury.

The new recommendations, made by the American College of Cardiology’s Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section, are for adult athletes in competitive sports and also for two important groups: younger athletes taking part in competitive high school sports and older athletes aged 35 and older, the Masters athletes, who continue to be active throughout their lives. The document was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

Because of the evolving nature of knowledge about COVID-19, updates on recommendations for safe return to play for athletes of all ages will continue to be made, senior author Aaron L. Baggish, MD, director of the cardiovascular performance program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said.

“The recommendations we released in May were entirely based on our experience taking care of hospitalized patients with COVID-19; we had no athletes in this population. We used a lot of conservative guesswork around how this would apply to otherwise healthy athletes,” Dr. Baggish said in an interview.

“But as sports started to open up, and we started to see large numbers of first professional and then college athletes come back into training, we realized that we needed to stop and ask whether the recommendations we put forward back in May were still appropriate,” Dr. Baggish said.

“Once we started to actually get into the trenches with these athletes, literally hundreds of them, and applying the testing strategies that we had initially recommended in everybody, we realized that we probably had some room for improvement, and that’s why we reconvened, to make these revisions,” he said.

Essentially, the recommendations now urge less cardiac testing. “Cardiac injury is not as common as we may have originally thought,” said Dr. Baggish.

“In the early days of COVID, people who were hospitalized had evidence of heart injury, and so we wondered if that prevalence would also be applicable to otherwise young, healthy people who got COVID. If that had been the case, we would have been in big trouble with respect to getting people back into sports. So this is why we started with a conservative screening approach and a lot of testing in order to not miss a huge burden of disease,” he said.

“But what we’ve learned over the past few months is that young people who get either asymptomatic or mild infection appear to have very, very low risk of having associated heart injury, so the need for testing in that population, when people who have infections recover fully, is almost certainly not going to be high yield,” Dr. Baggish said.
 

First iteration of the recommendations

Published in May in the early weeks of the pandemic, the first recommendations for safe return to play said that all athletes should stop training for at least 2 weeks after their symptoms resolve, then undergo “careful, clinical cardiovascular evaluation in combination with cardiac biomarkers and imaging.”

Additional testing with cardiac MRI, exercise testing, or ambulatory rhythm monitoring was to be done “based on the clinical course and initial testing.”

But experts caution that monitoring on such a scale in everyone is unnecessary and could even be counterproductive.

“Sending young athletes for extensive testing is not warranted and could send them to unnecessary testing, cardiac imaging, and so on,” Dr. Baggish said.

Only those athletes who continue to have symptoms or whose symptoms return when they get back to their athletic activities should go on for more screening.

“There, in essence, is the single main change from May, and that is a move away from screening with testing everyone, [and instead] confining that to the people who had moderate or greater severity disease,” he said.

Both iterations of the recommendations end with the same message.

“We are at the beginning of our knowledge about the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 but we are gathering evidence every day,” said Dr. Baggish. “Just as they did earlier, we acknowledge that our approaches are subject to change when we learn more about how COVID affects the heart, and specifically the hearts of athletes. This will be an ongoing process.”
 

Something to lean on

The recommendations are welcome, said James E. Udelson, MD, chief of the division of cardiology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, coauthor of an accompanying editorial.

“It was a bit of the wild west out there, because each university, each college, all with good intentions, had been all struggling to figure out what to do, and how much to do. Probably the most important message from this new paper is the fact that now there is something out there that all coaches, athletes, families, schools, trainers can get some guidance from,” Dr. Udelson said in an interview.

Refining the cardiac screening criteria was a necessary step, Dr. Udelson said.

“How much cardiac imaging do you do? That is a matter of controversy,” said Dr. Udelson, who coauthored the commentary with Tufts cardiologist Ethan Rowin, MD, and Michael A. Curtis, MEd, a certified strength and conditioning specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “The problem is that if you use a very sensitive imaging test on a lot of people, sometimes you find things that you really didn’t need to know about. They’re really not important. And now, the athlete is told he or she cannot play for 3 months because they might have myocarditis.

“Should we be too sensitive, meaning do we want to pick up anything no matter whether it’s important or not?” he added. “There will be a lot of false positives, and we are going to disqualify a lot of people. Or do you tune it a different way?”

Dr. Udelson said he would like to see commercial sports donate money to support research into the potential cardiotoxicity of COVID-19.

“If the organizations that benefit from these athletes, like the National Collegiate Athletic Association and professional sports leagues, can fund some of this research, that would be a huge help,” Dr. Udelson said.

“These are the top sports cardiologists in the country, and they have to start somewhere, and these are all based on what we know right now, as well as their own extensive experience. We all know that we are just at the beginning of our knowledge of this. But we have to have something to guide this huge community out there that is really thirsty for help.”

Dr. Baggish reports receiving research funding for the study of athletes in competitive sports from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Football League Players Association; and the American Heart Association and receiving compensation for his role as team cardiologist from the US Olympic Committee/US Olympic Training Centers, US Soccer, US Rowing, the New England Patriots, the Boston Bruins, the New England Revolution, and Harvard University. Dr. Udelson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The latest recommendations from sports cardiologists on getting athletes with COVID-19 back on the playing field safely emphasize a more judicious approach to screening for cardiac injury.

The new recommendations, made by the American College of Cardiology’s Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section, are for adult athletes in competitive sports and also for two important groups: younger athletes taking part in competitive high school sports and older athletes aged 35 and older, the Masters athletes, who continue to be active throughout their lives. The document was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

Because of the evolving nature of knowledge about COVID-19, updates on recommendations for safe return to play for athletes of all ages will continue to be made, senior author Aaron L. Baggish, MD, director of the cardiovascular performance program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said.

“The recommendations we released in May were entirely based on our experience taking care of hospitalized patients with COVID-19; we had no athletes in this population. We used a lot of conservative guesswork around how this would apply to otherwise healthy athletes,” Dr. Baggish said in an interview.

“But as sports started to open up, and we started to see large numbers of first professional and then college athletes come back into training, we realized that we needed to stop and ask whether the recommendations we put forward back in May were still appropriate,” Dr. Baggish said.

“Once we started to actually get into the trenches with these athletes, literally hundreds of them, and applying the testing strategies that we had initially recommended in everybody, we realized that we probably had some room for improvement, and that’s why we reconvened, to make these revisions,” he said.

Essentially, the recommendations now urge less cardiac testing. “Cardiac injury is not as common as we may have originally thought,” said Dr. Baggish.

“In the early days of COVID, people who were hospitalized had evidence of heart injury, and so we wondered if that prevalence would also be applicable to otherwise young, healthy people who got COVID. If that had been the case, we would have been in big trouble with respect to getting people back into sports. So this is why we started with a conservative screening approach and a lot of testing in order to not miss a huge burden of disease,” he said.

“But what we’ve learned over the past few months is that young people who get either asymptomatic or mild infection appear to have very, very low risk of having associated heart injury, so the need for testing in that population, when people who have infections recover fully, is almost certainly not going to be high yield,” Dr. Baggish said.
 

First iteration of the recommendations

Published in May in the early weeks of the pandemic, the first recommendations for safe return to play said that all athletes should stop training for at least 2 weeks after their symptoms resolve, then undergo “careful, clinical cardiovascular evaluation in combination with cardiac biomarkers and imaging.”

Additional testing with cardiac MRI, exercise testing, or ambulatory rhythm monitoring was to be done “based on the clinical course and initial testing.”

But experts caution that monitoring on such a scale in everyone is unnecessary and could even be counterproductive.

“Sending young athletes for extensive testing is not warranted and could send them to unnecessary testing, cardiac imaging, and so on,” Dr. Baggish said.

Only those athletes who continue to have symptoms or whose symptoms return when they get back to their athletic activities should go on for more screening.

“There, in essence, is the single main change from May, and that is a move away from screening with testing everyone, [and instead] confining that to the people who had moderate or greater severity disease,” he said.

Both iterations of the recommendations end with the same message.

“We are at the beginning of our knowledge about the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 but we are gathering evidence every day,” said Dr. Baggish. “Just as they did earlier, we acknowledge that our approaches are subject to change when we learn more about how COVID affects the heart, and specifically the hearts of athletes. This will be an ongoing process.”
 

Something to lean on

The recommendations are welcome, said James E. Udelson, MD, chief of the division of cardiology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, coauthor of an accompanying editorial.

“It was a bit of the wild west out there, because each university, each college, all with good intentions, had been all struggling to figure out what to do, and how much to do. Probably the most important message from this new paper is the fact that now there is something out there that all coaches, athletes, families, schools, trainers can get some guidance from,” Dr. Udelson said in an interview.

Refining the cardiac screening criteria was a necessary step, Dr. Udelson said.

“How much cardiac imaging do you do? That is a matter of controversy,” said Dr. Udelson, who coauthored the commentary with Tufts cardiologist Ethan Rowin, MD, and Michael A. Curtis, MEd, a certified strength and conditioning specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “The problem is that if you use a very sensitive imaging test on a lot of people, sometimes you find things that you really didn’t need to know about. They’re really not important. And now, the athlete is told he or she cannot play for 3 months because they might have myocarditis.

“Should we be too sensitive, meaning do we want to pick up anything no matter whether it’s important or not?” he added. “There will be a lot of false positives, and we are going to disqualify a lot of people. Or do you tune it a different way?”

Dr. Udelson said he would like to see commercial sports donate money to support research into the potential cardiotoxicity of COVID-19.

“If the organizations that benefit from these athletes, like the National Collegiate Athletic Association and professional sports leagues, can fund some of this research, that would be a huge help,” Dr. Udelson said.

“These are the top sports cardiologists in the country, and they have to start somewhere, and these are all based on what we know right now, as well as their own extensive experience. We all know that we are just at the beginning of our knowledge of this. But we have to have something to guide this huge community out there that is really thirsty for help.”

Dr. Baggish reports receiving research funding for the study of athletes in competitive sports from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Football League Players Association; and the American Heart Association and receiving compensation for his role as team cardiologist from the US Olympic Committee/US Olympic Training Centers, US Soccer, US Rowing, the New England Patriots, the Boston Bruins, the New England Revolution, and Harvard University. Dr. Udelson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The latest recommendations from sports cardiologists on getting athletes with COVID-19 back on the playing field safely emphasize a more judicious approach to screening for cardiac injury.

The new recommendations, made by the American College of Cardiology’s Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section, are for adult athletes in competitive sports and also for two important groups: younger athletes taking part in competitive high school sports and older athletes aged 35 and older, the Masters athletes, who continue to be active throughout their lives. The document was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

Because of the evolving nature of knowledge about COVID-19, updates on recommendations for safe return to play for athletes of all ages will continue to be made, senior author Aaron L. Baggish, MD, director of the cardiovascular performance program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said.

“The recommendations we released in May were entirely based on our experience taking care of hospitalized patients with COVID-19; we had no athletes in this population. We used a lot of conservative guesswork around how this would apply to otherwise healthy athletes,” Dr. Baggish said in an interview.

“But as sports started to open up, and we started to see large numbers of first professional and then college athletes come back into training, we realized that we needed to stop and ask whether the recommendations we put forward back in May were still appropriate,” Dr. Baggish said.

“Once we started to actually get into the trenches with these athletes, literally hundreds of them, and applying the testing strategies that we had initially recommended in everybody, we realized that we probably had some room for improvement, and that’s why we reconvened, to make these revisions,” he said.

Essentially, the recommendations now urge less cardiac testing. “Cardiac injury is not as common as we may have originally thought,” said Dr. Baggish.

“In the early days of COVID, people who were hospitalized had evidence of heart injury, and so we wondered if that prevalence would also be applicable to otherwise young, healthy people who got COVID. If that had been the case, we would have been in big trouble with respect to getting people back into sports. So this is why we started with a conservative screening approach and a lot of testing in order to not miss a huge burden of disease,” he said.

“But what we’ve learned over the past few months is that young people who get either asymptomatic or mild infection appear to have very, very low risk of having associated heart injury, so the need for testing in that population, when people who have infections recover fully, is almost certainly not going to be high yield,” Dr. Baggish said.
 

First iteration of the recommendations

Published in May in the early weeks of the pandemic, the first recommendations for safe return to play said that all athletes should stop training for at least 2 weeks after their symptoms resolve, then undergo “careful, clinical cardiovascular evaluation in combination with cardiac biomarkers and imaging.”

Additional testing with cardiac MRI, exercise testing, or ambulatory rhythm monitoring was to be done “based on the clinical course and initial testing.”

But experts caution that monitoring on such a scale in everyone is unnecessary and could even be counterproductive.

“Sending young athletes for extensive testing is not warranted and could send them to unnecessary testing, cardiac imaging, and so on,” Dr. Baggish said.

Only those athletes who continue to have symptoms or whose symptoms return when they get back to their athletic activities should go on for more screening.

“There, in essence, is the single main change from May, and that is a move away from screening with testing everyone, [and instead] confining that to the people who had moderate or greater severity disease,” he said.

Both iterations of the recommendations end with the same message.

“We are at the beginning of our knowledge about the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 but we are gathering evidence every day,” said Dr. Baggish. “Just as they did earlier, we acknowledge that our approaches are subject to change when we learn more about how COVID affects the heart, and specifically the hearts of athletes. This will be an ongoing process.”
 

Something to lean on

The recommendations are welcome, said James E. Udelson, MD, chief of the division of cardiology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, coauthor of an accompanying editorial.

“It was a bit of the wild west out there, because each university, each college, all with good intentions, had been all struggling to figure out what to do, and how much to do. Probably the most important message from this new paper is the fact that now there is something out there that all coaches, athletes, families, schools, trainers can get some guidance from,” Dr. Udelson said in an interview.

Refining the cardiac screening criteria was a necessary step, Dr. Udelson said.

“How much cardiac imaging do you do? That is a matter of controversy,” said Dr. Udelson, who coauthored the commentary with Tufts cardiologist Ethan Rowin, MD, and Michael A. Curtis, MEd, a certified strength and conditioning specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “The problem is that if you use a very sensitive imaging test on a lot of people, sometimes you find things that you really didn’t need to know about. They’re really not important. And now, the athlete is told he or she cannot play for 3 months because they might have myocarditis.

“Should we be too sensitive, meaning do we want to pick up anything no matter whether it’s important or not?” he added. “There will be a lot of false positives, and we are going to disqualify a lot of people. Or do you tune it a different way?”

Dr. Udelson said he would like to see commercial sports donate money to support research into the potential cardiotoxicity of COVID-19.

“If the organizations that benefit from these athletes, like the National Collegiate Athletic Association and professional sports leagues, can fund some of this research, that would be a huge help,” Dr. Udelson said.

“These are the top sports cardiologists in the country, and they have to start somewhere, and these are all based on what we know right now, as well as their own extensive experience. We all know that we are just at the beginning of our knowledge of this. But we have to have something to guide this huge community out there that is really thirsty for help.”

Dr. Baggish reports receiving research funding for the study of athletes in competitive sports from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Football League Players Association; and the American Heart Association and receiving compensation for his role as team cardiologist from the US Olympic Committee/US Olympic Training Centers, US Soccer, US Rowing, the New England Patriots, the Boston Bruins, the New England Revolution, and Harvard University. Dr. Udelson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Clarissa Barnes, MD, a hospitalist at Avera McKennan Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D., and until recently medical director of Avera’s LIGHT Program, a wellness-oriented service for doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, watched the COVID-19 crisis unfold up close in her community and her hospital. Sioux Falls traced its surge of COVID patients to an outbreak at a local meatpacking plant.

“In the beginning, we didn’t know much about the virus and its communicability, although we have since gotten a better handle on that,” she said. “We had questions: Should we give patients more fluids – or less? Steroids or not? In my experience as a hospitalist I never had patients die every day on my shift, but that was happening with COVID.” The crisis imposed serious stresses on frontline providers, and hospitalists were concerned about personal safety and exposure risk – not just for themselves but for their families.

“The first time I worked on the COVID unit, I moved into the guest room in our home, apart from my husband and our young children,” Dr. Barnes said. “Ultimately I caught the virus, although I have since recovered.” Her experience has highlighted how existing issues of job stress and burnout in hospital medicine have been exacerbated by COVID-19. Even physicians who consider themselves healthy may have little emotional reserve to draw upon in a crisis of this magnitude.

“We are social distancing at work, wearing masks, not eating together with our colleagues – with less camaraderie and social support than we used to have,” she said. “I feel exhausted and there’s no question that my colleagues and I have sacrificed a lot to deal with the pandemic.” Add to that the second front of the COVID-19 crisis, Dr. Barnes said, which is “fighting the medical information wars, trying to correct misinformation put out there by people. Physicians who have been on the front lines of the pandemic know how demoralizing it can be to have people negate your first-hand experience.”

The situation has gotten better in Sioux Falls, Dr. Barnes said, although cases have started rising in the state again. The stress, while not gone, is reduced. For some doctors, “COVID reminded us of why we do what we do. Some of the usual bureaucratic requirements were set aside and we could focus on what our patients needed and how to take care of them.”
 

Taking job stress seriously

Tiffani Panek, MA, SFHM, CLHM, administrator of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore, said job stress is a major issue for hospitalist groups.

“We take it seriously here, and use a survey tool to measure morale in our group annually,” she said. “So far, knock on wood, Baltimore has not been one of the big hot spots, but we’ve definitely had waves of COVID patients.”

The Bayview hospitalist group has a diversified set of leaders, including a wellness director. “They’re always checking up on our people, keeping an eye on those who are most vulnerable. One of the stressors we hadn’t thought about before was for our people who live alone. With the isolation and lockdown, they haven’t been able to socialize, so we’ve made direct outreach, asking people how they were doing,” Ms. Panek said. “People know we’ve got their back – professionally and personally. They know, if there’s something we can do to help, we will do it.”

Bayview Medical Center has COVID-specific units and non-COVID units, and has tried to rotate hospitalist assignments because more than a couple days in a row spent wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE) is exhausting, Ms. Panek said. The group also allocated a respite room just outside the biocontainment unit, with a computer and opportunities for providers to just sit and take a breather – with appropriate social distancing. “It’s not fancy, but you just have to wear a mask, not full PPE.”

The Hopkins hospitalist group’s wellness director, Catherine Washburn, MD, also a working hospitalist, said providers are exhausted, and trying to transition to the new normal is a moving target.

“It’s hard for anyone to say what our lives will look like in 6 months,” she said. “People in our group have lost family members to COVID, or postponed major life events, like weddings. We acknowledge losses together as a group, and celebrate things worth celebrating, like babies or birthdays.”
 

Greatest COVID caseload

Joshua Case, MD, hospitalist medical director for 16 acute care hospitals of Northwell Health serving metropolitan New York City and Long Island, said his group’s hospitalists and other staff worked incredibly hard during the surge of COVID-19 patients in New York. “Northwell likely cared for more COVID patients than any other health care system in the U.S., if not the world.

“It’s vastly different now. We went from a peak of thousands of cases per day down to about 70-90 new cases a day across our system. We’re lucky our system recognized that COVID could be an issue early on, with all of the multifaceted stressors on patient care,” Dr. Case said. “We’ve done whatever we could to give people time off, especially as the census started to come down. We freed up as many supportive mental health services as we could, working with the health system’s employee assistance program.”

Northwell gave out numbers for the psychiatry department, with clinicians available 24/7 for a confidential call, along with outside volunteers and a network of trauma psychologists. “Our system also provided emergency child care for staff, including hospitalists, wherever we could, drawing upon community resources,” Dr. Case added.

“We recognize that we’re all in the same foxhole. That’s been a helpful attitude – recognizing that it’s okay to be upset in a crisis and to have trouble dealing with what’s going on,” he said. “We need to acknowledge that some of us are suffering and try to encourage people to face it head on. For a lot of physicians, especially those who were redeployed here from other departments, it was important just to have us ask if they were doing okay.”

Brian Schroeder, MHA, FACHE, FHM, assistant vice president for hospital and emergency medicine for Atrium Health, based in Charlotte, N.C., said one of the biggest sources of stress on his staff has been the constant pace of change – whether local hospital protocols, state policies, or guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “The updating is difficult to keep up with. A lot of our physicians get worried and anxious that they’re not following the latest guidelines or correctly doing what they should be doing to care for COVID patients. One thing we’ve done to alleviate some of that fear and anxiety is through weekly huddles with our hospital teams, focusing on changes relevant to their work. We also have weekly ‘all-hands’ meetings for our 250 providers across 13 acute and four postacute facilities.”

Before COVID, it was difficult to get everyone together as one big group from hospitals up to 5 hours apart, but with the Microsoft Teams platform, they can all meet together.

“At the height of the pandemic, we’d convene weekly and share national statistics, organizational statistics, testing updates, changes to protocols,” Mr. Schroeder said. As the pace of change has slowed, these meetings were cut back to monthly. “Our physicians feel we are passing on information as soon as we get it. They know we’ll always tell them what we know.”

Sarah Richards, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, who heads the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Well-Being Task Force, formed to address staff stress in the COVID environment, said there are things that health care systems can do to help mitigate job stress and burnout. But broader issues may need to be addressed at a national level. “SHM is trying to understand work-related stress – and to identify resources that could support doctors, so they can spend more of their time doing what they enjoy most, which is taking care of patients,” she said.

“We also recognize that people have had very different experiences, depending on geography, and at the individual level stressors are experienced very differently,” Dr. Richard noted. “One of the most common stressors we’ve heard from doctors is the challenge of caring for patients who are lonely and isolated in their hospital rooms, suffering and dying in new ways. In low-incidence areas, doctors are expressing guilt because they aren’t under as much stress as their colleagues. In high-incidence areas, doctors are already experiencing posttraumatic stress disorder.”

SHM’s Well-Being Task Force is working on a tool to help normalize these stressors and encourage open conversations about mental health issues. A guide called “HM COVID Check-in Guide for Self & Peers” is designed to help hospitalists break the culture of silence around well-being and burnout during COVID-19 and how people are handling and processing the pandemic experience. It is expected to be completed later this year, Dr. Richards said. Other SHM projects and resources for staff support are also in the works.
 

The impact on women doctors

In a recent Journal of Hospital Medicine article entitled “Collateral Damage: How COVID-19 is Adversely Impacting Women Physicians,” hospitalist Yemisi Jones, MD, medical director of continuing medical education at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues argue that preexisting gender inequities in compensation, academic rank and leadership positions for physicians have made the COVID-19 crisis even more burdensome on female hospitalists.¹

“Increased childcare and schooling obligations, coupled with disproportionate household responsibilities and an inability to work from home, will likely result in female hospitalists struggling to meet family needs while pandemic-related work responsibilities are ramping up,” they write. COVID may intensify workplace inequalities, with a lack of recognition of the undue strain that group policies place on women.

“Often women suffer in silence,” said coauthor Jennifer O’Toole, MD, MEd, director of education in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and program director of the internal medicine–pediatrics residency. “We are not always the best self-advocates, although many of us are working on that.”

When women in hospital medicine take leadership roles, these often tend to involve mutual support activities, taking care of colleagues, and promoting collaborative work environments, Dr. Jones added. The stereotypical example is the committee that organizes celebrations when group members get married or have babies.

These activities can take a lot of time, she said. “We need to pay attention to that kind of role in our groups, because it’s important to the cohesiveness of the group. But it often goes unrecognized and doesn’t translate into the currency of promotion and leadership in medicine. When women go for promotions in the future, how will what happened during the COVID crisis impact their opportunities?”

What is the answer to overcoming these systemic inequities? Start with making sure women are part of the leadership team, with responsibilities for group policies, schedules, and other important decisions. “Look at your group’s leadership – particularly the higher positions. If it’s not diverse, ask why. ‘What is it about the structure of our group?’ Make a more concerted effort in your recruitment and retention,” Dr. Jones said.

The JHM article also recommends closely monitoring the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 on female hospitalists, inquiring specifically about the needs of women in the organization, and ensuring that diversity, inclusion, and equity efforts are not suspended during the pandemic. Gender-based disparities in pay also need a closer look, and not just one time but reviewed periodically and adjusted accordingly.

Mentoring for early career women is important, but more so is sponsorship – someone in a high-level leadership role in the group sponsoring women who are rising up the career ladder, Dr. O’Toole said. “Professional women tend to be overmentored and undersponsored.”
 

What are the answers?

Ultimately, listening is key to try to help people get through the pandemic, Dr. Washburn said. “People become burned out when they feel leadership doesn’t understand their needs or doesn’t hear their concerns. Our group leaders all do clinical work, so they are seen as one of us. They try very hard; they have listening ears. But listening is just the first step. Next step is to work creatively to get the identified needs met.”

A few years ago, Johns Hopkins developed training in enhanced communication in health care for all hospital providers, including nurses and doctors, encouraging them to get trained in how to actively listen and address their patients’ emotional and social experiences as well as disease, Dr. Washburn explained. Learning how to listen better to patients can enhance skills at listening to colleagues, and vice versa. “We recognize the importance of better communication – for reducing sentinel events in the hospital and also for preventing staff burnout.”

Dr. Barnes also does physician coaching, and says a lot of that work is helping people achieve clarity on their core values. “Healing patients is a core identify for physicians; we want to take care of people. But other things can get in the way of that, and hospitalist groups can work at minimizing those barriers. We also need to learn, as hospitalists, that we work in a group. You need to be creative in how you do your team building, especially now, when you can no longer get together for dinner. Whatever it is, how do we bring our team back together? The biggest source of support for many hospitalists, beyond their family, is the group.”

Dr. Case said there is a longer-term need to study the root causes of burnout in hospitalists and to identify the issues that cause job stress. “What is modifiable? How can we tackle it? I see that as big part of my job every day. Being a physician is hard enough as it is. Let’s work to resolve those issues that add needlessly to the stress.”

“I think the pandemic brought a magnifying glass to how important a concern staff stress is,” Ms. Panek said. Resilience is important.

“We were working in our group on creating a culture that values trust and transparency, and then the COVID crisis hit,” she said. “But you can still keep working on those things. We would not have been as good or as positive as we were in managing this crisis without that preexisting culture to draw upon. We always said it was important. Now we know that’s true.”
 

Reference

1. Jones Y et al. Collateral Damage: How COVID-19 Is Adversely Impacting Women Physicians. J Hosp Med. 2020 August;15(8):507-9.

Clarissa Barnes, MD, a hospitalist at Avera McKennan Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D., and until recently medical director of Avera’s LIGHT Program, a wellness-oriented service for doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, watched the COVID-19 crisis unfold up close in her community and her hospital. Sioux Falls traced its surge of COVID patients to an outbreak at a local meatpacking plant.

“In the beginning, we didn’t know much about the virus and its communicability, although we have since gotten a better handle on that,” she said. “We had questions: Should we give patients more fluids – or less? Steroids or not? In my experience as a hospitalist I never had patients die every day on my shift, but that was happening with COVID.” The crisis imposed serious stresses on frontline providers, and hospitalists were concerned about personal safety and exposure risk – not just for themselves but for their families.

“The first time I worked on the COVID unit, I moved into the guest room in our home, apart from my husband and our young children,” Dr. Barnes said. “Ultimately I caught the virus, although I have since recovered.” Her experience has highlighted how existing issues of job stress and burnout in hospital medicine have been exacerbated by COVID-19. Even physicians who consider themselves healthy may have little emotional reserve to draw upon in a crisis of this magnitude.

“We are social distancing at work, wearing masks, not eating together with our colleagues – with less camaraderie and social support than we used to have,” she said. “I feel exhausted and there’s no question that my colleagues and I have sacrificed a lot to deal with the pandemic.” Add to that the second front of the COVID-19 crisis, Dr. Barnes said, which is “fighting the medical information wars, trying to correct misinformation put out there by people. Physicians who have been on the front lines of the pandemic know how demoralizing it can be to have people negate your first-hand experience.”

The situation has gotten better in Sioux Falls, Dr. Barnes said, although cases have started rising in the state again. The stress, while not gone, is reduced. For some doctors, “COVID reminded us of why we do what we do. Some of the usual bureaucratic requirements were set aside and we could focus on what our patients needed and how to take care of them.”
 

Taking job stress seriously

Tiffani Panek, MA, SFHM, CLHM, administrator of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore, said job stress is a major issue for hospitalist groups.

“We take it seriously here, and use a survey tool to measure morale in our group annually,” she said. “So far, knock on wood, Baltimore has not been one of the big hot spots, but we’ve definitely had waves of COVID patients.”

The Bayview hospitalist group has a diversified set of leaders, including a wellness director. “They’re always checking up on our people, keeping an eye on those who are most vulnerable. One of the stressors we hadn’t thought about before was for our people who live alone. With the isolation and lockdown, they haven’t been able to socialize, so we’ve made direct outreach, asking people how they were doing,” Ms. Panek said. “People know we’ve got their back – professionally and personally. They know, if there’s something we can do to help, we will do it.”

Bayview Medical Center has COVID-specific units and non-COVID units, and has tried to rotate hospitalist assignments because more than a couple days in a row spent wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE) is exhausting, Ms. Panek said. The group also allocated a respite room just outside the biocontainment unit, with a computer and opportunities for providers to just sit and take a breather – with appropriate social distancing. “It’s not fancy, but you just have to wear a mask, not full PPE.”

The Hopkins hospitalist group’s wellness director, Catherine Washburn, MD, also a working hospitalist, said providers are exhausted, and trying to transition to the new normal is a moving target.

“It’s hard for anyone to say what our lives will look like in 6 months,” she said. “People in our group have lost family members to COVID, or postponed major life events, like weddings. We acknowledge losses together as a group, and celebrate things worth celebrating, like babies or birthdays.”
 

Greatest COVID caseload

Joshua Case, MD, hospitalist medical director for 16 acute care hospitals of Northwell Health serving metropolitan New York City and Long Island, said his group’s hospitalists and other staff worked incredibly hard during the surge of COVID-19 patients in New York. “Northwell likely cared for more COVID patients than any other health care system in the U.S., if not the world.

“It’s vastly different now. We went from a peak of thousands of cases per day down to about 70-90 new cases a day across our system. We’re lucky our system recognized that COVID could be an issue early on, with all of the multifaceted stressors on patient care,” Dr. Case said. “We’ve done whatever we could to give people time off, especially as the census started to come down. We freed up as many supportive mental health services as we could, working with the health system’s employee assistance program.”

Northwell gave out numbers for the psychiatry department, with clinicians available 24/7 for a confidential call, along with outside volunteers and a network of trauma psychologists. “Our system also provided emergency child care for staff, including hospitalists, wherever we could, drawing upon community resources,” Dr. Case added.

“We recognize that we’re all in the same foxhole. That’s been a helpful attitude – recognizing that it’s okay to be upset in a crisis and to have trouble dealing with what’s going on,” he said. “We need to acknowledge that some of us are suffering and try to encourage people to face it head on. For a lot of physicians, especially those who were redeployed here from other departments, it was important just to have us ask if they were doing okay.”

Brian Schroeder, MHA, FACHE, FHM, assistant vice president for hospital and emergency medicine for Atrium Health, based in Charlotte, N.C., said one of the biggest sources of stress on his staff has been the constant pace of change – whether local hospital protocols, state policies, or guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “The updating is difficult to keep up with. A lot of our physicians get worried and anxious that they’re not following the latest guidelines or correctly doing what they should be doing to care for COVID patients. One thing we’ve done to alleviate some of that fear and anxiety is through weekly huddles with our hospital teams, focusing on changes relevant to their work. We also have weekly ‘all-hands’ meetings for our 250 providers across 13 acute and four postacute facilities.”

Before COVID, it was difficult to get everyone together as one big group from hospitals up to 5 hours apart, but with the Microsoft Teams platform, they can all meet together.

“At the height of the pandemic, we’d convene weekly and share national statistics, organizational statistics, testing updates, changes to protocols,” Mr. Schroeder said. As the pace of change has slowed, these meetings were cut back to monthly. “Our physicians feel we are passing on information as soon as we get it. They know we’ll always tell them what we know.”

Sarah Richards, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, who heads the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Well-Being Task Force, formed to address staff stress in the COVID environment, said there are things that health care systems can do to help mitigate job stress and burnout. But broader issues may need to be addressed at a national level. “SHM is trying to understand work-related stress – and to identify resources that could support doctors, so they can spend more of their time doing what they enjoy most, which is taking care of patients,” she said.

“We also recognize that people have had very different experiences, depending on geography, and at the individual level stressors are experienced very differently,” Dr. Richard noted. “One of the most common stressors we’ve heard from doctors is the challenge of caring for patients who are lonely and isolated in their hospital rooms, suffering and dying in new ways. In low-incidence areas, doctors are expressing guilt because they aren’t under as much stress as their colleagues. In high-incidence areas, doctors are already experiencing posttraumatic stress disorder.”

SHM’s Well-Being Task Force is working on a tool to help normalize these stressors and encourage open conversations about mental health issues. A guide called “HM COVID Check-in Guide for Self & Peers” is designed to help hospitalists break the culture of silence around well-being and burnout during COVID-19 and how people are handling and processing the pandemic experience. It is expected to be completed later this year, Dr. Richards said. Other SHM projects and resources for staff support are also in the works.
 

The impact on women doctors

In a recent Journal of Hospital Medicine article entitled “Collateral Damage: How COVID-19 is Adversely Impacting Women Physicians,” hospitalist Yemisi Jones, MD, medical director of continuing medical education at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues argue that preexisting gender inequities in compensation, academic rank and leadership positions for physicians have made the COVID-19 crisis even more burdensome on female hospitalists.¹

“Increased childcare and schooling obligations, coupled with disproportionate household responsibilities and an inability to work from home, will likely result in female hospitalists struggling to meet family needs while pandemic-related work responsibilities are ramping up,” they write. COVID may intensify workplace inequalities, with a lack of recognition of the undue strain that group policies place on women.

“Often women suffer in silence,” said coauthor Jennifer O’Toole, MD, MEd, director of education in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and program director of the internal medicine–pediatrics residency. “We are not always the best self-advocates, although many of us are working on that.”

When women in hospital medicine take leadership roles, these often tend to involve mutual support activities, taking care of colleagues, and promoting collaborative work environments, Dr. Jones added. The stereotypical example is the committee that organizes celebrations when group members get married or have babies.

These activities can take a lot of time, she said. “We need to pay attention to that kind of role in our groups, because it’s important to the cohesiveness of the group. But it often goes unrecognized and doesn’t translate into the currency of promotion and leadership in medicine. When women go for promotions in the future, how will what happened during the COVID crisis impact their opportunities?”

What is the answer to overcoming these systemic inequities? Start with making sure women are part of the leadership team, with responsibilities for group policies, schedules, and other important decisions. “Look at your group’s leadership – particularly the higher positions. If it’s not diverse, ask why. ‘What is it about the structure of our group?’ Make a more concerted effort in your recruitment and retention,” Dr. Jones said.

The JHM article also recommends closely monitoring the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 on female hospitalists, inquiring specifically about the needs of women in the organization, and ensuring that diversity, inclusion, and equity efforts are not suspended during the pandemic. Gender-based disparities in pay also need a closer look, and not just one time but reviewed periodically and adjusted accordingly.

Mentoring for early career women is important, but more so is sponsorship – someone in a high-level leadership role in the group sponsoring women who are rising up the career ladder, Dr. O’Toole said. “Professional women tend to be overmentored and undersponsored.”
 

What are the answers?

Ultimately, listening is key to try to help people get through the pandemic, Dr. Washburn said. “People become burned out when they feel leadership doesn’t understand their needs or doesn’t hear their concerns. Our group leaders all do clinical work, so they are seen as one of us. They try very hard; they have listening ears. But listening is just the first step. Next step is to work creatively to get the identified needs met.”

A few years ago, Johns Hopkins developed training in enhanced communication in health care for all hospital providers, including nurses and doctors, encouraging them to get trained in how to actively listen and address their patients’ emotional and social experiences as well as disease, Dr. Washburn explained. Learning how to listen better to patients can enhance skills at listening to colleagues, and vice versa. “We recognize the importance of better communication – for reducing sentinel events in the hospital and also for preventing staff burnout.”

Dr. Barnes also does physician coaching, and says a lot of that work is helping people achieve clarity on their core values. “Healing patients is a core identify for physicians; we want to take care of people. But other things can get in the way of that, and hospitalist groups can work at minimizing those barriers. We also need to learn, as hospitalists, that we work in a group. You need to be creative in how you do your team building, especially now, when you can no longer get together for dinner. Whatever it is, how do we bring our team back together? The biggest source of support for many hospitalists, beyond their family, is the group.”

Dr. Case said there is a longer-term need to study the root causes of burnout in hospitalists and to identify the issues that cause job stress. “What is modifiable? How can we tackle it? I see that as big part of my job every day. Being a physician is hard enough as it is. Let’s work to resolve those issues that add needlessly to the stress.”

“I think the pandemic brought a magnifying glass to how important a concern staff stress is,” Ms. Panek said. Resilience is important.

“We were working in our group on creating a culture that values trust and transparency, and then the COVID crisis hit,” she said. “But you can still keep working on those things. We would not have been as good or as positive as we were in managing this crisis without that preexisting culture to draw upon. We always said it was important. Now we know that’s true.”
 

Reference

1. Jones Y et al. Collateral Damage: How COVID-19 Is Adversely Impacting Women Physicians. J Hosp Med. 2020 August;15(8):507-9.

Clarissa Barnes, MD, a hospitalist at Avera McKennan Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D., and until recently medical director of Avera’s LIGHT Program, a wellness-oriented service for doctors, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, watched the COVID-19 crisis unfold up close in her community and her hospital. Sioux Falls traced its surge of COVID patients to an outbreak at a local meatpacking plant.

“In the beginning, we didn’t know much about the virus and its communicability, although we have since gotten a better handle on that,” she said. “We had questions: Should we give patients more fluids – or less? Steroids or not? In my experience as a hospitalist I never had patients die every day on my shift, but that was happening with COVID.” The crisis imposed serious stresses on frontline providers, and hospitalists were concerned about personal safety and exposure risk – not just for themselves but for their families.

“The first time I worked on the COVID unit, I moved into the guest room in our home, apart from my husband and our young children,” Dr. Barnes said. “Ultimately I caught the virus, although I have since recovered.” Her experience has highlighted how existing issues of job stress and burnout in hospital medicine have been exacerbated by COVID-19. Even physicians who consider themselves healthy may have little emotional reserve to draw upon in a crisis of this magnitude.

“We are social distancing at work, wearing masks, not eating together with our colleagues – with less camaraderie and social support than we used to have,” she said. “I feel exhausted and there’s no question that my colleagues and I have sacrificed a lot to deal with the pandemic.” Add to that the second front of the COVID-19 crisis, Dr. Barnes said, which is “fighting the medical information wars, trying to correct misinformation put out there by people. Physicians who have been on the front lines of the pandemic know how demoralizing it can be to have people negate your first-hand experience.”

The situation has gotten better in Sioux Falls, Dr. Barnes said, although cases have started rising in the state again. The stress, while not gone, is reduced. For some doctors, “COVID reminded us of why we do what we do. Some of the usual bureaucratic requirements were set aside and we could focus on what our patients needed and how to take care of them.”
 

Taking job stress seriously

Tiffani Panek, MA, SFHM, CLHM, administrator of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore, said job stress is a major issue for hospitalist groups.

“We take it seriously here, and use a survey tool to measure morale in our group annually,” she said. “So far, knock on wood, Baltimore has not been one of the big hot spots, but we’ve definitely had waves of COVID patients.”

The Bayview hospitalist group has a diversified set of leaders, including a wellness director. “They’re always checking up on our people, keeping an eye on those who are most vulnerable. One of the stressors we hadn’t thought about before was for our people who live alone. With the isolation and lockdown, they haven’t been able to socialize, so we’ve made direct outreach, asking people how they were doing,” Ms. Panek said. “People know we’ve got their back – professionally and personally. They know, if there’s something we can do to help, we will do it.”

Bayview Medical Center has COVID-specific units and non-COVID units, and has tried to rotate hospitalist assignments because more than a couple days in a row spent wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE) is exhausting, Ms. Panek said. The group also allocated a respite room just outside the biocontainment unit, with a computer and opportunities for providers to just sit and take a breather – with appropriate social distancing. “It’s not fancy, but you just have to wear a mask, not full PPE.”

The Hopkins hospitalist group’s wellness director, Catherine Washburn, MD, also a working hospitalist, said providers are exhausted, and trying to transition to the new normal is a moving target.

“It’s hard for anyone to say what our lives will look like in 6 months,” she said. “People in our group have lost family members to COVID, or postponed major life events, like weddings. We acknowledge losses together as a group, and celebrate things worth celebrating, like babies or birthdays.”
 

Greatest COVID caseload

Joshua Case, MD, hospitalist medical director for 16 acute care hospitals of Northwell Health serving metropolitan New York City and Long Island, said his group’s hospitalists and other staff worked incredibly hard during the surge of COVID-19 patients in New York. “Northwell likely cared for more COVID patients than any other health care system in the U.S., if not the world.

“It’s vastly different now. We went from a peak of thousands of cases per day down to about 70-90 new cases a day across our system. We’re lucky our system recognized that COVID could be an issue early on, with all of the multifaceted stressors on patient care,” Dr. Case said. “We’ve done whatever we could to give people time off, especially as the census started to come down. We freed up as many supportive mental health services as we could, working with the health system’s employee assistance program.”

Northwell gave out numbers for the psychiatry department, with clinicians available 24/7 for a confidential call, along with outside volunteers and a network of trauma psychologists. “Our system also provided emergency child care for staff, including hospitalists, wherever we could, drawing upon community resources,” Dr. Case added.

“We recognize that we’re all in the same foxhole. That’s been a helpful attitude – recognizing that it’s okay to be upset in a crisis and to have trouble dealing with what’s going on,” he said. “We need to acknowledge that some of us are suffering and try to encourage people to face it head on. For a lot of physicians, especially those who were redeployed here from other departments, it was important just to have us ask if they were doing okay.”

Brian Schroeder, MHA, FACHE, FHM, assistant vice president for hospital and emergency medicine for Atrium Health, based in Charlotte, N.C., said one of the biggest sources of stress on his staff has been the constant pace of change – whether local hospital protocols, state policies, or guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “The updating is difficult to keep up with. A lot of our physicians get worried and anxious that they’re not following the latest guidelines or correctly doing what they should be doing to care for COVID patients. One thing we’ve done to alleviate some of that fear and anxiety is through weekly huddles with our hospital teams, focusing on changes relevant to their work. We also have weekly ‘all-hands’ meetings for our 250 providers across 13 acute and four postacute facilities.”

Before COVID, it was difficult to get everyone together as one big group from hospitals up to 5 hours apart, but with the Microsoft Teams platform, they can all meet together.

“At the height of the pandemic, we’d convene weekly and share national statistics, organizational statistics, testing updates, changes to protocols,” Mr. Schroeder said. As the pace of change has slowed, these meetings were cut back to monthly. “Our physicians feel we are passing on information as soon as we get it. They know we’ll always tell them what we know.”

Sarah Richards, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, who heads the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Well-Being Task Force, formed to address staff stress in the COVID environment, said there are things that health care systems can do to help mitigate job stress and burnout. But broader issues may need to be addressed at a national level. “SHM is trying to understand work-related stress – and to identify resources that could support doctors, so they can spend more of their time doing what they enjoy most, which is taking care of patients,” she said.

“We also recognize that people have had very different experiences, depending on geography, and at the individual level stressors are experienced very differently,” Dr. Richard noted. “One of the most common stressors we’ve heard from doctors is the challenge of caring for patients who are lonely and isolated in their hospital rooms, suffering and dying in new ways. In low-incidence areas, doctors are expressing guilt because they aren’t under as much stress as their colleagues. In high-incidence areas, doctors are already experiencing posttraumatic stress disorder.”

SHM’s Well-Being Task Force is working on a tool to help normalize these stressors and encourage open conversations about mental health issues. A guide called “HM COVID Check-in Guide for Self & Peers” is designed to help hospitalists break the culture of silence around well-being and burnout during COVID-19 and how people are handling and processing the pandemic experience. It is expected to be completed later this year, Dr. Richards said. Other SHM projects and resources for staff support are also in the works.
 

The impact on women doctors

In a recent Journal of Hospital Medicine article entitled “Collateral Damage: How COVID-19 is Adversely Impacting Women Physicians,” hospitalist Yemisi Jones, MD, medical director of continuing medical education at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues argue that preexisting gender inequities in compensation, academic rank and leadership positions for physicians have made the COVID-19 crisis even more burdensome on female hospitalists.¹

“Increased childcare and schooling obligations, coupled with disproportionate household responsibilities and an inability to work from home, will likely result in female hospitalists struggling to meet family needs while pandemic-related work responsibilities are ramping up,” they write. COVID may intensify workplace inequalities, with a lack of recognition of the undue strain that group policies place on women.

“Often women suffer in silence,” said coauthor Jennifer O’Toole, MD, MEd, director of education in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and program director of the internal medicine–pediatrics residency. “We are not always the best self-advocates, although many of us are working on that.”

When women in hospital medicine take leadership roles, these often tend to involve mutual support activities, taking care of colleagues, and promoting collaborative work environments, Dr. Jones added. The stereotypical example is the committee that organizes celebrations when group members get married or have babies.

These activities can take a lot of time, she said. “We need to pay attention to that kind of role in our groups, because it’s important to the cohesiveness of the group. But it often goes unrecognized and doesn’t translate into the currency of promotion and leadership in medicine. When women go for promotions in the future, how will what happened during the COVID crisis impact their opportunities?”

What is the answer to overcoming these systemic inequities? Start with making sure women are part of the leadership team, with responsibilities for group policies, schedules, and other important decisions. “Look at your group’s leadership – particularly the higher positions. If it’s not diverse, ask why. ‘What is it about the structure of our group?’ Make a more concerted effort in your recruitment and retention,” Dr. Jones said.

The JHM article also recommends closely monitoring the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 on female hospitalists, inquiring specifically about the needs of women in the organization, and ensuring that diversity, inclusion, and equity efforts are not suspended during the pandemic. Gender-based disparities in pay also need a closer look, and not just one time but reviewed periodically and adjusted accordingly.

Mentoring for early career women is important, but more so is sponsorship – someone in a high-level leadership role in the group sponsoring women who are rising up the career ladder, Dr. O’Toole said. “Professional women tend to be overmentored and undersponsored.”
 

What are the answers?

Ultimately, listening is key to try to help people get through the pandemic, Dr. Washburn said. “People become burned out when they feel leadership doesn’t understand their needs or doesn’t hear their concerns. Our group leaders all do clinical work, so they are seen as one of us. They try very hard; they have listening ears. But listening is just the first step. Next step is to work creatively to get the identified needs met.”

A few years ago, Johns Hopkins developed training in enhanced communication in health care for all hospital providers, including nurses and doctors, encouraging them to get trained in how to actively listen and address their patients’ emotional and social experiences as well as disease, Dr. Washburn explained. Learning how to listen better to patients can enhance skills at listening to colleagues, and vice versa. “We recognize the importance of better communication – for reducing sentinel events in the hospital and also for preventing staff burnout.”

Dr. Barnes also does physician coaching, and says a lot of that work is helping people achieve clarity on their core values. “Healing patients is a core identify for physicians; we want to take care of people. But other things can get in the way of that, and hospitalist groups can work at minimizing those barriers. We also need to learn, as hospitalists, that we work in a group. You need to be creative in how you do your team building, especially now, when you can no longer get together for dinner. Whatever it is, how do we bring our team back together? The biggest source of support for many hospitalists, beyond their family, is the group.”

Dr. Case said there is a longer-term need to study the root causes of burnout in hospitalists and to identify the issues that cause job stress. “What is modifiable? How can we tackle it? I see that as big part of my job every day. Being a physician is hard enough as it is. Let’s work to resolve those issues that add needlessly to the stress.”

“I think the pandemic brought a magnifying glass to how important a concern staff stress is,” Ms. Panek said. Resilience is important.

“We were working in our group on creating a culture that values trust and transparency, and then the COVID crisis hit,” she said. “But you can still keep working on those things. We would not have been as good or as positive as we were in managing this crisis without that preexisting culture to draw upon. We always said it was important. Now we know that’s true.”
 

Reference

1. Jones Y et al. Collateral Damage: How COVID-19 Is Adversely Impacting Women Physicians. J Hosp Med. 2020 August;15(8):507-9.

Nearly half the nation’s hospitals, many of which are still wrestling with the financial fallout of the unexpected coronavirus, will get lower payments for all Medicare patients because of their history of readmitting patients, federal records show.

The penalties are the ninth annual round of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program created as part of the Affordable Care Act’s broader effort to improve quality and lower costs. The latest penalties are calculated using each hospital case history between July 2016 and June 2019, so the flood of coronavirus patients that have swamped hospitals this year were not included.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in September it may suspend the penalty program in the future if the chaos surrounding the pandemic, including the spring’s moratorium on elective surgeries, makes it too difficult to assess hospital performance.

For this year, the penalties remain in effect. Retroactive to the federal fiscal year that began Oct. 1, Medicare will lower a year’s worth of payments to 2,545 hospitals, the data show. The average reduction is 0.69%, with 613 hospitals receiving a penalty of 1% or more.

Out of 5,267 hospitals in the country, Congress has exempted 2,176 from the threat of penalties, either because they are critical access hospitals – defined as the only inpatient facility in an area – or hospitals that specialize in psychiatric patients, children, veterans, rehabilitation or long-term care. Of the 3,080 hospitals CMS evaluated, 83% received a penalty.

The number and severity of penalties were comparable to those of recent years, although the number of hospitals receiving the maximum penalty of 3% dropped from 56 to 39. Because the penalties are applied to new admission payments, the total dollar amount each hospital will lose will not be known until after the fiscal year ends on July 30.

“It’s unfortunate that hospitals will face readmission penalties in fiscal year 2021,” said Akin Demehin, director of policy at the American Hospital Association. “Given the financial strain that hospitals are under, every dollar counts, and the impact of any penalty is significant.”

The penalties are based on readmissions of Medicare patients who initially came to the hospital with diagnoses of congestive heart failure, heart attack, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip or knee replacement, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Medicare counts as a readmission any of those patients who ended up back in any hospital within 30 days of discharge, except for planned returns like a second phase of surgery.

A hospital will be penalized if its readmission rate is higher than expected given the national trends in any one of those categories.

The industry has disapproved of the program since its inception, complaining the measures aren’t precise and it unfairly punishes hospitals that treat low-income patients, who often don’t have the resources to ensure their recoveries are successful.

Michael Millenson, a health quality consultant who focuses on patient safety, said the penalties are a useful but imperfect mechanism to push hospitals to improve their care. The designers of the penalty system envisioned it as a way to neutralize the economic benefit hospitals get from readmitted patients under Medicare’s fee-for-service payment model, as they are otherwise paid for two stays instead of just one.

“Every industry complains the penalties are too harsh,” he said. “if you’re going to tell me we don’t need any economic incentives to do the right thing because we’re always doing the right thing – that’s not true.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Nearly half the nation’s hospitals, many of which are still wrestling with the financial fallout of the unexpected coronavirus, will get lower payments for all Medicare patients because of their history of readmitting patients, federal records show.

The penalties are the ninth annual round of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program created as part of the Affordable Care Act’s broader effort to improve quality and lower costs. The latest penalties are calculated using each hospital case history between July 2016 and June 2019, so the flood of coronavirus patients that have swamped hospitals this year were not included.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in September it may suspend the penalty program in the future if the chaos surrounding the pandemic, including the spring’s moratorium on elective surgeries, makes it too difficult to assess hospital performance.

For this year, the penalties remain in effect. Retroactive to the federal fiscal year that began Oct. 1, Medicare will lower a year’s worth of payments to 2,545 hospitals, the data show. The average reduction is 0.69%, with 613 hospitals receiving a penalty of 1% or more.

Out of 5,267 hospitals in the country, Congress has exempted 2,176 from the threat of penalties, either because they are critical access hospitals – defined as the only inpatient facility in an area – or hospitals that specialize in psychiatric patients, children, veterans, rehabilitation or long-term care. Of the 3,080 hospitals CMS evaluated, 83% received a penalty.

The number and severity of penalties were comparable to those of recent years, although the number of hospitals receiving the maximum penalty of 3% dropped from 56 to 39. Because the penalties are applied to new admission payments, the total dollar amount each hospital will lose will not be known until after the fiscal year ends on July 30.

“It’s unfortunate that hospitals will face readmission penalties in fiscal year 2021,” said Akin Demehin, director of policy at the American Hospital Association. “Given the financial strain that hospitals are under, every dollar counts, and the impact of any penalty is significant.”

The penalties are based on readmissions of Medicare patients who initially came to the hospital with diagnoses of congestive heart failure, heart attack, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip or knee replacement, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Medicare counts as a readmission any of those patients who ended up back in any hospital within 30 days of discharge, except for planned returns like a second phase of surgery.

A hospital will be penalized if its readmission rate is higher than expected given the national trends in any one of those categories.

The industry has disapproved of the program since its inception, complaining the measures aren’t precise and it unfairly punishes hospitals that treat low-income patients, who often don’t have the resources to ensure their recoveries are successful.

Michael Millenson, a health quality consultant who focuses on patient safety, said the penalties are a useful but imperfect mechanism to push hospitals to improve their care. The designers of the penalty system envisioned it as a way to neutralize the economic benefit hospitals get from readmitted patients under Medicare’s fee-for-service payment model, as they are otherwise paid for two stays instead of just one.

“Every industry complains the penalties are too harsh,” he said. “if you’re going to tell me we don’t need any economic incentives to do the right thing because we’re always doing the right thing – that’s not true.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Nearly half the nation’s hospitals, many of which are still wrestling with the financial fallout of the unexpected coronavirus, will get lower payments for all Medicare patients because of their history of readmitting patients, federal records show.

The penalties are the ninth annual round of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program created as part of the Affordable Care Act’s broader effort to improve quality and lower costs. The latest penalties are calculated using each hospital case history between July 2016 and June 2019, so the flood of coronavirus patients that have swamped hospitals this year were not included.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in September it may suspend the penalty program in the future if the chaos surrounding the pandemic, including the spring’s moratorium on elective surgeries, makes it too difficult to assess hospital performance.

For this year, the penalties remain in effect. Retroactive to the federal fiscal year that began Oct. 1, Medicare will lower a year’s worth of payments to 2,545 hospitals, the data show. The average reduction is 0.69%, with 613 hospitals receiving a penalty of 1% or more.

Out of 5,267 hospitals in the country, Congress has exempted 2,176 from the threat of penalties, either because they are critical access hospitals – defined as the only inpatient facility in an area – or hospitals that specialize in psychiatric patients, children, veterans, rehabilitation or long-term care. Of the 3,080 hospitals CMS evaluated, 83% received a penalty.

The number and severity of penalties were comparable to those of recent years, although the number of hospitals receiving the maximum penalty of 3% dropped from 56 to 39. Because the penalties are applied to new admission payments, the total dollar amount each hospital will lose will not be known until after the fiscal year ends on July 30.

“It’s unfortunate that hospitals will face readmission penalties in fiscal year 2021,” said Akin Demehin, director of policy at the American Hospital Association. “Given the financial strain that hospitals are under, every dollar counts, and the impact of any penalty is significant.”

The penalties are based on readmissions of Medicare patients who initially came to the hospital with diagnoses of congestive heart failure, heart attack, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip or knee replacement, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Medicare counts as a readmission any of those patients who ended up back in any hospital within 30 days of discharge, except for planned returns like a second phase of surgery.

A hospital will be penalized if its readmission rate is higher than expected given the national trends in any one of those categories.

The industry has disapproved of the program since its inception, complaining the measures aren’t precise and it unfairly punishes hospitals that treat low-income patients, who often don’t have the resources to ensure their recoveries are successful.

Michael Millenson, a health quality consultant who focuses on patient safety, said the penalties are a useful but imperfect mechanism to push hospitals to improve their care. The designers of the penalty system envisioned it as a way to neutralize the economic benefit hospitals get from readmitted patients under Medicare’s fee-for-service payment model, as they are otherwise paid for two stays instead of just one.

“Every industry complains the penalties are too harsh,” he said. “if you’re going to tell me we don’t need any economic incentives to do the right thing because we’re always doing the right thing – that’s not true.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Plagued by false starts, a few dashed hopes, but with perhaps a glimmer of light on the horizon, the race to find an effective treatment for COVID-19 continues. At last count, more than 300 treatments and 200 vaccines were in preclinical or clinical development (not to mention the numerous existing agents that are being evaluated for repurposing).

There is also a renewed interest in cannabinoid therapeutics — in particular, the nonpsychoactive agent cannabidiol (CBD) and the prospect of its modulating inflammatory and other disease-associated clinical indices, including SARS-CoV-2–induced viral load, hyperinflammation, the cytokine storm, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Long hobbled by regulatory, political, and financial barriers, CBD’s potential ability to knock back COVID-19–related inflammation might just open doors that have been closed for years to CBD researchers.
 

Why CBD and why now?

CBD and the resulting therapeutics have been plagued by a complicated association with recreational cannabis use. It’s been just 2 years since CBD-based therapeutics moved into mainstream medicine — the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Epidiolex oral solution for the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, and in August, the FDA approved it for tuberous sclerosis complex.

CBD’s mechanism of action has not been fully elucidated, but on the basis of its role in immune responses — well described in research spanning more than two decades — it›s not surprising that cannabinoid researchers have thrown their hats into the COVID-19 drug development ring.

The anti-inflammatory potential of CBD is substantial and appears to be related to the fact that it shares 20 protein targets common to inflammation-related pathways, Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, research assistant professor at the University of Florida School of Pharmacy, Gainesville, Florida, explained to Medscape Medical News.

Among the various trials that are currently recruiting or are underway is one that is slated for completion this fall. CANDIDATE (Cannabidiol for COVID-19 Patients With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19) is a randomized, controlled, double-blind study led by Brazilian researchers at the University of São Paulo. The study, which began recruitment this past August, enrolled 100 patients, 50 in the active treatment group (who received capsulated CBD 300 mg daily for 14 days plus pharmacologic therapy [antipyretics] and clinical measures) and 50 who received placebo.

The primary outcome is intended to help clarify the potential role of oral CBD for preventing COVID-19 disease progression, modifying disease-associated clinical indices, and modulating inflammatory parameters, such as the cytokine storm, according to lead investigator Jose Alexandre de Souza Crippa, MD, PhD, professor of neuropsychology at the Ribeirao Preto Medical School at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, in the description of the study on clinicaltrials.gov. Crippa declined to provide any additional information about the trial in an email to Medscape Medical News.
 

Calming or preventing the storm

While Crippa and colleagues wrap up their CBD trial in South America, several North American and Canadian researchers are seeking to clarify and address one of the most therapeutically challenging aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infection — the lung macrophage–orchestrated hyperinflammatory response.

Although hyperinflammation is not unique to SARS-CoV-2 infection, disease severity and COVID-19–related mortality have been linked to this rapid and prolonged surge of inflammatory cytokines (eg, interleukin 6 [IL-6], IL-10, tumor necrosis factors [TNF], and chemokines) and the cytokine storm.

“When you stimulate CB2 receptors (involved in fighting inflammation), you get a release of the same inflammatory cytokines that are involved in COVID,” Cecilia Costiniuk, MD, associate professor and researcher at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Canada, told Medscape Medical News.

“So, if you can act on this receptor, you might be able to reduce the release of those damaging cytokines that are causing ARDS, lung damage, etc,” she explained. Targeting these inflammatory mediators has been a key strategy in research aimed at reducing COVID-19 severity and related mortality, which is where CBD comes into play.

“CBD is a very powerful immune regulator. It keeps the [immune] engine on, but it doesn’t push the gas pedal, and it doesn’t push the brake completely,” Babak Baban, PhD, professor and immunologist at the Dental College of Georgia at Augusta University, told Medscape Medical News.

To explore the effectiveness of CBD in reducing hyperactivated inflammatory reactions, Baban and colleagues examined the potential of CBD to ameliorate ARDS in a murine model. The group divided wild-type male mice into sham, control, and treatment groups.

The sham group received intranasal phosphate buffered saline; the treatment and control groups received a polyriboinosinic:polycytidylic acid (poly I:C) double-stranded RNA analogue (100 mcg daily for 3 days) to simulate the cytokine storm and clinical ARDS symptoms.

Following the second poly I:C dose, the treatment group received CBD 5 mg/kg intraperitoneally every other day for 6 days. The mice were sacrificed on day 8.

The study results, published in July in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, first confirmed that the poly I:C model simulated the cytokine storm in ARDS, reducing blood oxygen saturation by as much as 10% (from ±81.6% to ±72.2%).

Intraperitoneally administered CBD appeared to reverse these ARDS-like trends. “We observed a significant improvement in severe lymphopenia, a mild decline in the ratio of neutrophils to T cells, and significant reductions in levels of [inflammatory and immune factors] IL-6, IFN-gamma [interferon gamma], and in TNF-alpha after the second CBD dose,” Baban said.

There was also a marked downregulation in infiltrating neutrophils and macrophages in the lung, leading to partial restoration of lung morphology and structure. The investigators write that this suggests “a counter inflammatory role for CBD to limit ARDS progression.”

Additional findings from a follow-up study published in mid-October “provide strong data that CBD may partially assert its beneficial and protective impact through its regulation of the apelin peptide,” wrote Baban in an email to Medscape Medical News.

“Apelin may also be a reliable biomarker for early diagnosis of ARDS in general, and in COVID-19 in particular,” he wrote.

Questions remain concerning dose response and whether CBD alone or in combination with other phytocannabinoids is more effective for treating COVID-19. Timing is likewise unclear.

Baban explained that as a result of the biphasic nature of COVID-19, the “sweet spot” appears to be just before the innate immune response progresses into an inflammation-driven response and fibrotic lung damage occurs.

But Wilkerson isn’t as convinced. She said that as with a thermostat, the endocannabinoid system needs tweaking to get it in the right place, that is, to achieve immune homeostasis. The COVID cytokine storm is highly unpredictable, she added, saying, “Right now, the timing for controlling the COVID cytokine storm is really a moving target.”
 

Is safety a concern?

Safety questions are expected to arise, especially in relation to COVID-19. CBD is not risk free, and one size does not fit all. Human CBD studies report gastrointestinal and somnolent effects, as well as drug-drug interactions.

Findings from a recent systematic review of randomized, controlled CBD trials support overall tolerability, suggesting that serious adverse events are rare. Such events are believed to be related to drug-drug interactions rather than to CBD itself. On the flip side, it is nonintoxicating, and there does not appear to be potential for abuse.

“It’s generally well tolerated,” Wilkerson said. “There’ve now been several clinical trials in numerous patient population settings where basically the only time you really start to have issues is where you have patients on very select agents. But this is where a pharmacist would come into play.”

Costiniuk agreed: “Just because it’s cannabis, it doesn’t mean that there’s going to be strange or unusual effects; these people [ie, those with severe COVID-19] are in the hospital and monitored very closely.”
 

Delving into the weeds: What’s next?

Although non-COVID-19 cannabinoid researchers have encountered regulatory roadblocks, several research groups that have had the prescience to dive in at the right time are gaining momentum.

Baban’s team has connected with one of the nation’s few academic laboratories authorized to work with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and are awaiting protocol approval so that they can reproduce their research, this time using two CBD formulations (injectable and inhaled).

If findings are positive, they will move forward quickly to meet with the FDA, Baban said, adding that the team is also collaborating with two organizations to conduct human clinical trials in hopes of pushing up timing.

The initial article caught the eye of the World Health Organization, which included it in its global literature on the coronavirus resource section.

Israeli researchers have also been quite busy. InnoCan Pharma and Tel Aviv University are collaborating to explore the potential for CBD-loaded exosomes (minute extracellular particles that mediate intracellular communication, including via innate and adaptive immune responses). The group plans to use these loaded exosomes to target and facilitate recovery of COVID-19–damaged lung cells.

From a broader perspective, the prospects for harnessing cannabinoids for immune modulation will be more thoroughly explored in a special issue of Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, which has extended its current call for papers, studies, abstracts, and conference proceedings until the end of December.

Like many of the therapeutic strategies under investigation for the treatment of COVID-19, studies in CBD may continue to raise more questions than answers.

Still, Wilkerson is optimistic. “Taken together, these studies along with countless others suggest that the complex pharmacophore of Cannabis sativa may hold therapeutic utility to treat lung inflammation, such as what is seen in a COVID-19 cytokine storm,» she told Medscape Medical News. “I’m very excited to see what comes out of the research.”

Baban, Wilkerson, and Costiniuk have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Plagued by false starts, a few dashed hopes, but with perhaps a glimmer of light on the horizon, the race to find an effective treatment for COVID-19 continues. At last count, more than 300 treatments and 200 vaccines were in preclinical or clinical development (not to mention the numerous existing agents that are being evaluated for repurposing).

There is also a renewed interest in cannabinoid therapeutics — in particular, the nonpsychoactive agent cannabidiol (CBD) and the prospect of its modulating inflammatory and other disease-associated clinical indices, including SARS-CoV-2–induced viral load, hyperinflammation, the cytokine storm, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Long hobbled by regulatory, political, and financial barriers, CBD’s potential ability to knock back COVID-19–related inflammation might just open doors that have been closed for years to CBD researchers.
 

Why CBD and why now?

CBD and the resulting therapeutics have been plagued by a complicated association with recreational cannabis use. It’s been just 2 years since CBD-based therapeutics moved into mainstream medicine — the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Epidiolex oral solution for the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, and in August, the FDA approved it for tuberous sclerosis complex.

CBD’s mechanism of action has not been fully elucidated, but on the basis of its role in immune responses — well described in research spanning more than two decades — it›s not surprising that cannabinoid researchers have thrown their hats into the COVID-19 drug development ring.

The anti-inflammatory potential of CBD is substantial and appears to be related to the fact that it shares 20 protein targets common to inflammation-related pathways, Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, research assistant professor at the University of Florida School of Pharmacy, Gainesville, Florida, explained to Medscape Medical News.

Among the various trials that are currently recruiting or are underway is one that is slated for completion this fall. CANDIDATE (Cannabidiol for COVID-19 Patients With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19) is a randomized, controlled, double-blind study led by Brazilian researchers at the University of São Paulo. The study, which began recruitment this past August, enrolled 100 patients, 50 in the active treatment group (who received capsulated CBD 300 mg daily for 14 days plus pharmacologic therapy [antipyretics] and clinical measures) and 50 who received placebo.

The primary outcome is intended to help clarify the potential role of oral CBD for preventing COVID-19 disease progression, modifying disease-associated clinical indices, and modulating inflammatory parameters, such as the cytokine storm, according to lead investigator Jose Alexandre de Souza Crippa, MD, PhD, professor of neuropsychology at the Ribeirao Preto Medical School at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, in the description of the study on clinicaltrials.gov. Crippa declined to provide any additional information about the trial in an email to Medscape Medical News.
 

Calming or preventing the storm

While Crippa and colleagues wrap up their CBD trial in South America, several North American and Canadian researchers are seeking to clarify and address one of the most therapeutically challenging aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infection — the lung macrophage–orchestrated hyperinflammatory response.

Although hyperinflammation is not unique to SARS-CoV-2 infection, disease severity and COVID-19–related mortality have been linked to this rapid and prolonged surge of inflammatory cytokines (eg, interleukin 6 [IL-6], IL-10, tumor necrosis factors [TNF], and chemokines) and the cytokine storm.

“When you stimulate CB2 receptors (involved in fighting inflammation), you get a release of the same inflammatory cytokines that are involved in COVID,” Cecilia Costiniuk, MD, associate professor and researcher at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Canada, told Medscape Medical News.

“So, if you can act on this receptor, you might be able to reduce the release of those damaging cytokines that are causing ARDS, lung damage, etc,” she explained. Targeting these inflammatory mediators has been a key strategy in research aimed at reducing COVID-19 severity and related mortality, which is where CBD comes into play.

“CBD is a very powerful immune regulator. It keeps the [immune] engine on, but it doesn’t push the gas pedal, and it doesn’t push the brake completely,” Babak Baban, PhD, professor and immunologist at the Dental College of Georgia at Augusta University, told Medscape Medical News.

To explore the effectiveness of CBD in reducing hyperactivated inflammatory reactions, Baban and colleagues examined the potential of CBD to ameliorate ARDS in a murine model. The group divided wild-type male mice into sham, control, and treatment groups.

The sham group received intranasal phosphate buffered saline; the treatment and control groups received a polyriboinosinic:polycytidylic acid (poly I:C) double-stranded RNA analogue (100 mcg daily for 3 days) to simulate the cytokine storm and clinical ARDS symptoms.

Following the second poly I:C dose, the treatment group received CBD 5 mg/kg intraperitoneally every other day for 6 days. The mice were sacrificed on day 8.

The study results, published in July in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, first confirmed that the poly I:C model simulated the cytokine storm in ARDS, reducing blood oxygen saturation by as much as 10% (from ±81.6% to ±72.2%).

Intraperitoneally administered CBD appeared to reverse these ARDS-like trends. “We observed a significant improvement in severe lymphopenia, a mild decline in the ratio of neutrophils to T cells, and significant reductions in levels of [inflammatory and immune factors] IL-6, IFN-gamma [interferon gamma], and in TNF-alpha after the second CBD dose,” Baban said.

There was also a marked downregulation in infiltrating neutrophils and macrophages in the lung, leading to partial restoration of lung morphology and structure. The investigators write that this suggests “a counter inflammatory role for CBD to limit ARDS progression.”

Additional findings from a follow-up study published in mid-October “provide strong data that CBD may partially assert its beneficial and protective impact through its regulation of the apelin peptide,” wrote Baban in an email to Medscape Medical News.

“Apelin may also be a reliable biomarker for early diagnosis of ARDS in general, and in COVID-19 in particular,” he wrote.

Questions remain concerning dose response and whether CBD alone or in combination with other phytocannabinoids is more effective for treating COVID-19. Timing is likewise unclear.

Baban explained that as a result of the biphasic nature of COVID-19, the “sweet spot” appears to be just before the innate immune response progresses into an inflammation-driven response and fibrotic lung damage occurs.

But Wilkerson isn’t as convinced. She said that as with a thermostat, the endocannabinoid system needs tweaking to get it in the right place, that is, to achieve immune homeostasis. The COVID cytokine storm is highly unpredictable, she added, saying, “Right now, the timing for controlling the COVID cytokine storm is really a moving target.”
 

Is safety a concern?

Safety questions are expected to arise, especially in relation to COVID-19. CBD is not risk free, and one size does not fit all. Human CBD studies report gastrointestinal and somnolent effects, as well as drug-drug interactions.

Findings from a recent systematic review of randomized, controlled CBD trials support overall tolerability, suggesting that serious adverse events are rare. Such events are believed to be related to drug-drug interactions rather than to CBD itself. On the flip side, it is nonintoxicating, and there does not appear to be potential for abuse.

“It’s generally well tolerated,” Wilkerson said. “There’ve now been several clinical trials in numerous patient population settings where basically the only time you really start to have issues is where you have patients on very select agents. But this is where a pharmacist would come into play.”

Costiniuk agreed: “Just because it’s cannabis, it doesn’t mean that there’s going to be strange or unusual effects; these people [ie, those with severe COVID-19] are in the hospital and monitored very closely.”
 

Delving into the weeds: What’s next?

Although non-COVID-19 cannabinoid researchers have encountered regulatory roadblocks, several research groups that have had the prescience to dive in at the right time are gaining momentum.

Baban’s team has connected with one of the nation’s few academic laboratories authorized to work with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and are awaiting protocol approval so that they can reproduce their research, this time using two CBD formulations (injectable and inhaled).

If findings are positive, they will move forward quickly to meet with the FDA, Baban said, adding that the team is also collaborating with two organizations to conduct human clinical trials in hopes of pushing up timing.

The initial article caught the eye of the World Health Organization, which included it in its global literature on the coronavirus resource section.

Israeli researchers have also been quite busy. InnoCan Pharma and Tel Aviv University are collaborating to explore the potential for CBD-loaded exosomes (minute extracellular particles that mediate intracellular communication, including via innate and adaptive immune responses). The group plans to use these loaded exosomes to target and facilitate recovery of COVID-19–damaged lung cells.

From a broader perspective, the prospects for harnessing cannabinoids for immune modulation will be more thoroughly explored in a special issue of Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, which has extended its current call for papers, studies, abstracts, and conference proceedings until the end of December.

Like many of the therapeutic strategies under investigation for the treatment of COVID-19, studies in CBD may continue to raise more questions than answers.

Still, Wilkerson is optimistic. “Taken together, these studies along with countless others suggest that the complex pharmacophore of Cannabis sativa may hold therapeutic utility to treat lung inflammation, such as what is seen in a COVID-19 cytokine storm,» she told Medscape Medical News. “I’m very excited to see what comes out of the research.”

Baban, Wilkerson, and Costiniuk have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Plagued by false starts, a few dashed hopes, but with perhaps a glimmer of light on the horizon, the race to find an effective treatment for COVID-19 continues. At last count, more than 300 treatments and 200 vaccines were in preclinical or clinical development (not to mention the numerous existing agents that are being evaluated for repurposing).

There is also a renewed interest in cannabinoid therapeutics — in particular, the nonpsychoactive agent cannabidiol (CBD) and the prospect of its modulating inflammatory and other disease-associated clinical indices, including SARS-CoV-2–induced viral load, hyperinflammation, the cytokine storm, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Long hobbled by regulatory, political, and financial barriers, CBD’s potential ability to knock back COVID-19–related inflammation might just open doors that have been closed for years to CBD researchers.
 

Why CBD and why now?

CBD and the resulting therapeutics have been plagued by a complicated association with recreational cannabis use. It’s been just 2 years since CBD-based therapeutics moved into mainstream medicine — the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Epidiolex oral solution for the treatment of Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, and in August, the FDA approved it for tuberous sclerosis complex.

CBD’s mechanism of action has not been fully elucidated, but on the basis of its role in immune responses — well described in research spanning more than two decades — it›s not surprising that cannabinoid researchers have thrown their hats into the COVID-19 drug development ring.

The anti-inflammatory potential of CBD is substantial and appears to be related to the fact that it shares 20 protein targets common to inflammation-related pathways, Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, research assistant professor at the University of Florida School of Pharmacy, Gainesville, Florida, explained to Medscape Medical News.

Among the various trials that are currently recruiting or are underway is one that is slated for completion this fall. CANDIDATE (Cannabidiol for COVID-19 Patients With Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19) is a randomized, controlled, double-blind study led by Brazilian researchers at the University of São Paulo. The study, which began recruitment this past August, enrolled 100 patients, 50 in the active treatment group (who received capsulated CBD 300 mg daily for 14 days plus pharmacologic therapy [antipyretics] and clinical measures) and 50 who received placebo.

The primary outcome is intended to help clarify the potential role of oral CBD for preventing COVID-19 disease progression, modifying disease-associated clinical indices, and modulating inflammatory parameters, such as the cytokine storm, according to lead investigator Jose Alexandre de Souza Crippa, MD, PhD, professor of neuropsychology at the Ribeirao Preto Medical School at the University of São Paulo in Brazil, in the description of the study on clinicaltrials.gov. Crippa declined to provide any additional information about the trial in an email to Medscape Medical News.
 

Calming or preventing the storm

While Crippa and colleagues wrap up their CBD trial in South America, several North American and Canadian researchers are seeking to clarify and address one of the most therapeutically challenging aspects of SARS-CoV-2 infection — the lung macrophage–orchestrated hyperinflammatory response.

Although hyperinflammation is not unique to SARS-CoV-2 infection, disease severity and COVID-19–related mortality have been linked to this rapid and prolonged surge of inflammatory cytokines (eg, interleukin 6 [IL-6], IL-10, tumor necrosis factors [TNF], and chemokines) and the cytokine storm.

“When you stimulate CB2 receptors (involved in fighting inflammation), you get a release of the same inflammatory cytokines that are involved in COVID,” Cecilia Costiniuk, MD, associate professor and researcher at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Canada, told Medscape Medical News.

“So, if you can act on this receptor, you might be able to reduce the release of those damaging cytokines that are causing ARDS, lung damage, etc,” she explained. Targeting these inflammatory mediators has been a key strategy in research aimed at reducing COVID-19 severity and related mortality, which is where CBD comes into play.

“CBD is a very powerful immune regulator. It keeps the [immune] engine on, but it doesn’t push the gas pedal, and it doesn’t push the brake completely,” Babak Baban, PhD, professor and immunologist at the Dental College of Georgia at Augusta University, told Medscape Medical News.

To explore the effectiveness of CBD in reducing hyperactivated inflammatory reactions, Baban and colleagues examined the potential of CBD to ameliorate ARDS in a murine model. The group divided wild-type male mice into sham, control, and treatment groups.

The sham group received intranasal phosphate buffered saline; the treatment and control groups received a polyriboinosinic:polycytidylic acid (poly I:C) double-stranded RNA analogue (100 mcg daily for 3 days) to simulate the cytokine storm and clinical ARDS symptoms.

Following the second poly I:C dose, the treatment group received CBD 5 mg/kg intraperitoneally every other day for 6 days. The mice were sacrificed on day 8.

The study results, published in July in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, first confirmed that the poly I:C model simulated the cytokine storm in ARDS, reducing blood oxygen saturation by as much as 10% (from ±81.6% to ±72.2%).

Intraperitoneally administered CBD appeared to reverse these ARDS-like trends. “We observed a significant improvement in severe lymphopenia, a mild decline in the ratio of neutrophils to T cells, and significant reductions in levels of [inflammatory and immune factors] IL-6, IFN-gamma [interferon gamma], and in TNF-alpha after the second CBD dose,” Baban said.

There was also a marked downregulation in infiltrating neutrophils and macrophages in the lung, leading to partial restoration of lung morphology and structure. The investigators write that this suggests “a counter inflammatory role for CBD to limit ARDS progression.”

Additional findings from a follow-up study published in mid-October “provide strong data that CBD may partially assert its beneficial and protective impact through its regulation of the apelin peptide,” wrote Baban in an email to Medscape Medical News.

“Apelin may also be a reliable biomarker for early diagnosis of ARDS in general, and in COVID-19 in particular,” he wrote.

Questions remain concerning dose response and whether CBD alone or in combination with other phytocannabinoids is more effective for treating COVID-19. Timing is likewise unclear.

Baban explained that as a result of the biphasic nature of COVID-19, the “sweet spot” appears to be just before the innate immune response progresses into an inflammation-driven response and fibrotic lung damage occurs.

But Wilkerson isn’t as convinced. She said that as with a thermostat, the endocannabinoid system needs tweaking to get it in the right place, that is, to achieve immune homeostasis. The COVID cytokine storm is highly unpredictable, she added, saying, “Right now, the timing for controlling the COVID cytokine storm is really a moving target.”
 

Is safety a concern?

Safety questions are expected to arise, especially in relation to COVID-19. CBD is not risk free, and one size does not fit all. Human CBD studies report gastrointestinal and somnolent effects, as well as drug-drug interactions.

Findings from a recent systematic review of randomized, controlled CBD trials support overall tolerability, suggesting that serious adverse events are rare. Such events are believed to be related to drug-drug interactions rather than to CBD itself. On the flip side, it is nonintoxicating, and there does not appear to be potential for abuse.

“It’s generally well tolerated,” Wilkerson said. “There’ve now been several clinical trials in numerous patient population settings where basically the only time you really start to have issues is where you have patients on very select agents. But this is where a pharmacist would come into play.”

Costiniuk agreed: “Just because it’s cannabis, it doesn’t mean that there’s going to be strange or unusual effects; these people [ie, those with severe COVID-19] are in the hospital and monitored very closely.”
 

Delving into the weeds: What’s next?

Although non-COVID-19 cannabinoid researchers have encountered regulatory roadblocks, several research groups that have had the prescience to dive in at the right time are gaining momentum.

Baban’s team has connected with one of the nation’s few academic laboratories authorized to work with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and are awaiting protocol approval so that they can reproduce their research, this time using two CBD formulations (injectable and inhaled).

If findings are positive, they will move forward quickly to meet with the FDA, Baban said, adding that the team is also collaborating with two organizations to conduct human clinical trials in hopes of pushing up timing.

The initial article caught the eye of the World Health Organization, which included it in its global literature on the coronavirus resource section.

Israeli researchers have also been quite busy. InnoCan Pharma and Tel Aviv University are collaborating to explore the potential for CBD-loaded exosomes (minute extracellular particles that mediate intracellular communication, including via innate and adaptive immune responses). The group plans to use these loaded exosomes to target and facilitate recovery of COVID-19–damaged lung cells.

From a broader perspective, the prospects for harnessing cannabinoids for immune modulation will be more thoroughly explored in a special issue of Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, which has extended its current call for papers, studies, abstracts, and conference proceedings until the end of December.

Like many of the therapeutic strategies under investigation for the treatment of COVID-19, studies in CBD may continue to raise more questions than answers.

Still, Wilkerson is optimistic. “Taken together, these studies along with countless others suggest that the complex pharmacophore of Cannabis sativa may hold therapeutic utility to treat lung inflammation, such as what is seen in a COVID-19 cytokine storm,» she told Medscape Medical News. “I’m very excited to see what comes out of the research.”

Baban, Wilkerson, and Costiniuk have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Transcatheter replacement of a failing surgical bioprosthetic valve showed durably favorable valve hemodynamics coupled with markedly improved patient functional status and excellent quality of life benefits at 5 years of follow-up in the prospective multicenter PARTNER 2 ViV Registry, Rebecca T. Hahn, MD, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

She provided an update on previously reported 3-year outcomes in 365 patients at high to extreme surgical risk who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a 23-mm or 26-mm Sapien XT valve to address a failing surgical aortic bioprosthesis. The ViV (valve-in-valve) results are quite encouraging, she said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

“I think that this information is changing our algorithm for how we initially make treatment decisions in our patients,” according to the cardiologist.

“We now know that we can salvage a surgical bioprosthetic valve failure with a transcatheter procedure that is relatively safe and has good outcomes out to 5 years – and that’s with a second-generation TAVR valve, not even the third-generation valve,” observed Dr. Hahn, director of interventional echocardiography at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center and professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University, both in New York.

Interventionalists consider the third-generation valve, the Sapien 3, a superior platform compared to the Sapien 2 in use when the PARTNERS 2 ViV Registry started, she added.

At 5 years of follow-up since TAVR valve implantation, the all-cause mortality rate was 50.6%, up significantly from 32.7% at 3 years. However, this high mortality comes as no surprise given that registry participants had a profound comorbidity burden, as reflected in their mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 9.1% at the time of TAVR. Of note, the 5-year mortality in surgically high- to extreme-risk patients in the ViV registry was comparable with the 45.9% rate at 5 years following TAVR of a native valve in intermediate-risk patients in the PARTNER 2b trial and superior to the 73% rate with TAVR of a native aortic valve in inoperable patients in PARTNER 2a, the cardiologist said.

The 5-year stroke rate in the ViV registry was 10.1%, up from 6.2% at 3 years. The cumulative incidence of death or stroke through 5 years was 53.8%.

Mortality was significantly lower in recipients of a 26-mm Sapien 2 valve than with the 23-mm version, at 40% at 5 years versus 53%. Recipients of the smaller valve were more often male, had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease, a higher surgical risk score, a significantly smaller baseline aortic valve area, and a higher mean gradient. Dr. Hahn and her coinvestigators are now examining their data to determine if surgical valve size/patient mismatch was a major driver of adverse outcomes, as has been reported in some other datasets.

At 5 years, the rate of structural valve deterioration–related hemodynamic valve deterioration (SVD-HVD) or bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) using the soon-to-be-published Valve Academic Research Consortium–3 definitions was 6.6%. The rates of each class of valve deterioration at 5 years in this high- to extreme-risk population were 1.2 per 100 patient-years for SVD-HVD, 0.88 per 100 patient-years for all BVF, and 0.4 per 100 patient-years for SVD-related BVF.

Fully 51% of 5-year survivors were NYHA functional class I, whereas more than 90% of patients were class III or IV at baseline. The mean gradient was 16.8 mm Hg at 5 years, the Doppler velocity index was 0.35, and the mean Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score was 74.2, all closely similar to the values at 3 years. That dramatic and sustained improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire from a baseline of 43.1 points is larger than ever seen in any clinical trial of native valve TAVR, Dr. Hahn noted.

For discussant Vinayak N. Bapat, MD a cardiothoracic surgeon at the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, the 5-year PARTNER 2 follow-up data contains a clear take-home message: “These data show that, when we as surgeons are putting in small valves, we ought to put in valves that are expandable.”

Discussant Jeroen J. Bax, MD, had one major caveat regarding the PARTNER 2 ViV Registry findings: They focused on high-surgical-risk patients.

“I think we would all agree that in high-risk patients, valve-in-valve is a better option than redo surgery. But in young, low-risk patients who are getting a bioprosthetic valve – and we’re going to be seeing more and more of them because over 90% of patients in Europe getting aortic valve surgery now are getting a bioprosthetic valve – we really don’t know what the best option is,” said Dr. Bax, professor of cardiology at the University of Leiden (the Netherlands).

He suggested a randomized trial of TAVR versus redo surgery in low-risk patients with failing bioprosthetic valves is in order, particularly in light of concerns raised by a recent report from a French national patient registry. These were “high-quality, real-world data,” Dr. Bax said, and while they showed better early outcomes for TAVR ViV than with redo surgery, there was a crossing of the curves for heart failure hospitalization already by 2 years.

“We need to look closely at younger, low-risk patients,” he concluded.

The PARTNER 2 ViV Registry is funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Hahn reported receiving research support from Philips Healthcare and 3Mensio and honoraria from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Philips Healthcare.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hahn RT. TCT 2020, Late breaker.

Transcatheter replacement of a failing surgical bioprosthetic valve showed durably favorable valve hemodynamics coupled with markedly improved patient functional status and excellent quality of life benefits at 5 years of follow-up in the prospective multicenter PARTNER 2 ViV Registry, Rebecca T. Hahn, MD, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

She provided an update on previously reported 3-year outcomes in 365 patients at high to extreme surgical risk who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a 23-mm or 26-mm Sapien XT valve to address a failing surgical aortic bioprosthesis. The ViV (valve-in-valve) results are quite encouraging, she said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

“I think that this information is changing our algorithm for how we initially make treatment decisions in our patients,” according to the cardiologist.

“We now know that we can salvage a surgical bioprosthetic valve failure with a transcatheter procedure that is relatively safe and has good outcomes out to 5 years – and that’s with a second-generation TAVR valve, not even the third-generation valve,” observed Dr. Hahn, director of interventional echocardiography at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center and professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University, both in New York.

Interventionalists consider the third-generation valve, the Sapien 3, a superior platform compared to the Sapien 2 in use when the PARTNERS 2 ViV Registry started, she added.

At 5 years of follow-up since TAVR valve implantation, the all-cause mortality rate was 50.6%, up significantly from 32.7% at 3 years. However, this high mortality comes as no surprise given that registry participants had a profound comorbidity burden, as reflected in their mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 9.1% at the time of TAVR. Of note, the 5-year mortality in surgically high- to extreme-risk patients in the ViV registry was comparable with the 45.9% rate at 5 years following TAVR of a native valve in intermediate-risk patients in the PARTNER 2b trial and superior to the 73% rate with TAVR of a native aortic valve in inoperable patients in PARTNER 2a, the cardiologist said.

The 5-year stroke rate in the ViV registry was 10.1%, up from 6.2% at 3 years. The cumulative incidence of death or stroke through 5 years was 53.8%.

Mortality was significantly lower in recipients of a 26-mm Sapien 2 valve than with the 23-mm version, at 40% at 5 years versus 53%. Recipients of the smaller valve were more often male, had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease, a higher surgical risk score, a significantly smaller baseline aortic valve area, and a higher mean gradient. Dr. Hahn and her coinvestigators are now examining their data to determine if surgical valve size/patient mismatch was a major driver of adverse outcomes, as has been reported in some other datasets.

At 5 years, the rate of structural valve deterioration–related hemodynamic valve deterioration (SVD-HVD) or bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) using the soon-to-be-published Valve Academic Research Consortium–3 definitions was 6.6%. The rates of each class of valve deterioration at 5 years in this high- to extreme-risk population were 1.2 per 100 patient-years for SVD-HVD, 0.88 per 100 patient-years for all BVF, and 0.4 per 100 patient-years for SVD-related BVF.

Fully 51% of 5-year survivors were NYHA functional class I, whereas more than 90% of patients were class III or IV at baseline. The mean gradient was 16.8 mm Hg at 5 years, the Doppler velocity index was 0.35, and the mean Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score was 74.2, all closely similar to the values at 3 years. That dramatic and sustained improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire from a baseline of 43.1 points is larger than ever seen in any clinical trial of native valve TAVR, Dr. Hahn noted.

For discussant Vinayak N. Bapat, MD a cardiothoracic surgeon at the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, the 5-year PARTNER 2 follow-up data contains a clear take-home message: “These data show that, when we as surgeons are putting in small valves, we ought to put in valves that are expandable.”

Discussant Jeroen J. Bax, MD, had one major caveat regarding the PARTNER 2 ViV Registry findings: They focused on high-surgical-risk patients.

“I think we would all agree that in high-risk patients, valve-in-valve is a better option than redo surgery. But in young, low-risk patients who are getting a bioprosthetic valve – and we’re going to be seeing more and more of them because over 90% of patients in Europe getting aortic valve surgery now are getting a bioprosthetic valve – we really don’t know what the best option is,” said Dr. Bax, professor of cardiology at the University of Leiden (the Netherlands).

He suggested a randomized trial of TAVR versus redo surgery in low-risk patients with failing bioprosthetic valves is in order, particularly in light of concerns raised by a recent report from a French national patient registry. These were “high-quality, real-world data,” Dr. Bax said, and while they showed better early outcomes for TAVR ViV than with redo surgery, there was a crossing of the curves for heart failure hospitalization already by 2 years.

“We need to look closely at younger, low-risk patients,” he concluded.

The PARTNER 2 ViV Registry is funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Hahn reported receiving research support from Philips Healthcare and 3Mensio and honoraria from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Philips Healthcare.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hahn RT. TCT 2020, Late breaker.

Transcatheter replacement of a failing surgical bioprosthetic valve showed durably favorable valve hemodynamics coupled with markedly improved patient functional status and excellent quality of life benefits at 5 years of follow-up in the prospective multicenter PARTNER 2 ViV Registry, Rebecca T. Hahn, MD, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

She provided an update on previously reported 3-year outcomes in 365 patients at high to extreme surgical risk who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a 23-mm or 26-mm Sapien XT valve to address a failing surgical aortic bioprosthesis. The ViV (valve-in-valve) results are quite encouraging, she said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

“I think that this information is changing our algorithm for how we initially make treatment decisions in our patients,” according to the cardiologist.

“We now know that we can salvage a surgical bioprosthetic valve failure with a transcatheter procedure that is relatively safe and has good outcomes out to 5 years – and that’s with a second-generation TAVR valve, not even the third-generation valve,” observed Dr. Hahn, director of interventional echocardiography at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center and professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University, both in New York.

Interventionalists consider the third-generation valve, the Sapien 3, a superior platform compared to the Sapien 2 in use when the PARTNERS 2 ViV Registry started, she added.

At 5 years of follow-up since TAVR valve implantation, the all-cause mortality rate was 50.6%, up significantly from 32.7% at 3 years. However, this high mortality comes as no surprise given that registry participants had a profound comorbidity burden, as reflected in their mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 9.1% at the time of TAVR. Of note, the 5-year mortality in surgically high- to extreme-risk patients in the ViV registry was comparable with the 45.9% rate at 5 years following TAVR of a native valve in intermediate-risk patients in the PARTNER 2b trial and superior to the 73% rate with TAVR of a native aortic valve in inoperable patients in PARTNER 2a, the cardiologist said.

The 5-year stroke rate in the ViV registry was 10.1%, up from 6.2% at 3 years. The cumulative incidence of death or stroke through 5 years was 53.8%.

Mortality was significantly lower in recipients of a 26-mm Sapien 2 valve than with the 23-mm version, at 40% at 5 years versus 53%. Recipients of the smaller valve were more often male, had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease, a higher surgical risk score, a significantly smaller baseline aortic valve area, and a higher mean gradient. Dr. Hahn and her coinvestigators are now examining their data to determine if surgical valve size/patient mismatch was a major driver of adverse outcomes, as has been reported in some other datasets.

At 5 years, the rate of structural valve deterioration–related hemodynamic valve deterioration (SVD-HVD) or bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) using the soon-to-be-published Valve Academic Research Consortium–3 definitions was 6.6%. The rates of each class of valve deterioration at 5 years in this high- to extreme-risk population were 1.2 per 100 patient-years for SVD-HVD, 0.88 per 100 patient-years for all BVF, and 0.4 per 100 patient-years for SVD-related BVF.

Fully 51% of 5-year survivors were NYHA functional class I, whereas more than 90% of patients were class III or IV at baseline. The mean gradient was 16.8 mm Hg at 5 years, the Doppler velocity index was 0.35, and the mean Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score was 74.2, all closely similar to the values at 3 years. That dramatic and sustained improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire from a baseline of 43.1 points is larger than ever seen in any clinical trial of native valve TAVR, Dr. Hahn noted.

For discussant Vinayak N. Bapat, MD a cardiothoracic surgeon at the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, the 5-year PARTNER 2 follow-up data contains a clear take-home message: “These data show that, when we as surgeons are putting in small valves, we ought to put in valves that are expandable.”

Discussant Jeroen J. Bax, MD, had one major caveat regarding the PARTNER 2 ViV Registry findings: They focused on high-surgical-risk patients.

“I think we would all agree that in high-risk patients, valve-in-valve is a better option than redo surgery. But in young, low-risk patients who are getting a bioprosthetic valve – and we’re going to be seeing more and more of them because over 90% of patients in Europe getting aortic valve surgery now are getting a bioprosthetic valve – we really don’t know what the best option is,” said Dr. Bax, professor of cardiology at the University of Leiden (the Netherlands).

He suggested a randomized trial of TAVR versus redo surgery in low-risk patients with failing bioprosthetic valves is in order, particularly in light of concerns raised by a recent report from a French national patient registry. These were “high-quality, real-world data,” Dr. Bax said, and while they showed better early outcomes for TAVR ViV than with redo surgery, there was a crossing of the curves for heart failure hospitalization already by 2 years.

“We need to look closely at younger, low-risk patients,” he concluded.

The PARTNER 2 ViV Registry is funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Hahn reported receiving research support from Philips Healthcare and 3Mensio and honoraria from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Philips Healthcare.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hahn RT. TCT 2020, Late breaker.

Patients with mild heart failure who received a cardiac resynchronization device had significantly reduced rates of hospitalizations for heart failure during follow-up of 1,820 patients for an average of 5.6 years, identifying in this post hoc analysis another benefit from this device that patients potentially receive in addition to an established survival advantage.

Extended follow-up of patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial showed that patients with either New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I or II cardiomyopathy who received a cardiac resynchronization device with a defibrillator (CRT-D) had a significant reduction in all-cause hospitalization during follow-up, compared with control patients randomized to receive an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) device. This reduction in all hospitalizations was specifically driven by a significant reduction in cardiovascular hospitalizations, and the drop in cardiovascular hospitalizations was specifically driven by a cut in hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), Sabu Thomas, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

The data showed that during follow-up all-cause hospitalizations occurred in 73% of the CRT-D patients and 83% of those who received an ICD; cardiovascular hospitalizations happened in 29% of the CRT-D patients and in 43% of those with an ICD; and HHF occurred in 12% of the CRT-D patients and in 22% of those with an ICD, reported Dr. Thomas, a heart failure cardiologist at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. All three between-group differences were statistically significant for these post hoc endpoints.

These reduced hospitalizations also linked with better survival. Patients in the trial database with cardiovascular hospitalizations had a nearly fourfold higher rate of death, compared with nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Thomas said.

The findings “suggest that this device [CRT-D] has sustained benefit in these patients for up to 7 years,” said Dr. Thomas and his collaborator, Valentina Kutyifa, MD, in an interview. “However, this was only seen in patients with left bundle branch block [LBBB].” In patients with non-LBBB, CRT-D was not associated with a reduction in [cardiovascular] hospitalizations.

The LBBB connection

In a multivariate analysis, the 1,281 patients with LBBB (70% of the study cohort) who were more than 6 months out from device placement had a significant 43% relative cut in their incidence of cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with that of control patients who received an ICD, while the 537 patients with non-LBBB showed no benefit from CRT-D treatment, compared with those who received an ICD, for reducing cardiovascular hospitalizations. (Data from two enrolled patients weren’t available for the analyses.) This finding that the HHF benefit focused in patients with LBBB was consistent with many prior observations that CRT-D was most effective in this patient subgroup.

The researchers also highlighted that their findings apply only to patients with NYHA functional class I or II heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the only types of patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial (15% had class I disease).

The results also showed that, during the first 6 months on CRT-D treatment, patients with a LBBB showed a significant 43% increase in their cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with control patients, which may have been driven by device-related events. “We did not investigate this in detail, and it needs more study,” said Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kutyifa, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of Rochester.Their new findings extend the initial, prespecified results of the MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial, which was designed to examine a primary endpoint of death from any cause or a nonfatal heart failure event. During the initial average follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received a CRT-D device had a significant relative reduction in this endpoint of 34%, compared with patients on ICD treatment, exclusively in patients with LBBB. Extended follow-up for as long as 7 years of the same cohort showed a continued significant reduction of all-cause death compared with controls, a 41% relative risk reduction, that again was only apparent in patients with LBBB.

The MADIT-CRT findings are generally consistent with prevailing CRT-D recommendations from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association from 2013 that give a class I indication (“is indicated”) for using the device in heart failure patients with LBBB, a QRS interval of at least 150 msec, NYHA class II-IV function, and a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 35%. A lesser, class IIa recommendation (“can be useful”) exists for patients with a narrower QRS of 120-149 msec with the other class I criteria, and for patients with non-LBBB the recommendation drops to class IIb (“may be considered”).
 

CRT-D ‘is mysterious,’ especially for non-LBBB patients

“Every time researchers have tried to move beyond the [existing] paradigm of who benefits from CRT-D, it’s never panned out,” commented Jeffrey J. Goldberger, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and chief of the cardiovascular division at the University of Miami. “The guidelines are pretty correct on who should get CRT-D. I wouldn’t say that no patients with non-LBBB should get it, but they are less likely to benefit,” although he conceded that responses to CRT-D are highly individualized and hard to predict.

“CRT is mysterious. I’ve had patients who did incredibly well on it,” but “once you start getting outside of where the benefits are proven, you start to run into issues,” Dr. Goldberger said in an interview. “The only solid predictor of a CRT-D response is in patients with LBBB.”

The hospitalizations for heart failure that the University of Rochester investigators assessed as an additional study outcome represent an “important endpoint, but one that is much more subjective than survival,” making its reliability “a bit of a gray area,” he said. The analyses are also limited by being post hoc and, hence, just hypothesis generating.

A recently published analysis of the same dataset by many of the same investigators hinted that CRT-D might reduce HHF in non-LBBB patients when the focus is on recurrent hospitalizations.

Despite the evidence of a survival benefit from CRT-D placement in selected patients, especially those with LBBB, “registry data have shown that use of CRT-D varies widely and has been as low as 27% of eligible patients,” noted Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kutyifa. “There is an opportunity here to understand the barriers to more widespread adoption of CRT-D in appropriate patients,” they said. It is also “possible that CRT-D is overused in non-LBBB patients” given that this subgroup receives about a third of CRT-D devices now. “Future studies should carefully investigate the role of CRT-D in non-LBBB patients.”

MADIT-CRT was funded by Boston Scientific, which markets several CRT-D devices. Dr. Thomas had no disclosures. Dr. Kutyifa has been a consultant to Biotronik and Zoll and has received research funding from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Spire, and Zoll. Dr Goldberger is director of a not-for-profit think tank on risk stratification for sudden cardiac death that has received unrestricted educational grants from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Thomas S et al. HFSA 2020, Abstract 019.

Patients with mild heart failure who received a cardiac resynchronization device had significantly reduced rates of hospitalizations for heart failure during follow-up of 1,820 patients for an average of 5.6 years, identifying in this post hoc analysis another benefit from this device that patients potentially receive in addition to an established survival advantage.

Extended follow-up of patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial showed that patients with either New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I or II cardiomyopathy who received a cardiac resynchronization device with a defibrillator (CRT-D) had a significant reduction in all-cause hospitalization during follow-up, compared with control patients randomized to receive an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) device. This reduction in all hospitalizations was specifically driven by a significant reduction in cardiovascular hospitalizations, and the drop in cardiovascular hospitalizations was specifically driven by a cut in hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), Sabu Thomas, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

The data showed that during follow-up all-cause hospitalizations occurred in 73% of the CRT-D patients and 83% of those who received an ICD; cardiovascular hospitalizations happened in 29% of the CRT-D patients and in 43% of those with an ICD; and HHF occurred in 12% of the CRT-D patients and in 22% of those with an ICD, reported Dr. Thomas, a heart failure cardiologist at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. All three between-group differences were statistically significant for these post hoc endpoints.

These reduced hospitalizations also linked with better survival. Patients in the trial database with cardiovascular hospitalizations had a nearly fourfold higher rate of death, compared with nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Thomas said.

The findings “suggest that this device [CRT-D] has sustained benefit in these patients for up to 7 years,” said Dr. Thomas and his collaborator, Valentina Kutyifa, MD, in an interview. “However, this was only seen in patients with left bundle branch block [LBBB].” In patients with non-LBBB, CRT-D was not associated with a reduction in [cardiovascular] hospitalizations.

The LBBB connection

In a multivariate analysis, the 1,281 patients with LBBB (70% of the study cohort) who were more than 6 months out from device placement had a significant 43% relative cut in their incidence of cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with that of control patients who received an ICD, while the 537 patients with non-LBBB showed no benefit from CRT-D treatment, compared with those who received an ICD, for reducing cardiovascular hospitalizations. (Data from two enrolled patients weren’t available for the analyses.) This finding that the HHF benefit focused in patients with LBBB was consistent with many prior observations that CRT-D was most effective in this patient subgroup.

The researchers also highlighted that their findings apply only to patients with NYHA functional class I or II heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the only types of patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial (15% had class I disease).

The results also showed that, during the first 6 months on CRT-D treatment, patients with a LBBB showed a significant 43% increase in their cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with control patients, which may have been driven by device-related events. “We did not investigate this in detail, and it needs more study,” said Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kutyifa, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of Rochester.Their new findings extend the initial, prespecified results of the MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial, which was designed to examine a primary endpoint of death from any cause or a nonfatal heart failure event. During the initial average follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received a CRT-D device had a significant relative reduction in this endpoint of 34%, compared with patients on ICD treatment, exclusively in patients with LBBB. Extended follow-up for as long as 7 years of the same cohort showed a continued significant reduction of all-cause death compared with controls, a 41% relative risk reduction, that again was only apparent in patients with LBBB.

The MADIT-CRT findings are generally consistent with prevailing CRT-D recommendations from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association from 2013 that give a class I indication (“is indicated”) for using the device in heart failure patients with LBBB, a QRS interval of at least 150 msec, NYHA class II-IV function, and a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 35%. A lesser, class IIa recommendation (“can be useful”) exists for patients with a narrower QRS of 120-149 msec with the other class I criteria, and for patients with non-LBBB the recommendation drops to class IIb (“may be considered”).
 

CRT-D ‘is mysterious,’ especially for non-LBBB patients

“Every time researchers have tried to move beyond the [existing] paradigm of who benefits from CRT-D, it’s never panned out,” commented Jeffrey J. Goldberger, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and chief of the cardiovascular division at the University of Miami. “The guidelines are pretty correct on who should get CRT-D. I wouldn’t say that no patients with non-LBBB should get it, but they are less likely to benefit,” although he conceded that responses to CRT-D are highly individualized and hard to predict.

“CRT is mysterious. I’ve had patients who did incredibly well on it,” but “once you start getting outside of where the benefits are proven, you start to run into issues,” Dr. Goldberger said in an interview. “The only solid predictor of a CRT-D response is in patients with LBBB.”

The hospitalizations for heart failure that the University of Rochester investigators assessed as an additional study outcome represent an “important endpoint, but one that is much more subjective than survival,” making its reliability “a bit of a gray area,” he said. The analyses are also limited by being post hoc and, hence, just hypothesis generating.

A recently published analysis of the same dataset by many of the same investigators hinted that CRT-D might reduce HHF in non-LBBB patients when the focus is on recurrent hospitalizations.

Despite the evidence of a survival benefit from CRT-D placement in selected patients, especially those with LBBB, “registry data have shown that use of CRT-D varies widely and has been as low as 27% of eligible patients,” noted Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kutyifa. “There is an opportunity here to understand the barriers to more widespread adoption of CRT-D in appropriate patients,” they said. It is also “possible that CRT-D is overused in non-LBBB patients” given that this subgroup receives about a third of CRT-D devices now. “Future studies should carefully investigate the role of CRT-D in non-LBBB patients.”

MADIT-CRT was funded by Boston Scientific, which markets several CRT-D devices. Dr. Thomas had no disclosures. Dr. Kutyifa has been a consultant to Biotronik and Zoll and has received research funding from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Spire, and Zoll. Dr Goldberger is director of a not-for-profit think tank on risk stratification for sudden cardiac death that has received unrestricted educational grants from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Thomas S et al. HFSA 2020, Abstract 019.

Patients with mild heart failure who received a cardiac resynchronization device had significantly reduced rates of hospitalizations for heart failure during follow-up of 1,820 patients for an average of 5.6 years, identifying in this post hoc analysis another benefit from this device that patients potentially receive in addition to an established survival advantage.

Extended follow-up of patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial showed that patients with either New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I or II cardiomyopathy who received a cardiac resynchronization device with a defibrillator (CRT-D) had a significant reduction in all-cause hospitalization during follow-up, compared with control patients randomized to receive an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) device. This reduction in all hospitalizations was specifically driven by a significant reduction in cardiovascular hospitalizations, and the drop in cardiovascular hospitalizations was specifically driven by a cut in hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), Sabu Thomas, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

The data showed that during follow-up all-cause hospitalizations occurred in 73% of the CRT-D patients and 83% of those who received an ICD; cardiovascular hospitalizations happened in 29% of the CRT-D patients and in 43% of those with an ICD; and HHF occurred in 12% of the CRT-D patients and in 22% of those with an ICD, reported Dr. Thomas, a heart failure cardiologist at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. All three between-group differences were statistically significant for these post hoc endpoints.

These reduced hospitalizations also linked with better survival. Patients in the trial database with cardiovascular hospitalizations had a nearly fourfold higher rate of death, compared with nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Thomas said.

The findings “suggest that this device [CRT-D] has sustained benefit in these patients for up to 7 years,” said Dr. Thomas and his collaborator, Valentina Kutyifa, MD, in an interview. “However, this was only seen in patients with left bundle branch block [LBBB].” In patients with non-LBBB, CRT-D was not associated with a reduction in [cardiovascular] hospitalizations.

The LBBB connection

In a multivariate analysis, the 1,281 patients with LBBB (70% of the study cohort) who were more than 6 months out from device placement had a significant 43% relative cut in their incidence of cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with that of control patients who received an ICD, while the 537 patients with non-LBBB showed no benefit from CRT-D treatment, compared with those who received an ICD, for reducing cardiovascular hospitalizations. (Data from two enrolled patients weren’t available for the analyses.) This finding that the HHF benefit focused in patients with LBBB was consistent with many prior observations that CRT-D was most effective in this patient subgroup.

The researchers also highlighted that their findings apply only to patients with NYHA functional class I or II heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the only types of patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial (15% had class I disease).

The results also showed that, during the first 6 months on CRT-D treatment, patients with a LBBB showed a significant 43% increase in their cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with control patients, which may have been driven by device-related events. “We did not investigate this in detail, and it needs more study,” said Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kutyifa, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of Rochester.Their new findings extend the initial, prespecified results of the MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial, which was designed to examine a primary endpoint of death from any cause or a nonfatal heart failure event. During the initial average follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received a CRT-D device had a significant relative reduction in this endpoint of 34%, compared with patients on ICD treatment, exclusively in patients with LBBB. Extended follow-up for as long as 7 years of the same cohort showed a continued significant reduction of all-cause death compared with controls, a 41% relative risk reduction, that again was only apparent in patients with LBBB.

The MADIT-CRT findings are generally consistent with prevailing CRT-D recommendations from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association from 2013 that give a class I indication (“is indicated”) for using the device in heart failure patients with LBBB, a QRS interval of at least 150 msec, NYHA class II-IV function, and a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 35%. A lesser, class IIa recommendation (“can be useful”) exists for patients with a narrower QRS of 120-149 msec with the other class I criteria, and for patients with non-LBBB the recommendation drops to class IIb (“may be considered”).
 

CRT-D ‘is mysterious,’ especially for non-LBBB patients

“Every time researchers have tried to move beyond the [existing] paradigm of who benefits from CRT-D, it’s never panned out,” commented Jeffrey J. Goldberger, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and chief of the cardiovascular division at the University of Miami. “The guidelines are pretty correct on who should get CRT-D. I wouldn’t say that no patients with non-LBBB should get it, but they are less likely to benefit,” although he conceded that responses to CRT-D are highly individualized and hard to predict.

“CRT is mysterious. I’ve had patients who did incredibly well on it,” but “once you start getting outside of where the benefits are proven, you start to run into issues,” Dr. Goldberger said in an interview. “The only solid predictor of a CRT-D response is in patients with LBBB.”

The hospitalizations for heart failure that the University of Rochester investigators assessed as an additional study outcome represent an “important endpoint, but one that is much more subjective than survival,” making its reliability “a bit of a gray area,” he said. The analyses are also limited by being post hoc and, hence, just hypothesis generating.

A recently published analysis of the same dataset by many of the same investigators hinted that CRT-D might reduce HHF in non-LBBB patients when the focus is on recurrent hospitalizations.

Despite the evidence of a survival benefit from CRT-D placement in selected patients, especially those with LBBB, “registry data have shown that use of CRT-D varies widely and has been as low as 27% of eligible patients,” noted Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kutyifa. “There is an opportunity here to understand the barriers to more widespread adoption of CRT-D in appropriate patients,” they said. It is also “possible that CRT-D is overused in non-LBBB patients” given that this subgroup receives about a third of CRT-D devices now. “Future studies should carefully investigate the role of CRT-D in non-LBBB patients.”

MADIT-CRT was funded by Boston Scientific, which markets several CRT-D devices. Dr. Thomas had no disclosures. Dr. Kutyifa has been a consultant to Biotronik and Zoll and has received research funding from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Spire, and Zoll. Dr Goldberger is director of a not-for-profit think tank on risk stratification for sudden cardiac death that has received unrestricted educational grants from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Thomas S et al. HFSA 2020, Abstract 019.

European dermatologists shifted en masse to teledermatology during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and most of them disliked the videoconferencing experience intensely, according to the findings of a survey presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“The results of our survey clearly show 7 out of 10 participating dermatologists declared that they were not happy with teledermatology, and most of them declared that they were not at all happy,” according to Mariano Suppa, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and venereology, Free University of Brussels.

“It was very interesting: it was not just about the lack of a good quality of consultation, but was also related to some extent to a lack of respect from some patients, and also a lack of empathy. The majority of survey respondents felt [attacked] by their own patients because they were proposing teledermatology. So, yes, we were forced to go to teledermatology, and I think we will be again to some extent, but clearly we’re not happy about it,” he elaborated in response to a question from session chair Brigitte Dreno, MD, professor of dermatology and vice dean of the faculty of medicine at the University of Nantes (France).

The survey, conducted by the EADV communication committee, assessed the pandemic’s impact on European dermatologists’ professional practices and personal lives through 30 brief questions, with space at the end for additional open-ended comments. In the comments section, many dermatologists vented about their income loss, the disorganized response to round one of the pandemic, and most of all about teledermatology. Common complaints were that teledermatology required a huge consumption of energy and constituted a major intrusion upon the physicians’ personal lives. And then there was the common theme of unkind treatment by some patients.

The survey was sent twice in June 2020 to more than 4,800 EADV members. It was completed by 490 dermatologists from 39 countries. Dr. Suppa attributed the low response rate to physician weariness of the topic due to saturation news media coverage of the pandemic.

Sixty-nine percent of responding dermatologists were women. Fifty-two percent of participants were over age 50, 81% lived in a city, and 53% worked in a university or public hospital or clinic. Twelve percent lived alone.

Impact on professional practice

Many European dermatologists were on the front lines in dealing with the first wave of COVID-19. Twenty-eight percent worked in a COVID-19 unit. Forty-eight percent of dermatologists performed COVID-19 tests, and those who didn’t either had no patient contact or couldn’t get test kits. Thirty-five percent of dermatologists saw patients who presented with skin signs of COVID-19. Four percent of survey respondents became infected.

Seventy percent rescheduled or canceled all or most patient appointments. Clinical care was prioritized: during the peak of the pandemic, 76% of dermatologists saw only urgent cases – mostly potentially serious rashes – and dermato-oncology patients. Seventy-six percent of dermatologists performed teledermatology, although by June 60% of respondents reported seeing at least three-quarters of their patients face-to-face.

Twenty-three percent of dermatologists reported having lost most or all of their income during March through June, and another 26% lost about half.
 

Impact on dermatologists’ personal lives

About half of survey respondents reported feeling stressed, and a similar percentage checked the box marked ‘anxiety.’ Nine percent reported depressive symptoms, 15% mentioned feeling anger, 17% uselessness, and 2% admitted suicidal ideation. But 30% of dermatologists reported experiencing no negative psychological effects whatsoever stemming from the pandemic.

Sixteen percent of dermatologists reported drinking more alcohol during sequestration.

But respondents cited positive effects as well: a renewed appreciation of the importance of time, and enjoyment of the additional time spent with family and alone. Many dermatologists relished the opportunity to spend more time cooking, reading literature, doing research, listening to or playing music, and practicing yoga or meditation. And dermatologists took solace and pride in being members of the vital medical community.

Dr. Dreno asked if the survey revealed evidence of underdiagnosis and undertreatment of dermatologic diseases during the pandemic. Dr. Suppa replied that the survey didn’t address that issue, but it’s his personal opinion that this was no doubt the case. Roughly one-quarter of dermatologists canceled all appointments, and when dermatology clinics became filled beginning in June, he and his colleagues saw a number of cases of delayed-diagnosis advanced skin cancer.

“I think that the diseases that were really penalized were the chronic inflammatory diseases, such as psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and also atopic dermatitis. We were doing a lot of telephone consultations for those patients at that time, and we saw in June that for those particular patients there was an unmet need in the pandemic because some of them really needed to have been seen. I think this is a lesson we should learn for the second wave that we’re unfortunately facing right now: We need to adopt restrictive measures to avoid spreading the pandemic, yes, for sure, but we need to keep in mind that there is not just COVID-19, but also other important diseases,” Dr. Suppa said.

A second EADV survey will be performed during the fall/winter wave of the pandemic.

Dr. Suppa reported having no financial conflicts regarding the EADV-funded survey.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Suppa M. EADV 2020. Presentation D3T03.4D

European dermatologists shifted en masse to teledermatology during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and most of them disliked the videoconferencing experience intensely, according to the findings of a survey presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“The results of our survey clearly show 7 out of 10 participating dermatologists declared that they were not happy with teledermatology, and most of them declared that they were not at all happy,” according to Mariano Suppa, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and venereology, Free University of Brussels.

“It was very interesting: it was not just about the lack of a good quality of consultation, but was also related to some extent to a lack of respect from some patients, and also a lack of empathy. The majority of survey respondents felt [attacked] by their own patients because they were proposing teledermatology. So, yes, we were forced to go to teledermatology, and I think we will be again to some extent, but clearly we’re not happy about it,” he elaborated in response to a question from session chair Brigitte Dreno, MD, professor of dermatology and vice dean of the faculty of medicine at the University of Nantes (France).

The survey, conducted by the EADV communication committee, assessed the pandemic’s impact on European dermatologists’ professional practices and personal lives through 30 brief questions, with space at the end for additional open-ended comments. In the comments section, many dermatologists vented about their income loss, the disorganized response to round one of the pandemic, and most of all about teledermatology. Common complaints were that teledermatology required a huge consumption of energy and constituted a major intrusion upon the physicians’ personal lives. And then there was the common theme of unkind treatment by some patients.

The survey was sent twice in June 2020 to more than 4,800 EADV members. It was completed by 490 dermatologists from 39 countries. Dr. Suppa attributed the low response rate to physician weariness of the topic due to saturation news media coverage of the pandemic.

Sixty-nine percent of responding dermatologists were women. Fifty-two percent of participants were over age 50, 81% lived in a city, and 53% worked in a university or public hospital or clinic. Twelve percent lived alone.

Impact on professional practice

Many European dermatologists were on the front lines in dealing with the first wave of COVID-19. Twenty-eight percent worked in a COVID-19 unit. Forty-eight percent of dermatologists performed COVID-19 tests, and those who didn’t either had no patient contact or couldn’t get test kits. Thirty-five percent of dermatologists saw patients who presented with skin signs of COVID-19. Four percent of survey respondents became infected.

Seventy percent rescheduled or canceled all or most patient appointments. Clinical care was prioritized: during the peak of the pandemic, 76% of dermatologists saw only urgent cases – mostly potentially serious rashes – and dermato-oncology patients. Seventy-six percent of dermatologists performed teledermatology, although by June 60% of respondents reported seeing at least three-quarters of their patients face-to-face.

Twenty-three percent of dermatologists reported having lost most or all of their income during March through June, and another 26% lost about half.
 

Impact on dermatologists’ personal lives

About half of survey respondents reported feeling stressed, and a similar percentage checked the box marked ‘anxiety.’ Nine percent reported depressive symptoms, 15% mentioned feeling anger, 17% uselessness, and 2% admitted suicidal ideation. But 30% of dermatologists reported experiencing no negative psychological effects whatsoever stemming from the pandemic.

Sixteen percent of dermatologists reported drinking more alcohol during sequestration.

But respondents cited positive effects as well: a renewed appreciation of the importance of time, and enjoyment of the additional time spent with family and alone. Many dermatologists relished the opportunity to spend more time cooking, reading literature, doing research, listening to or playing music, and practicing yoga or meditation. And dermatologists took solace and pride in being members of the vital medical community.

Dr. Dreno asked if the survey revealed evidence of underdiagnosis and undertreatment of dermatologic diseases during the pandemic. Dr. Suppa replied that the survey didn’t address that issue, but it’s his personal opinion that this was no doubt the case. Roughly one-quarter of dermatologists canceled all appointments, and when dermatology clinics became filled beginning in June, he and his colleagues saw a number of cases of delayed-diagnosis advanced skin cancer.

“I think that the diseases that were really penalized were the chronic inflammatory diseases, such as psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and also atopic dermatitis. We were doing a lot of telephone consultations for those patients at that time, and we saw in June that for those particular patients there was an unmet need in the pandemic because some of them really needed to have been seen. I think this is a lesson we should learn for the second wave that we’re unfortunately facing right now: We need to adopt restrictive measures to avoid spreading the pandemic, yes, for sure, but we need to keep in mind that there is not just COVID-19, but also other important diseases,” Dr. Suppa said.

A second EADV survey will be performed during the fall/winter wave of the pandemic.

Dr. Suppa reported having no financial conflicts regarding the EADV-funded survey.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Suppa M. EADV 2020. Presentation D3T03.4D

European dermatologists shifted en masse to teledermatology during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and most of them disliked the videoconferencing experience intensely, according to the findings of a survey presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“The results of our survey clearly show 7 out of 10 participating dermatologists declared that they were not happy with teledermatology, and most of them declared that they were not at all happy,” according to Mariano Suppa, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and venereology, Free University of Brussels.

“It was very interesting: it was not just about the lack of a good quality of consultation, but was also related to some extent to a lack of respect from some patients, and also a lack of empathy. The majority of survey respondents felt [attacked] by their own patients because they were proposing teledermatology. So, yes, we were forced to go to teledermatology, and I think we will be again to some extent, but clearly we’re not happy about it,” he elaborated in response to a question from session chair Brigitte Dreno, MD, professor of dermatology and vice dean of the faculty of medicine at the University of Nantes (France).

The survey, conducted by the EADV communication committee, assessed the pandemic’s impact on European dermatologists’ professional practices and personal lives through 30 brief questions, with space at the end for additional open-ended comments. In the comments section, many dermatologists vented about their income loss, the disorganized response to round one of the pandemic, and most of all about teledermatology. Common complaints were that teledermatology required a huge consumption of energy and constituted a major intrusion upon the physicians’ personal lives. And then there was the common theme of unkind treatment by some patients.

The survey was sent twice in June 2020 to more than 4,800 EADV members. It was completed by 490 dermatologists from 39 countries. Dr. Suppa attributed the low response rate to physician weariness of the topic due to saturation news media coverage of the pandemic.

Sixty-nine percent of responding dermatologists were women. Fifty-two percent of participants were over age 50, 81% lived in a city, and 53% worked in a university or public hospital or clinic. Twelve percent lived alone.

Impact on professional practice

Many European dermatologists were on the front lines in dealing with the first wave of COVID-19. Twenty-eight percent worked in a COVID-19 unit. Forty-eight percent of dermatologists performed COVID-19 tests, and those who didn’t either had no patient contact or couldn’t get test kits. Thirty-five percent of dermatologists saw patients who presented with skin signs of COVID-19. Four percent of survey respondents became infected.

Seventy percent rescheduled or canceled all or most patient appointments. Clinical care was prioritized: during the peak of the pandemic, 76% of dermatologists saw only urgent cases – mostly potentially serious rashes – and dermato-oncology patients. Seventy-six percent of dermatologists performed teledermatology, although by June 60% of respondents reported seeing at least three-quarters of their patients face-to-face.

Twenty-three percent of dermatologists reported having lost most or all of their income during March through June, and another 26% lost about half.
 

Impact on dermatologists’ personal lives

About half of survey respondents reported feeling stressed, and a similar percentage checked the box marked ‘anxiety.’ Nine percent reported depressive symptoms, 15% mentioned feeling anger, 17% uselessness, and 2% admitted suicidal ideation. But 30% of dermatologists reported experiencing no negative psychological effects whatsoever stemming from the pandemic.

Sixteen percent of dermatologists reported drinking more alcohol during sequestration.

But respondents cited positive effects as well: a renewed appreciation of the importance of time, and enjoyment of the additional time spent with family and alone. Many dermatologists relished the opportunity to spend more time cooking, reading literature, doing research, listening to or playing music, and practicing yoga or meditation. And dermatologists took solace and pride in being members of the vital medical community.

Dr. Dreno asked if the survey revealed evidence of underdiagnosis and undertreatment of dermatologic diseases during the pandemic. Dr. Suppa replied that the survey didn’t address that issue, but it’s his personal opinion that this was no doubt the case. Roughly one-quarter of dermatologists canceled all appointments, and when dermatology clinics became filled beginning in June, he and his colleagues saw a number of cases of delayed-diagnosis advanced skin cancer.

“I think that the diseases that were really penalized were the chronic inflammatory diseases, such as psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and also atopic dermatitis. We were doing a lot of telephone consultations for those patients at that time, and we saw in June that for those particular patients there was an unmet need in the pandemic because some of them really needed to have been seen. I think this is a lesson we should learn for the second wave that we’re unfortunately facing right now: We need to adopt restrictive measures to avoid spreading the pandemic, yes, for sure, but we need to keep in mind that there is not just COVID-19, but also other important diseases,” Dr. Suppa said.

A second EADV survey will be performed during the fall/winter wave of the pandemic.

Dr. Suppa reported having no financial conflicts regarding the EADV-funded survey.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Suppa M. EADV 2020. Presentation D3T03.4D