Dermatology News

Bufexamac, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug agent used cutaneously and rectally, is well known globally as an initiator of allergic contact dermatitis. In fact, it has been removed from the European market (except Switzerland) for inducing allergic reactions, and is also banned in Japan, New Zealand, and the United States (where it was never approved).¹ This column will primarily discuss recent findings in human trials and weigh in on the issue.

Antioxidant activity

In addition to its known anti-inflammatory activity, bufexamac has been found to exert antioxidant effects. In 2003, Trommer and Neubert demonstrated that bufexamac displayed antioxidant activity in lipid models and HaCaT keratinocytes, as measured through mass spectrometry.² In a 2005 in vitro study of the impact of 47 drugs, plant extracts and ingredients, and polysaccharides on lipid peroxidation engendered by UV irradiation, Trommer and Neubert found that bufexamac was among the drugs shown to exhibit antioxidant activity.³

Minor allergen? Worth using?

In a 2009 study on the prevalence and risk factors for allergic contact dermatitis to topical atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments, Mailhol et al. patch tested 641 children with AD using seven then-common ingredients (chlorhexidine, hexamidine, budesonide, tixocortol pivalate, bufexamac, sodium fusidate and with the current emollient used by the child). Bufexamac was identified as an allergen in only 2.5% of the 41 positive patch tests.⁴

To ban or not to ban

In 2012, the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended that the marketing of formulations containing bufexamac be disallowed throughout the European Union because of a tendency toward inducing severe allergic contact dermatitis.⁵

Given its continuing use in Australia for the local treatment of several dermatoses, Pan and Nixon, in 2012, retrospectively reviewed patch-test data at the Skin and Cancer Foundation Inc. and found 19 cases of positive reactions to bufexamac (5% petrolatum) from 451 people patch tested. In 13 of 19 patients (68%), the reaction to bufexamac was considered to be associated with the identified dermatitis. The authors concluded that allergic contact dermatitis from bufexamac exposure is underreported in the English-language literature and cautioned that physicians should consider bufexamac allergy in patients who have a history of exposure.⁵

Bufexamac remained available over the counter in topical formulations in Australia as of early 2019. In response, Harris et al. presented several cases of patients who experienced severe skin eruptions after using such preparations in support of their advocacy to the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia to ban its use.⁶

In the middle of that year, Wong et al. reported on the hospitalization of a 41-year-old administrative worker who applied a first aid cream containing bufexamac (5%), lignocaine (1%), and chlorhexidine (0.1%) to a superficial right foot abrasion and who developed facial edema and widespread polymorphic eruptions 2 hours later. The authors suggested that this case reinforced the need to remove bufexamac from the markets where it remains because of the tendency to provoke severe allergic contact dermatoses and lack of efficacy.¹

Conclusion

Bufexamac offers the somewhat rare opportunity for advocacy. That is to say, I think there is sufficient evidence to justify the removal of this potent allergen from the market in Australia, Switzerland, and other countries where it may be available.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems LLC. She had no relevant disclosures. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Wong GN et al. Contact Dermatitis. 2019 Jun;80(6):395-7.

2. Trommer H et al. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2003 Oct;55(10):1379-88.

3. Trommer H, Neubert RH. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2005 Sep 15;8(3):494-506.

4. Mailhol C et al. Allergy. 2009 May;64(5):801-6.

5. Pan Y, Nixon R. Australas J Dermatol. 2012 Aug;53(3):207-10.

6. Harris AG et al. Australas J Dermatol. 2019 Feb;60(1):53-6.

Bufexamac, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug agent used cutaneously and rectally, is well known globally as an initiator of allergic contact dermatitis. In fact, it has been removed from the European market (except Switzerland) for inducing allergic reactions, and is also banned in Japan, New Zealand, and the United States (where it was never approved).¹ This column will primarily discuss recent findings in human trials and weigh in on the issue.

Antioxidant activity

In addition to its known anti-inflammatory activity, bufexamac has been found to exert antioxidant effects. In 2003, Trommer and Neubert demonstrated that bufexamac displayed antioxidant activity in lipid models and HaCaT keratinocytes, as measured through mass spectrometry.² In a 2005 in vitro study of the impact of 47 drugs, plant extracts and ingredients, and polysaccharides on lipid peroxidation engendered by UV irradiation, Trommer and Neubert found that bufexamac was among the drugs shown to exhibit antioxidant activity.³

Minor allergen? Worth using?

In a 2009 study on the prevalence and risk factors for allergic contact dermatitis to topical atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments, Mailhol et al. patch tested 641 children with AD using seven then-common ingredients (chlorhexidine, hexamidine, budesonide, tixocortol pivalate, bufexamac, sodium fusidate and with the current emollient used by the child). Bufexamac was identified as an allergen in only 2.5% of the 41 positive patch tests.⁴

To ban or not to ban

In 2012, the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended that the marketing of formulations containing bufexamac be disallowed throughout the European Union because of a tendency toward inducing severe allergic contact dermatitis.⁵

Given its continuing use in Australia for the local treatment of several dermatoses, Pan and Nixon, in 2012, retrospectively reviewed patch-test data at the Skin and Cancer Foundation Inc. and found 19 cases of positive reactions to bufexamac (5% petrolatum) from 451 people patch tested. In 13 of 19 patients (68%), the reaction to bufexamac was considered to be associated with the identified dermatitis. The authors concluded that allergic contact dermatitis from bufexamac exposure is underreported in the English-language literature and cautioned that physicians should consider bufexamac allergy in patients who have a history of exposure.⁵

Bufexamac remained available over the counter in topical formulations in Australia as of early 2019. In response, Harris et al. presented several cases of patients who experienced severe skin eruptions after using such preparations in support of their advocacy to the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia to ban its use.⁶

In the middle of that year, Wong et al. reported on the hospitalization of a 41-year-old administrative worker who applied a first aid cream containing bufexamac (5%), lignocaine (1%), and chlorhexidine (0.1%) to a superficial right foot abrasion and who developed facial edema and widespread polymorphic eruptions 2 hours later. The authors suggested that this case reinforced the need to remove bufexamac from the markets where it remains because of the tendency to provoke severe allergic contact dermatoses and lack of efficacy.¹

Conclusion

Bufexamac offers the somewhat rare opportunity for advocacy. That is to say, I think there is sufficient evidence to justify the removal of this potent allergen from the market in Australia, Switzerland, and other countries where it may be available.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems LLC. She had no relevant disclosures. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Wong GN et al. Contact Dermatitis. 2019 Jun;80(6):395-7.

2. Trommer H et al. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2003 Oct;55(10):1379-88.

3. Trommer H, Neubert RH. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2005 Sep 15;8(3):494-506.

4. Mailhol C et al. Allergy. 2009 May;64(5):801-6.

5. Pan Y, Nixon R. Australas J Dermatol. 2012 Aug;53(3):207-10.

6. Harris AG et al. Australas J Dermatol. 2019 Feb;60(1):53-6.

Bufexamac, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug agent used cutaneously and rectally, is well known globally as an initiator of allergic contact dermatitis. In fact, it has been removed from the European market (except Switzerland) for inducing allergic reactions, and is also banned in Japan, New Zealand, and the United States (where it was never approved).¹ This column will primarily discuss recent findings in human trials and weigh in on the issue.

Antioxidant activity

In addition to its known anti-inflammatory activity, bufexamac has been found to exert antioxidant effects. In 2003, Trommer and Neubert demonstrated that bufexamac displayed antioxidant activity in lipid models and HaCaT keratinocytes, as measured through mass spectrometry.² In a 2005 in vitro study of the impact of 47 drugs, plant extracts and ingredients, and polysaccharides on lipid peroxidation engendered by UV irradiation, Trommer and Neubert found that bufexamac was among the drugs shown to exhibit antioxidant activity.³

Minor allergen? Worth using?

In a 2009 study on the prevalence and risk factors for allergic contact dermatitis to topical atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments, Mailhol et al. patch tested 641 children with AD using seven then-common ingredients (chlorhexidine, hexamidine, budesonide, tixocortol pivalate, bufexamac, sodium fusidate and with the current emollient used by the child). Bufexamac was identified as an allergen in only 2.5% of the 41 positive patch tests.⁴

To ban or not to ban

In 2012, the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended that the marketing of formulations containing bufexamac be disallowed throughout the European Union because of a tendency toward inducing severe allergic contact dermatitis.⁵

Given its continuing use in Australia for the local treatment of several dermatoses, Pan and Nixon, in 2012, retrospectively reviewed patch-test data at the Skin and Cancer Foundation Inc. and found 19 cases of positive reactions to bufexamac (5% petrolatum) from 451 people patch tested. In 13 of 19 patients (68%), the reaction to bufexamac was considered to be associated with the identified dermatitis. The authors concluded that allergic contact dermatitis from bufexamac exposure is underreported in the English-language literature and cautioned that physicians should consider bufexamac allergy in patients who have a history of exposure.⁵

Bufexamac remained available over the counter in topical formulations in Australia as of early 2019. In response, Harris et al. presented several cases of patients who experienced severe skin eruptions after using such preparations in support of their advocacy to the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia to ban its use.⁶

In the middle of that year, Wong et al. reported on the hospitalization of a 41-year-old administrative worker who applied a first aid cream containing bufexamac (5%), lignocaine (1%), and chlorhexidine (0.1%) to a superficial right foot abrasion and who developed facial edema and widespread polymorphic eruptions 2 hours later. The authors suggested that this case reinforced the need to remove bufexamac from the markets where it remains because of the tendency to provoke severe allergic contact dermatoses and lack of efficacy.¹

Conclusion

Bufexamac offers the somewhat rare opportunity for advocacy. That is to say, I think there is sufficient evidence to justify the removal of this potent allergen from the market in Australia, Switzerland, and other countries where it may be available.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems LLC. She had no relevant disclosures. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Wong GN et al. Contact Dermatitis. 2019 Jun;80(6):395-7.

2. Trommer H et al. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2003 Oct;55(10):1379-88.

3. Trommer H, Neubert RH. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2005 Sep 15;8(3):494-506.

4. Mailhol C et al. Allergy. 2009 May;64(5):801-6.

5. Pan Y, Nixon R. Australas J Dermatol. 2012 Aug;53(3):207-10.

6. Harris AG et al. Australas J Dermatol. 2019 Feb;60(1):53-6.

Guselkumab is now the second interleukin (IL)–23 inhibitor to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to a July 14 announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The FDA’s approval marks the second indication for guselkumab, which was first approved for adults with plaque psoriasis in 2017.

The agency based its approval on two pivotal phase 3 clinical trials, DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2, which tested the biologic in 1,120 adults with active PsA who were naive to biologics (both trials) or had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or two tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (in about 30% of patients in DISCOVER-1). Part of this pretrial standard treatment could include at least 4 months of Otezla (apremilast), at least 3 months of nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), or at least 4 weeks of NSAIDs. In both trials, about 58% of patients took methotrexate.

Participants who took guselkumab achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria at week 24 at rates of 52% in DISCOVER-1 and 64% in DISCOVER-2, whereas placebo-treated patients had rates of 22% and 33%, respectively.

Guselkumab improved patients’ other symptoms, including skin manifestations of psoriasis, physical functioning, enthesitis, dactylitis, and fatigue, according to the Janssen release.

Guselkumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the p19 subunit of IL-23, is administered as a 100-mg subcutaneous injection every 8 weeks, following two starter doses at weeks 0 and 4, and can be used alone or in combination with a conventional DMARD.

In guselkumab clinical trials of patients with PsA, a minority had bronchitis or a decreased neutrophil count, but the safety profile was otherwise generally consistent with what has been seen in patients with plaque psoriasis, according to the company release. Other common side effects described in 1% or more of patients have included upper respiratory infections, headache, injection-site reactions, arthralgia, diarrhea, gastroenteritis, tinea infections, and herpes simplex infections.

[email protected]

Guselkumab is now the second interleukin (IL)–23 inhibitor to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to a July 14 announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The FDA’s approval marks the second indication for guselkumab, which was first approved for adults with plaque psoriasis in 2017.

The agency based its approval on two pivotal phase 3 clinical trials, DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2, which tested the biologic in 1,120 adults with active PsA who were naive to biologics (both trials) or had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or two tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (in about 30% of patients in DISCOVER-1). Part of this pretrial standard treatment could include at least 4 months of Otezla (apremilast), at least 3 months of nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), or at least 4 weeks of NSAIDs. In both trials, about 58% of patients took methotrexate.

Participants who took guselkumab achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria at week 24 at rates of 52% in DISCOVER-1 and 64% in DISCOVER-2, whereas placebo-treated patients had rates of 22% and 33%, respectively.

Guselkumab improved patients’ other symptoms, including skin manifestations of psoriasis, physical functioning, enthesitis, dactylitis, and fatigue, according to the Janssen release.

Guselkumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the p19 subunit of IL-23, is administered as a 100-mg subcutaneous injection every 8 weeks, following two starter doses at weeks 0 and 4, and can be used alone or in combination with a conventional DMARD.

In guselkumab clinical trials of patients with PsA, a minority had bronchitis or a decreased neutrophil count, but the safety profile was otherwise generally consistent with what has been seen in patients with plaque psoriasis, according to the company release. Other common side effects described in 1% or more of patients have included upper respiratory infections, headache, injection-site reactions, arthralgia, diarrhea, gastroenteritis, tinea infections, and herpes simplex infections.

[email protected]

Guselkumab is now the second interleukin (IL)–23 inhibitor to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to a July 14 announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The FDA’s approval marks the second indication for guselkumab, which was first approved for adults with plaque psoriasis in 2017.

The agency based its approval on two pivotal phase 3 clinical trials, DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2, which tested the biologic in 1,120 adults with active PsA who were naive to biologics (both trials) or had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or two tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (in about 30% of patients in DISCOVER-1). Part of this pretrial standard treatment could include at least 4 months of Otezla (apremilast), at least 3 months of nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), or at least 4 weeks of NSAIDs. In both trials, about 58% of patients took methotrexate.

Participants who took guselkumab achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria at week 24 at rates of 52% in DISCOVER-1 and 64% in DISCOVER-2, whereas placebo-treated patients had rates of 22% and 33%, respectively.

Guselkumab improved patients’ other symptoms, including skin manifestations of psoriasis, physical functioning, enthesitis, dactylitis, and fatigue, according to the Janssen release.

Guselkumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the p19 subunit of IL-23, is administered as a 100-mg subcutaneous injection every 8 weeks, following two starter doses at weeks 0 and 4, and can be used alone or in combination with a conventional DMARD.

In guselkumab clinical trials of patients with PsA, a minority had bronchitis or a decreased neutrophil count, but the safety profile was otherwise generally consistent with what has been seen in patients with plaque psoriasis, according to the company release. Other common side effects described in 1% or more of patients have included upper respiratory infections, headache, injection-site reactions, arthralgia, diarrhea, gastroenteritis, tinea infections, and herpes simplex infections.

[email protected]

Having been a bench research scientist 30 years ago, I am flabbergasted at what is and is not currently possible. In a few weeks, scientists sequenced a novel coronavirus and used the genetic sequence to select candidate molecules for a vaccine. But we still can’t reliably say how much protection a cloth mask provides. Worse yet, even if/when we could reliably quantify contagion, it isn’t clear that the public will believe us anyhow.

Thinkstock

The good news is that the public worldwide did believe scientists about the threat of a pandemic and the need to flatten the curve. Saving lives has not been about the strength of an antibiotic or the skill in managing a ventilator, but the credibility of medical scientists. The degree of acceptance was variable and subject to a variety of delays caused by regional politicians, but overall the scientific advice on social distancing has had a gigantic impact on the spread of the pandemic in the February to June time frame. The bad news is that the public’s trust in that scientific advice has waned, the willingness to accept onerous restrictions has fatigued, and the cooperation for maintaining these social changes is evaporating.

I will leave pontificating about the spread of COVID-19 to other experts in other forums. My focus is on the public’s trust in the professionalism of physicians, nurses, medical scientists, and the health care industry as a whole. That trust has been our most valuable tool in fighting the pandemic so far. There have been situations in which weaknesses in modern science have let society down during the pandemic of the century. In my February 2020 column, at the beginning of the outbreak, a month before it was declared a pandemic, when its magnitude was still unclear, I emphasized the importance of having a trusted scientific spokesperson providing timely, accurate information to the public. That, obviously, did not happen in the United States and the degree of the ensuing disaster is still to be revealed.

Scientists have made some wrong decisions about this novel threat. The advice on masks is an illustrative example. For many years, infection control nurses have insisted that medical students wear a mask to protect themselves, even if they were observing rounds from just inside the doorway of a room of a baby with bronchiolitis. The landfills are full of briefly worn surgical masks. Now the story goes: Surgical masks don’t protect staff; they protect others. Changes like that contribute to a credibility gap.

For 3 months, there was conflicting advice about the appropriateness of masks. In early March 2020, some health care workers were disciplined for wearing personal masks. Now, most scientists recommend the public use masks to reduce contagion. Significant subgroups in the U.S. population have refused, mostly to signal their contrarian politics. In June there was an anecdote of a success story from the Show Me state of Missouri, where a mask is credited for preventing an outbreak from a sick hair stylist.

It is hard to find something more reliable than an anecdote. On June 1, a meta-analysis funded by the World Health Organization was published online by Lancet. It supports the idea that masks are beneficial. It is mostly forest plots, so you can try to interpret it yourself. There were 172 observational studies in the systematic review, and the meta-analysis contains 44 relevant comparative studies and 0 randomized controlled trials. Most of those forest plots have an I2 of 75% or worse, which to me indicates that they are not much more reliable than a good anecdote. My primary conclusion was that modern academic science, in an era with a shortage of toilet paper, should convert to printing on soft tissue paper.

It is important to note that the guesstimated overall benefit of cloth masks was a relative risk of 0.30. That benefit is easily nullified if the false security of a mask causes people to congregate together in groups three times larger or for three times more minutes. N95 masks were more effective.

A different article was published in PNAS on June 11. Its senior author was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995. That article touted the benefits of masks. The article is facing heavy criticism for flaws in methodology and flaws in the peer review process. A long list of signatories have joined a letter asking for the article’s retraction.

This article, when combined with the two instances of prominent articles being retracted in the prior month by the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, is accumulating evidence the peer review system is not working as intended.

There are many heroes in this pandemic, from the frontline health care workers in hotspots to the grocery workers and cleaning staff. There is hope, indeed some faith, that medical scientists in the foreseeable future will provide treatments and a vaccine for this viral plague. This month, the credibility of scientists again plays a major role as communities respond to outbreaks related to reopening the economy. Let’s celebrate the victories, resolve to fix the impure system, and restore a high level of public trust in science. Lives depend on it.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

Having been a bench research scientist 30 years ago, I am flabbergasted at what is and is not currently possible. In a few weeks, scientists sequenced a novel coronavirus and used the genetic sequence to select candidate molecules for a vaccine. But we still can’t reliably say how much protection a cloth mask provides. Worse yet, even if/when we could reliably quantify contagion, it isn’t clear that the public will believe us anyhow.

Thinkstock

The good news is that the public worldwide did believe scientists about the threat of a pandemic and the need to flatten the curve. Saving lives has not been about the strength of an antibiotic or the skill in managing a ventilator, but the credibility of medical scientists. The degree of acceptance was variable and subject to a variety of delays caused by regional politicians, but overall the scientific advice on social distancing has had a gigantic impact on the spread of the pandemic in the February to June time frame. The bad news is that the public’s trust in that scientific advice has waned, the willingness to accept onerous restrictions has fatigued, and the cooperation for maintaining these social changes is evaporating.

I will leave pontificating about the spread of COVID-19 to other experts in other forums. My focus is on the public’s trust in the professionalism of physicians, nurses, medical scientists, and the health care industry as a whole. That trust has been our most valuable tool in fighting the pandemic so far. There have been situations in which weaknesses in modern science have let society down during the pandemic of the century. In my February 2020 column, at the beginning of the outbreak, a month before it was declared a pandemic, when its magnitude was still unclear, I emphasized the importance of having a trusted scientific spokesperson providing timely, accurate information to the public. That, obviously, did not happen in the United States and the degree of the ensuing disaster is still to be revealed.

Scientists have made some wrong decisions about this novel threat. The advice on masks is an illustrative example. For many years, infection control nurses have insisted that medical students wear a mask to protect themselves, even if they were observing rounds from just inside the doorway of a room of a baby with bronchiolitis. The landfills are full of briefly worn surgical masks. Now the story goes: Surgical masks don’t protect staff; they protect others. Changes like that contribute to a credibility gap.

For 3 months, there was conflicting advice about the appropriateness of masks. In early March 2020, some health care workers were disciplined for wearing personal masks. Now, most scientists recommend the public use masks to reduce contagion. Significant subgroups in the U.S. population have refused, mostly to signal their contrarian politics. In June there was an anecdote of a success story from the Show Me state of Missouri, where a mask is credited for preventing an outbreak from a sick hair stylist.

It is hard to find something more reliable than an anecdote. On June 1, a meta-analysis funded by the World Health Organization was published online by Lancet. It supports the idea that masks are beneficial. It is mostly forest plots, so you can try to interpret it yourself. There were 172 observational studies in the systematic review, and the meta-analysis contains 44 relevant comparative studies and 0 randomized controlled trials. Most of those forest plots have an I2 of 75% or worse, which to me indicates that they are not much more reliable than a good anecdote. My primary conclusion was that modern academic science, in an era with a shortage of toilet paper, should convert to printing on soft tissue paper.

It is important to note that the guesstimated overall benefit of cloth masks was a relative risk of 0.30. That benefit is easily nullified if the false security of a mask causes people to congregate together in groups three times larger or for three times more minutes. N95 masks were more effective.

A different article was published in PNAS on June 11. Its senior author was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995. That article touted the benefits of masks. The article is facing heavy criticism for flaws in methodology and flaws in the peer review process. A long list of signatories have joined a letter asking for the article’s retraction.

This article, when combined with the two instances of prominent articles being retracted in the prior month by the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, is accumulating evidence the peer review system is not working as intended.

There are many heroes in this pandemic, from the frontline health care workers in hotspots to the grocery workers and cleaning staff. There is hope, indeed some faith, that medical scientists in the foreseeable future will provide treatments and a vaccine for this viral plague. This month, the credibility of scientists again plays a major role as communities respond to outbreaks related to reopening the economy. Let’s celebrate the victories, resolve to fix the impure system, and restore a high level of public trust in science. Lives depend on it.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

Having been a bench research scientist 30 years ago, I am flabbergasted at what is and is not currently possible. In a few weeks, scientists sequenced a novel coronavirus and used the genetic sequence to select candidate molecules for a vaccine. But we still can’t reliably say how much protection a cloth mask provides. Worse yet, even if/when we could reliably quantify contagion, it isn’t clear that the public will believe us anyhow.

Thinkstock

The good news is that the public worldwide did believe scientists about the threat of a pandemic and the need to flatten the curve. Saving lives has not been about the strength of an antibiotic or the skill in managing a ventilator, but the credibility of medical scientists. The degree of acceptance was variable and subject to a variety of delays caused by regional politicians, but overall the scientific advice on social distancing has had a gigantic impact on the spread of the pandemic in the February to June time frame. The bad news is that the public’s trust in that scientific advice has waned, the willingness to accept onerous restrictions has fatigued, and the cooperation for maintaining these social changes is evaporating.

I will leave pontificating about the spread of COVID-19 to other experts in other forums. My focus is on the public’s trust in the professionalism of physicians, nurses, medical scientists, and the health care industry as a whole. That trust has been our most valuable tool in fighting the pandemic so far. There have been situations in which weaknesses in modern science have let society down during the pandemic of the century. In my February 2020 column, at the beginning of the outbreak, a month before it was declared a pandemic, when its magnitude was still unclear, I emphasized the importance of having a trusted scientific spokesperson providing timely, accurate information to the public. That, obviously, did not happen in the United States and the degree of the ensuing disaster is still to be revealed.

Scientists have made some wrong decisions about this novel threat. The advice on masks is an illustrative example. For many years, infection control nurses have insisted that medical students wear a mask to protect themselves, even if they were observing rounds from just inside the doorway of a room of a baby with bronchiolitis. The landfills are full of briefly worn surgical masks. Now the story goes: Surgical masks don’t protect staff; they protect others. Changes like that contribute to a credibility gap.

For 3 months, there was conflicting advice about the appropriateness of masks. In early March 2020, some health care workers were disciplined for wearing personal masks. Now, most scientists recommend the public use masks to reduce contagion. Significant subgroups in the U.S. population have refused, mostly to signal their contrarian politics. In June there was an anecdote of a success story from the Show Me state of Missouri, where a mask is credited for preventing an outbreak from a sick hair stylist.

It is hard to find something more reliable than an anecdote. On June 1, a meta-analysis funded by the World Health Organization was published online by Lancet. It supports the idea that masks are beneficial. It is mostly forest plots, so you can try to interpret it yourself. There were 172 observational studies in the systematic review, and the meta-analysis contains 44 relevant comparative studies and 0 randomized controlled trials. Most of those forest plots have an I2 of 75% or worse, which to me indicates that they are not much more reliable than a good anecdote. My primary conclusion was that modern academic science, in an era with a shortage of toilet paper, should convert to printing on soft tissue paper.

It is important to note that the guesstimated overall benefit of cloth masks was a relative risk of 0.30. That benefit is easily nullified if the false security of a mask causes people to congregate together in groups three times larger or for three times more minutes. N95 masks were more effective.

A different article was published in PNAS on June 11. Its senior author was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995. That article touted the benefits of masks. The article is facing heavy criticism for flaws in methodology and flaws in the peer review process. A long list of signatories have joined a letter asking for the article’s retraction.

This article, when combined with the two instances of prominent articles being retracted in the prior month by the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, is accumulating evidence the peer review system is not working as intended.

There are many heroes in this pandemic, from the frontline health care workers in hotspots to the grocery workers and cleaning staff. There is hope, indeed some faith, that medical scientists in the foreseeable future will provide treatments and a vaccine for this viral plague. This month, the credibility of scientists again plays a major role as communities respond to outbreaks related to reopening the economy. Let’s celebrate the victories, resolve to fix the impure system, and restore a high level of public trust in science. Lives depend on it.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

Measuring success with a treat-to-target strategy in psoriatic arthritis patients proved to be more comprehensive with the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) than it was with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), according to findings from a prospective cohort study.

Fewer patients had a low disease activity score according to DAS28, and a higher percentage of patients deemed adequately treated according to DAS28 were found to have residual disease activity, compared with the number of patients so categorized according to PASDAS, researcher Michelle Mulder reported in her presentation of the study at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).

“PASDAS implementation in a tightly monitored PsA [psoriatic arthritis] cohort suggests relevant residual disease burden, even though DAS28 was measured at every visit previously,” said Ms. Mulder, an MD/PhD student at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

The presentation was convincing to Philip Helliwell, MD, PhD, who is a professor of clinical rheumatology at Leeds (England) University, and was also one of the developers of PASDAS. “We know it can be used in clinical practice with a certain amount of organization and clinical staff to help you,” he said during another presentation at GRAPPA.

Treat to target is a widely accepted therapeutic strategy. It’s particularly common in rheumatoid arthritis, but increasing evidence suggests that it improves patient outcomes in psoriatic arthritis. DAS28 is frequently used in treat-to-target approaches in rheumatoid arthritis, and often gets applied to psoriatic arthritis since rheumatologists are already comfortable with it, according to Ms. Mulder. “However, DAS28 has shown some limitations when used in psoriatic arthritis. For example, its joint count is limited to only 28 joints, and it does not take all PsA domains into account,” she said.

DAS28 was previously used at Sint Maartenskliniek in combination with psoriatic arthritis–specific assessment recommendations, but the institution opted in 2019 to switch to PASDAS, which was developed by GRAPPA and the European League Against Rheumatism. “To better adhere to international PsA guidelines, we chose to implement PASDAS in our cohort with the assumption that it might improve patient care,” Ms. Mulder said.

With DAS28, clinicians measured the C-reactive protein (CRP) and Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) domains and were advised to examine 28 joints for tender and swollen joint count domains. Under the PASDAS guidance, clinicians examined 68 joints for tenderness, 66 joints for swelling, CRP, Patient Global VAS, Physician Global VAS, Leeds Enthesitis Index, dactylitis, and the 12-item Short Form Physical Composite Scale. They also examined the skin, nails, and axial disease.

To examine the effects of the switch from DAS28 to PASDAS, the researchers compared outcomes in 855 patients before and after the change during March to December 2019. The mean age of patients was 55 years, and 46% were female. The mean disease duration was 10 years, and the mean PASDAS score was 3.1. A total of 96% of participants were negative for anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide. Overall, 30% had arthritis, 9% had axial disease, 3% had dactylitis, 21% had enthesitis, 51% had skin disease, and 42% had nail disease.

About three-quarters (77.4%) of patients reached the threshold of low disease activity (LDA) according to the DAS28 measure, while 53.1% did so using the PASDAS. High disease activity occurred in 7.8% of patients according to DAS28, compared with 2.7% as measured by PASDAS. Patients who reached only the DAS28 LDA target but not the PASDAS target, compared with patients who reached the LDA target in both measures, had significantly worse counts for swelling in 66 joints (0.7 vs. 0.2; P < .001) and tenderness in 68 joints (2.1 vs. 0.7; P < .001), as well as worse scores for enthesitis (0.5 vs. 0.1; P < .001), dactylitis (4% vs. 1%; P = .005), patient global VAS (44.0 vs. 14.4; P < .001), Health Assessment Questionnaire (0.8 vs. 0.4; P < .001) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (unacceptable score in 17% vs. 3%; P < .001).

Ms. Mulder acknowledged that PASDAS imposes a significant burden on clinicians, and noted that Sint Maartenskliniek created patient infrastructure to handle the load. “It’s very important that you set up your clinic in a specific way. When the patient comes in, we draw blood immediately and we ask them to fill in the questionnaires, and then they go to a specialized nurse who measures all the different components of the PASDAS. It took a lot of time to train the specialized nurses and to implement the PASDAS score in our electronic health records. After we did those things, it was quite easy because we have this whole setup. It takes time and it is difficult, but it is definitely possible to do it,” Ms. Mulder said during a live Q&A following her prerecorded presentation.

The study received no funding. Ms. Mulder had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Helliwell has financial ties to AbbVie, Amgen, Celgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

SOURCE: Mulder M et al. GRAPPA 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting.

Measuring success with a treat-to-target strategy in psoriatic arthritis patients proved to be more comprehensive with the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) than it was with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), according to findings from a prospective cohort study.

Fewer patients had a low disease activity score according to DAS28, and a higher percentage of patients deemed adequately treated according to DAS28 were found to have residual disease activity, compared with the number of patients so categorized according to PASDAS, researcher Michelle Mulder reported in her presentation of the study at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).

“PASDAS implementation in a tightly monitored PsA [psoriatic arthritis] cohort suggests relevant residual disease burden, even though DAS28 was measured at every visit previously,” said Ms. Mulder, an MD/PhD student at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

The presentation was convincing to Philip Helliwell, MD, PhD, who is a professor of clinical rheumatology at Leeds (England) University, and was also one of the developers of PASDAS. “We know it can be used in clinical practice with a certain amount of organization and clinical staff to help you,” he said during another presentation at GRAPPA.

Treat to target is a widely accepted therapeutic strategy. It’s particularly common in rheumatoid arthritis, but increasing evidence suggests that it improves patient outcomes in psoriatic arthritis. DAS28 is frequently used in treat-to-target approaches in rheumatoid arthritis, and often gets applied to psoriatic arthritis since rheumatologists are already comfortable with it, according to Ms. Mulder. “However, DAS28 has shown some limitations when used in psoriatic arthritis. For example, its joint count is limited to only 28 joints, and it does not take all PsA domains into account,” she said.

DAS28 was previously used at Sint Maartenskliniek in combination with psoriatic arthritis–specific assessment recommendations, but the institution opted in 2019 to switch to PASDAS, which was developed by GRAPPA and the European League Against Rheumatism. “To better adhere to international PsA guidelines, we chose to implement PASDAS in our cohort with the assumption that it might improve patient care,” Ms. Mulder said.

With DAS28, clinicians measured the C-reactive protein (CRP) and Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) domains and were advised to examine 28 joints for tender and swollen joint count domains. Under the PASDAS guidance, clinicians examined 68 joints for tenderness, 66 joints for swelling, CRP, Patient Global VAS, Physician Global VAS, Leeds Enthesitis Index, dactylitis, and the 12-item Short Form Physical Composite Scale. They also examined the skin, nails, and axial disease.

To examine the effects of the switch from DAS28 to PASDAS, the researchers compared outcomes in 855 patients before and after the change during March to December 2019. The mean age of patients was 55 years, and 46% were female. The mean disease duration was 10 years, and the mean PASDAS score was 3.1. A total of 96% of participants were negative for anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide. Overall, 30% had arthritis, 9% had axial disease, 3% had dactylitis, 21% had enthesitis, 51% had skin disease, and 42% had nail disease.

About three-quarters (77.4%) of patients reached the threshold of low disease activity (LDA) according to the DAS28 measure, while 53.1% did so using the PASDAS. High disease activity occurred in 7.8% of patients according to DAS28, compared with 2.7% as measured by PASDAS. Patients who reached only the DAS28 LDA target but not the PASDAS target, compared with patients who reached the LDA target in both measures, had significantly worse counts for swelling in 66 joints (0.7 vs. 0.2; P < .001) and tenderness in 68 joints (2.1 vs. 0.7; P < .001), as well as worse scores for enthesitis (0.5 vs. 0.1; P < .001), dactylitis (4% vs. 1%; P = .005), patient global VAS (44.0 vs. 14.4; P < .001), Health Assessment Questionnaire (0.8 vs. 0.4; P < .001) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (unacceptable score in 17% vs. 3%; P < .001).

Ms. Mulder acknowledged that PASDAS imposes a significant burden on clinicians, and noted that Sint Maartenskliniek created patient infrastructure to handle the load. “It’s very important that you set up your clinic in a specific way. When the patient comes in, we draw blood immediately and we ask them to fill in the questionnaires, and then they go to a specialized nurse who measures all the different components of the PASDAS. It took a lot of time to train the specialized nurses and to implement the PASDAS score in our electronic health records. After we did those things, it was quite easy because we have this whole setup. It takes time and it is difficult, but it is definitely possible to do it,” Ms. Mulder said during a live Q&A following her prerecorded presentation.

The study received no funding. Ms. Mulder had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Helliwell has financial ties to AbbVie, Amgen, Celgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

SOURCE: Mulder M et al. GRAPPA 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting.

Measuring success with a treat-to-target strategy in psoriatic arthritis patients proved to be more comprehensive with the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) than it was with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), according to findings from a prospective cohort study.

Fewer patients had a low disease activity score according to DAS28, and a higher percentage of patients deemed adequately treated according to DAS28 were found to have residual disease activity, compared with the number of patients so categorized according to PASDAS, researcher Michelle Mulder reported in her presentation of the study at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).

“PASDAS implementation in a tightly monitored PsA [psoriatic arthritis] cohort suggests relevant residual disease burden, even though DAS28 was measured at every visit previously,” said Ms. Mulder, an MD/PhD student at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

The presentation was convincing to Philip Helliwell, MD, PhD, who is a professor of clinical rheumatology at Leeds (England) University, and was also one of the developers of PASDAS. “We know it can be used in clinical practice with a certain amount of organization and clinical staff to help you,” he said during another presentation at GRAPPA.

Treat to target is a widely accepted therapeutic strategy. It’s particularly common in rheumatoid arthritis, but increasing evidence suggests that it improves patient outcomes in psoriatic arthritis. DAS28 is frequently used in treat-to-target approaches in rheumatoid arthritis, and often gets applied to psoriatic arthritis since rheumatologists are already comfortable with it, according to Ms. Mulder. “However, DAS28 has shown some limitations when used in psoriatic arthritis. For example, its joint count is limited to only 28 joints, and it does not take all PsA domains into account,” she said.

DAS28 was previously used at Sint Maartenskliniek in combination with psoriatic arthritis–specific assessment recommendations, but the institution opted in 2019 to switch to PASDAS, which was developed by GRAPPA and the European League Against Rheumatism. “To better adhere to international PsA guidelines, we chose to implement PASDAS in our cohort with the assumption that it might improve patient care,” Ms. Mulder said.

With DAS28, clinicians measured the C-reactive protein (CRP) and Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) domains and were advised to examine 28 joints for tender and swollen joint count domains. Under the PASDAS guidance, clinicians examined 68 joints for tenderness, 66 joints for swelling, CRP, Patient Global VAS, Physician Global VAS, Leeds Enthesitis Index, dactylitis, and the 12-item Short Form Physical Composite Scale. They also examined the skin, nails, and axial disease.

To examine the effects of the switch from DAS28 to PASDAS, the researchers compared outcomes in 855 patients before and after the change during March to December 2019. The mean age of patients was 55 years, and 46% were female. The mean disease duration was 10 years, and the mean PASDAS score was 3.1. A total of 96% of participants were negative for anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide. Overall, 30% had arthritis, 9% had axial disease, 3% had dactylitis, 21% had enthesitis, 51% had skin disease, and 42% had nail disease.

About three-quarters (77.4%) of patients reached the threshold of low disease activity (LDA) according to the DAS28 measure, while 53.1% did so using the PASDAS. High disease activity occurred in 7.8% of patients according to DAS28, compared with 2.7% as measured by PASDAS. Patients who reached only the DAS28 LDA target but not the PASDAS target, compared with patients who reached the LDA target in both measures, had significantly worse counts for swelling in 66 joints (0.7 vs. 0.2; P < .001) and tenderness in 68 joints (2.1 vs. 0.7; P < .001), as well as worse scores for enthesitis (0.5 vs. 0.1; P < .001), dactylitis (4% vs. 1%; P = .005), patient global VAS (44.0 vs. 14.4; P < .001), Health Assessment Questionnaire (0.8 vs. 0.4; P < .001) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (unacceptable score in 17% vs. 3%; P < .001).

Ms. Mulder acknowledged that PASDAS imposes a significant burden on clinicians, and noted that Sint Maartenskliniek created patient infrastructure to handle the load. “It’s very important that you set up your clinic in a specific way. When the patient comes in, we draw blood immediately and we ask them to fill in the questionnaires, and then they go to a specialized nurse who measures all the different components of the PASDAS. It took a lot of time to train the specialized nurses and to implement the PASDAS score in our electronic health records. After we did those things, it was quite easy because we have this whole setup. It takes time and it is difficult, but it is definitely possible to do it,” Ms. Mulder said during a live Q&A following her prerecorded presentation.

The study received no funding. Ms. Mulder had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Helliwell has financial ties to AbbVie, Amgen, Celgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

SOURCE: Mulder M et al. GRAPPA 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting.

Ten patients smiled and waved out on the computer monitor, as Jacob Mirsky, MD, greeted each one, asked them to introduce themselves, and inquired as to how each was doing with their stress reduction tactics.

The attendees of the online session had been patients at in-person group visits at the Massachusetts General Hospital Revere HealthCare Center. But those in-person group sessions, known as shared medical appointments (SMAs), were shut down when COVID-19 arrived.

“Our group patients have been missing the sessions,” said Dr. Mirsky, a general internist who codirects the center’s group visit program. The online sessions, called virtual SMAs (V-SMAs), work well with COVID-19 social distancing.

In the group sessions, Dr. Mirsky reads a standardized message that addresses privacy concerns during the session. For the next 60-90 minutes, “we ask them to talk about what has gone well for them and what they are struggling with,” he said. “Then I answer their questions using materials in a PowerPoint to address key points, such as reducing salt for high blood pressure or interpreting blood sugar levels for diabetes.

“I try to end group sessions with one area of focus,” Dr. Mirsky said. “In the stress reduction group, this could be meditation. In the diabetes group, it could be a discussion on weight loss.” Then the program’s health coach goes over some key concepts on behavior change and invites participants to contact her after the session.

“The nice thing is that these virtual sessions are fully reimbursable by all of our insurers in Massachusetts,” Dr. Mirsky said. Through evaluation and management (E/M) codes, each patient in a group visit is paid the same as a patient in an individual visit with the same level of complexity.

Dr. Mirsky writes a note in the chart about each patient who was in the group session. “This includes information about the specific patient, such as the history and physical, and information about the group meeting,” he said. In the next few months, the center plans to put its other group sessions online – on blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, and insomnia.

Attracting doctors who hadn’t done groups before

The COVID-19 crisis has given group visits a second wind. Some doctors who never used SMAs before are now trying out this new mode of patient engagement, said Marianne Sumego, MD, director of the Cleveland Clinic’s SMA program, which began 21 years ago.

In this era of COVID-19, group visits have either switched to V-SMAs or halted. However, the COVID-19 crisis has given group visits a second wind. Some doctors who never used SMAs before are now trying out this new mode of patient engagement,

Many of the 100 doctors using SMAs at the Cleveland Clinic have switched over to V-SMAs for now, and the new mode is also attracting colleagues who are new to SMAs, she said.

“When doctors started using telemedicine, virtual group visits started making sense to them,” Dr. Sumego said. “This is a time of a great deal of experimentation in practice design.”

Indeed, V-SMAs have eliminated some problems that had discouraged doctors from trying SMAs, said Amy Wheeler, MD, a general internist who founded the Revere SMA program and codirects it with Dr. Mirsky.

V-SMAs eliminate the need for a large space to hold sessions and reduce the number of staff needed to run sessions, Dr. Wheeler said. “Virtual group visits can actually be easier to use than in-person group visits.”

Dr. Sumego believes small practices in particular will take up V-SMAs because they are easier to run than regular SMAs. “Necessity drives change,” she said. “Across the country everyone is looking at the virtual group model.”

Group visits can help your bottom line

Medicare and many private payers cover group visits. In most cases, they tend to pay the same rate as for an individual office visit. As with telehealth, Medicare and many other payers are temporarily reimbursing for virtual visits at the same rate as for real visits.

Not all payers have a stated policy about covering SMAs, and physicians have to ask. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, for example, has not published any coding rules on SMAs. But in response to a query by the American Academy of Family Physicians, CMS said it would allow use of CPT codes for E/M services for individual patients.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina is one of the few payers with a clearly stated policy on its website. Like Medicare, the insurer accepts E/M codes, and it requires that patients’ attendance must be voluntary; they must be established patients; and the visit must be specific to a disease or condition, although several conditions are allowed.

Dr. Mirsky said his group uses the same E/M level – 99213 – for all of his SMA patients. “Since a regular primary care visit is usually billed at a level 3 or 4, depending on how many topics are covered, we chose level 3 for groups, because the group session deals with just one topic.”

One challenge for billing for SMAs is that most health insurers require patients to provide a copay for each visit, which can discourage patients in groups that meet frequently, says Wayne Dysinger, MD, founder of Lifestyle Medical Solutions, a two-physician primary care practice in Riverside, Calif.

But Dr. Dysinger, who has been using SMAs for 5 years, usually doesn’t have to worry about copays because much of his work is capitated and doesn’t require a copay.

Also, some of Dr. Dysinger’s SMA patients are in direct primary care, in which the patients pay an $18 monthly membership fee. Other practices may charge a flat out-of-pocket fee.
 

How group visits operate

SMAs are based on the observation that patients with the same condition generally ask their doctor the same questions, and rather than repeat the answers each time, why not provide them to a group?

Dr. Wheeler said trying to be more efficient with her time was the primary reason she became interested in SMAs a dozen years ago. “I was trying to squeeze the advice patients needed into a normal patient visit, and it wasn’t working. When I tried to tell them everything they needed to know, I’d run behind for the rest of my day’s visits.”

She found she was continually repeating the same conversation with patients, but these talks weren’t detailed enough to be effective. “When my weight loss patients came back for the next appointment, they had not made the recommended changes in lifestyle. I started to realize how complicated weight loss was.” So Dr. Wheeler founded the SMA program at the Revere Center.

Doctors enjoy the patient interaction

Some doctors who use SMAs talk about how connected they feel with their patients. “For me, the group sessions are the most gratifying part of the week,” Dr. Dysinger says. “I like to see the patients interacting with me and with each other, and watch their health behavior change over time.”

“These groups have a great deal of energy,” he said. “They have a kind of vulnerability that is very raw, very human. People make commitments to meet goals. Will they meet them or not?”

Dr. Dysinger’s enthusiasm has been echoed by other doctors. In a study of older patients, physicians who used SMAs were more satisfied with care than physicians who relied on standard one-to-one interactions. In another study, the researchers surmised that, in SMAs, doctors learn from their patients how they can better meet their needs.

Dr. Dysinger thinks SMAs are widely applicable in primary care. He estimates that 80%-85% of appointments at a primary care practice involve chronic diseases, and this type of patient is a good fit for group visits. SMAs typically treat patients with diabetes, asthma, arthritis, and obesity.

Dr. Sumego said SMAs are used for specialty care at Cleveland Clinic, such as to help patients before and after bariatric surgery. SMAs have also been used to treat patients with ulcerative colitis, multiple sclerosis, cancer, HIV, menopause, insomnia, and stress, according to one report.

Dr. Dysinger, who runs a small practice, organizes his group sessions somewhat differently. He doesn’t organize his groups around conditions like diabetes, but instead his groups focus on four “pillars” of lifestyle medicine: nourishment, movement, resilience (involving sleep and stress), and connectedness.
 

Why patients like group visits

Feeling part of a whole is a major draw for many patients. “Patients seem to like committing to something bigger than just themselves,” Dr. Wheeler said. “They enjoy the sense of community that groups have, the joy of supporting one another.”

“It’s feeling that you’re not alone,” Dr. Mirsky said. “When a patient struggling with diabetes hears how hard it is for another patient, it validates their experience and gives them someone to connect with. There is a positive peer pressure.”

Many programs, including Dr. Wheeler’s and Dr. Mirsky’s in Boston, allow patients to drop in and out of sessions, rather than attending one course all the way through. But even under this format, Dr. Wheeler said that patients often tend to stick together. “At the end of a session, one patient asks another: ‘Which session do you want to go to next?’ ” she said.

Patients also learn from each other in SMAs. Patients exchange experiences and share advice they may not have had the chance to get during an individual visit.

The group dynamic can make it easier for some patients to reveal sensitive information, said Dr. Dysinger. “In these groups, people feel free to talk about their bowel movements, or about having to deal with the influence of a parent on their lives,” Dr. Dysinger said. “The sessions can have the feel of an [Alcoholics Anonymous] meeting, but they’re firmly grounded in medicine.”

Potential downsides of virtual group visits

SMAs and VSMAs may not work for every practice. Some small practices may not have enough patients to organize a group visit around a particular condition – even a common one like diabetes. In a presentation before the Society of General Internal Medicine, a physician from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, warned that it may be difficult for a practice to fill diabetes group visits every year.

Additionally, some patients don’t want to talk about personal matters in a group. “They may not want to reveal certain things about themselves,” Dr. Mirsky said. “So I tell the group that if there is anything that anyone wants to talk about in private, I’m available.”

Another drawback of SMAs is that more experienced patients may have to slog through information they already know, which is a particular problem when patients can drop in and out of sessions. Dr. Mirsky noted that “what often ends up happening is that the experienced participant helps the newcomer.”

Finally, confidentially is a big concern in a group session. “In a one-on-one visit, you can go into details about the patient’s health, and even bring up an entry in the chart,” Dr. Wheeler said. “But in a group visit, you can’t raise any personal details about a patient unless the patient brings it up first.”

SMA patients sign confidentiality agreements in which they agree not to talk about other patients outside the session. Ensuring confidentiality becomes more complicated in virtual group visits, because someone located in the room near a participant could overhear the conversation. For this reason, patients in V-SMAs are advised to use headphones or, at a minimum, close the door to the room they are in.

To address privacy concerns, Zoom encrypts its data, but some privacy breeches have been reported, and a U.S. senator has been looking into Zoom’s privacy vulnerabilities.

Transferring groups to virtual groups

It took the COVID-19 crisis for most doctors to take up virtual SMAs. Dr. Sumego said that the Cleveland Clinic started virtual SMAs more than a year ago, but most other groups operating SMAs were apparently not providing them virtually before COVID-19 started.

Dr. Dysinger said he tried virtual SMAs in 2017 but dropped them because the technology – using Zoom – was challenging at the time, and his staff and most patients were resistant. “Only three to five people were attending the virtual sessions, and the meetings took place in the evening, which was hard on the staff.”

“When COVID-19 first appeared, our initial response was to try to keep the in-person group and add social distancing to it, but that wasn’t workable, so very quickly we shifted to Zoom meetings,” Dr. Dysinger said. “We had experience with Zoom already, and the Zoom technology had improved and was easier to use. COVID-19 forced it all forward.”

Are V-SMAs effective? While there have been many studies showing the effectiveness of in-person SMAs, there have been very few on V-SMAs. One 2018 study of obesity patients found that those attending in-person SMAs lost somewhat more weight than those in V-SMAs.

As with telemedicine, some patients have trouble with the technology of V-SMAs. Dr. Dysinger said 5%-10% of his SMA patients don’t make the switch over to V-SMAs – mainly because of problems in adapting to the technology – but the rest are happy. “We’re averaging 10 people per meeting, and as many as 20.”

Getting comfortable with group visits

Dealing with group visits takes a very different mindset than what doctors normally have, Dr. Wheeler said. “It took me 6-8 months to feel comfortable enough with group sessions to do them myself,” she recalled. “This was a very different way to practice, compared to the one-on-one care I was trained to give patients. Others may find the transition easier, though.

“Doctors are used to being in control of the patient visit, but the exchange in a group visit is more fluid,” Dr. Wheeler said. “Patients offer their own opinions, and this sends the discussion off on a tangent that is often quite useful. As doctors, we have to learn when to let these tangents continue, and know when the discussion might have to be brought back to the theme at hand. Often it’s better not to intercede.”

Do doctors need training to conduct SMAs? Patients in group visits reported worse communication with physicians than those in individual visits, according to a 2014 study. The authors surmised that the doctors needed to learn how to talk to groups and suggested that they get some training.

The potential staying power of V-SMAs post COVID?

Once the COVID-19 crisis is over, Medicare is scheduled to no longer provide the same level of reimbursement for virtual sessions as for real sessions. Dr. Mirsky anticipates a great deal of resistance to this change from thousands of physicians and patients who have become comfortable with telehealth, including virtual SMAs.

Dr. Dysinger thinks V-SMAs will continue. “When COVID-19 clears and we can go back to in-person groups, we expect to keep some virtual groups. People have already come to accept and value virtual groups.”

Dr. Wheeler sees virtual groups playing an essential role post COVID-19, when practices have to get back up to speed. “Virtual group visits could make it easier to deal with a large backlog of patients who couldn’t be seen up until now,” she said. “And virtual groups will be the only way to see patients who are still reluctant to meet in a group.”

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

Ten patients smiled and waved out on the computer monitor, as Jacob Mirsky, MD, greeted each one, asked them to introduce themselves, and inquired as to how each was doing with their stress reduction tactics.

The attendees of the online session had been patients at in-person group visits at the Massachusetts General Hospital Revere HealthCare Center. But those in-person group sessions, known as shared medical appointments (SMAs), were shut down when COVID-19 arrived.

“Our group patients have been missing the sessions,” said Dr. Mirsky, a general internist who codirects the center’s group visit program. The online sessions, called virtual SMAs (V-SMAs), work well with COVID-19 social distancing.

In the group sessions, Dr. Mirsky reads a standardized message that addresses privacy concerns during the session. For the next 60-90 minutes, “we ask them to talk about what has gone well for them and what they are struggling with,” he said. “Then I answer their questions using materials in a PowerPoint to address key points, such as reducing salt for high blood pressure or interpreting blood sugar levels for diabetes.

“I try to end group sessions with one area of focus,” Dr. Mirsky said. “In the stress reduction group, this could be meditation. In the diabetes group, it could be a discussion on weight loss.” Then the program’s health coach goes over some key concepts on behavior change and invites participants to contact her after the session.

“The nice thing is that these virtual sessions are fully reimbursable by all of our insurers in Massachusetts,” Dr. Mirsky said. Through evaluation and management (E/M) codes, each patient in a group visit is paid the same as a patient in an individual visit with the same level of complexity.

Dr. Mirsky writes a note in the chart about each patient who was in the group session. “This includes information about the specific patient, such as the history and physical, and information about the group meeting,” he said. In the next few months, the center plans to put its other group sessions online – on blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, and insomnia.

Attracting doctors who hadn’t done groups before

The COVID-19 crisis has given group visits a second wind. Some doctors who never used SMAs before are now trying out this new mode of patient engagement, said Marianne Sumego, MD, director of the Cleveland Clinic’s SMA program, which began 21 years ago.

In this era of COVID-19, group visits have either switched to V-SMAs or halted. However, the COVID-19 crisis has given group visits a second wind. Some doctors who never used SMAs before are now trying out this new mode of patient engagement,

Many of the 100 doctors using SMAs at the Cleveland Clinic have switched over to V-SMAs for now, and the new mode is also attracting colleagues who are new to SMAs, she said.

“When doctors started using telemedicine, virtual group visits started making sense to them,” Dr. Sumego said. “This is a time of a great deal of experimentation in practice design.”

Indeed, V-SMAs have eliminated some problems that had discouraged doctors from trying SMAs, said Amy Wheeler, MD, a general internist who founded the Revere SMA program and codirects it with Dr. Mirsky.

V-SMAs eliminate the need for a large space to hold sessions and reduce the number of staff needed to run sessions, Dr. Wheeler said. “Virtual group visits can actually be easier to use than in-person group visits.”

Dr. Sumego believes small practices in particular will take up V-SMAs because they are easier to run than regular SMAs. “Necessity drives change,” she said. “Across the country everyone is looking at the virtual group model.”

Group visits can help your bottom line

Medicare and many private payers cover group visits. In most cases, they tend to pay the same rate as for an individual office visit. As with telehealth, Medicare and many other payers are temporarily reimbursing for virtual visits at the same rate as for real visits.

Not all payers have a stated policy about covering SMAs, and physicians have to ask. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, for example, has not published any coding rules on SMAs. But in response to a query by the American Academy of Family Physicians, CMS said it would allow use of CPT codes for E/M services for individual patients.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina is one of the few payers with a clearly stated policy on its website. Like Medicare, the insurer accepts E/M codes, and it requires that patients’ attendance must be voluntary; they must be established patients; and the visit must be specific to a disease or condition, although several conditions are allowed.

Dr. Mirsky said his group uses the same E/M level – 99213 – for all of his SMA patients. “Since a regular primary care visit is usually billed at a level 3 or 4, depending on how many topics are covered, we chose level 3 for groups, because the group session deals with just one topic.”

One challenge for billing for SMAs is that most health insurers require patients to provide a copay for each visit, which can discourage patients in groups that meet frequently, says Wayne Dysinger, MD, founder of Lifestyle Medical Solutions, a two-physician primary care practice in Riverside, Calif.

But Dr. Dysinger, who has been using SMAs for 5 years, usually doesn’t have to worry about copays because much of his work is capitated and doesn’t require a copay.

Also, some of Dr. Dysinger’s SMA patients are in direct primary care, in which the patients pay an $18 monthly membership fee. Other practices may charge a flat out-of-pocket fee.
 

How group visits operate

SMAs are based on the observation that patients with the same condition generally ask their doctor the same questions, and rather than repeat the answers each time, why not provide them to a group?

Dr. Wheeler said trying to be more efficient with her time was the primary reason she became interested in SMAs a dozen years ago. “I was trying to squeeze the advice patients needed into a normal patient visit, and it wasn’t working. When I tried to tell them everything they needed to know, I’d run behind for the rest of my day’s visits.”

She found she was continually repeating the same conversation with patients, but these talks weren’t detailed enough to be effective. “When my weight loss patients came back for the next appointment, they had not made the recommended changes in lifestyle. I started to realize how complicated weight loss was.” So Dr. Wheeler founded the SMA program at the Revere Center.

Doctors enjoy the patient interaction

Some doctors who use SMAs talk about how connected they feel with their patients. “For me, the group sessions are the most gratifying part of the week,” Dr. Dysinger says. “I like to see the patients interacting with me and with each other, and watch their health behavior change over time.”

“These groups have a great deal of energy,” he said. “They have a kind of vulnerability that is very raw, very human. People make commitments to meet goals. Will they meet them or not?”

Dr. Dysinger’s enthusiasm has been echoed by other doctors. In a study of older patients, physicians who used SMAs were more satisfied with care than physicians who relied on standard one-to-one interactions. In another study, the researchers surmised that, in SMAs, doctors learn from their patients how they can better meet their needs.

Dr. Dysinger thinks SMAs are widely applicable in primary care. He estimates that 80%-85% of appointments at a primary care practice involve chronic diseases, and this type of patient is a good fit for group visits. SMAs typically treat patients with diabetes, asthma, arthritis, and obesity.

Dr. Sumego said SMAs are used for specialty care at Cleveland Clinic, such as to help patients before and after bariatric surgery. SMAs have also been used to treat patients with ulcerative colitis, multiple sclerosis, cancer, HIV, menopause, insomnia, and stress, according to one report.

Dr. Dysinger, who runs a small practice, organizes his group sessions somewhat differently. He doesn’t organize his groups around conditions like diabetes, but instead his groups focus on four “pillars” of lifestyle medicine: nourishment, movement, resilience (involving sleep and stress), and connectedness.
 

Why patients like group visits

Feeling part of a whole is a major draw for many patients. “Patients seem to like committing to something bigger than just themselves,” Dr. Wheeler said. “They enjoy the sense of community that groups have, the joy of supporting one another.”

“It’s feeling that you’re not alone,” Dr. Mirsky said. “When a patient struggling with diabetes hears how hard it is for another patient, it validates their experience and gives them someone to connect with. There is a positive peer pressure.”

Many programs, including Dr. Wheeler’s and Dr. Mirsky’s in Boston, allow patients to drop in and out of sessions, rather than attending one course all the way through. But even under this format, Dr. Wheeler said that patients often tend to stick together. “At the end of a session, one patient asks another: ‘Which session do you want to go to next?’ ” she said.

Patients also learn from each other in SMAs. Patients exchange experiences and share advice they may not have had the chance to get during an individual visit.

The group dynamic can make it easier for some patients to reveal sensitive information, said Dr. Dysinger. “In these groups, people feel free to talk about their bowel movements, or about having to deal with the influence of a parent on their lives,” Dr. Dysinger said. “The sessions can have the feel of an [Alcoholics Anonymous] meeting, but they’re firmly grounded in medicine.”

Potential downsides of virtual group visits

SMAs and VSMAs may not work for every practice. Some small practices may not have enough patients to organize a group visit around a particular condition – even a common one like diabetes. In a presentation before the Society of General Internal Medicine, a physician from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, warned that it may be difficult for a practice to fill diabetes group visits every year.

Additionally, some patients don’t want to talk about personal matters in a group. “They may not want to reveal certain things about themselves,” Dr. Mirsky said. “So I tell the group that if there is anything that anyone wants to talk about in private, I’m available.”

Another drawback of SMAs is that more experienced patients may have to slog through information they already know, which is a particular problem when patients can drop in and out of sessions. Dr. Mirsky noted that “what often ends up happening is that the experienced participant helps the newcomer.”

Finally, confidentially is a big concern in a group session. “In a one-on-one visit, you can go into details about the patient’s health, and even bring up an entry in the chart,” Dr. Wheeler said. “But in a group visit, you can’t raise any personal details about a patient unless the patient brings it up first.”

SMA patients sign confidentiality agreements in which they agree not to talk about other patients outside the session. Ensuring confidentiality becomes more complicated in virtual group visits, because someone located in the room near a participant could overhear the conversation. For this reason, patients in V-SMAs are advised to use headphones or, at a minimum, close the door to the room they are in.

To address privacy concerns, Zoom encrypts its data, but some privacy breeches have been reported, and a U.S. senator has been looking into Zoom’s privacy vulnerabilities.

Transferring groups to virtual groups

It took the COVID-19 crisis for most doctors to take up virtual SMAs. Dr. Sumego said that the Cleveland Clinic started virtual SMAs more than a year ago, but most other groups operating SMAs were apparently not providing them virtually before COVID-19 started.

Dr. Dysinger said he tried virtual SMAs in 2017 but dropped them because the technology – using Zoom – was challenging at the time, and his staff and most patients were resistant. “Only three to five people were attending the virtual sessions, and the meetings took place in the evening, which was hard on the staff.”

“When COVID-19 first appeared, our initial response was to try to keep the in-person group and add social distancing to it, but that wasn’t workable, so very quickly we shifted to Zoom meetings,” Dr. Dysinger said. “We had experience with Zoom already, and the Zoom technology had improved and was easier to use. COVID-19 forced it all forward.”

Are V-SMAs effective? While there have been many studies showing the effectiveness of in-person SMAs, there have been very few on V-SMAs. One 2018 study of obesity patients found that those attending in-person SMAs lost somewhat more weight than those in V-SMAs.

As with telemedicine, some patients have trouble with the technology of V-SMAs. Dr. Dysinger said 5%-10% of his SMA patients don’t make the switch over to V-SMAs – mainly because of problems in adapting to the technology – but the rest are happy. “We’re averaging 10 people per meeting, and as many as 20.”

Getting comfortable with group visits

Dealing with group visits takes a very different mindset than what doctors normally have, Dr. Wheeler said. “It took me 6-8 months to feel comfortable enough with group sessions to do them myself,” she recalled. “This was a very different way to practice, compared to the one-on-one care I was trained to give patients. Others may find the transition easier, though.

“Doctors are used to being in control of the patient visit, but the exchange in a group visit is more fluid,” Dr. Wheeler said. “Patients offer their own opinions, and this sends the discussion off on a tangent that is often quite useful. As doctors, we have to learn when to let these tangents continue, and know when the discussion might have to be brought back to the theme at hand. Often it’s better not to intercede.”

Do doctors need training to conduct SMAs? Patients in group visits reported worse communication with physicians than those in individual visits, according to a 2014 study. The authors surmised that the doctors needed to learn how to talk to groups and suggested that they get some training.

The potential staying power of V-SMAs post COVID?

Once the COVID-19 crisis is over, Medicare is scheduled to no longer provide the same level of reimbursement for virtual sessions as for real sessions. Dr. Mirsky anticipates a great deal of resistance to this change from thousands of physicians and patients who have become comfortable with telehealth, including virtual SMAs.

Dr. Dysinger thinks V-SMAs will continue. “When COVID-19 clears and we can go back to in-person groups, we expect to keep some virtual groups. People have already come to accept and value virtual groups.”

Dr. Wheeler sees virtual groups playing an essential role post COVID-19, when practices have to get back up to speed. “Virtual group visits could make it easier to deal with a large backlog of patients who couldn’t be seen up until now,” she said. “And virtual groups will be the only way to see patients who are still reluctant to meet in a group.”

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

Ten patients smiled and waved out on the computer monitor, as Jacob Mirsky, MD, greeted each one, asked them to introduce themselves, and inquired as to how each was doing with their stress reduction tactics.

The attendees of the online session had been patients at in-person group visits at the Massachusetts General Hospital Revere HealthCare Center. But those in-person group sessions, known as shared medical appointments (SMAs), were shut down when COVID-19 arrived.

“Our group patients have been missing the sessions,” said Dr. Mirsky, a general internist who codirects the center’s group visit program. The online sessions, called virtual SMAs (V-SMAs), work well with COVID-19 social distancing.

In the group sessions, Dr. Mirsky reads a standardized message that addresses privacy concerns during the session. For the next 60-90 minutes, “we ask them to talk about what has gone well for them and what they are struggling with,” he said. “Then I answer their questions using materials in a PowerPoint to address key points, such as reducing salt for high blood pressure or interpreting blood sugar levels for diabetes.

“I try to end group sessions with one area of focus,” Dr. Mirsky said. “In the stress reduction group, this could be meditation. In the diabetes group, it could be a discussion on weight loss.” Then the program’s health coach goes over some key concepts on behavior change and invites participants to contact her after the session.

“The nice thing is that these virtual sessions are fully reimbursable by all of our insurers in Massachusetts,” Dr. Mirsky said. Through evaluation and management (E/M) codes, each patient in a group visit is paid the same as a patient in an individual visit with the same level of complexity.

Dr. Mirsky writes a note in the chart about each patient who was in the group session. “This includes information about the specific patient, such as the history and physical, and information about the group meeting,” he said. In the next few months, the center plans to put its other group sessions online – on blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, and insomnia.

Attracting doctors who hadn’t done groups before

The COVID-19 crisis has given group visits a second wind. Some doctors who never used SMAs before are now trying out this new mode of patient engagement, said Marianne Sumego, MD, director of the Cleveland Clinic’s SMA program, which began 21 years ago.

In this era of COVID-19, group visits have either switched to V-SMAs or halted. However, the COVID-19 crisis has given group visits a second wind. Some doctors who never used SMAs before are now trying out this new mode of patient engagement,

Many of the 100 doctors using SMAs at the Cleveland Clinic have switched over to V-SMAs for now, and the new mode is also attracting colleagues who are new to SMAs, she said.

“When doctors started using telemedicine, virtual group visits started making sense to them,” Dr. Sumego said. “This is a time of a great deal of experimentation in practice design.”

Indeed, V-SMAs have eliminated some problems that had discouraged doctors from trying SMAs, said Amy Wheeler, MD, a general internist who founded the Revere SMA program and codirects it with Dr. Mirsky.

V-SMAs eliminate the need for a large space to hold sessions and reduce the number of staff needed to run sessions, Dr. Wheeler said. “Virtual group visits can actually be easier to use than in-person group visits.”

Dr. Sumego believes small practices in particular will take up V-SMAs because they are easier to run than regular SMAs. “Necessity drives change,” she said. “Across the country everyone is looking at the virtual group model.”

Group visits can help your bottom line

Medicare and many private payers cover group visits. In most cases, they tend to pay the same rate as for an individual office visit. As with telehealth, Medicare and many other payers are temporarily reimbursing for virtual visits at the same rate as for real visits.

Not all payers have a stated policy about covering SMAs, and physicians have to ask. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, for example, has not published any coding rules on SMAs. But in response to a query by the American Academy of Family Physicians, CMS said it would allow use of CPT codes for E/M services for individual patients.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina is one of the few payers with a clearly stated policy on its website. Like Medicare, the insurer accepts E/M codes, and it requires that patients’ attendance must be voluntary; they must be established patients; and the visit must be specific to a disease or condition, although several conditions are allowed.

Dr. Mirsky said his group uses the same E/M level – 99213 – for all of his SMA patients. “Since a regular primary care visit is usually billed at a level 3 or 4, depending on how many topics are covered, we chose level 3 for groups, because the group session deals with just one topic.”

One challenge for billing for SMAs is that most health insurers require patients to provide a copay for each visit, which can discourage patients in groups that meet frequently, says Wayne Dysinger, MD, founder of Lifestyle Medical Solutions, a two-physician primary care practice in Riverside, Calif.

But Dr. Dysinger, who has been using SMAs for 5 years, usually doesn’t have to worry about copays because much of his work is capitated and doesn’t require a copay.

Also, some of Dr. Dysinger’s SMA patients are in direct primary care, in which the patients pay an $18 monthly membership fee. Other practices may charge a flat out-of-pocket fee.
 

How group visits operate

SMAs are based on the observation that patients with the same condition generally ask their doctor the same questions, and rather than repeat the answers each time, why not provide them to a group?

Dr. Wheeler said trying to be more efficient with her time was the primary reason she became interested in SMAs a dozen years ago. “I was trying to squeeze the advice patients needed into a normal patient visit, and it wasn’t working. When I tried to tell them everything they needed to know, I’d run behind for the rest of my day’s visits.”

She found she was continually repeating the same conversation with patients, but these talks weren’t detailed enough to be effective. “When my weight loss patients came back for the next appointment, they had not made the recommended changes in lifestyle. I started to realize how complicated weight loss was.” So Dr. Wheeler founded the SMA program at the Revere Center.

Doctors enjoy the patient interaction

Some doctors who use SMAs talk about how connected they feel with their patients. “For me, the group sessions are the most gratifying part of the week,” Dr. Dysinger says. “I like to see the patients interacting with me and with each other, and watch their health behavior change over time.”

“These groups have a great deal of energy,” he said. “They have a kind of vulnerability that is very raw, very human. People make commitments to meet goals. Will they meet them or not?”

Dr. Dysinger’s enthusiasm has been echoed by other doctors. In a study of older patients, physicians who used SMAs were more satisfied with care than physicians who relied on standard one-to-one interactions. In another study, the researchers surmised that, in SMAs, doctors learn from their patients how they can better meet their needs.

Dr. Dysinger thinks SMAs are widely applicable in primary care. He estimates that 80%-85% of appointments at a primary care practice involve chronic diseases, and this type of patient is a good fit for group visits. SMAs typically treat patients with diabetes, asthma, arthritis, and obesity.

Dr. Sumego said SMAs are used for specialty care at Cleveland Clinic, such as to help patients before and after bariatric surgery. SMAs have also been used to treat patients with ulcerative colitis, multiple sclerosis, cancer, HIV, menopause, insomnia, and stress, according to one report.

Dr. Dysinger, who runs a small practice, organizes his group sessions somewhat differently. He doesn’t organize his groups around conditions like diabetes, but instead his groups focus on four “pillars” of lifestyle medicine: nourishment, movement, resilience (involving sleep and stress), and connectedness.
 

Why patients like group visits

Feeling part of a whole is a major draw for many patients. “Patients seem to like committing to something bigger than just themselves,” Dr. Wheeler said. “They enjoy the sense of community that groups have, the joy of supporting one another.”

“It’s feeling that you’re not alone,” Dr. Mirsky said. “When a patient struggling with diabetes hears how hard it is for another patient, it validates their experience and gives them someone to connect with. There is a positive peer pressure.”

Many programs, including Dr. Wheeler’s and Dr. Mirsky’s in Boston, allow patients to drop in and out of sessions, rather than attending one course all the way through. But even under this format, Dr. Wheeler said that patients often tend to stick together. “At the end of a session, one patient asks another: ‘Which session do you want to go to next?’ ” she said.

Patients also learn from each other in SMAs. Patients exchange experiences and share advice they may not have had the chance to get during an individual visit.

The group dynamic can make it easier for some patients to reveal sensitive information, said Dr. Dysinger. “In these groups, people feel free to talk about their bowel movements, or about having to deal with the influence of a parent on their lives,” Dr. Dysinger said. “The sessions can have the feel of an [Alcoholics Anonymous] meeting, but they’re firmly grounded in medicine.”

Potential downsides of virtual group visits

SMAs and VSMAs may not work for every practice. Some small practices may not have enough patients to organize a group visit around a particular condition – even a common one like diabetes. In a presentation before the Society of General Internal Medicine, a physician from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, warned that it may be difficult for a practice to fill diabetes group visits every year.

Additionally, some patients don’t want to talk about personal matters in a group. “They may not want to reveal certain things about themselves,” Dr. Mirsky said. “So I tell the group that if there is anything that anyone wants to talk about in private, I’m available.”

Another drawback of SMAs is that more experienced patients may have to slog through information they already know, which is a particular problem when patients can drop in and out of sessions. Dr. Mirsky noted that “what often ends up happening is that the experienced participant helps the newcomer.”

Finally, confidentially is a big concern in a group session. “In a one-on-one visit, you can go into details about the patient’s health, and even bring up an entry in the chart,” Dr. Wheeler said. “But in a group visit, you can’t raise any personal details about a patient unless the patient brings it up first.”

SMA patients sign confidentiality agreements in which they agree not to talk about other patients outside the session. Ensuring confidentiality becomes more complicated in virtual group visits, because someone located in the room near a participant could overhear the conversation. For this reason, patients in V-SMAs are advised to use headphones or, at a minimum, close the door to the room they are in.

To address privacy concerns, Zoom encrypts its data, but some privacy breeches have been reported, and a U.S. senator has been looking into Zoom’s privacy vulnerabilities.

Transferring groups to virtual groups

It took the COVID-19 crisis for most doctors to take up virtual SMAs. Dr. Sumego said that the Cleveland Clinic started virtual SMAs more than a year ago, but most other groups operating SMAs were apparently not providing them virtually before COVID-19 started.

Dr. Dysinger said he tried virtual SMAs in 2017 but dropped them because the technology – using Zoom – was challenging at the time, and his staff and most patients were resistant. “Only three to five people were attending the virtual sessions, and the meetings took place in the evening, which was hard on the staff.”

“When COVID-19 first appeared, our initial response was to try to keep the in-person group and add social distancing to it, but that wasn’t workable, so very quickly we shifted to Zoom meetings,” Dr. Dysinger said. “We had experience with Zoom already, and the Zoom technology had improved and was easier to use. COVID-19 forced it all forward.”

Are V-SMAs effective? While there have been many studies showing the effectiveness of in-person SMAs, there have been very few on V-SMAs. One 2018 study of obesity patients found that those attending in-person SMAs lost somewhat more weight than those in V-SMAs.

As with telemedicine, some patients have trouble with the technology of V-SMAs. Dr. Dysinger said 5%-10% of his SMA patients don’t make the switch over to V-SMAs – mainly because of problems in adapting to the technology – but the rest are happy. “We’re averaging 10 people per meeting, and as many as 20.”

Getting comfortable with group visits

Dealing with group visits takes a very different mindset than what doctors normally have, Dr. Wheeler said. “It took me 6-8 months to feel comfortable enough with group sessions to do them myself,” she recalled. “This was a very different way to practice, compared to the one-on-one care I was trained to give patients. Others may find the transition easier, though.

“Doctors are used to being in control of the patient visit, but the exchange in a group visit is more fluid,” Dr. Wheeler said. “Patients offer their own opinions, and this sends the discussion off on a tangent that is often quite useful. As doctors, we have to learn when to let these tangents continue, and know when the discussion might have to be brought back to the theme at hand. Often it’s better not to intercede.”

Do doctors need training to conduct SMAs? Patients in group visits reported worse communication with physicians than those in individual visits, according to a 2014 study. The authors surmised that the doctors needed to learn how to talk to groups and suggested that they get some training.

The potential staying power of V-SMAs post COVID?

Once the COVID-19 crisis is over, Medicare is scheduled to no longer provide the same level of reimbursement for virtual sessions as for real sessions. Dr. Mirsky anticipates a great deal of resistance to this change from thousands of physicians and patients who have become comfortable with telehealth, including virtual SMAs.

Dr. Dysinger thinks V-SMAs will continue. “When COVID-19 clears and we can go back to in-person groups, we expect to keep some virtual groups. People have already come to accept and value virtual groups.”

Dr. Wheeler sees virtual groups playing an essential role post COVID-19, when practices have to get back up to speed. “Virtual group visits could make it easier to deal with a large backlog of patients who couldn’t be seen up until now,” she said. “And virtual groups will be the only way to see patients who are still reluctant to meet in a group.”

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

Sachin Dave, MD, an internist in Greenwood, Ind., never thought he’d tell his patients to avoid coming into the office. But these days, he must balance the need for face-to-face visits with the risk for COVID-19 transmission. Although he connects with most patients by telehealth, some patients still demand in-office care.

“My older patients actually insist on coming to see me in person,” said Dr. Dave, who is part of Indiana Internal Medicine Consultants, a large group practice near Indianapolis. “I have to tell them it’s not safe.”

It’s a minor hitch as his practice ramps up again – but one of those things you can’t overlook, he said. “We need to educate our patients and communicate the risk to them.”

As practices across the United States start reopening, physicians frequently hit bumps in the road, according to Kerin Bashaw, senior vice president of patient safety and risk management for the Doctors Company, a physician-owned malpractice insurer. “It’s about minimizing risk.”

As practices increase patient volume, physicians are juggling a desire for a return to patient care and increased revenue with a need to maximize patient and staff safety. Avoiding some of these common snags may help make the transition smoother.
 

1. Unclear or nonexistent polices and protocols

Some physicians know what general rules they want to follow, but they haven’t conveyed them in a readily available document. Although you and your staff may have a sense of what they are, patients may be less aware of how mandatory you consider them. It’s important to develop a formal framework that you will follow and to make sure patients and staff know it.

Dr. Dave and colleagues have stringent safety protocols in place for the small percentage of patients he does feel a need to be seen in person. Masks are mandatory for staff and patients. The waiting room is set up for social distancing. If it begins getting crowded, patients are asked to wait in their cars until an exam room is ready.

“I’m not going to see a patient who refuses to put a mask on, because when I put a mask on, I’m trying to protect my patients,” said Dr. Dave. He makes it clear that he expects the same from his patients; they must wear a mask to protect his staff and himself.

“I am going to let them in with the caveat that they don’t have qualms about wearing a mask. If they have qualms about wearing a mask, then I have qualms about seeing them in person,” he said.

Be sure that all patients understand and will adhere to your protocols before they come to the office. Patients should be triaged over the phone before arriving, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. (Remember that refusing assessment or care could lead to issues of patient abandonment.)

When you don’t really have a framework to follow, you don’t really know what the structure is going to be and how your practice is going to provide care. The question is, how do you build a framework for right now? said Ron Holder, chief operations officer of the Medical Group Management Association. “The first step is do no harm.”
 

2. Trying to see too many patients too soon

On average, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% decrease in patient volume since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, according to the MGMA. It’s natural that many want to ramp up immediately and go back to their prior patient volume. But they need to take it slow and ensure that the correct safety protocols are in place, Mr. Holder said.

For example, telehealth is still reimbursable at parity, so physicians should keep taking advantage of that. MGMA’s practice reopening checklist has links to additional resources and considerations.

Some doctors want to see an overload of patients and want to get back to how they practiced before the pandemic, says orthopedic surgeon Charles Ruotolo, MD, president of Total Orthopedics and Sports Medicine in Massapequa, N.Y., and chairman of the department of orthopedics, Nassau University Medical Center, East Meadow, N.Y., “but at the same time, you know we still have to limit how many people are coming into the office.”

It’s not fair if some doctors in your practice are seeing 45 patients daily as they did previously whereas others are seeing half that many, he explained. “We must remain cognizant and constantly review schedules and remember we have to still keep the numbers down.”

“COVID is not going to be completely over in our lifetime,” says Evan Levine, MD, a cardiologist in Ridgefield, Conn. Taking advantage of technologies is one way to reduce risk.

He predicts that the demand will continue to increase as patients become more comfortable with virtual visits. Using Bluetooth and WiFi devices to assess patients is no longer futuristic and can help reduce the number of people in the waiting room, according to Dr. Levine, a solo practitioner and author of “What Your Doctor Won’t (or Can’t) Tell You.” “That’s a very good thing, especially as we look to fall and to flu season.”
 

3. Undercommunicating with patients and staff

Don’t assume patients know that you’ve opened back up and are seeing people in the office, Mr. Holder said. Update your practice website, send letters or newsletters to patients’ homes, maintain telephone and email contact, and post signs at the facility explaining your reopening process. The CDC has an excellent phone script that practices can adapt. Everyone should know what to expect and what’s expected of them.

He advised overcommunicating – more than you think is necessary – to your staff and patients. Tell them about the extra steps you’re taking. Let them know that their safety and health are the most important thing and that you are taking all these extra measures to make sure that they feel comfortable.

Keep staff appraised of policy changes. Stress what you’re doing to ensure the safety of your team members. “Even though you could be doing all those things, if you’re not communicating, then no one knows it,” said Mr. Holder.

He predicted the practices that emerge stronger from this crisis will be those with great patient education that have built up a lot of goodwill. Patients should know they can go to this practice’s patient portal as a trusted resource about COVID-19 and safety-related measures. This approach will pay dividends over the long term.
 

4. Giving inadequate staff training and holding too-high expectations

Staff members are scared, really scared, Ms. Bashaw said. Some may not return because they’re unsure what to expect; others may have to stay home to care for children or older relatives. Clear guidance on what is being done to ensure everyone’s safety, what is expected from staff, and flexibility with scheduling can help address these issues.

Most practices’ staff are not used to donning and removing personal protective equipment, and they’re not used to wearing masks when working with patients. Expect some mistakes.

“We had a scenario where a provider was in a room with an older patient, and the provider pulled his mask down so the patient could hear him better. He then kept the mask down while giving the patient an injection. When the family found out, they were very upset,” Ms. Bashaw related. “It was done with good intentions, to improve communication, but it’s a slip-up that could have found him liable if she became ill.”

Dr. Ruotolo had to implement new policies throughout his practice’s multiple locations in the New York metro area. They encompassed everything from staggering appointments and staff to establishing designated employee eating areas so front desk staff weren’t taking their masks off to snack.

Having specific guidelines for staff helps reassure patients that safety protocols are being adhered to. “Patients want to see we’re all doing the right thing,” he said.

Have those policies clearly written so everyone’s on the same page, Dr. Ruotolo advised. Also make sure staff knows what the rules are for patients.

Dr. Ruotolo’s reception staff hand every patient a disinfectant wipe when they arrive. They are asked to wipe down the check-in kiosk before and after using it. Assistants know not to cut corners when disinfecting exam rooms, equipment, or tables. “It’s the little things you have to think about, and make sure it’s reiterated with your staff so they’re doing it.”

If your practice isn’t back up to full staffing volume, it’s a good idea to cross train staff members so some jobs overlap, suggests Mr. Holder. Although smaller practices may already do this, at larger practices, staff members’ roles may be more specific. “You may be able to pull employees from other positions in the practice, but it’s a good idea to have some redundancy.”
 

5. Neglecting to document everything – even more so than before

The standard of care is changing every day, and so are the regulations, says Ms. Bashaw. Many physicians who work in larger practices or for health systems don’t take advantage of internal risk management departments, which can help them keep tabs on all of these changes.

Writing down simple protocols and having a consistent work flow are extremely important right now. What have you told staff and patients? Are they comfortable with how you’re minimizing their risk? Physicians can find a seven-page checklist that helps practitioners organize and methodically go through reopening process at the Doctors Company website.

Implementing state and local statutes or public health requirements and keeping track of when things stop and start can be complex, says Ms. Bashaw. Take a look at your pre–COVID-19 policies and procedures, and make sure you’re on top of the current standards for your office, including staff education. The most important step is connecting with your local public health authority and taking direction from them.

Ms. Bashaw strongly encouraged physicians to conduct huddles with their staff; it’s an evidence-based leadership practice that’s important from a medical malpractice perspective. Review the day’s game plan, then conduct a debriefing at the end of the day.

Discuss what worked well, what didn’t, and what tomorrow looks like. And be sure to document it all. “A standard routine and debrief gets everyone on the same page and shows due diligence,” she said.

Keep an administrative file so 2 years down the road, you remember what you did and when. That way, if there’s a problem or a breach or the standard isn’t adhered to, it’s documented in the file. Note what happened and when and what was done to mitigate it or what corrective action was taken.

All practices need to stay on top of regulatory changes. Smaller practices don’t have full-time staff dedicated to monitoring what’s happening in Washington. Associations such as the MGMA can help target what’s important and actionable.
 

6. Forgetting about your own and your staff’s physical and mental health

Physicians need to be worried about burnout and mental health problems from their team members, their colleagues, their patients, and themselves, according to Mr. Holder.

“There’s a mental exhaustion that is just pervasive in the world and the United States right now about all this COVID stuff and stress, not to mention all the other things that are going on,” he said.

That’s going to carry over, so physicians must make sure there’s a positive culture at the practice, where everyone’s taking care of and watching out for each other.

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

Sachin Dave, MD, an internist in Greenwood, Ind., never thought he’d tell his patients to avoid coming into the office. But these days, he must balance the need for face-to-face visits with the risk for COVID-19 transmission. Although he connects with most patients by telehealth, some patients still demand in-office care.

“My older patients actually insist on coming to see me in person,” said Dr. Dave, who is part of Indiana Internal Medicine Consultants, a large group practice near Indianapolis. “I have to tell them it’s not safe.”

It’s a minor hitch as his practice ramps up again – but one of those things you can’t overlook, he said. “We need to educate our patients and communicate the risk to them.”

As practices across the United States start reopening, physicians frequently hit bumps in the road, according to Kerin Bashaw, senior vice president of patient safety and risk management for the Doctors Company, a physician-owned malpractice insurer. “It’s about minimizing risk.”

As practices increase patient volume, physicians are juggling a desire for a return to patient care and increased revenue with a need to maximize patient and staff safety. Avoiding some of these common snags may help make the transition smoother.
 

1. Unclear or nonexistent polices and protocols

Some physicians know what general rules they want to follow, but they haven’t conveyed them in a readily available document. Although you and your staff may have a sense of what they are, patients may be less aware of how mandatory you consider them. It’s important to develop a formal framework that you will follow and to make sure patients and staff know it.

Dr. Dave and colleagues have stringent safety protocols in place for the small percentage of patients he does feel a need to be seen in person. Masks are mandatory for staff and patients. The waiting room is set up for social distancing. If it begins getting crowded, patients are asked to wait in their cars until an exam room is ready.

“I’m not going to see a patient who refuses to put a mask on, because when I put a mask on, I’m trying to protect my patients,” said Dr. Dave. He makes it clear that he expects the same from his patients; they must wear a mask to protect his staff and himself.

“I am going to let them in with the caveat that they don’t have qualms about wearing a mask. If they have qualms about wearing a mask, then I have qualms about seeing them in person,” he said.

Be sure that all patients understand and will adhere to your protocols before they come to the office. Patients should be triaged over the phone before arriving, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. (Remember that refusing assessment or care could lead to issues of patient abandonment.)

When you don’t really have a framework to follow, you don’t really know what the structure is going to be and how your practice is going to provide care. The question is, how do you build a framework for right now? said Ron Holder, chief operations officer of the Medical Group Management Association. “The first step is do no harm.”
 

2. Trying to see too many patients too soon

On average, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% decrease in patient volume since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, according to the MGMA. It’s natural that many want to ramp up immediately and go back to their prior patient volume. But they need to take it slow and ensure that the correct safety protocols are in place, Mr. Holder said.

For example, telehealth is still reimbursable at parity, so physicians should keep taking advantage of that. MGMA’s practice reopening checklist has links to additional resources and considerations.

Some doctors want to see an overload of patients and want to get back to how they practiced before the pandemic, says orthopedic surgeon Charles Ruotolo, MD, president of Total Orthopedics and Sports Medicine in Massapequa, N.Y., and chairman of the department of orthopedics, Nassau University Medical Center, East Meadow, N.Y., “but at the same time, you know we still have to limit how many people are coming into the office.”

It’s not fair if some doctors in your practice are seeing 45 patients daily as they did previously whereas others are seeing half that many, he explained. “We must remain cognizant and constantly review schedules and remember we have to still keep the numbers down.”

“COVID is not going to be completely over in our lifetime,” says Evan Levine, MD, a cardiologist in Ridgefield, Conn. Taking advantage of technologies is one way to reduce risk.

He predicts that the demand will continue to increase as patients become more comfortable with virtual visits. Using Bluetooth and WiFi devices to assess patients is no longer futuristic and can help reduce the number of people in the waiting room, according to Dr. Levine, a solo practitioner and author of “What Your Doctor Won’t (or Can’t) Tell You.” “That’s a very good thing, especially as we look to fall and to flu season.”
 

3. Undercommunicating with patients and staff

Don’t assume patients know that you’ve opened back up and are seeing people in the office, Mr. Holder said. Update your practice website, send letters or newsletters to patients’ homes, maintain telephone and email contact, and post signs at the facility explaining your reopening process. The CDC has an excellent phone script that practices can adapt. Everyone should know what to expect and what’s expected of them.

He advised overcommunicating – more than you think is necessary – to your staff and patients. Tell them about the extra steps you’re taking. Let them know that their safety and health are the most important thing and that you are taking all these extra measures to make sure that they feel comfortable.

Keep staff appraised of policy changes. Stress what you’re doing to ensure the safety of your team members. “Even though you could be doing all those things, if you’re not communicating, then no one knows it,” said Mr. Holder.

He predicted the practices that emerge stronger from this crisis will be those with great patient education that have built up a lot of goodwill. Patients should know they can go to this practice’s patient portal as a trusted resource about COVID-19 and safety-related measures. This approach will pay dividends over the long term.
 

4. Giving inadequate staff training and holding too-high expectations

Staff members are scared, really scared, Ms. Bashaw said. Some may not return because they’re unsure what to expect; others may have to stay home to care for children or older relatives. Clear guidance on what is being done to ensure everyone’s safety, what is expected from staff, and flexibility with scheduling can help address these issues.

Most practices’ staff are not used to donning and removing personal protective equipment, and they’re not used to wearing masks when working with patients. Expect some mistakes.

“We had a scenario where a provider was in a room with an older patient, and the provider pulled his mask down so the patient could hear him better. He then kept the mask down while giving the patient an injection. When the family found out, they were very upset,” Ms. Bashaw related. “It was done with good intentions, to improve communication, but it’s a slip-up that could have found him liable if she became ill.”

Dr. Ruotolo had to implement new policies throughout his practice’s multiple locations in the New York metro area. They encompassed everything from staggering appointments and staff to establishing designated employee eating areas so front desk staff weren’t taking their masks off to snack.

Having specific guidelines for staff helps reassure patients that safety protocols are being adhered to. “Patients want to see we’re all doing the right thing,” he said.

Have those policies clearly written so everyone’s on the same page, Dr. Ruotolo advised. Also make sure staff knows what the rules are for patients.

Dr. Ruotolo’s reception staff hand every patient a disinfectant wipe when they arrive. They are asked to wipe down the check-in kiosk before and after using it. Assistants know not to cut corners when disinfecting exam rooms, equipment, or tables. “It’s the little things you have to think about, and make sure it’s reiterated with your staff so they’re doing it.”

If your practice isn’t back up to full staffing volume, it’s a good idea to cross train staff members so some jobs overlap, suggests Mr. Holder. Although smaller practices may already do this, at larger practices, staff members’ roles may be more specific. “You may be able to pull employees from other positions in the practice, but it’s a good idea to have some redundancy.”
 

5. Neglecting to document everything – even more so than before

The standard of care is changing every day, and so are the regulations, says Ms. Bashaw. Many physicians who work in larger practices or for health systems don’t take advantage of internal risk management departments, which can help them keep tabs on all of these changes.

Writing down simple protocols and having a consistent work flow are extremely important right now. What have you told staff and patients? Are they comfortable with how you’re minimizing their risk? Physicians can find a seven-page checklist that helps practitioners organize and methodically go through reopening process at the Doctors Company website.

Implementing state and local statutes or public health requirements and keeping track of when things stop and start can be complex, says Ms. Bashaw. Take a look at your pre–COVID-19 policies and procedures, and make sure you’re on top of the current standards for your office, including staff education. The most important step is connecting with your local public health authority and taking direction from them.

Ms. Bashaw strongly encouraged physicians to conduct huddles with their staff; it’s an evidence-based leadership practice that’s important from a medical malpractice perspective. Review the day’s game plan, then conduct a debriefing at the end of the day.

Discuss what worked well, what didn’t, and what tomorrow looks like. And be sure to document it all. “A standard routine and debrief gets everyone on the same page and shows due diligence,” she said.

Keep an administrative file so 2 years down the road, you remember what you did and when. That way, if there’s a problem or a breach or the standard isn’t adhered to, it’s documented in the file. Note what happened and when and what was done to mitigate it or what corrective action was taken.

All practices need to stay on top of regulatory changes. Smaller practices don’t have full-time staff dedicated to monitoring what’s happening in Washington. Associations such as the MGMA can help target what’s important and actionable.
 

6. Forgetting about your own and your staff’s physical and mental health

Physicians need to be worried about burnout and mental health problems from their team members, their colleagues, their patients, and themselves, according to Mr. Holder.

“There’s a mental exhaustion that is just pervasive in the world and the United States right now about all this COVID stuff and stress, not to mention all the other things that are going on,” he said.

That’s going to carry over, so physicians must make sure there’s a positive culture at the practice, where everyone’s taking care of and watching out for each other.

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

Sachin Dave, MD, an internist in Greenwood, Ind., never thought he’d tell his patients to avoid coming into the office. But these days, he must balance the need for face-to-face visits with the risk for COVID-19 transmission. Although he connects with most patients by telehealth, some patients still demand in-office care.

“My older patients actually insist on coming to see me in person,” said Dr. Dave, who is part of Indiana Internal Medicine Consultants, a large group practice near Indianapolis. “I have to tell them it’s not safe.”

It’s a minor hitch as his practice ramps up again – but one of those things you can’t overlook, he said. “We need to educate our patients and communicate the risk to them.”

As practices across the United States start reopening, physicians frequently hit bumps in the road, according to Kerin Bashaw, senior vice president of patient safety and risk management for the Doctors Company, a physician-owned malpractice insurer. “It’s about minimizing risk.”

As practices increase patient volume, physicians are juggling a desire for a return to patient care and increased revenue with a need to maximize patient and staff safety. Avoiding some of these common snags may help make the transition smoother.
 

1. Unclear or nonexistent polices and protocols

Some physicians know what general rules they want to follow, but they haven’t conveyed them in a readily available document. Although you and your staff may have a sense of what they are, patients may be less aware of how mandatory you consider them. It’s important to develop a formal framework that you will follow and to make sure patients and staff know it.

Dr. Dave and colleagues have stringent safety protocols in place for the small percentage of patients he does feel a need to be seen in person. Masks are mandatory for staff and patients. The waiting room is set up for social distancing. If it begins getting crowded, patients are asked to wait in their cars until an exam room is ready.

“I’m not going to see a patient who refuses to put a mask on, because when I put a mask on, I’m trying to protect my patients,” said Dr. Dave. He makes it clear that he expects the same from his patients; they must wear a mask to protect his staff and himself.

“I am going to let them in with the caveat that they don’t have qualms about wearing a mask. If they have qualms about wearing a mask, then I have qualms about seeing them in person,” he said.

Be sure that all patients understand and will adhere to your protocols before they come to the office. Patients should be triaged over the phone before arriving, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. (Remember that refusing assessment or care could lead to issues of patient abandonment.)

When you don’t really have a framework to follow, you don’t really know what the structure is going to be and how your practice is going to provide care. The question is, how do you build a framework for right now? said Ron Holder, chief operations officer of the Medical Group Management Association. “The first step is do no harm.”
 

2. Trying to see too many patients too soon

On average, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% decrease in patient volume since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, according to the MGMA. It’s natural that many want to ramp up immediately and go back to their prior patient volume. But they need to take it slow and ensure that the correct safety protocols are in place, Mr. Holder said.

For example, telehealth is still reimbursable at parity, so physicians should keep taking advantage of that. MGMA’s practice reopening checklist has links to additional resources and considerations.

Some doctors want to see an overload of patients and want to get back to how they practiced before the pandemic, says orthopedic surgeon Charles Ruotolo, MD, president of Total Orthopedics and Sports Medicine in Massapequa, N.Y., and chairman of the department of orthopedics, Nassau University Medical Center, East Meadow, N.Y., “but at the same time, you know we still have to limit how many people are coming into the office.”

It’s not fair if some doctors in your practice are seeing 45 patients daily as they did previously whereas others are seeing half that many, he explained. “We must remain cognizant and constantly review schedules and remember we have to still keep the numbers down.”

“COVID is not going to be completely over in our lifetime,” says Evan Levine, MD, a cardiologist in Ridgefield, Conn. Taking advantage of technologies is one way to reduce risk.

He predicts that the demand will continue to increase as patients become more comfortable with virtual visits. Using Bluetooth and WiFi devices to assess patients is no longer futuristic and can help reduce the number of people in the waiting room, according to Dr. Levine, a solo practitioner and author of “What Your Doctor Won’t (or Can’t) Tell You.” “That’s a very good thing, especially as we look to fall and to flu season.”
 

3. Undercommunicating with patients and staff

Don’t assume patients know that you’ve opened back up and are seeing people in the office, Mr. Holder said. Update your practice website, send letters or newsletters to patients’ homes, maintain telephone and email contact, and post signs at the facility explaining your reopening process. The CDC has an excellent phone script that practices can adapt. Everyone should know what to expect and what’s expected of them.

He advised overcommunicating – more than you think is necessary – to your staff and patients. Tell them about the extra steps you’re taking. Let them know that their safety and health are the most important thing and that you are taking all these extra measures to make sure that they feel comfortable.

Keep staff appraised of policy changes. Stress what you’re doing to ensure the safety of your team members. “Even though you could be doing all those things, if you’re not communicating, then no one knows it,” said Mr. Holder.

He predicted the practices that emerge stronger from this crisis will be those with great patient education that have built up a lot of goodwill. Patients should know they can go to this practice’s patient portal as a trusted resource about COVID-19 and safety-related measures. This approach will pay dividends over the long term.
 

4. Giving inadequate staff training and holding too-high expectations

Staff members are scared, really scared, Ms. Bashaw said. Some may not return because they’re unsure what to expect; others may have to stay home to care for children or older relatives. Clear guidance on what is being done to ensure everyone’s safety, what is expected from staff, and flexibility with scheduling can help address these issues.

Most practices’ staff are not used to donning and removing personal protective equipment, and they’re not used to wearing masks when working with patients. Expect some mistakes.

“We had a scenario where a provider was in a room with an older patient, and the provider pulled his mask down so the patient could hear him better. He then kept the mask down while giving the patient an injection. When the family found out, they were very upset,” Ms. Bashaw related. “It was done with good intentions, to improve communication, but it’s a slip-up that could have found him liable if she became ill.”

Dr. Ruotolo had to implement new policies throughout his practice’s multiple locations in the New York metro area. They encompassed everything from staggering appointments and staff to establishing designated employee eating areas so front desk staff weren’t taking their masks off to snack.

Having specific guidelines for staff helps reassure patients that safety protocols are being adhered to. “Patients want to see we’re all doing the right thing,” he said.

Have those policies clearly written so everyone’s on the same page, Dr. Ruotolo advised. Also make sure staff knows what the rules are for patients.

Dr. Ruotolo’s reception staff hand every patient a disinfectant wipe when they arrive. They are asked to wipe down the check-in kiosk before and after using it. Assistants know not to cut corners when disinfecting exam rooms, equipment, or tables. “It’s the little things you have to think about, and make sure it’s reiterated with your staff so they’re doing it.”

If your practice isn’t back up to full staffing volume, it’s a good idea to cross train staff members so some jobs overlap, suggests Mr. Holder. Although smaller practices may already do this, at larger practices, staff members’ roles may be more specific. “You may be able to pull employees from other positions in the practice, but it’s a good idea to have some redundancy.”
 

5. Neglecting to document everything – even more so than before

The standard of care is changing every day, and so are the regulations, says Ms. Bashaw. Many physicians who work in larger practices or for health systems don’t take advantage of internal risk management departments, which can help them keep tabs on all of these changes.

Writing down simple protocols and having a consistent work flow are extremely important right now. What have you told staff and patients? Are they comfortable with how you’re minimizing their risk? Physicians can find a seven-page checklist that helps practitioners organize and methodically go through reopening process at the Doctors Company website.

Implementing state and local statutes or public health requirements and keeping track of when things stop and start can be complex, says Ms. Bashaw. Take a look at your pre–COVID-19 policies and procedures, and make sure you’re on top of the current standards for your office, including staff education. The most important step is connecting with your local public health authority and taking direction from them.

Ms. Bashaw strongly encouraged physicians to conduct huddles with their staff; it’s an evidence-based leadership practice that’s important from a medical malpractice perspective. Review the day’s game plan, then conduct a debriefing at the end of the day.

Discuss what worked well, what didn’t, and what tomorrow looks like. And be sure to document it all. “A standard routine and debrief gets everyone on the same page and shows due diligence,” she said.

Keep an administrative file so 2 years down the road, you remember what you did and when. That way, if there’s a problem or a breach or the standard isn’t adhered to, it’s documented in the file. Note what happened and when and what was done to mitigate it or what corrective action was taken.

All practices need to stay on top of regulatory changes. Smaller practices don’t have full-time staff dedicated to monitoring what’s happening in Washington. Associations such as the MGMA can help target what’s important and actionable.
 

6. Forgetting about your own and your staff’s physical and mental health

Physicians need to be worried about burnout and mental health problems from their team members, their colleagues, their patients, and themselves, according to Mr. Holder.

“There’s a mental exhaustion that is just pervasive in the world and the United States right now about all this COVID stuff and stress, not to mention all the other things that are going on,” he said.

That’s going to carry over, so physicians must make sure there’s a positive culture at the practice, where everyone’s taking care of and watching out for each other.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the defining moments in history for this generation’s health care leaders. In 2019, most of us wrongly assumed that this virus would be similar to the past viral epidemics and pandemics such as 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome–CoV in Asia, 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome–CoV in Saudi Arabia, and 2014-2016 Ebola in West Africa. Moreover, we understood that the 50% fatality rate of Ebola, a single-stranded RNA virus, was deadly on the continent of Africa, but its transmission was through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids. Hence, the infectivity of Ebola to the general public was lower than SARS-CoV-2, which is spread by respiratory droplets and contact routes in addition to being the virus that causes COVID-19.¹ Many of us did not expect that SARS-CoV-2, a single-stranded RNA virus consisting of 32 kilobytes, would reach the shores of the United States from the Hubei province of China, the northern Lombardy region of Italy, or other initial hotspots. We could not imagine its effects would be so devastating from an economic and medical perspective. Until it did.

The first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 was on Jan. 20, 2020 in Snohomish County, Wash., and the first known death from COVID-19 occurred on Feb. 6, 2020 in Santa Clara County, Calif.^2,3 Since then, the United States has lost over 135,000 people from COVID-19 with death(s) reported in every state and the highest number of overall deaths of any country in the world.⁴ At the beginning of 2020, at our institution, Wake Forest Baptist Health System in Winston-Salem, N.C., we began preparing for the wave, surge, or tsunami of inpatients that was coming. Plans were afoot to increase our staff, even perhaps by hiring out-of-state physicians and nurses if needed, and every possible bed was considered within the system. It was not an if, but rather a when, as to the arrival of COVID-19.

Epidemiologists and biostatisticians developed predictive COVID-19 models so that health care leaders could plan accordingly, especially those patients that required critical care or inpatient medical care. These predictive models have been used across the globe and can be categorized into three groups: Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered, Agent-Based, and Curve Fitting Extrapolation.⁵ Our original predictions were based on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model from Washington state (Curve Fitting Extrapolation). It creates projections from COVID-19 mortality data and assumes a 3% infection rate. Other health systems in our region used the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics–University of Pennsylvania model. It pins its suppositions on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regional infection rates, and hospital market shares. Lastly, the agent-based mode, such as the Global Epidemic and Mobility Project, takes simulated populations and forecasts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 anchoring on the interplay of individuals and groups. The assumptions are created secondary to the interactions of people, time, health care interventions, and public health policies.

Based on these predictive simulations, health systems have spent countless hours of planning and have utilized resources for the anticipated needs related to beds, ventilators, supplies, and staffing. Frontline staff were retrained how to don and doff personal protective equipment. Our teams were ready if we saw a wave of 250, a surge of 500, or a tsunami of 750 COVID-19 inpatients. We were prepared to run into the fire fully knowing the personal risks and consequences.

But, as yet, the tsunami in North Carolina has never come. On April 21, 2020, the COVID-19 mortality data in North Carolina peaked at 34 deaths, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,510 as of July 13, 2020.⁶ A surge did not hit our institutional shores at Wake Forest Baptist Health. As we looked through the proverbial back window and hear about the tsunami in Houston, Texas, we are very thankful that the tsunami turned out to be a small wave so far in North Carolina. We are grateful that there were fewer deaths than expected. The dust is settling now and the question, spoken or unspoken, is: “How could we be so wrong with our predictions?”

Models have strengths and weaknesses and none are perfect.⁷ There is an old aphorism in statistics that is often attributed to George Box that says: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”⁸ Predictions and projections are good, but not perfect. Our measurements and tests should not only be accurate, but also be as precise as possible.⁹ Moreover, the assumptions we make should be on solid ground. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there may have been undercounts and delays in reporting. The assumptions of the effects of social distancing may have been inaccurate. Just as important, the lack of early testing in our pandemic and the relatively limited testing currently available provide challenges not only in attributing past deaths to COVID-19, but also with planning and public health measures. To be fair, the tsunami that turned out to be a small wave in North Carolina may be caused by the strong leadership from politicians, public health officials, and health system leaders for their stay-at-home decree and vigorous public health measures in our state.

Some of the health systems in the United States have created “reemergence plans” to care for those patients who have stayed at home for the past several months. Elective surgeries and procedures have begun in different regions of the United States and will likely continue reopening into the late summer. Nevertheless, challenges and opportunities continue to abound during these difficult times of COVID-19. The tsunamis or surges will continue to occur in the United States and the premature reopening of some of the public places and businesses have not helped our collective efforts. In addition, the personal costs have been and will be immeasurable. Many of us have lost loved ones, been laid off, or face mental health crises because of the social isolation and false news.

COVID-19 is here to stay and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Health care providers have been literally risking their lives to serve the public and we will continue to do so. Hitting the target of needed inpatient beds and critical care beds is critically important and is tough without accurate data. We simply have inadequate and unreliable data of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence rates in the communities that we serve. More available testing would allow frontline health care providers and health care leaders to match hospital demand to supply, at individual hospitals and within the health care system. Moreover, contact tracing capabilities would give us the opportunity to isolate individuals and extinguish population-based hotspots.

We may have seen the first wave, but other waves of COVID-19 in North Carolina are sure to come. Since the partial reopening of North Carolina on May 8, 2020, coupled with pockets of nonadherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we expect a second wave sooner rather than later. Interestingly, daily new lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Carolina have been on the rise, with the highest one-day total occurring on June 12, 2020 with 1,768 cases reported.⁶ As a result, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, placed a temporary pause on the Phase 2 reopening plan and mandated masks in public on June 24, 2020. It is unclear whether these intermittent daily spikes in lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are a foreshadowing of our next wave, surge, or tsunami, or just an anomaly. Only time will tell, but as Jim Kim, MD, PhD, has stated so well, there is still time for social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.¹⁰ There is still time for us, for our loved ones, for our hospital systems, and for our public health system.

Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Lippert is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Mr. Payne is the associate vice president of Wake Forest Baptist Health. He is responsible for engineering, facilities planning & design as well as environmental health and safety departments. Dr. Pariyadath is comedical director of the Patient Flow Operations Center which facilitates patient placement throughout the Wake Forest Baptist Health system. He is also the associate medical director for the adult emergency department. Dr. Sunkara is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. He is the medical director for hospital medicine units and the newly established PUI unit.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Julie Freischlag, MD; Kevin High, MD, MS; Gary Rosenthal, MD; Wayne Meredith, MD;Russ Howerton, MD; Mike Waid, Andrea Fernandez, MD; Brian Hiestand, MD; the Wake Forest Baptist Health System COVID-19 task force, the Operations Center, and the countless frontline staff at all five hospitals within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.

References

1. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020 June 30. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.

2. Holshue et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 929-36.

3. Fuller T, Baker M. Coronavirus death in California came weeks before first known U.S. death. New York Times. 2020 Apr 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-first-united-states-death.html.

4. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map. Accessed 2020 May 28.

5. Michaud J et al. COVID-19 models: Can they tell us what we want to know? 2020 April 16. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-policy-watch/covid-19-models.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed 2020 June 30.

7. Jewell N et al. Caution warranted: Using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model for predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1-3.

8. Box G. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;71:791-9.

9. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-34.

10. Kim J. It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus. The New Yorker. 2020 Apr 20. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/its-not-too-late-to-go-on-offense-against-the-coronavirus.

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the defining moments in history for this generation’s health care leaders. In 2019, most of us wrongly assumed that this virus would be similar to the past viral epidemics and pandemics such as 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome–CoV in Asia, 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome–CoV in Saudi Arabia, and 2014-2016 Ebola in West Africa. Moreover, we understood that the 50% fatality rate of Ebola, a single-stranded RNA virus, was deadly on the continent of Africa, but its transmission was through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids. Hence, the infectivity of Ebola to the general public was lower than SARS-CoV-2, which is spread by respiratory droplets and contact routes in addition to being the virus that causes COVID-19.¹ Many of us did not expect that SARS-CoV-2, a single-stranded RNA virus consisting of 32 kilobytes, would reach the shores of the United States from the Hubei province of China, the northern Lombardy region of Italy, or other initial hotspots. We could not imagine its effects would be so devastating from an economic and medical perspective. Until it did.

The first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 was on Jan. 20, 2020 in Snohomish County, Wash., and the first known death from COVID-19 occurred on Feb. 6, 2020 in Santa Clara County, Calif.^2,3 Since then, the United States has lost over 135,000 people from COVID-19 with death(s) reported in every state and the highest number of overall deaths of any country in the world.⁴ At the beginning of 2020, at our institution, Wake Forest Baptist Health System in Winston-Salem, N.C., we began preparing for the wave, surge, or tsunami of inpatients that was coming. Plans were afoot to increase our staff, even perhaps by hiring out-of-state physicians and nurses if needed, and every possible bed was considered within the system. It was not an if, but rather a when, as to the arrival of COVID-19.

Epidemiologists and biostatisticians developed predictive COVID-19 models so that health care leaders could plan accordingly, especially those patients that required critical care or inpatient medical care. These predictive models have been used across the globe and can be categorized into three groups: Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered, Agent-Based, and Curve Fitting Extrapolation.⁵ Our original predictions were based on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model from Washington state (Curve Fitting Extrapolation). It creates projections from COVID-19 mortality data and assumes a 3% infection rate. Other health systems in our region used the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics–University of Pennsylvania model. It pins its suppositions on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regional infection rates, and hospital market shares. Lastly, the agent-based mode, such as the Global Epidemic and Mobility Project, takes simulated populations and forecasts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 anchoring on the interplay of individuals and groups. The assumptions are created secondary to the interactions of people, time, health care interventions, and public health policies.

Based on these predictive simulations, health systems have spent countless hours of planning and have utilized resources for the anticipated needs related to beds, ventilators, supplies, and staffing. Frontline staff were retrained how to don and doff personal protective equipment. Our teams were ready if we saw a wave of 250, a surge of 500, or a tsunami of 750 COVID-19 inpatients. We were prepared to run into the fire fully knowing the personal risks and consequences.

But, as yet, the tsunami in North Carolina has never come. On April 21, 2020, the COVID-19 mortality data in North Carolina peaked at 34 deaths, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,510 as of July 13, 2020.⁶ A surge did not hit our institutional shores at Wake Forest Baptist Health. As we looked through the proverbial back window and hear about the tsunami in Houston, Texas, we are very thankful that the tsunami turned out to be a small wave so far in North Carolina. We are grateful that there were fewer deaths than expected. The dust is settling now and the question, spoken or unspoken, is: “How could we be so wrong with our predictions?”

Models have strengths and weaknesses and none are perfect.⁷ There is an old aphorism in statistics that is often attributed to George Box that says: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”⁸ Predictions and projections are good, but not perfect. Our measurements and tests should not only be accurate, but also be as precise as possible.⁹ Moreover, the assumptions we make should be on solid ground. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there may have been undercounts and delays in reporting. The assumptions of the effects of social distancing may have been inaccurate. Just as important, the lack of early testing in our pandemic and the relatively limited testing currently available provide challenges not only in attributing past deaths to COVID-19, but also with planning and public health measures. To be fair, the tsunami that turned out to be a small wave in North Carolina may be caused by the strong leadership from politicians, public health officials, and health system leaders for their stay-at-home decree and vigorous public health measures in our state.

Some of the health systems in the United States have created “reemergence plans” to care for those patients who have stayed at home for the past several months. Elective surgeries and procedures have begun in different regions of the United States and will likely continue reopening into the late summer. Nevertheless, challenges and opportunities continue to abound during these difficult times of COVID-19. The tsunamis or surges will continue to occur in the United States and the premature reopening of some of the public places and businesses have not helped our collective efforts. In addition, the personal costs have been and will be immeasurable. Many of us have lost loved ones, been laid off, or face mental health crises because of the social isolation and false news.

COVID-19 is here to stay and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Health care providers have been literally risking their lives to serve the public and we will continue to do so. Hitting the target of needed inpatient beds and critical care beds is critically important and is tough without accurate data. We simply have inadequate and unreliable data of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence rates in the communities that we serve. More available testing would allow frontline health care providers and health care leaders to match hospital demand to supply, at individual hospitals and within the health care system. Moreover, contact tracing capabilities would give us the opportunity to isolate individuals and extinguish population-based hotspots.

We may have seen the first wave, but other waves of COVID-19 in North Carolina are sure to come. Since the partial reopening of North Carolina on May 8, 2020, coupled with pockets of nonadherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we expect a second wave sooner rather than later. Interestingly, daily new lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Carolina have been on the rise, with the highest one-day total occurring on June 12, 2020 with 1,768 cases reported.⁶ As a result, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, placed a temporary pause on the Phase 2 reopening plan and mandated masks in public on June 24, 2020. It is unclear whether these intermittent daily spikes in lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are a foreshadowing of our next wave, surge, or tsunami, or just an anomaly. Only time will tell, but as Jim Kim, MD, PhD, has stated so well, there is still time for social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.¹⁰ There is still time for us, for our loved ones, for our hospital systems, and for our public health system.

Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Lippert is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Mr. Payne is the associate vice president of Wake Forest Baptist Health. He is responsible for engineering, facilities planning & design as well as environmental health and safety departments. Dr. Pariyadath is comedical director of the Patient Flow Operations Center which facilitates patient placement throughout the Wake Forest Baptist Health system. He is also the associate medical director for the adult emergency department. Dr. Sunkara is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. He is the medical director for hospital medicine units and the newly established PUI unit.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Julie Freischlag, MD; Kevin High, MD, MS; Gary Rosenthal, MD; Wayne Meredith, MD;Russ Howerton, MD; Mike Waid, Andrea Fernandez, MD; Brian Hiestand, MD; the Wake Forest Baptist Health System COVID-19 task force, the Operations Center, and the countless frontline staff at all five hospitals within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.

References

1. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020 June 30. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.

2. Holshue et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 929-36.

3. Fuller T, Baker M. Coronavirus death in California came weeks before first known U.S. death. New York Times. 2020 Apr 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-first-united-states-death.html.

4. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map. Accessed 2020 May 28.

5. Michaud J et al. COVID-19 models: Can they tell us what we want to know? 2020 April 16. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-policy-watch/covid-19-models.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed 2020 June 30.

7. Jewell N et al. Caution warranted: Using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model for predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1-3.

8. Box G. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;71:791-9.

9. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-34.

10. Kim J. It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus. The New Yorker. 2020 Apr 20. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/its-not-too-late-to-go-on-offense-against-the-coronavirus.

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the defining moments in history for this generation’s health care leaders. In 2019, most of us wrongly assumed that this virus would be similar to the past viral epidemics and pandemics such as 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome–CoV in Asia, 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome–CoV in Saudi Arabia, and 2014-2016 Ebola in West Africa. Moreover, we understood that the 50% fatality rate of Ebola, a single-stranded RNA virus, was deadly on the continent of Africa, but its transmission was through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids. Hence, the infectivity of Ebola to the general public was lower than SARS-CoV-2, which is spread by respiratory droplets and contact routes in addition to being the virus that causes COVID-19.¹ Many of us did not expect that SARS-CoV-2, a single-stranded RNA virus consisting of 32 kilobytes, would reach the shores of the United States from the Hubei province of China, the northern Lombardy region of Italy, or other initial hotspots. We could not imagine its effects would be so devastating from an economic and medical perspective. Until it did.

The first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 was on Jan. 20, 2020 in Snohomish County, Wash., and the first known death from COVID-19 occurred on Feb. 6, 2020 in Santa Clara County, Calif.^2,3 Since then, the United States has lost over 135,000 people from COVID-19 with death(s) reported in every state and the highest number of overall deaths of any country in the world.⁴ At the beginning of 2020, at our institution, Wake Forest Baptist Health System in Winston-Salem, N.C., we began preparing for the wave, surge, or tsunami of inpatients that was coming. Plans were afoot to increase our staff, even perhaps by hiring out-of-state physicians and nurses if needed, and every possible bed was considered within the system. It was not an if, but rather a when, as to the arrival of COVID-19.

Epidemiologists and biostatisticians developed predictive COVID-19 models so that health care leaders could plan accordingly, especially those patients that required critical care or inpatient medical care. These predictive models have been used across the globe and can be categorized into three groups: Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered, Agent-Based, and Curve Fitting Extrapolation.⁵ Our original predictions were based on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model from Washington state (Curve Fitting Extrapolation). It creates projections from COVID-19 mortality data and assumes a 3% infection rate. Other health systems in our region used the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics–University of Pennsylvania model. It pins its suppositions on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regional infection rates, and hospital market shares. Lastly, the agent-based mode, such as the Global Epidemic and Mobility Project, takes simulated populations and forecasts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 anchoring on the interplay of individuals and groups. The assumptions are created secondary to the interactions of people, time, health care interventions, and public health policies.

Based on these predictive simulations, health systems have spent countless hours of planning and have utilized resources for the anticipated needs related to beds, ventilators, supplies, and staffing. Frontline staff were retrained how to don and doff personal protective equipment. Our teams were ready if we saw a wave of 250, a surge of 500, or a tsunami of 750 COVID-19 inpatients. We were prepared to run into the fire fully knowing the personal risks and consequences.

But, as yet, the tsunami in North Carolina has never come. On April 21, 2020, the COVID-19 mortality data in North Carolina peaked at 34 deaths, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,510 as of July 13, 2020.⁶ A surge did not hit our institutional shores at Wake Forest Baptist Health. As we looked through the proverbial back window and hear about the tsunami in Houston, Texas, we are very thankful that the tsunami turned out to be a small wave so far in North Carolina. We are grateful that there were fewer deaths than expected. The dust is settling now and the question, spoken or unspoken, is: “How could we be so wrong with our predictions?”

Models have strengths and weaknesses and none are perfect.⁷ There is an old aphorism in statistics that is often attributed to George Box that says: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”⁸ Predictions and projections are good, but not perfect. Our measurements and tests should not only be accurate, but also be as precise as possible.⁹ Moreover, the assumptions we make should be on solid ground. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there may have been undercounts and delays in reporting. The assumptions of the effects of social distancing may have been inaccurate. Just as important, the lack of early testing in our pandemic and the relatively limited testing currently available provide challenges not only in attributing past deaths to COVID-19, but also with planning and public health measures. To be fair, the tsunami that turned out to be a small wave in North Carolina may be caused by the strong leadership from politicians, public health officials, and health system leaders for their stay-at-home decree and vigorous public health measures in our state.

Some of the health systems in the United States have created “reemergence plans” to care for those patients who have stayed at home for the past several months. Elective surgeries and procedures have begun in different regions of the United States and will likely continue reopening into the late summer. Nevertheless, challenges and opportunities continue to abound during these difficult times of COVID-19. The tsunamis or surges will continue to occur in the United States and the premature reopening of some of the public places and businesses have not helped our collective efforts. In addition, the personal costs have been and will be immeasurable. Many of us have lost loved ones, been laid off, or face mental health crises because of the social isolation and false news.

COVID-19 is here to stay and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Health care providers have been literally risking their lives to serve the public and we will continue to do so. Hitting the target of needed inpatient beds and critical care beds is critically important and is tough without accurate data. We simply have inadequate and unreliable data of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence rates in the communities that we serve. More available testing would allow frontline health care providers and health care leaders to match hospital demand to supply, at individual hospitals and within the health care system. Moreover, contact tracing capabilities would give us the opportunity to isolate individuals and extinguish population-based hotspots.

We may have seen the first wave, but other waves of COVID-19 in North Carolina are sure to come. Since the partial reopening of North Carolina on May 8, 2020, coupled with pockets of nonadherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we expect a second wave sooner rather than later. Interestingly, daily new lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Carolina have been on the rise, with the highest one-day total occurring on June 12, 2020 with 1,768 cases reported.⁶ As a result, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, placed a temporary pause on the Phase 2 reopening plan and mandated masks in public on June 24, 2020. It is unclear whether these intermittent daily spikes in lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are a foreshadowing of our next wave, surge, or tsunami, or just an anomaly. Only time will tell, but as Jim Kim, MD, PhD, has stated so well, there is still time for social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.¹⁰ There is still time for us, for our loved ones, for our hospital systems, and for our public health system.

Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Lippert is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Mr. Payne is the associate vice president of Wake Forest Baptist Health. He is responsible for engineering, facilities planning & design as well as environmental health and safety departments. Dr. Pariyadath is comedical director of the Patient Flow Operations Center which facilitates patient placement throughout the Wake Forest Baptist Health system. He is also the associate medical director for the adult emergency department. Dr. Sunkara is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. He is the medical director for hospital medicine units and the newly established PUI unit.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Julie Freischlag, MD; Kevin High, MD, MS; Gary Rosenthal, MD; Wayne Meredith, MD;Russ Howerton, MD; Mike Waid, Andrea Fernandez, MD; Brian Hiestand, MD; the Wake Forest Baptist Health System COVID-19 task force, the Operations Center, and the countless frontline staff at all five hospitals within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.

References

1. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020 June 30. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.

2. Holshue et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 929-36.

3. Fuller T, Baker M. Coronavirus death in California came weeks before first known U.S. death. New York Times. 2020 Apr 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-first-united-states-death.html.

4. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map. Accessed 2020 May 28.

5. Michaud J et al. COVID-19 models: Can they tell us what we want to know? 2020 April 16. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-policy-watch/covid-19-models.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed 2020 June 30.

7. Jewell N et al. Caution warranted: Using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model for predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1-3.

8. Box G. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;71:791-9.

9. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-34.

10. Kim J. It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus. The New Yorker. 2020 Apr 20. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/its-not-too-late-to-go-on-offense-against-the-coronavirus.

Once-daily topical roflumilast, a potent selective topical phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, brought marked improvement in signs and symptoms of chronic plaque psoriasis – including challenging lesions in tough-to-treat intertriginous areas – in a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled clinical trial, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The clinical improvement occurred rapidly. And topical roflumilast’s side effect profile was essentially the same as in vehicle-treated controls, which suggests a potential major advantage for the novel drug in future clinical practice. After all, topical treatment is the mainstay of psoriasis therapy, but the current topical agents – high-potency corticosteroids, vitamin D derivatives, and retinoids – have long-term tolerability, efficacy, or side effect issues, especially in treating sensitive skin areas, including the face and intertriginous areas.

“Roflumilast cream could really be a game changer,” predicted Dr. Lebwohl, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) activity is elevated in psoriatic skin. Indeed, inhibition of PDE-4 via oral apremilast (Otezla) is an established strategy for improving psoriasis through down-regulation of inflammatory cytokines including tumor necrosis factor–alpha, interleukins-17 and -23, and interferon-gamma. Notably, however, roflumilast is orders of magnitude more potent than any other PDE-4 inhibitor. An oral version marketed as Daliresp has been available for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for nearly a decade.

The 12-week, multicenter, phase 2b study included 331 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who were randomized to once-daily 0.3% roflumilast cream, 0.15% roflumilast cream, or vehicle. Three-quarters of participants had a baseline Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 3, indicative of moderate disease.

The primary endpoint was achievement of an IGA score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) at week 6. The observed improvement was dose related, although both doses of roflumilast were significantly more effective than vehicle. However, peak improvement occurred at week 8, not week 6, with subsequent plateauing of response through week 12. A week 8 IGA of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline occurred in 32% of the high-dose roflumilast group, 25% of those on the 0.15% formulation, and 10% of controls.

“The effect in improvement was very rapid, with a statistically significant improvement compared to vehicle for both concentrations as early as week 2,” Dr. Lebwohl said.

A key secondary endpoint focused on treatment response in intertriginous areas, since “those are the areas where we really don’t want to use steroids because of major irritation problems,” the dermatologist explained. At week 12, treatment success as defined by an intertriginous IGA score of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-point improvement from baseline was seen in 86% of the 0.3% roflumilast cream group, 50% on low-dose therapy, and 29% of controls.

About 65% of subjects on high-dose roflumilast cream reported at least a 4-point reduction in the Worst Itch–Numerical Rating Scale by week 8, as did 58% of those on the low-dose version and 42% of controls. Another secondary endpoint – patient-reported burden of disease as captured in a Psoriasis Symptoms Diary – showed a significant divergence between both doses of roflumilast and vehicle as early as week 2.

“Adverse events were negligible,” Dr. Lebwohl said. “In fact, there was only one discontinuation in the 0.3% arm, compared to none with 0.15% and two with vehicle.”

The phase 3 program is now recruiting participants.

The phase 2b study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Lebwohl reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to that company and numerous others.

[email protected]

Once-daily topical roflumilast, a potent selective topical phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, brought marked improvement in signs and symptoms of chronic plaque psoriasis – including challenging lesions in tough-to-treat intertriginous areas – in a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled clinical trial, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The clinical improvement occurred rapidly. And topical roflumilast’s side effect profile was essentially the same as in vehicle-treated controls, which suggests a potential major advantage for the novel drug in future clinical practice. After all, topical treatment is the mainstay of psoriasis therapy, but the current topical agents – high-potency corticosteroids, vitamin D derivatives, and retinoids – have long-term tolerability, efficacy, or side effect issues, especially in treating sensitive skin areas, including the face and intertriginous areas.

“Roflumilast cream could really be a game changer,” predicted Dr. Lebwohl, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) activity is elevated in psoriatic skin. Indeed, inhibition of PDE-4 via oral apremilast (Otezla) is an established strategy for improving psoriasis through down-regulation of inflammatory cytokines including tumor necrosis factor–alpha, interleukins-17 and -23, and interferon-gamma. Notably, however, roflumilast is orders of magnitude more potent than any other PDE-4 inhibitor. An oral version marketed as Daliresp has been available for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for nearly a decade.

The 12-week, multicenter, phase 2b study included 331 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who were randomized to once-daily 0.3% roflumilast cream, 0.15% roflumilast cream, or vehicle. Three-quarters of participants had a baseline Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 3, indicative of moderate disease.

The primary endpoint was achievement of an IGA score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) at week 6. The observed improvement was dose related, although both doses of roflumilast were significantly more effective than vehicle. However, peak improvement occurred at week 8, not week 6, with subsequent plateauing of response through week 12. A week 8 IGA of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline occurred in 32% of the high-dose roflumilast group, 25% of those on the 0.15% formulation, and 10% of controls.

“The effect in improvement was very rapid, with a statistically significant improvement compared to vehicle for both concentrations as early as week 2,” Dr. Lebwohl said.

A key secondary endpoint focused on treatment response in intertriginous areas, since “those are the areas where we really don’t want to use steroids because of major irritation problems,” the dermatologist explained. At week 12, treatment success as defined by an intertriginous IGA score of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-point improvement from baseline was seen in 86% of the 0.3% roflumilast cream group, 50% on low-dose therapy, and 29% of controls.

About 65% of subjects on high-dose roflumilast cream reported at least a 4-point reduction in the Worst Itch–Numerical Rating Scale by week 8, as did 58% of those on the low-dose version and 42% of controls. Another secondary endpoint – patient-reported burden of disease as captured in a Psoriasis Symptoms Diary – showed a significant divergence between both doses of roflumilast and vehicle as early as week 2.

“Adverse events were negligible,” Dr. Lebwohl said. “In fact, there was only one discontinuation in the 0.3% arm, compared to none with 0.15% and two with vehicle.”

The phase 3 program is now recruiting participants.

The phase 2b study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Lebwohl reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to that company and numerous others.

[email protected]

Once-daily topical roflumilast, a potent selective topical phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, brought marked improvement in signs and symptoms of chronic plaque psoriasis – including challenging lesions in tough-to-treat intertriginous areas – in a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled clinical trial, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The clinical improvement occurred rapidly. And topical roflumilast’s side effect profile was essentially the same as in vehicle-treated controls, which suggests a potential major advantage for the novel drug in future clinical practice. After all, topical treatment is the mainstay of psoriasis therapy, but the current topical agents – high-potency corticosteroids, vitamin D derivatives, and retinoids – have long-term tolerability, efficacy, or side effect issues, especially in treating sensitive skin areas, including the face and intertriginous areas.

“Roflumilast cream could really be a game changer,” predicted Dr. Lebwohl, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) activity is elevated in psoriatic skin. Indeed, inhibition of PDE-4 via oral apremilast (Otezla) is an established strategy for improving psoriasis through down-regulation of inflammatory cytokines including tumor necrosis factor–alpha, interleukins-17 and -23, and interferon-gamma. Notably, however, roflumilast is orders of magnitude more potent than any other PDE-4 inhibitor. An oral version marketed as Daliresp has been available for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for nearly a decade.

The 12-week, multicenter, phase 2b study included 331 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who were randomized to once-daily 0.3% roflumilast cream, 0.15% roflumilast cream, or vehicle. Three-quarters of participants had a baseline Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 3, indicative of moderate disease.

The primary endpoint was achievement of an IGA score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) at week 6. The observed improvement was dose related, although both doses of roflumilast were significantly more effective than vehicle. However, peak improvement occurred at week 8, not week 6, with subsequent plateauing of response through week 12. A week 8 IGA of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline occurred in 32% of the high-dose roflumilast group, 25% of those on the 0.15% formulation, and 10% of controls.

“The effect in improvement was very rapid, with a statistically significant improvement compared to vehicle for both concentrations as early as week 2,” Dr. Lebwohl said.

A key secondary endpoint focused on treatment response in intertriginous areas, since “those are the areas where we really don’t want to use steroids because of major irritation problems,” the dermatologist explained. At week 12, treatment success as defined by an intertriginous IGA score of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-point improvement from baseline was seen in 86% of the 0.3% roflumilast cream group, 50% on low-dose therapy, and 29% of controls.

About 65% of subjects on high-dose roflumilast cream reported at least a 4-point reduction in the Worst Itch–Numerical Rating Scale by week 8, as did 58% of those on the low-dose version and 42% of controls. Another secondary endpoint – patient-reported burden of disease as captured in a Psoriasis Symptoms Diary – showed a significant divergence between both doses of roflumilast and vehicle as early as week 2.

“Adverse events were negligible,” Dr. Lebwohl said. “In fact, there was only one discontinuation in the 0.3% arm, compared to none with 0.15% and two with vehicle.”

The phase 3 program is now recruiting participants.

The phase 2b study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Lebwohl reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to that company and numerous others.

[email protected]

The number of Americans aged 60 years and older who report receiving shingles vaccination had risen steadily since 2008 and has leveled off during the past few years, new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Health Statistics reveal.

The proportion of people in this age group who were vaccinated rose from 6.7% in 2008 to 34.5% in 2018, for example.

“The take-home message of our report is that, among adults aged 60 and over, shingles vaccination has increased since 2008. However, disparities in receipt of this vaccination still remain,” Emily Terlizzi, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The report was published online July 9 in NCHS Data Brief.
 

Similar rates for men and women

Rates of people who reported receiving at least one vaccination with Zostavax (Merck) or Shingrix (GlaxoSmithKline) varied by factors that included Hispanic origin, education, and family income. An unexpected finding was that rates did not vary significantly between men and women.

“One finding that I would say surprised me was that, although the percentage who had ever received a shingles vaccine among women aged 60 and over was higher than that among men in this age group, this difference was not statistically significant,” said Ms. Terlizzi, a health statistician in the Data Analysis and Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Health Interview Statistics, the CDC National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, for example, 35.4% of women and 33.5% of men reported ever receiving a shingles vaccine.

The similarity of rates was less of a surprise to Len Horovitz, MD, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, who was not affiliated with the report. “In my anecdotal experience, I don’t see a preponderance of one sex getting shingles more than another. It’s pretty evenly distributed,” he said in an interview.

Ms. Terlizzi and coauthor Lindsey I. Black, MPH, say their findings align with prior research. However, they noted: “Our report uses more recent data from a large, nationally representative data source to update these estimates and describe these disparities.” Data come from results of the annual National Health Interview Survey of households nationwide.
 

Multiple factors explain vaccination differences

Non-Hispanic White adults were more likely to report receiving the vaccine than were Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black survey respondents. Non-Hispanic White adults were about twice as likely to report vaccination – 38.6% – compared with 19.5% of Hispanic adults and 18.8% of non-Hispanic Black adults.

The disparity in vaccination by race was “disappointing news,” Kenneth E. Schmader, MD, said in an interview.

“The health disparity with regard to lower vaccination rates in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations is reported with other vaccines as well and points to the need for better efforts to vaccinate Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations,” added Dr. Schmader, a professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

On a positive note, “It was good to see increasing use of shingles vaccination over time, given how devastating zoster can be in older adults and the fact that the vaccines are effective,” said Dr. Schmader, who also serves on the working groups for the Herpes Zoster, Influenza and General Adult Immunization Guidelines for the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Self-reports of receiving vaccination increased in association with higher education and family income levels. For example, 39.9% of respondents who had more than a high school diploma or GED (General Educational Development) reported receiving the shingles vaccine. In contrast, only 21.2% of people with lower educational attainment reported receiving a vaccine.

In terms of income, 20.4% of poor adults reported being vaccinated, compared with 38.4% of adults who were not poor.

The investigators also evaluated the data by geographic region. They found that rates of vaccinations varied from 26.3% in the East South Central part of the United States (which includes Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama) to 42.8% in the West North Central region (which includes the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Nebraska).
 

Clinical and research considerations

For most of the decade evaluated in the study, ACIP recommended vaccination against shingles for Americans aged 60 years and older. The current findings, therefore, do not account for ACIP’s expanding its recommendations in 2017 to include adults aged 50 years and older.

Zostavax is expected to be discontinued this year. It was the only shingles vaccine available before the approval of Shingrix in 2018. The shift to a single product could alter vaccination patterns further.

Ms. Terlizzi plans to continue monitoring trends to “see what changes occur in the next few years,” she said.
 

Compliance a concern

Data on vaccination rates for shingles are important given the large proportion of the population at risk, Dr. Horovitz said. “People over age 50 who have had chickenpox have a one third chance over their lifetimes to get shingles. That is a lot of people.”

Multiple factors could be contributing to the fact that vaccination rates have hovered around 34% in recent years, he said. “Whenever you see variations in vaccination rates, you have to think about cultural differences and questions about differences in access, accessibility, and attitudes. Attitudes toward vaccines vary widely – from people who don’t believe in vaccination to people who are eager to take vaccinations.

“I don’t know how to dissect all that out of these data,” he added.

Compliance with recommendations also contributes to vaccination rates, Dr. Horovitz said. The fact that in about 10% of people, a flulike syndrome develops the day after being vaccinated with Shingrix can cause some to postpone or rethink immunization, he added. In addition, Shingrix requires two shots. “People have to come back, and that always sets up an issue with recalling someone.”

Marketplace shortages of the Shingrix vaccine could also contribute to lower vaccination rates. However, Dr. Horovitz said that, in his practice, availability was only a problem during the first year after approval in 2017.

On a related note, manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline announced that a decrease in vaccination demand during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed the supply to catch up. Shingrix no longer qualifies for the CDC’s shortages list, according to a July 9 report.

Ms. Terlizzi, Dr. Horovitz, and Dr. Schmader have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of Americans aged 60 years and older who report receiving shingles vaccination had risen steadily since 2008 and has leveled off during the past few years, new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Health Statistics reveal.

The proportion of people in this age group who were vaccinated rose from 6.7% in 2008 to 34.5% in 2018, for example.

“The take-home message of our report is that, among adults aged 60 and over, shingles vaccination has increased since 2008. However, disparities in receipt of this vaccination still remain,” Emily Terlizzi, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The report was published online July 9 in NCHS Data Brief.
 

Similar rates for men and women

Rates of people who reported receiving at least one vaccination with Zostavax (Merck) or Shingrix (GlaxoSmithKline) varied by factors that included Hispanic origin, education, and family income. An unexpected finding was that rates did not vary significantly between men and women.

“One finding that I would say surprised me was that, although the percentage who had ever received a shingles vaccine among women aged 60 and over was higher than that among men in this age group, this difference was not statistically significant,” said Ms. Terlizzi, a health statistician in the Data Analysis and Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Health Interview Statistics, the CDC National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, for example, 35.4% of women and 33.5% of men reported ever receiving a shingles vaccine.

The similarity of rates was less of a surprise to Len Horovitz, MD, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, who was not affiliated with the report. “In my anecdotal experience, I don’t see a preponderance of one sex getting shingles more than another. It’s pretty evenly distributed,” he said in an interview.

Ms. Terlizzi and coauthor Lindsey I. Black, MPH, say their findings align with prior research. However, they noted: “Our report uses more recent data from a large, nationally representative data source to update these estimates and describe these disparities.” Data come from results of the annual National Health Interview Survey of households nationwide.
 

Multiple factors explain vaccination differences

Non-Hispanic White adults were more likely to report receiving the vaccine than were Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black survey respondents. Non-Hispanic White adults were about twice as likely to report vaccination – 38.6% – compared with 19.5% of Hispanic adults and 18.8% of non-Hispanic Black adults.

The disparity in vaccination by race was “disappointing news,” Kenneth E. Schmader, MD, said in an interview.

“The health disparity with regard to lower vaccination rates in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations is reported with other vaccines as well and points to the need for better efforts to vaccinate Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations,” added Dr. Schmader, a professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

On a positive note, “It was good to see increasing use of shingles vaccination over time, given how devastating zoster can be in older adults and the fact that the vaccines are effective,” said Dr. Schmader, who also serves on the working groups for the Herpes Zoster, Influenza and General Adult Immunization Guidelines for the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Self-reports of receiving vaccination increased in association with higher education and family income levels. For example, 39.9% of respondents who had more than a high school diploma or GED (General Educational Development) reported receiving the shingles vaccine. In contrast, only 21.2% of people with lower educational attainment reported receiving a vaccine.

In terms of income, 20.4% of poor adults reported being vaccinated, compared with 38.4% of adults who were not poor.

The investigators also evaluated the data by geographic region. They found that rates of vaccinations varied from 26.3% in the East South Central part of the United States (which includes Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama) to 42.8% in the West North Central region (which includes the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Nebraska).
 

Clinical and research considerations

For most of the decade evaluated in the study, ACIP recommended vaccination against shingles for Americans aged 60 years and older. The current findings, therefore, do not account for ACIP’s expanding its recommendations in 2017 to include adults aged 50 years and older.

Zostavax is expected to be discontinued this year. It was the only shingles vaccine available before the approval of Shingrix in 2018. The shift to a single product could alter vaccination patterns further.

Ms. Terlizzi plans to continue monitoring trends to “see what changes occur in the next few years,” she said.
 

Compliance a concern

Data on vaccination rates for shingles are important given the large proportion of the population at risk, Dr. Horovitz said. “People over age 50 who have had chickenpox have a one third chance over their lifetimes to get shingles. That is a lot of people.”

Multiple factors could be contributing to the fact that vaccination rates have hovered around 34% in recent years, he said. “Whenever you see variations in vaccination rates, you have to think about cultural differences and questions about differences in access, accessibility, and attitudes. Attitudes toward vaccines vary widely – from people who don’t believe in vaccination to people who are eager to take vaccinations.

“I don’t know how to dissect all that out of these data,” he added.

Compliance with recommendations also contributes to vaccination rates, Dr. Horovitz said. The fact that in about 10% of people, a flulike syndrome develops the day after being vaccinated with Shingrix can cause some to postpone or rethink immunization, he added. In addition, Shingrix requires two shots. “People have to come back, and that always sets up an issue with recalling someone.”

Marketplace shortages of the Shingrix vaccine could also contribute to lower vaccination rates. However, Dr. Horovitz said that, in his practice, availability was only a problem during the first year after approval in 2017.

On a related note, manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline announced that a decrease in vaccination demand during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed the supply to catch up. Shingrix no longer qualifies for the CDC’s shortages list, according to a July 9 report.

Ms. Terlizzi, Dr. Horovitz, and Dr. Schmader have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of Americans aged 60 years and older who report receiving shingles vaccination had risen steadily since 2008 and has leveled off during the past few years, new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Health Statistics reveal.

The proportion of people in this age group who were vaccinated rose from 6.7% in 2008 to 34.5% in 2018, for example.

“The take-home message of our report is that, among adults aged 60 and over, shingles vaccination has increased since 2008. However, disparities in receipt of this vaccination still remain,” Emily Terlizzi, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The report was published online July 9 in NCHS Data Brief.
 

Similar rates for men and women

Rates of people who reported receiving at least one vaccination with Zostavax (Merck) or Shingrix (GlaxoSmithKline) varied by factors that included Hispanic origin, education, and family income. An unexpected finding was that rates did not vary significantly between men and women.

“One finding that I would say surprised me was that, although the percentage who had ever received a shingles vaccine among women aged 60 and over was higher than that among men in this age group, this difference was not statistically significant,” said Ms. Terlizzi, a health statistician in the Data Analysis and Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Health Interview Statistics, the CDC National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, for example, 35.4% of women and 33.5% of men reported ever receiving a shingles vaccine.

The similarity of rates was less of a surprise to Len Horovitz, MD, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, who was not affiliated with the report. “In my anecdotal experience, I don’t see a preponderance of one sex getting shingles more than another. It’s pretty evenly distributed,” he said in an interview.

Ms. Terlizzi and coauthor Lindsey I. Black, MPH, say their findings align with prior research. However, they noted: “Our report uses more recent data from a large, nationally representative data source to update these estimates and describe these disparities.” Data come from results of the annual National Health Interview Survey of households nationwide.
 

Multiple factors explain vaccination differences

Non-Hispanic White adults were more likely to report receiving the vaccine than were Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black survey respondents. Non-Hispanic White adults were about twice as likely to report vaccination – 38.6% – compared with 19.5% of Hispanic adults and 18.8% of non-Hispanic Black adults.

The disparity in vaccination by race was “disappointing news,” Kenneth E. Schmader, MD, said in an interview.

“The health disparity with regard to lower vaccination rates in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations is reported with other vaccines as well and points to the need for better efforts to vaccinate Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations,” added Dr. Schmader, a professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

On a positive note, “It was good to see increasing use of shingles vaccination over time, given how devastating zoster can be in older adults and the fact that the vaccines are effective,” said Dr. Schmader, who also serves on the working groups for the Herpes Zoster, Influenza and General Adult Immunization Guidelines for the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Self-reports of receiving vaccination increased in association with higher education and family income levels. For example, 39.9% of respondents who had more than a high school diploma or GED (General Educational Development) reported receiving the shingles vaccine. In contrast, only 21.2% of people with lower educational attainment reported receiving a vaccine.

In terms of income, 20.4% of poor adults reported being vaccinated, compared with 38.4% of adults who were not poor.

The investigators also evaluated the data by geographic region. They found that rates of vaccinations varied from 26.3% in the East South Central part of the United States (which includes Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama) to 42.8% in the West North Central region (which includes the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Nebraska).
 

Clinical and research considerations

For most of the decade evaluated in the study, ACIP recommended vaccination against shingles for Americans aged 60 years and older. The current findings, therefore, do not account for ACIP’s expanding its recommendations in 2017 to include adults aged 50 years and older.

Zostavax is expected to be discontinued this year. It was the only shingles vaccine available before the approval of Shingrix in 2018. The shift to a single product could alter vaccination patterns further.

Ms. Terlizzi plans to continue monitoring trends to “see what changes occur in the next few years,” she said.
 

Compliance a concern

Data on vaccination rates for shingles are important given the large proportion of the population at risk, Dr. Horovitz said. “People over age 50 who have had chickenpox have a one third chance over their lifetimes to get shingles. That is a lot of people.”

Multiple factors could be contributing to the fact that vaccination rates have hovered around 34% in recent years, he said. “Whenever you see variations in vaccination rates, you have to think about cultural differences and questions about differences in access, accessibility, and attitudes. Attitudes toward vaccines vary widely – from people who don’t believe in vaccination to people who are eager to take vaccinations.

“I don’t know how to dissect all that out of these data,” he added.

Compliance with recommendations also contributes to vaccination rates, Dr. Horovitz said. The fact that in about 10% of people, a flulike syndrome develops the day after being vaccinated with Shingrix can cause some to postpone or rethink immunization, he added. In addition, Shingrix requires two shots. “People have to come back, and that always sets up an issue with recalling someone.”

Marketplace shortages of the Shingrix vaccine could also contribute to lower vaccination rates. However, Dr. Horovitz said that, in his practice, availability was only a problem during the first year after approval in 2017.

On a related note, manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline announced that a decrease in vaccination demand during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed the supply to catch up. Shingrix no longer qualifies for the CDC’s shortages list, according to a July 9 report.

Ms. Terlizzi, Dr. Horovitz, and Dr. Schmader have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An inexpensive two-drug regimen of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi, Gilead Sciences) plus daclatasvir (Daklinza, Bristol-Myers Squibb) taken for 14 days significantly reduced time to recovery from COVID-19 and improved survival in people hospitalized with severe disease, research from an open-label Iranian study shows.

And the good news is that the treatment combination “already has a well-established safety profile in the treatment of hepatitis C,” said investigator Andrew Hill, PhD, from the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.

But although the results look promising, they are preliminary, he cautioned. The combination could follow the path of ritonavir plus lopinavir (Kaletra, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals) or hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil, Sanofi Pharmaceuticals), which showed promise early but did not perform as hoped in large randomized controlled trials.

“We need to remember that conducting research amidst a pandemic with overwhelmed hospitals is a clear challenge, and we cannot be sure of success,” he added.

Three Trials, 176 Patients

Data collected during a four-site trial of the combination treatment in Tehran during an early spike in cases in Iran were presented at the Virtual COVID-19 Conference 2020 by Hannah Wentzel, a masters student in public health at Imperial College London and a member of Hill’s team.

All 66 study participants were diagnosed with moderate to severe COVID-19 and were treated with standard care, which consisted of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily with or without the combination of lopinavir plus ritonavir 250 mg twice daily.

The 33 patients randomized to the treatment group also received the combination of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir 460 mg once daily. These patients were slightly younger and more likely to be men than were those in the standard-care group, but the differences were not significant.

All participants were treated for 14 days, and then the researchers assessed fever, respiration rate, and blood oxygen saturation.

More patients in the treatment group than in the standard-care group had recovered at 14 days (88% vs 67%), but the difference was not significant.

However, median time to clinical recovery, which took into account death as a competing risk, was significantly faster in the treatment group than in the standard-care group (6 vs 11 days; P = .041).

The researchers then pooled their Tehran data with those from two other trials of the sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir combination conducted in Iran: one in the city of Sari with 48 patients and one in the city of Abadan with 62 patients.

A meta-analysis showed that clinical recovery in 14 days was 14% better in the treatment group than in the control group in the Sari study, 32% better in the Tehran study, and 82% better in the Abadan study. However, in a sensitivity analysis, because “the trial in Abadan was not properly randomized,” only the improvements in the Sari and Tehran studies were significant, Wentzel reported.

The meta-analysis also showed that patients in the treatment groups were 70% more likely than those in the standard-care groups to survive.

However, the treatment regimens in the standard-care groups of the three studies were all different, reflecting evolving national treatment guidelines in Iran at the time. And SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were not measured in any of the trials, so the effects of the different drugs on the virus itself could not be assessed.

Still, overall, “sofosbuvir and daclatasvir is associated with faster discharge from hospital and improved survival,” Wentzel said.

These findings are hopeful, “provocative, and encouraging,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and he echoed Hill’s call to “get these kinds of studies into randomized controlled trials.”

But he cautioned that more data are needed before the sofosbuvir and daclatasvir combination can be added to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, which clinicians who might be under-resourced and overwhelmed with spikes in COVID-19 cases rely on.

Results from three double-blind randomized controlled trials – one each in Iran, Egypt, and South Africa – with an estimated cumulative enrollment of about 2,000 patients, are expected in October, Hill reported.

“Having gone through feeling so desperate to help people and try new things, it’s really important to do these trials,” said Kristen Marks, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

“You get tempted to just kind of throw anything at people. And I think we really have to have science to guide us,” she told Medscape Medical News.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An inexpensive two-drug regimen of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi, Gilead Sciences) plus daclatasvir (Daklinza, Bristol-Myers Squibb) taken for 14 days significantly reduced time to recovery from COVID-19 and improved survival in people hospitalized with severe disease, research from an open-label Iranian study shows.

And the good news is that the treatment combination “already has a well-established safety profile in the treatment of hepatitis C,” said investigator Andrew Hill, PhD, from the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.

But although the results look promising, they are preliminary, he cautioned. The combination could follow the path of ritonavir plus lopinavir (Kaletra, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals) or hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil, Sanofi Pharmaceuticals), which showed promise early but did not perform as hoped in large randomized controlled trials.

“We need to remember that conducting research amidst a pandemic with overwhelmed hospitals is a clear challenge, and we cannot be sure of success,” he added.

Three Trials, 176 Patients

Data collected during a four-site trial of the combination treatment in Tehran during an early spike in cases in Iran were presented at the Virtual COVID-19 Conference 2020 by Hannah Wentzel, a masters student in public health at Imperial College London and a member of Hill’s team.

All 66 study participants were diagnosed with moderate to severe COVID-19 and were treated with standard care, which consisted of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily with or without the combination of lopinavir plus ritonavir 250 mg twice daily.

The 33 patients randomized to the treatment group also received the combination of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir 460 mg once daily. These patients were slightly younger and more likely to be men than were those in the standard-care group, but the differences were not significant.

All participants were treated for 14 days, and then the researchers assessed fever, respiration rate, and blood oxygen saturation.

More patients in the treatment group than in the standard-care group had recovered at 14 days (88% vs 67%), but the difference was not significant.

However, median time to clinical recovery, which took into account death as a competing risk, was significantly faster in the treatment group than in the standard-care group (6 vs 11 days; P = .041).

The researchers then pooled their Tehran data with those from two other trials of the sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir combination conducted in Iran: one in the city of Sari with 48 patients and one in the city of Abadan with 62 patients.

A meta-analysis showed that clinical recovery in 14 days was 14% better in the treatment group than in the control group in the Sari study, 32% better in the Tehran study, and 82% better in the Abadan study. However, in a sensitivity analysis, because “the trial in Abadan was not properly randomized,” only the improvements in the Sari and Tehran studies were significant, Wentzel reported.

The meta-analysis also showed that patients in the treatment groups were 70% more likely than those in the standard-care groups to survive.

However, the treatment regimens in the standard-care groups of the three studies were all different, reflecting evolving national treatment guidelines in Iran at the time. And SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were not measured in any of the trials, so the effects of the different drugs on the virus itself could not be assessed.

Still, overall, “sofosbuvir and daclatasvir is associated with faster discharge from hospital and improved survival,” Wentzel said.

These findings are hopeful, “provocative, and encouraging,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and he echoed Hill’s call to “get these kinds of studies into randomized controlled trials.”

But he cautioned that more data are needed before the sofosbuvir and daclatasvir combination can be added to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, which clinicians who might be under-resourced and overwhelmed with spikes in COVID-19 cases rely on.

Results from three double-blind randomized controlled trials – one each in Iran, Egypt, and South Africa – with an estimated cumulative enrollment of about 2,000 patients, are expected in October, Hill reported.

“Having gone through feeling so desperate to help people and try new things, it’s really important to do these trials,” said Kristen Marks, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

“You get tempted to just kind of throw anything at people. And I think we really have to have science to guide us,” she told Medscape Medical News.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An inexpensive two-drug regimen of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi, Gilead Sciences) plus daclatasvir (Daklinza, Bristol-Myers Squibb) taken for 14 days significantly reduced time to recovery from COVID-19 and improved survival in people hospitalized with severe disease, research from an open-label Iranian study shows.

And the good news is that the treatment combination “already has a well-established safety profile in the treatment of hepatitis C,” said investigator Andrew Hill, PhD, from the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.

But although the results look promising, they are preliminary, he cautioned. The combination could follow the path of ritonavir plus lopinavir (Kaletra, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals) or hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil, Sanofi Pharmaceuticals), which showed promise early but did not perform as hoped in large randomized controlled trials.

“We need to remember that conducting research amidst a pandemic with overwhelmed hospitals is a clear challenge, and we cannot be sure of success,” he added.

Three Trials, 176 Patients

Data collected during a four-site trial of the combination treatment in Tehran during an early spike in cases in Iran were presented at the Virtual COVID-19 Conference 2020 by Hannah Wentzel, a masters student in public health at Imperial College London and a member of Hill’s team.

All 66 study participants were diagnosed with moderate to severe COVID-19 and were treated with standard care, which consisted of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily with or without the combination of lopinavir plus ritonavir 250 mg twice daily.

The 33 patients randomized to the treatment group also received the combination of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir 460 mg once daily. These patients were slightly younger and more likely to be men than were those in the standard-care group, but the differences were not significant.

All participants were treated for 14 days, and then the researchers assessed fever, respiration rate, and blood oxygen saturation.

More patients in the treatment group than in the standard-care group had recovered at 14 days (88% vs 67%), but the difference was not significant.

However, median time to clinical recovery, which took into account death as a competing risk, was significantly faster in the treatment group than in the standard-care group (6 vs 11 days; P = .041).

The researchers then pooled their Tehran data with those from two other trials of the sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir combination conducted in Iran: one in the city of Sari with 48 patients and one in the city of Abadan with 62 patients.

A meta-analysis showed that clinical recovery in 14 days was 14% better in the treatment group than in the control group in the Sari study, 32% better in the Tehran study, and 82% better in the Abadan study. However, in a sensitivity analysis, because “the trial in Abadan was not properly randomized,” only the improvements in the Sari and Tehran studies were significant, Wentzel reported.

The meta-analysis also showed that patients in the treatment groups were 70% more likely than those in the standard-care groups to survive.

However, the treatment regimens in the standard-care groups of the three studies were all different, reflecting evolving national treatment guidelines in Iran at the time. And SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were not measured in any of the trials, so the effects of the different drugs on the virus itself could not be assessed.

Still, overall, “sofosbuvir and daclatasvir is associated with faster discharge from hospital and improved survival,” Wentzel said.

These findings are hopeful, “provocative, and encouraging,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and he echoed Hill’s call to “get these kinds of studies into randomized controlled trials.”

But he cautioned that more data are needed before the sofosbuvir and daclatasvir combination can be added to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, which clinicians who might be under-resourced and overwhelmed with spikes in COVID-19 cases rely on.

Results from three double-blind randomized controlled trials – one each in Iran, Egypt, and South Africa – with an estimated cumulative enrollment of about 2,000 patients, are expected in October, Hill reported.

“Having gone through feeling so desperate to help people and try new things, it’s really important to do these trials,” said Kristen Marks, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

“You get tempted to just kind of throw anything at people. And I think we really have to have science to guide us,” she told Medscape Medical News.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.