Dermatology News

Adalimumab biosimilars are years away from entering the marketplace in the United States because of patent disputes, but they already have led to substantial discounts in Denmark, researchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The Danish health care system switched almost entirely to adalimumab biosimilars after the patent on the original adalimumab product, Humira, expired there in October 2018. The switch to biosimilars led to an 82% decrease in costs for the medication, wrote Thomas Bo Jensen, MD, and colleagues in a research letter.

Denmark did not automatically substitute biosimilars, but the Danish Medicines Council recommended adalimumab biosimilars for all indications following Humira’s patent expiration. The recommendations “included switching patients to a biosimilar who were already well treated with the originator,” the researchers wrote.

To study the shift to adalimumab biosimilars across all indications in Denmark and calculate cost reductions, Dr. Jensen, of the department of clinical pharmacology at Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, and coinvestigators examined monthly data on drug sales from Amgros, which purchases all hospital drugs in the country.

“The proportion of adalimumab biosimilars increased from 71.6% (7,040 of 9,829 pens) in November 2018 to 95.1% (8,974 of 9,438 pens) in December 2018,” the researchers wrote. “Costs of adalimumab decreased by 82.8% from September 2018 to December 2018 (September: 8,197 pens at $5.13 million; December: 9,438 pens at $1.01 million).” The results were similar in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved five adalimumab biosimilars in the United States, but “they will not enter the market until 2023 owing to patent disputes with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira,” wrote Jennifer D. Claytor, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Walid Gellad, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial.

The annual postrebate price of Humira doubled between 2013 and 2018, from $19,000 to $38,000, and these price increases may influence the price of biosimilars, “which will be priced using Humira’s price as an anchor,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad wrote.

A rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars across the United States when they become available is “unlikely,” they wrote. Nonetheless, “some health care systems of comparable size to Denmark (e.g., the Veterans Affairs system) and others that are larger (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) ... have the ability to switch products quickly through use of formularies and a prescriber workforce. For example, Kaiser Permanente has successfully replaced Remicade (infliximab) with biosimilars in 80% of patients.”

Given the many biologics in development and increasing health care spending, “we need to take seriously the substantial savings offered by biosimilars and the feasibility, as evidenced by Denmark, of switching to biosimilars quickly once they are available on the market,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad concluded.

The research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Helsefonden. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the current study. The editorial authors had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jensen TB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0338.

Adalimumab biosimilars are years away from entering the marketplace in the United States because of patent disputes, but they already have led to substantial discounts in Denmark, researchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The Danish health care system switched almost entirely to adalimumab biosimilars after the patent on the original adalimumab product, Humira, expired there in October 2018. The switch to biosimilars led to an 82% decrease in costs for the medication, wrote Thomas Bo Jensen, MD, and colleagues in a research letter.

Denmark did not automatically substitute biosimilars, but the Danish Medicines Council recommended adalimumab biosimilars for all indications following Humira’s patent expiration. The recommendations “included switching patients to a biosimilar who were already well treated with the originator,” the researchers wrote.

To study the shift to adalimumab biosimilars across all indications in Denmark and calculate cost reductions, Dr. Jensen, of the department of clinical pharmacology at Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, and coinvestigators examined monthly data on drug sales from Amgros, which purchases all hospital drugs in the country.

“The proportion of adalimumab biosimilars increased from 71.6% (7,040 of 9,829 pens) in November 2018 to 95.1% (8,974 of 9,438 pens) in December 2018,” the researchers wrote. “Costs of adalimumab decreased by 82.8% from September 2018 to December 2018 (September: 8,197 pens at $5.13 million; December: 9,438 pens at $1.01 million).” The results were similar in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved five adalimumab biosimilars in the United States, but “they will not enter the market until 2023 owing to patent disputes with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira,” wrote Jennifer D. Claytor, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Walid Gellad, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial.

The annual postrebate price of Humira doubled between 2013 and 2018, from $19,000 to $38,000, and these price increases may influence the price of biosimilars, “which will be priced using Humira’s price as an anchor,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad wrote.

A rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars across the United States when they become available is “unlikely,” they wrote. Nonetheless, “some health care systems of comparable size to Denmark (e.g., the Veterans Affairs system) and others that are larger (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) ... have the ability to switch products quickly through use of formularies and a prescriber workforce. For example, Kaiser Permanente has successfully replaced Remicade (infliximab) with biosimilars in 80% of patients.”

Given the many biologics in development and increasing health care spending, “we need to take seriously the substantial savings offered by biosimilars and the feasibility, as evidenced by Denmark, of switching to biosimilars quickly once they are available on the market,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad concluded.

The research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Helsefonden. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the current study. The editorial authors had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jensen TB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0338.

Adalimumab biosimilars are years away from entering the marketplace in the United States because of patent disputes, but they already have led to substantial discounts in Denmark, researchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The Danish health care system switched almost entirely to adalimumab biosimilars after the patent on the original adalimumab product, Humira, expired there in October 2018. The switch to biosimilars led to an 82% decrease in costs for the medication, wrote Thomas Bo Jensen, MD, and colleagues in a research letter.

Denmark did not automatically substitute biosimilars, but the Danish Medicines Council recommended adalimumab biosimilars for all indications following Humira’s patent expiration. The recommendations “included switching patients to a biosimilar who were already well treated with the originator,” the researchers wrote.

To study the shift to adalimumab biosimilars across all indications in Denmark and calculate cost reductions, Dr. Jensen, of the department of clinical pharmacology at Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, and coinvestigators examined monthly data on drug sales from Amgros, which purchases all hospital drugs in the country.

“The proportion of adalimumab biosimilars increased from 71.6% (7,040 of 9,829 pens) in November 2018 to 95.1% (8,974 of 9,438 pens) in December 2018,” the researchers wrote. “Costs of adalimumab decreased by 82.8% from September 2018 to December 2018 (September: 8,197 pens at $5.13 million; December: 9,438 pens at $1.01 million).” The results were similar in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved five adalimumab biosimilars in the United States, but “they will not enter the market until 2023 owing to patent disputes with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira,” wrote Jennifer D. Claytor, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Walid Gellad, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial.

The annual postrebate price of Humira doubled between 2013 and 2018, from $19,000 to $38,000, and these price increases may influence the price of biosimilars, “which will be priced using Humira’s price as an anchor,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad wrote.

A rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars across the United States when they become available is “unlikely,” they wrote. Nonetheless, “some health care systems of comparable size to Denmark (e.g., the Veterans Affairs system) and others that are larger (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) ... have the ability to switch products quickly through use of formularies and a prescriber workforce. For example, Kaiser Permanente has successfully replaced Remicade (infliximab) with biosimilars in 80% of patients.”

Given the many biologics in development and increasing health care spending, “we need to take seriously the substantial savings offered by biosimilars and the feasibility, as evidenced by Denmark, of switching to biosimilars quickly once they are available on the market,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad concluded.

The research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Helsefonden. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the current study. The editorial authors had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jensen TB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0338.

A meme has been going around the Internet in which a Muppet is dressed as a doctor, and the caption declares: “If you don’t want to be intubated by a psychiatrist, stay home!” This meme is meant as a commentary on health care worker shortages. But it also touches on the concerns of psychiatrists who might be questioning our role in the pandemic, given that we are physicians who do not regularly rely on labs or imaging to guide treatment. And we rarely even touch our patients.

As observed by Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, editor in chief of Current Psychiatry, who referred to anxiety as endemic during a viral pandemic (Current Psychiatry. 2020 April;19[4]:e3-5), our society is experiencing intense psychological repercussions from the pandemic. These repercussions will evolve from anxiety to despair, and for some, to resilience.

All jokes aside about the medical knowledge of psychiatrists, we are on the cutting edge of how to address the pandemic of fear and uncertainty gripping individuals and society across the nation.

Isn’t it our role as psychiatrists to help people face the reality of personal and societal crises? Aren’t we trained to help people find their internal reserves, bolster them with medications and/or psychotherapy, and prepare them to respond to challenges? I propose that our training and particular experience of hearing patients’ stories has indeed prepared us to receive surreal information and package it into a palatable, even therapeutic, form for our patients.

I’d like to present two cases I’ve recently seen during the first stages of the COVID-19 pandemic juxtaposed with patients I saw during “normal” times. These cases show that, as psychiatrists, we are prepared to face the psychological impact of this crisis.

A patient called me about worsened anxiety after she’d been sidelined at home from her job as a waitress and was currently spending 12 hours a day with her overbearing mother. She had always used her work to buffer her anxiety, as the fast pace of the restaurant kept her from ruminating.

The call reminded me of ones I’d receive from female patients during the MeToo movement and particularly during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, in which a sexual assault victim and alleged perpetrator faced off on television. During therapy and medication management sessions alike, I would talk to women struggling with the number of news stories about victims coming forward after sexual assault. They were reliving their humiliations, and despite the empowering nature of the movement, they felt vulnerable in the shadow of memories of their perpetrators.

The advice I gave then is similar to the guidance I give now, and also is closely related to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice on its website on how to manage the mental health impact of COVID-19. People can be informed without suffering by taking these steps:

• Limit the amount of news and social media consumed, and if possible, try to schedule news consumption into discrete periods that are not close to bedtime or other periods meant for relaxation.
• Reach out to loved ones and friends who remind you of strength and better times.
• Make time to relax and unwind, either through resting or engaging in an activity you enjoy.
• Take care of your body and mind with exercise.
• Try for 8 hours of sleep a night (even if it doesn’t happen).
• Use techniques such as meditating, doing yoga, or breathing to practice focusing your attention somewhere.

During this crisis, tactful self-disclosure might be appropriate and therapeutic. All of our lives have been disrupted by COVID-19 and acknowledging this to patients can help them feel less isolated and vulnerable. Our patients with diagnosed psychiatric disorders will be more susceptible to crippling anxiety, exacerbations in panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms, and resurgence of suicidal ideation in the face of uncertainty and despair. They may also be more likely to experience the socioeconomic fallout of this pandemic. But it’s not just these individuals who will be hit with intense feelings as we wonder what the next day, month, or 6 months hold for us, our families, our friends, our country, and our world.

Recently, I had one of the more surreal experiences of my professional life. I work as a consulation-liaison psychiatrist on the medical wards, and I was consulted to treat a young woman from Central America with schizophrenia who made a serious suicide attempt in mid-February before COVID-19 was part of the lexicon.

After an overdose, she developed aspiration pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome and ended up in the ICU on a respirator for 3 weeks. Her doctors and family were certain she would die, but she miraculously survived. By the time she was extubated and less delirious from her medically induced coma, the hospital had restricted all visitors because of COVID-19.

Because I speak Spanish, we developed as decent a working relationship as we could, considering the patient’s delirium and blunted affect. On top of restarting her antipsychotics, I had to inform her that her family was no longer allowed to come visit her. Outside of this room, I vacillated on how to tell a woman with a history of paranoia that the hospital would not allow her family to visit because we were in the middle of a pandemic. A contagious virus had quickly spread around the world, cases were now spiking in the United States, much of the country was on lockdown, and the hospital was limiting visitors because asymptomatic individuals could bring the virus into the hospital or be infected by asymptomatic staff.

As the words came out of my mouth, she looked at me as I have looked at psychotic individuals as they spin me yarns of impossible explanation for their symptoms when I know they’re simply psychotic and living in an alternate reality. Imagine just waking up from a coma and your doctor coming in to tell you: “The U.S. is on lockdown because a deadly virus is spreading throughout our country.” You’d think you’ve woken up in a zombie film. Yet, the patient simply nodded and asked: “Will I be able to use the phone to call my family?” I sighed with relief and helped her dial her brother’s number.

Haven’t we all listened to insane stories while keeping a straight face and then answered with a politely bland question? Just a few months ago, I treated a homeless woman with schizophrenia who calmly explained to me that her large malignant ovarian tumor (which I could see protruding under her gown) was the unborn heir of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. If she allowed the doctors to take it out (that is, treat her cancer) she’d be assassinated by the Russian intelligence agency. She refused to let the doctors sentence her to death. Ultimately, we allowed her to refuse treatment. Despite a month of treatment with antipsychotic medication, her psychotic beliefs did not change, and we could not imagine forcing her through surgery and chemotherapy. She died in hospice.

I’ve walked the valleys of bizarro land many times. Working through the dark reality of COVID-19 should be no match for us psychiatrists who have listened to dark stories and responded with words of comfort or empathic silence. As mental health clinicians, I believe we are well equipped to fight on the front lines of the pandemic of fear that has arrested our country. We can make ourselves available to our patients, friends, family, and institutions – medical or otherwise – that are grappling with how to cope with the psychological impact of COVID-19.

Dr. Posada is a consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va., and associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. She changed key details about the patients discussed to protect their confidentiality. Dr. Posada has no conflicts of interest.

A meme has been going around the Internet in which a Muppet is dressed as a doctor, and the caption declares: “If you don’t want to be intubated by a psychiatrist, stay home!” This meme is meant as a commentary on health care worker shortages. But it also touches on the concerns of psychiatrists who might be questioning our role in the pandemic, given that we are physicians who do not regularly rely on labs or imaging to guide treatment. And we rarely even touch our patients.

As observed by Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, editor in chief of Current Psychiatry, who referred to anxiety as endemic during a viral pandemic (Current Psychiatry. 2020 April;19[4]:e3-5), our society is experiencing intense psychological repercussions from the pandemic. These repercussions will evolve from anxiety to despair, and for some, to resilience.

All jokes aside about the medical knowledge of psychiatrists, we are on the cutting edge of how to address the pandemic of fear and uncertainty gripping individuals and society across the nation.

Isn’t it our role as psychiatrists to help people face the reality of personal and societal crises? Aren’t we trained to help people find their internal reserves, bolster them with medications and/or psychotherapy, and prepare them to respond to challenges? I propose that our training and particular experience of hearing patients’ stories has indeed prepared us to receive surreal information and package it into a palatable, even therapeutic, form for our patients.

I’d like to present two cases I’ve recently seen during the first stages of the COVID-19 pandemic juxtaposed with patients I saw during “normal” times. These cases show that, as psychiatrists, we are prepared to face the psychological impact of this crisis.

A patient called me about worsened anxiety after she’d been sidelined at home from her job as a waitress and was currently spending 12 hours a day with her overbearing mother. She had always used her work to buffer her anxiety, as the fast pace of the restaurant kept her from ruminating.

The call reminded me of ones I’d receive from female patients during the MeToo movement and particularly during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, in which a sexual assault victim and alleged perpetrator faced off on television. During therapy and medication management sessions alike, I would talk to women struggling with the number of news stories about victims coming forward after sexual assault. They were reliving their humiliations, and despite the empowering nature of the movement, they felt vulnerable in the shadow of memories of their perpetrators.

The advice I gave then is similar to the guidance I give now, and also is closely related to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice on its website on how to manage the mental health impact of COVID-19. People can be informed without suffering by taking these steps:

• Limit the amount of news and social media consumed, and if possible, try to schedule news consumption into discrete periods that are not close to bedtime or other periods meant for relaxation.
• Reach out to loved ones and friends who remind you of strength and better times.
• Make time to relax and unwind, either through resting or engaging in an activity you enjoy.
• Take care of your body and mind with exercise.
• Try for 8 hours of sleep a night (even if it doesn’t happen).
• Use techniques such as meditating, doing yoga, or breathing to practice focusing your attention somewhere.

During this crisis, tactful self-disclosure might be appropriate and therapeutic. All of our lives have been disrupted by COVID-19 and acknowledging this to patients can help them feel less isolated and vulnerable. Our patients with diagnosed psychiatric disorders will be more susceptible to crippling anxiety, exacerbations in panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms, and resurgence of suicidal ideation in the face of uncertainty and despair. They may also be more likely to experience the socioeconomic fallout of this pandemic. But it’s not just these individuals who will be hit with intense feelings as we wonder what the next day, month, or 6 months hold for us, our families, our friends, our country, and our world.

Recently, I had one of the more surreal experiences of my professional life. I work as a consulation-liaison psychiatrist on the medical wards, and I was consulted to treat a young woman from Central America with schizophrenia who made a serious suicide attempt in mid-February before COVID-19 was part of the lexicon.

After an overdose, she developed aspiration pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome and ended up in the ICU on a respirator for 3 weeks. Her doctors and family were certain she would die, but she miraculously survived. By the time she was extubated and less delirious from her medically induced coma, the hospital had restricted all visitors because of COVID-19.

Because I speak Spanish, we developed as decent a working relationship as we could, considering the patient’s delirium and blunted affect. On top of restarting her antipsychotics, I had to inform her that her family was no longer allowed to come visit her. Outside of this room, I vacillated on how to tell a woman with a history of paranoia that the hospital would not allow her family to visit because we were in the middle of a pandemic. A contagious virus had quickly spread around the world, cases were now spiking in the United States, much of the country was on lockdown, and the hospital was limiting visitors because asymptomatic individuals could bring the virus into the hospital or be infected by asymptomatic staff.

As the words came out of my mouth, she looked at me as I have looked at psychotic individuals as they spin me yarns of impossible explanation for their symptoms when I know they’re simply psychotic and living in an alternate reality. Imagine just waking up from a coma and your doctor coming in to tell you: “The U.S. is on lockdown because a deadly virus is spreading throughout our country.” You’d think you’ve woken up in a zombie film. Yet, the patient simply nodded and asked: “Will I be able to use the phone to call my family?” I sighed with relief and helped her dial her brother’s number.

Haven’t we all listened to insane stories while keeping a straight face and then answered with a politely bland question? Just a few months ago, I treated a homeless woman with schizophrenia who calmly explained to me that her large malignant ovarian tumor (which I could see protruding under her gown) was the unborn heir of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. If she allowed the doctors to take it out (that is, treat her cancer) she’d be assassinated by the Russian intelligence agency. She refused to let the doctors sentence her to death. Ultimately, we allowed her to refuse treatment. Despite a month of treatment with antipsychotic medication, her psychotic beliefs did not change, and we could not imagine forcing her through surgery and chemotherapy. She died in hospice.

I’ve walked the valleys of bizarro land many times. Working through the dark reality of COVID-19 should be no match for us psychiatrists who have listened to dark stories and responded with words of comfort or empathic silence. As mental health clinicians, I believe we are well equipped to fight on the front lines of the pandemic of fear that has arrested our country. We can make ourselves available to our patients, friends, family, and institutions – medical or otherwise – that are grappling with how to cope with the psychological impact of COVID-19.

Dr. Posada is a consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va., and associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. She changed key details about the patients discussed to protect their confidentiality. Dr. Posada has no conflicts of interest.

A meme has been going around the Internet in which a Muppet is dressed as a doctor, and the caption declares: “If you don’t want to be intubated by a psychiatrist, stay home!” This meme is meant as a commentary on health care worker shortages. But it also touches on the concerns of psychiatrists who might be questioning our role in the pandemic, given that we are physicians who do not regularly rely on labs or imaging to guide treatment. And we rarely even touch our patients.

As observed by Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, editor in chief of Current Psychiatry, who referred to anxiety as endemic during a viral pandemic (Current Psychiatry. 2020 April;19[4]:e3-5), our society is experiencing intense psychological repercussions from the pandemic. These repercussions will evolve from anxiety to despair, and for some, to resilience.

All jokes aside about the medical knowledge of psychiatrists, we are on the cutting edge of how to address the pandemic of fear and uncertainty gripping individuals and society across the nation.

Isn’t it our role as psychiatrists to help people face the reality of personal and societal crises? Aren’t we trained to help people find their internal reserves, bolster them with medications and/or psychotherapy, and prepare them to respond to challenges? I propose that our training and particular experience of hearing patients’ stories has indeed prepared us to receive surreal information and package it into a palatable, even therapeutic, form for our patients.

I’d like to present two cases I’ve recently seen during the first stages of the COVID-19 pandemic juxtaposed with patients I saw during “normal” times. These cases show that, as psychiatrists, we are prepared to face the psychological impact of this crisis.

A patient called me about worsened anxiety after she’d been sidelined at home from her job as a waitress and was currently spending 12 hours a day with her overbearing mother. She had always used her work to buffer her anxiety, as the fast pace of the restaurant kept her from ruminating.

The call reminded me of ones I’d receive from female patients during the MeToo movement and particularly during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, in which a sexual assault victim and alleged perpetrator faced off on television. During therapy and medication management sessions alike, I would talk to women struggling with the number of news stories about victims coming forward after sexual assault. They were reliving their humiliations, and despite the empowering nature of the movement, they felt vulnerable in the shadow of memories of their perpetrators.

The advice I gave then is similar to the guidance I give now, and also is closely related to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice on its website on how to manage the mental health impact of COVID-19. People can be informed without suffering by taking these steps:

• Limit the amount of news and social media consumed, and if possible, try to schedule news consumption into discrete periods that are not close to bedtime or other periods meant for relaxation.
• Reach out to loved ones and friends who remind you of strength and better times.
• Make time to relax and unwind, either through resting or engaging in an activity you enjoy.
• Take care of your body and mind with exercise.
• Try for 8 hours of sleep a night (even if it doesn’t happen).
• Use techniques such as meditating, doing yoga, or breathing to practice focusing your attention somewhere.

During this crisis, tactful self-disclosure might be appropriate and therapeutic. All of our lives have been disrupted by COVID-19 and acknowledging this to patients can help them feel less isolated and vulnerable. Our patients with diagnosed psychiatric disorders will be more susceptible to crippling anxiety, exacerbations in panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms, and resurgence of suicidal ideation in the face of uncertainty and despair. They may also be more likely to experience the socioeconomic fallout of this pandemic. But it’s not just these individuals who will be hit with intense feelings as we wonder what the next day, month, or 6 months hold for us, our families, our friends, our country, and our world.

Recently, I had one of the more surreal experiences of my professional life. I work as a consulation-liaison psychiatrist on the medical wards, and I was consulted to treat a young woman from Central America with schizophrenia who made a serious suicide attempt in mid-February before COVID-19 was part of the lexicon.

After an overdose, she developed aspiration pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome and ended up in the ICU on a respirator for 3 weeks. Her doctors and family were certain she would die, but she miraculously survived. By the time she was extubated and less delirious from her medically induced coma, the hospital had restricted all visitors because of COVID-19.

Because I speak Spanish, we developed as decent a working relationship as we could, considering the patient’s delirium and blunted affect. On top of restarting her antipsychotics, I had to inform her that her family was no longer allowed to come visit her. Outside of this room, I vacillated on how to tell a woman with a history of paranoia that the hospital would not allow her family to visit because we were in the middle of a pandemic. A contagious virus had quickly spread around the world, cases were now spiking in the United States, much of the country was on lockdown, and the hospital was limiting visitors because asymptomatic individuals could bring the virus into the hospital or be infected by asymptomatic staff.

As the words came out of my mouth, she looked at me as I have looked at psychotic individuals as they spin me yarns of impossible explanation for their symptoms when I know they’re simply psychotic and living in an alternate reality. Imagine just waking up from a coma and your doctor coming in to tell you: “The U.S. is on lockdown because a deadly virus is spreading throughout our country.” You’d think you’ve woken up in a zombie film. Yet, the patient simply nodded and asked: “Will I be able to use the phone to call my family?” I sighed with relief and helped her dial her brother’s number.

Haven’t we all listened to insane stories while keeping a straight face and then answered with a politely bland question? Just a few months ago, I treated a homeless woman with schizophrenia who calmly explained to me that her large malignant ovarian tumor (which I could see protruding under her gown) was the unborn heir of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. If she allowed the doctors to take it out (that is, treat her cancer) she’d be assassinated by the Russian intelligence agency. She refused to let the doctors sentence her to death. Ultimately, we allowed her to refuse treatment. Despite a month of treatment with antipsychotic medication, her psychotic beliefs did not change, and we could not imagine forcing her through surgery and chemotherapy. She died in hospice.

I’ve walked the valleys of bizarro land many times. Working through the dark reality of COVID-19 should be no match for us psychiatrists who have listened to dark stories and responded with words of comfort or empathic silence. As mental health clinicians, I believe we are well equipped to fight on the front lines of the pandemic of fear that has arrested our country. We can make ourselves available to our patients, friends, family, and institutions – medical or otherwise – that are grappling with how to cope with the psychological impact of COVID-19.

Dr. Posada is a consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va., and associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. She changed key details about the patients discussed to protect their confidentiality. Dr. Posada has no conflicts of interest.

“There is no sound save the throb of the blowers and the vibration of the hard-driven engines. There is little motion as the gun crews man their guns and the fire-control details stand with heads bent and their hands clapped over their headphones. Somewhere out there are the enemy planes.”

That’s from one of my favorite WW2 histories, “Torpedo Junction,” by Robert J. Casey. He was a reporter stationed on board the cruiser USS Salt Lake City. The entry is from a day in February 1942 when the ship was part of a force that bombarded the Japanese encampment on Wake Island. The excerpt describes the scene later that afternoon, as they awaited a counterattack from Japanese planes.

For some reason that paragraph kept going through my mind this past Sunday afternoon, in the comparatively mundane situation of sitting in the hospital library signing off on my dictations and reviewing test results. I certainly was in no danger of being bombed or strafed, yet ...

Around me, the hospital was preparing for battle. As I rounded, most of the beds were empty and many of the floors above me were shut down and darkened. Waiting rooms were empty. If you hadn’t read the news you’d think there was a sudden lull in the health care world.

But the real truth is that it’s the calm before an anticipated storm. The elective procedures have all been canceled. Nonurgent outpatient tests are on hold. Only the sickest are being admitted, and they’re being sent out as soon as possible. Every bed possible is being kept open for the feared onslaught of coronavirus patients in the coming weeks. Protective equipment, already in short supply, is being stockpiled as it becomes available. Plans have been made to erect triage tents in the parking lots. 

I sit in the library and think of this. It’s quiet except for the soft hum of the air conditioning blowers as Phoenix starts to warm up for another summer. The muted purr of the computer’s hard drive as I click away on the keys. On the floors above me the nurses and respiratory techs and doctors go about their daily business of patient care, wondering when the real battle will begin (probably 2-3 weeks from the time of this writing, if not sooner).

These are scary times. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t frightened about what might happen to me, my family, my friends, my coworkers, my patients.

The people working in the hospital above me are in the same boat, all nervous about what’s going to happen. None of them is any more immune to coronavirus than the people they’ll be treating.

But, like the crew of the USS Salt Lake City, they’re ready to do their jobs. Because it’s part of what drove each of us into our own part of this field. Because we care and want to help. And health care doesn’t work unless the whole team does.

I respect them all for it. I always have and always will, and now more than ever.

Good luck.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz. He has no relevant disclosures.

“There is no sound save the throb of the blowers and the vibration of the hard-driven engines. There is little motion as the gun crews man their guns and the fire-control details stand with heads bent and their hands clapped over their headphones. Somewhere out there are the enemy planes.”

That’s from one of my favorite WW2 histories, “Torpedo Junction,” by Robert J. Casey. He was a reporter stationed on board the cruiser USS Salt Lake City. The entry is from a day in February 1942 when the ship was part of a force that bombarded the Japanese encampment on Wake Island. The excerpt describes the scene later that afternoon, as they awaited a counterattack from Japanese planes.

For some reason that paragraph kept going through my mind this past Sunday afternoon, in the comparatively mundane situation of sitting in the hospital library signing off on my dictations and reviewing test results. I certainly was in no danger of being bombed or strafed, yet ...

Around me, the hospital was preparing for battle. As I rounded, most of the beds were empty and many of the floors above me were shut down and darkened. Waiting rooms were empty. If you hadn’t read the news you’d think there was a sudden lull in the health care world.

But the real truth is that it’s the calm before an anticipated storm. The elective procedures have all been canceled. Nonurgent outpatient tests are on hold. Only the sickest are being admitted, and they’re being sent out as soon as possible. Every bed possible is being kept open for the feared onslaught of coronavirus patients in the coming weeks. Protective equipment, already in short supply, is being stockpiled as it becomes available. Plans have been made to erect triage tents in the parking lots. 

I sit in the library and think of this. It’s quiet except for the soft hum of the air conditioning blowers as Phoenix starts to warm up for another summer. The muted purr of the computer’s hard drive as I click away on the keys. On the floors above me the nurses and respiratory techs and doctors go about their daily business of patient care, wondering when the real battle will begin (probably 2-3 weeks from the time of this writing, if not sooner).

These are scary times. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t frightened about what might happen to me, my family, my friends, my coworkers, my patients.

The people working in the hospital above me are in the same boat, all nervous about what’s going to happen. None of them is any more immune to coronavirus than the people they’ll be treating.

But, like the crew of the USS Salt Lake City, they’re ready to do their jobs. Because it’s part of what drove each of us into our own part of this field. Because we care and want to help. And health care doesn’t work unless the whole team does.

I respect them all for it. I always have and always will, and now more than ever.

Good luck.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz. He has no relevant disclosures.

“There is no sound save the throb of the blowers and the vibration of the hard-driven engines. There is little motion as the gun crews man their guns and the fire-control details stand with heads bent and their hands clapped over their headphones. Somewhere out there are the enemy planes.”

That’s from one of my favorite WW2 histories, “Torpedo Junction,” by Robert J. Casey. He was a reporter stationed on board the cruiser USS Salt Lake City. The entry is from a day in February 1942 when the ship was part of a force that bombarded the Japanese encampment on Wake Island. The excerpt describes the scene later that afternoon, as they awaited a counterattack from Japanese planes.

For some reason that paragraph kept going through my mind this past Sunday afternoon, in the comparatively mundane situation of sitting in the hospital library signing off on my dictations and reviewing test results. I certainly was in no danger of being bombed or strafed, yet ...

Around me, the hospital was preparing for battle. As I rounded, most of the beds were empty and many of the floors above me were shut down and darkened. Waiting rooms were empty. If you hadn’t read the news you’d think there was a sudden lull in the health care world.

But the real truth is that it’s the calm before an anticipated storm. The elective procedures have all been canceled. Nonurgent outpatient tests are on hold. Only the sickest are being admitted, and they’re being sent out as soon as possible. Every bed possible is being kept open for the feared onslaught of coronavirus patients in the coming weeks. Protective equipment, already in short supply, is being stockpiled as it becomes available. Plans have been made to erect triage tents in the parking lots. 

I sit in the library and think of this. It’s quiet except for the soft hum of the air conditioning blowers as Phoenix starts to warm up for another summer. The muted purr of the computer’s hard drive as I click away on the keys. On the floors above me the nurses and respiratory techs and doctors go about their daily business of patient care, wondering when the real battle will begin (probably 2-3 weeks from the time of this writing, if not sooner).

These are scary times. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t frightened about what might happen to me, my family, my friends, my coworkers, my patients.

The people working in the hospital above me are in the same boat, all nervous about what’s going to happen. None of them is any more immune to coronavirus than the people they’ll be treating.

But, like the crew of the USS Salt Lake City, they’re ready to do their jobs. Because it’s part of what drove each of us into our own part of this field. Because we care and want to help. And health care doesn’t work unless the whole team does.

I respect them all for it. I always have and always will, and now more than ever.

Good luck.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz. He has no relevant disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ixekizumab for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in patients aged 6-17 years, according to an announcement from Lilly.

Patients need to be candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy and have no known hypersensitivity to the biologic.

The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the interleukin-17a antagonist were demonstrated in a phase 3 study that included 171 patients aged 6-17 years with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. At 12 weeks, 89% those on ixekizumab achieved a 75% improvement on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, compared with 25% of those on placebo, and 81% achieved a static Physician’s Global Assessment of clear or almost clear, compared with 11% of those on placebo, according to the Lilly statement.

The safety profile seen with ixekizumab (Taltz) among the pediatric patients with plaque psoriasis is consistent with what has been observed among adult patients, although there were higher rates of conjunctivitis, influenza, and urticaria among the pediatric patients, the statement noted. The biologic may increase the risk of infection, and patients should be evaluated for tuberculosis, hypersensitivity, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is also recommended that routine immunizations be completed before initiating treatment.

Ixekizumab was initially approved for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2016, followed by approvals for treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis in 2017, and for adults with ankylosing spondylitis in August 2019.

The biologic therapies – etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor blocker, and ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12/23 antagonist – were previously approved by the FDA for pediatric psoriasis, in children ages 4 years and older and 12 years and older, respectively.

Updated prescribing information for ixekizumab can be found on the Lilly website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ixekizumab for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in patients aged 6-17 years, according to an announcement from Lilly.

Patients need to be candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy and have no known hypersensitivity to the biologic.

The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the interleukin-17a antagonist were demonstrated in a phase 3 study that included 171 patients aged 6-17 years with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. At 12 weeks, 89% those on ixekizumab achieved a 75% improvement on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, compared with 25% of those on placebo, and 81% achieved a static Physician’s Global Assessment of clear or almost clear, compared with 11% of those on placebo, according to the Lilly statement.

The safety profile seen with ixekizumab (Taltz) among the pediatric patients with plaque psoriasis is consistent with what has been observed among adult patients, although there were higher rates of conjunctivitis, influenza, and urticaria among the pediatric patients, the statement noted. The biologic may increase the risk of infection, and patients should be evaluated for tuberculosis, hypersensitivity, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is also recommended that routine immunizations be completed before initiating treatment.

Ixekizumab was initially approved for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2016, followed by approvals for treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis in 2017, and for adults with ankylosing spondylitis in August 2019.

The biologic therapies – etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor blocker, and ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12/23 antagonist – were previously approved by the FDA for pediatric psoriasis, in children ages 4 years and older and 12 years and older, respectively.

Updated prescribing information for ixekizumab can be found on the Lilly website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ixekizumab for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in patients aged 6-17 years, according to an announcement from Lilly.

Patients need to be candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy and have no known hypersensitivity to the biologic.

The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the interleukin-17a antagonist were demonstrated in a phase 3 study that included 171 patients aged 6-17 years with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. At 12 weeks, 89% those on ixekizumab achieved a 75% improvement on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, compared with 25% of those on placebo, and 81% achieved a static Physician’s Global Assessment of clear or almost clear, compared with 11% of those on placebo, according to the Lilly statement.

The safety profile seen with ixekizumab (Taltz) among the pediatric patients with plaque psoriasis is consistent with what has been observed among adult patients, although there were higher rates of conjunctivitis, influenza, and urticaria among the pediatric patients, the statement noted. The biologic may increase the risk of infection, and patients should be evaluated for tuberculosis, hypersensitivity, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is also recommended that routine immunizations be completed before initiating treatment.

Ixekizumab was initially approved for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2016, followed by approvals for treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis in 2017, and for adults with ankylosing spondylitis in August 2019.

The biologic therapies – etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor blocker, and ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12/23 antagonist – were previously approved by the FDA for pediatric psoriasis, in children ages 4 years and older and 12 years and older, respectively.

Updated prescribing information for ixekizumab can be found on the Lilly website.

[email protected]

Not long ago, weekends for Cornelia Griggs, MD, meant making trips to the grocery store, chasing after two active toddlers, and eating brunch with her husband after a busy work week. But life has changed dramatically for the family since the spread of COVID-19. On a recent weekend, Dr. Griggs and her husband, Robert Goldstone, MD, spent their days off drafting a will.

Courtesy Dr. Cornelia Griggs

“We’re both doctors, and we know that health care workers have an increased risk of contracting COVID,” said Dr. Griggs, a pediatric surgery fellow at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “It felt like the responsible thing to do: Have a will in place to make sure our wishes are clear about who would manage our property and assets, and who would take care of our kids – God forbid.”

Outlining their final wishes is among many difficult decisions the doctors, both 36, have been forced to make in recent weeks. Dr. Goldstone, a general surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, is no longer returning to New York during his time off, said Dr. Griggs, who has had known COVID-19 exposures. The couple’s children, aged 4 and almost 2, are temporarily living with their grandparents in Connecticut to decrease their exposure risk.

“I felt like it was safer for all of them to be there while I was going back and forth from the hospital,” Dr. Griggs said. “My husband is in Boston. The kids are in Connecticut and I’m in New York. That inherently is hard because our whole family is split up. I don’t know when it will be safe for me to see them again.”

Health professional couples across the country are facing similar challenges as they navigate the risk of contracting COVID-19 at work, while trying to protect their families at home. From childcare dilemmas to quarantine quandaries to end-of-life considerations, partners who work in health care are confronting tough questions as the pandemic continues.

Courtesy Dr. Angela Weyand

Courtesy Dr. Bethany Agusala

Courtesy Dr. Sathya

Editor's Note, 3/31/20: Due to incorrect information provided, the hospital where Dr. Sathya's wife works was misidentified. We have removed the name of that hospital. The story does not include his wife's employer, because Dr. Sathya did not have permission to disclose her workplace and she wishes to remain anonymous.

[email protected]

Not long ago, weekends for Cornelia Griggs, MD, meant making trips to the grocery store, chasing after two active toddlers, and eating brunch with her husband after a busy work week. But life has changed dramatically for the family since the spread of COVID-19. On a recent weekend, Dr. Griggs and her husband, Robert Goldstone, MD, spent their days off drafting a will.

Courtesy Dr. Cornelia Griggs

“We’re both doctors, and we know that health care workers have an increased risk of contracting COVID,” said Dr. Griggs, a pediatric surgery fellow at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “It felt like the responsible thing to do: Have a will in place to make sure our wishes are clear about who would manage our property and assets, and who would take care of our kids – God forbid.”

Outlining their final wishes is among many difficult decisions the doctors, both 36, have been forced to make in recent weeks. Dr. Goldstone, a general surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, is no longer returning to New York during his time off, said Dr. Griggs, who has had known COVID-19 exposures. The couple’s children, aged 4 and almost 2, are temporarily living with their grandparents in Connecticut to decrease their exposure risk.

“I felt like it was safer for all of them to be there while I was going back and forth from the hospital,” Dr. Griggs said. “My husband is in Boston. The kids are in Connecticut and I’m in New York. That inherently is hard because our whole family is split up. I don’t know when it will be safe for me to see them again.”

Health professional couples across the country are facing similar challenges as they navigate the risk of contracting COVID-19 at work, while trying to protect their families at home. From childcare dilemmas to quarantine quandaries to end-of-life considerations, partners who work in health care are confronting tough questions as the pandemic continues.

Courtesy Dr. Angela Weyand

Courtesy Dr. Bethany Agusala

Courtesy Dr. Sathya

Editor's Note, 3/31/20: Due to incorrect information provided, the hospital where Dr. Sathya's wife works was misidentified. We have removed the name of that hospital. The story does not include his wife's employer, because Dr. Sathya did not have permission to disclose her workplace and she wishes to remain anonymous.

[email protected]

Not long ago, weekends for Cornelia Griggs, MD, meant making trips to the grocery store, chasing after two active toddlers, and eating brunch with her husband after a busy work week. But life has changed dramatically for the family since the spread of COVID-19. On a recent weekend, Dr. Griggs and her husband, Robert Goldstone, MD, spent their days off drafting a will.

Courtesy Dr. Cornelia Griggs

“We’re both doctors, and we know that health care workers have an increased risk of contracting COVID,” said Dr. Griggs, a pediatric surgery fellow at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “It felt like the responsible thing to do: Have a will in place to make sure our wishes are clear about who would manage our property and assets, and who would take care of our kids – God forbid.”

Outlining their final wishes is among many difficult decisions the doctors, both 36, have been forced to make in recent weeks. Dr. Goldstone, a general surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, is no longer returning to New York during his time off, said Dr. Griggs, who has had known COVID-19 exposures. The couple’s children, aged 4 and almost 2, are temporarily living with their grandparents in Connecticut to decrease their exposure risk.

“I felt like it was safer for all of them to be there while I was going back and forth from the hospital,” Dr. Griggs said. “My husband is in Boston. The kids are in Connecticut and I’m in New York. That inherently is hard because our whole family is split up. I don’t know when it will be safe for me to see them again.”

Health professional couples across the country are facing similar challenges as they navigate the risk of contracting COVID-19 at work, while trying to protect their families at home. From childcare dilemmas to quarantine quandaries to end-of-life considerations, partners who work in health care are confronting tough questions as the pandemic continues.

Courtesy Dr. Angela Weyand

Courtesy Dr. Bethany Agusala

Courtesy Dr. Sathya

Editor's Note, 3/31/20: Due to incorrect information provided, the hospital where Dr. Sathya's wife works was misidentified. We have removed the name of that hospital. The story does not include his wife's employer, because Dr. Sathya did not have permission to disclose her workplace and she wishes to remain anonymous.

[email protected]

Ramping up health system capacity for the coming surge of U.S. COVID-19 cases requires a commitment to boosting safety, capacity, and communication, according to a physician leader and a health workforce expert.

Polly Pittman, PhD, is hearing a lot of concern among health care workers that it’s difficult to find definitive and accurate information about how best to protect themselves and their families, she said during a webinar by the Alliance for Health Policy titled Health System Capacity: Protecting Frontline Health Workers. “The knowledge base is evolving very quickly,” said Dr. Pittman, Fitzhugh Mullan Professor of Health Workforce Equity at the Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington.

He noted that Permanente is “working hand in glove with state authorities throughout the country.” Efforts include establishing alternative sites for assessment and testing, as well as opening up closed hospitals and working with the National Guard and the Department of Defense to prepare mobile hospital units that can be deployed in areas with peak infection rates. “Having all of those options available to us is critically important,” he said.

To mitigate potential provider shortages, Dr. Pittman said, “All members of the care team could potentially do more” than their current licenses allow. Expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists, clinical laboratory staff, licensed practical nurses, and medical assistants can help with efficient care delivery.

Other measures include expedited licensing for near-graduates and nonpracticing foreign medical graduates, as well as relicensing for retired health care personnel and those who are not currently working directly with patients, she said.

Getting these things done “requires leadership on behalf of the licensing bodies,” as well as coordination with state regulatory authorities, Dr. Pittman pointed out.

Dr. Parodi called for state and federal governments to implement emergency declarations that suspend some existing health codes to achieve repurposing of staff. Getting these measures in place now will allow facilities “to be able to provide that in-time training now before the surge occurs. ... We are actively developing plans knowing that there’s going to be a need for more critical care.”

The game plan at Permanente, he said, is to repurpose critical care physicians to provide consultations to multiple hospitalists who are providing the bulk of frontline care. At the same time, they plan to repurpose other specialists to backfill the hospitalists, and to repurpose family medicine physicians to supplement staff in emergency departments and other frontline intake areas.

All the organizational measures being taken won’t be in vain if they increase preparedness for the long battle ahead, he said. “We need to double down on the work. ... We need to continue social distancing, and we’ve got to ramp up testing. Until we do that we have to hold the line on basic public health measures.”

Dr. Parodi is employed by Permanente. The panelists reported no disclosures relevant to the presentation, which was sponsored by the Alliance for Health Policy, the Commonwealth Fund, and the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation.

[email protected]

Ramping up health system capacity for the coming surge of U.S. COVID-19 cases requires a commitment to boosting safety, capacity, and communication, according to a physician leader and a health workforce expert.

Polly Pittman, PhD, is hearing a lot of concern among health care workers that it’s difficult to find definitive and accurate information about how best to protect themselves and their families, she said during a webinar by the Alliance for Health Policy titled Health System Capacity: Protecting Frontline Health Workers. “The knowledge base is evolving very quickly,” said Dr. Pittman, Fitzhugh Mullan Professor of Health Workforce Equity at the Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington.

He noted that Permanente is “working hand in glove with state authorities throughout the country.” Efforts include establishing alternative sites for assessment and testing, as well as opening up closed hospitals and working with the National Guard and the Department of Defense to prepare mobile hospital units that can be deployed in areas with peak infection rates. “Having all of those options available to us is critically important,” he said.

To mitigate potential provider shortages, Dr. Pittman said, “All members of the care team could potentially do more” than their current licenses allow. Expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists, clinical laboratory staff, licensed practical nurses, and medical assistants can help with efficient care delivery.

Other measures include expedited licensing for near-graduates and nonpracticing foreign medical graduates, as well as relicensing for retired health care personnel and those who are not currently working directly with patients, she said.

Getting these things done “requires leadership on behalf of the licensing bodies,” as well as coordination with state regulatory authorities, Dr. Pittman pointed out.

Dr. Parodi called for state and federal governments to implement emergency declarations that suspend some existing health codes to achieve repurposing of staff. Getting these measures in place now will allow facilities “to be able to provide that in-time training now before the surge occurs. ... We are actively developing plans knowing that there’s going to be a need for more critical care.”

The game plan at Permanente, he said, is to repurpose critical care physicians to provide consultations to multiple hospitalists who are providing the bulk of frontline care. At the same time, they plan to repurpose other specialists to backfill the hospitalists, and to repurpose family medicine physicians to supplement staff in emergency departments and other frontline intake areas.

All the organizational measures being taken won’t be in vain if they increase preparedness for the long battle ahead, he said. “We need to double down on the work. ... We need to continue social distancing, and we’ve got to ramp up testing. Until we do that we have to hold the line on basic public health measures.”

Dr. Parodi is employed by Permanente. The panelists reported no disclosures relevant to the presentation, which was sponsored by the Alliance for Health Policy, the Commonwealth Fund, and the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation.

[email protected]

Ramping up health system capacity for the coming surge of U.S. COVID-19 cases requires a commitment to boosting safety, capacity, and communication, according to a physician leader and a health workforce expert.

Polly Pittman, PhD, is hearing a lot of concern among health care workers that it’s difficult to find definitive and accurate information about how best to protect themselves and their families, she said during a webinar by the Alliance for Health Policy titled Health System Capacity: Protecting Frontline Health Workers. “The knowledge base is evolving very quickly,” said Dr. Pittman, Fitzhugh Mullan Professor of Health Workforce Equity at the Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington.

He noted that Permanente is “working hand in glove with state authorities throughout the country.” Efforts include establishing alternative sites for assessment and testing, as well as opening up closed hospitals and working with the National Guard and the Department of Defense to prepare mobile hospital units that can be deployed in areas with peak infection rates. “Having all of those options available to us is critically important,” he said.

To mitigate potential provider shortages, Dr. Pittman said, “All members of the care team could potentially do more” than their current licenses allow. Expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists, clinical laboratory staff, licensed practical nurses, and medical assistants can help with efficient care delivery.

Other measures include expedited licensing for near-graduates and nonpracticing foreign medical graduates, as well as relicensing for retired health care personnel and those who are not currently working directly with patients, she said.

Getting these things done “requires leadership on behalf of the licensing bodies,” as well as coordination with state regulatory authorities, Dr. Pittman pointed out.

Dr. Parodi called for state and federal governments to implement emergency declarations that suspend some existing health codes to achieve repurposing of staff. Getting these measures in place now will allow facilities “to be able to provide that in-time training now before the surge occurs. ... We are actively developing plans knowing that there’s going to be a need for more critical care.”

The game plan at Permanente, he said, is to repurpose critical care physicians to provide consultations to multiple hospitalists who are providing the bulk of frontline care. At the same time, they plan to repurpose other specialists to backfill the hospitalists, and to repurpose family medicine physicians to supplement staff in emergency departments and other frontline intake areas.

All the organizational measures being taken won’t be in vain if they increase preparedness for the long battle ahead, he said. “We need to double down on the work. ... We need to continue social distancing, and we’ve got to ramp up testing. Until we do that we have to hold the line on basic public health measures.”

Dr. Parodi is employed by Permanente. The panelists reported no disclosures relevant to the presentation, which was sponsored by the Alliance for Health Policy, the Commonwealth Fund, and the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation.

[email protected]

LAHAINA, HAWAII – General dermatologists can have a high degree of confidence in treating patients with stage I mycosis fungoides without bringing in a medical oncologist, Trilokraj Tejasvi, MBBS, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This approach is in the best interest of patients with stage I mycosis fungoides, the skin-limited, patch/plaque form of the disease that generally responds well to skin-directed therapies without needing to resort to the medical oncologist’s arsenal of toxic treatments.

“For many medical oncologists, a lymphoma is a lymphoma. The first thing they give is CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), and all the variants of CHOP,” cautioned Dr. Tejasvi, a dermatologist who is director of the cutaneous lymphoma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and chief of the dermatology service at the Ann Arbor Veteran Affairs Hospital.

Stage IA mycosis fungoides is defined under the TNMB (tumor, node, metastasis, blood) classification as patches and/or plaques covering less than 10% of body surface area along with negative nodes, no metastases, and no or low burden of disease in the blood. Stage IB differs only in that it features 10% or greater body surface area involvement. The extent of body surface area involvement can be estimated by hands-on measurement in which the area of one of the patient’s hands – palm plus fingers – is considered equivalent to 1% of that individual’s total body surface area.

The first question patients newly diagnosed with a cutaneous T-cell lymphoma ask concerns their prognosis. For those with stage IA or IB mycosis fungoides, the news is very good, as highlighted in a retrospective study of nearly 1,400 patients with mycosis fungoides, 71% of whom presented with patch/plaque stage disease (J Clin Oncol. 2010 Nov 1;28[31]:4730-9).

The median overall survival was 35.5 years in patients with stage IA disease and 21.5 years in those with stage IB disease.

“I tell patients with stage IA disease that whether we treat it or not will not change the course of their life,” Dr. Tejasvri said.

His message to patients with stage IB disease is that, because of their 38% risk of disease progression, he wants to see them in follow-up annually for the rest of their life.

Stage IIA disease – that is, patches and/or plaques with lymph node involvement with no effacement – is a tipping point at which serious consideration should be given to possible referral to a specialized multidisciplinary lymphoma center, in his view. That’s because the 10-year overall survival rate is only 52%.

Topical therapies

Topical corticosteroids remain the time-honored first-line skin-directed treatment. The mechanism of benefit involves induction of apoptosis and inhibition of lymphocyte binding. In one prospective study, clobetasol propionate achieved a 94% overall response rate in patients with stage IA or B disease, with minimal toxicity.

Alternatives include topical 5% imiquimod (Aldara), with an overall response rate of 80% and complete response rate of 45% in a 20-patient study. A newer formulation of mechlorethamine gel (Valchlor), is reported to have a 59% overall response rate and a sustained response in 86% of initial responders. For refractory skin lesions, 1% bexarotene gel (Targretin) is an option, with overall response rates of 44%-63% reported in prospective trials.

“I like it if the patient’s insurance covers it. Otherwise, it’s like buying a Prius: it’s $30,000 for a 45-g tube, which is insane,” Dr. Tejasvi commented.

Narrow-band UVB phototherapy is an effective modality for thin plaques and patches, as is PUVA for thicker ones. Dr. Tejasvi typically treats with topical steroids and/or phototherapy for at least 3 months before tapering.

When to suspect mycosis fungoides

“Mycosis fungoides is a great masquerader,” the dermatologist observed. For that reason, it deserves to be included in the differential diagnosis of an atypical psoriasiform or eczematoid rash, any new-onset rash in an elderly patient, or a rash with fever, night sweats, and unintended weight loss in a patient of any age. Generalized erythema with severe itching is another red flag.

“This pruritus is so severe that the only other condition which in my clinical practice would match it is Norwegian scabies,” according to Dr. Tejasvi.

Polychromatic patches or plaques in skin of color warrant further investigation as possible mycosis fungoides, he added.

Dr. Tejasvi reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

LAHAINA, HAWAII – General dermatologists can have a high degree of confidence in treating patients with stage I mycosis fungoides without bringing in a medical oncologist, Trilokraj Tejasvi, MBBS, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This approach is in the best interest of patients with stage I mycosis fungoides, the skin-limited, patch/plaque form of the disease that generally responds well to skin-directed therapies without needing to resort to the medical oncologist’s arsenal of toxic treatments.

“For many medical oncologists, a lymphoma is a lymphoma. The first thing they give is CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), and all the variants of CHOP,” cautioned Dr. Tejasvi, a dermatologist who is director of the cutaneous lymphoma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and chief of the dermatology service at the Ann Arbor Veteran Affairs Hospital.

Stage IA mycosis fungoides is defined under the TNMB (tumor, node, metastasis, blood) classification as patches and/or plaques covering less than 10% of body surface area along with negative nodes, no metastases, and no or low burden of disease in the blood. Stage IB differs only in that it features 10% or greater body surface area involvement. The extent of body surface area involvement can be estimated by hands-on measurement in which the area of one of the patient’s hands – palm plus fingers – is considered equivalent to 1% of that individual’s total body surface area.

The first question patients newly diagnosed with a cutaneous T-cell lymphoma ask concerns their prognosis. For those with stage IA or IB mycosis fungoides, the news is very good, as highlighted in a retrospective study of nearly 1,400 patients with mycosis fungoides, 71% of whom presented with patch/plaque stage disease (J Clin Oncol. 2010 Nov 1;28[31]:4730-9).

The median overall survival was 35.5 years in patients with stage IA disease and 21.5 years in those with stage IB disease.

“I tell patients with stage IA disease that whether we treat it or not will not change the course of their life,” Dr. Tejasvri said.

His message to patients with stage IB disease is that, because of their 38% risk of disease progression, he wants to see them in follow-up annually for the rest of their life.

Stage IIA disease – that is, patches and/or plaques with lymph node involvement with no effacement – is a tipping point at which serious consideration should be given to possible referral to a specialized multidisciplinary lymphoma center, in his view. That’s because the 10-year overall survival rate is only 52%.

Topical therapies

Topical corticosteroids remain the time-honored first-line skin-directed treatment. The mechanism of benefit involves induction of apoptosis and inhibition of lymphocyte binding. In one prospective study, clobetasol propionate achieved a 94% overall response rate in patients with stage IA or B disease, with minimal toxicity.

Alternatives include topical 5% imiquimod (Aldara), with an overall response rate of 80% and complete response rate of 45% in a 20-patient study. A newer formulation of mechlorethamine gel (Valchlor), is reported to have a 59% overall response rate and a sustained response in 86% of initial responders. For refractory skin lesions, 1% bexarotene gel (Targretin) is an option, with overall response rates of 44%-63% reported in prospective trials.

“I like it if the patient’s insurance covers it. Otherwise, it’s like buying a Prius: it’s $30,000 for a 45-g tube, which is insane,” Dr. Tejasvi commented.

Narrow-band UVB phototherapy is an effective modality for thin plaques and patches, as is PUVA for thicker ones. Dr. Tejasvi typically treats with topical steroids and/or phototherapy for at least 3 months before tapering.

When to suspect mycosis fungoides

“Mycosis fungoides is a great masquerader,” the dermatologist observed. For that reason, it deserves to be included in the differential diagnosis of an atypical psoriasiform or eczematoid rash, any new-onset rash in an elderly patient, or a rash with fever, night sweats, and unintended weight loss in a patient of any age. Generalized erythema with severe itching is another red flag.

“This pruritus is so severe that the only other condition which in my clinical practice would match it is Norwegian scabies,” according to Dr. Tejasvi.

Polychromatic patches or plaques in skin of color warrant further investigation as possible mycosis fungoides, he added.

Dr. Tejasvi reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

LAHAINA, HAWAII – General dermatologists can have a high degree of confidence in treating patients with stage I mycosis fungoides without bringing in a medical oncologist, Trilokraj Tejasvi, MBBS, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This approach is in the best interest of patients with stage I mycosis fungoides, the skin-limited, patch/plaque form of the disease that generally responds well to skin-directed therapies without needing to resort to the medical oncologist’s arsenal of toxic treatments.

“For many medical oncologists, a lymphoma is a lymphoma. The first thing they give is CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), and all the variants of CHOP,” cautioned Dr. Tejasvi, a dermatologist who is director of the cutaneous lymphoma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and chief of the dermatology service at the Ann Arbor Veteran Affairs Hospital.

Stage IA mycosis fungoides is defined under the TNMB (tumor, node, metastasis, blood) classification as patches and/or plaques covering less than 10% of body surface area along with negative nodes, no metastases, and no or low burden of disease in the blood. Stage IB differs only in that it features 10% or greater body surface area involvement. The extent of body surface area involvement can be estimated by hands-on measurement in which the area of one of the patient’s hands – palm plus fingers – is considered equivalent to 1% of that individual’s total body surface area.

The first question patients newly diagnosed with a cutaneous T-cell lymphoma ask concerns their prognosis. For those with stage IA or IB mycosis fungoides, the news is very good, as highlighted in a retrospective study of nearly 1,400 patients with mycosis fungoides, 71% of whom presented with patch/plaque stage disease (J Clin Oncol. 2010 Nov 1;28[31]:4730-9).

The median overall survival was 35.5 years in patients with stage IA disease and 21.5 years in those with stage IB disease.

“I tell patients with stage IA disease that whether we treat it or not will not change the course of their life,” Dr. Tejasvri said.

His message to patients with stage IB disease is that, because of their 38% risk of disease progression, he wants to see them in follow-up annually for the rest of their life.

Stage IIA disease – that is, patches and/or plaques with lymph node involvement with no effacement – is a tipping point at which serious consideration should be given to possible referral to a specialized multidisciplinary lymphoma center, in his view. That’s because the 10-year overall survival rate is only 52%.

Topical therapies

Topical corticosteroids remain the time-honored first-line skin-directed treatment. The mechanism of benefit involves induction of apoptosis and inhibition of lymphocyte binding. In one prospective study, clobetasol propionate achieved a 94% overall response rate in patients with stage IA or B disease, with minimal toxicity.

Alternatives include topical 5% imiquimod (Aldara), with an overall response rate of 80% and complete response rate of 45% in a 20-patient study. A newer formulation of mechlorethamine gel (Valchlor), is reported to have a 59% overall response rate and a sustained response in 86% of initial responders. For refractory skin lesions, 1% bexarotene gel (Targretin) is an option, with overall response rates of 44%-63% reported in prospective trials.

“I like it if the patient’s insurance covers it. Otherwise, it’s like buying a Prius: it’s $30,000 for a 45-g tube, which is insane,” Dr. Tejasvi commented.

Narrow-band UVB phototherapy is an effective modality for thin plaques and patches, as is PUVA for thicker ones. Dr. Tejasvi typically treats with topical steroids and/or phototherapy for at least 3 months before tapering.

When to suspect mycosis fungoides

“Mycosis fungoides is a great masquerader,” the dermatologist observed. For that reason, it deserves to be included in the differential diagnosis of an atypical psoriasiform or eczematoid rash, any new-onset rash in an elderly patient, or a rash with fever, night sweats, and unintended weight loss in a patient of any age. Generalized erythema with severe itching is another red flag.

“This pruritus is so severe that the only other condition which in my clinical practice would match it is Norwegian scabies,” according to Dr. Tejasvi.

Polychromatic patches or plaques in skin of color warrant further investigation as possible mycosis fungoides, he added.

Dr. Tejasvi reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

As the proportion of patients infected with COVID-19 continues to rise in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is facilitating access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma for use in patients with serious or immediately life-threatening COVID-19 infections.

While clinical trials are underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of administering convalescent plasma to patients with COVID-19, the FDA is granting clinicians permission for use of investigational convalescent plasma under single-patient emergency Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs), since no known cure exists and a vaccine is more than 1 year away from becoming available.

This allows the use of an investigational drug for the treatment of an individual patient by a licensed physician upon FDA authorization. This does not include the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the prevention of infection, according to a statement issued by the agency on March 24.

“It is possible that convalescent plasma that contains antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) might be effective against the infection,” the FDA statement reads. “Use of convalescent plasma has been studied in outbreaks of other respiratory infections, including the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, 2003 SARS-CoV-1 epidemic, and the 2012 MERS-CoV epidemic. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not been shown to be effective in every disease studied.”

“I think the FDA got caught initially a little flat-footed when it came to the development of COVID-19 tests, but they’re quickly catching up,” Peter J. Pitts, who was the FDA’s associate commissioner from 2002 to 2004, said in an interview. “I think that the attitude now is, ‘If it’s safe, let’s create a pathway to see how these things work in the real world.’ I think that’s going to be as true for treatments to lessen the symptoms and shorten the duration of the disease, as well as convalescent plasma as a potential alternative to a yet-to-be-developed vaccine.”

At the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Terry B. Gernsheimer, MD, and her colleagues are recruiting recovered COVID-19 patients to donate plasma for seriously ill patients affected with the virus. “The thought of using convalescent plasma makes total sense, because it’s immediately available, and it’s something that we can try to give people,” said Dr. Gernsheimer, a hematologist who is professor of medicine at the medical school. “It’s been used in China, and reports should be coming out shortly about their experience with this.”

In a case series that appeared in JAMA on March 27 (doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4783), Chinese researchers led by Chenguang Shen, PhD, reported findings from five critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome who received a transfusion with convalescent plasma at Shenzhen Third People’s Hospital 10 and 22 days after hospital admission. The patients ranged in age from 36 to 73 years, three were men, and all were receiving mechanical ventilation at the time of treatment.

Dr. Shen and colleagues reported that viral loads decreased and became negative within 12 days following the transfusion. Three of the patients were discharged from the hospital after a length of stay that ranged from 51 to 55 days, and two remain in stable condition at 37 days after the transfusion. The researchers pointed out that all patients received antiviral agents, including interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir, during and following convalescent plasma treatment, “which also may have contributed to the viral clearance observed.”

Under the FDA policy on emergency IND use, COVID-19 convalescent plasma must only be collected from recovered individuals if they are eligible to donate blood, required testing must be performed, and the donation must be found suitable.

Potential donors “are going to be screened the way all blood donors are screened,” Dr. Gernsheimer said. “It’s not going to be any less safe than any unit of plasma that’s on the shelf that comes from our volunteer donors. There are always transfusion reactions that we have to worry about, [and] there are potentially unknown pathogens that we don’t yet know about that we are not yet testing for. It’s the regular risk we see with any unit of plasma.”

She added that COVID-19 survivors appear to start increasing their titer of the antibody around day 28. “We’ll be looking for recovered individuals who have had a documented infection, and whose symptoms started about 28 days before we collect,” she said.

The FDA advises clinicians to address several considerations for donor eligibility, including prior diagnosis of COVID-19 documented by a laboratory test; complete resolution of symptoms at least 14 days prior to donation; female donors negative for HLA antibodies or male donors, and negative results for COVID-19 either from one or more nasopharyngeal swab specimens or by a molecular diagnostic test from blood. [A partial list of available tests can be accessed on the FDA website.] The agency also advises that donors have defined SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody titers, if testing can be conducted (optimally greater than 1:320).

Patients eligible to receive COVID-19 convalescent plasma must have a severe or immediately life-threatening infection with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The agency defines severe disease as dyspnea, respiratory frequency of 30 per minute or greater, blood oxygen saturation of 93% or less, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of less than 300, and/or lung infiltrates of greater than 50% within 24-48 hours. Life-threatening disease is defined as respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction or failure. Patients must provide informed consent.

The potential risks of receiving COVID-19 convalescent plasma remain unknown, according to Dr. Gernsheimer. “What some people have thought about is, could there be such an inflammatory response with the virus that we would initially see these patients get worse?” she said. “My understanding is that has not occurred in China yet, but we don’t have all those data. But we always worry if we have something that’s going to cause inflammation around an infection, for example, that could initially make it more difficult to breathe if it’s a lung infection. So far, my understanding is that has not been seen.”

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response within 4-8 hours, requesting clinicians may complete form 3296 and submit it by email to [email protected].

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response in less than 4 hours, or if the clinician is unable to complete and submit form 3926 because of extenuating circumstances, verbal authorization can be sought by calling the FDA’s Office of Emergency Operations at 1-866-300-4374.

The FDA is working with the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other government partners to develop protocols for use by multiple investigators in order to coordinate the collection and use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“It’s crucial that data be captured for every patient so that we really understand what safety and effectiveness looks like on as close to a real-world level as we can, as quickly as we can,” said Mr. Pitts, who is president and cofounder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, and who also does consulting work for the FDA. “I understand that health care professionals are overworked and overburdened right now. I applaud them for their heroic work. But that doesn’t mean that we can shirk off collecting the data. When I was at the FDA, I helped address the SARS epidemic. The agency attitude at that point was, ‘Let’s get things that just might work through the process, as long as the cure isn’t going to be worse than the disease.’ I think that’s the attitude that’s leading the charge today.”

[email protected]

As the proportion of patients infected with COVID-19 continues to rise in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is facilitating access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma for use in patients with serious or immediately life-threatening COVID-19 infections.

While clinical trials are underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of administering convalescent plasma to patients with COVID-19, the FDA is granting clinicians permission for use of investigational convalescent plasma under single-patient emergency Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs), since no known cure exists and a vaccine is more than 1 year away from becoming available.

This allows the use of an investigational drug for the treatment of an individual patient by a licensed physician upon FDA authorization. This does not include the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the prevention of infection, according to a statement issued by the agency on March 24.

“It is possible that convalescent plasma that contains antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) might be effective against the infection,” the FDA statement reads. “Use of convalescent plasma has been studied in outbreaks of other respiratory infections, including the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, 2003 SARS-CoV-1 epidemic, and the 2012 MERS-CoV epidemic. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not been shown to be effective in every disease studied.”

“I think the FDA got caught initially a little flat-footed when it came to the development of COVID-19 tests, but they’re quickly catching up,” Peter J. Pitts, who was the FDA’s associate commissioner from 2002 to 2004, said in an interview. “I think that the attitude now is, ‘If it’s safe, let’s create a pathway to see how these things work in the real world.’ I think that’s going to be as true for treatments to lessen the symptoms and shorten the duration of the disease, as well as convalescent plasma as a potential alternative to a yet-to-be-developed vaccine.”

At the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Terry B. Gernsheimer, MD, and her colleagues are recruiting recovered COVID-19 patients to donate plasma for seriously ill patients affected with the virus. “The thought of using convalescent plasma makes total sense, because it’s immediately available, and it’s something that we can try to give people,” said Dr. Gernsheimer, a hematologist who is professor of medicine at the medical school. “It’s been used in China, and reports should be coming out shortly about their experience with this.”

In a case series that appeared in JAMA on March 27 (doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4783), Chinese researchers led by Chenguang Shen, PhD, reported findings from five critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome who received a transfusion with convalescent plasma at Shenzhen Third People’s Hospital 10 and 22 days after hospital admission. The patients ranged in age from 36 to 73 years, three were men, and all were receiving mechanical ventilation at the time of treatment.

Dr. Shen and colleagues reported that viral loads decreased and became negative within 12 days following the transfusion. Three of the patients were discharged from the hospital after a length of stay that ranged from 51 to 55 days, and two remain in stable condition at 37 days after the transfusion. The researchers pointed out that all patients received antiviral agents, including interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir, during and following convalescent plasma treatment, “which also may have contributed to the viral clearance observed.”

Under the FDA policy on emergency IND use, COVID-19 convalescent plasma must only be collected from recovered individuals if they are eligible to donate blood, required testing must be performed, and the donation must be found suitable.

Potential donors “are going to be screened the way all blood donors are screened,” Dr. Gernsheimer said. “It’s not going to be any less safe than any unit of plasma that’s on the shelf that comes from our volunteer donors. There are always transfusion reactions that we have to worry about, [and] there are potentially unknown pathogens that we don’t yet know about that we are not yet testing for. It’s the regular risk we see with any unit of plasma.”

She added that COVID-19 survivors appear to start increasing their titer of the antibody around day 28. “We’ll be looking for recovered individuals who have had a documented infection, and whose symptoms started about 28 days before we collect,” she said.

The FDA advises clinicians to address several considerations for donor eligibility, including prior diagnosis of COVID-19 documented by a laboratory test; complete resolution of symptoms at least 14 days prior to donation; female donors negative for HLA antibodies or male donors, and negative results for COVID-19 either from one or more nasopharyngeal swab specimens or by a molecular diagnostic test from blood. [A partial list of available tests can be accessed on the FDA website.] The agency also advises that donors have defined SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody titers, if testing can be conducted (optimally greater than 1:320).

Patients eligible to receive COVID-19 convalescent plasma must have a severe or immediately life-threatening infection with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The agency defines severe disease as dyspnea, respiratory frequency of 30 per minute or greater, blood oxygen saturation of 93% or less, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of less than 300, and/or lung infiltrates of greater than 50% within 24-48 hours. Life-threatening disease is defined as respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction or failure. Patients must provide informed consent.

The potential risks of receiving COVID-19 convalescent plasma remain unknown, according to Dr. Gernsheimer. “What some people have thought about is, could there be such an inflammatory response with the virus that we would initially see these patients get worse?” she said. “My understanding is that has not occurred in China yet, but we don’t have all those data. But we always worry if we have something that’s going to cause inflammation around an infection, for example, that could initially make it more difficult to breathe if it’s a lung infection. So far, my understanding is that has not been seen.”

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response within 4-8 hours, requesting clinicians may complete form 3296 and submit it by email to [email protected].

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response in less than 4 hours, or if the clinician is unable to complete and submit form 3926 because of extenuating circumstances, verbal authorization can be sought by calling the FDA’s Office of Emergency Operations at 1-866-300-4374.

The FDA is working with the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other government partners to develop protocols for use by multiple investigators in order to coordinate the collection and use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“It’s crucial that data be captured for every patient so that we really understand what safety and effectiveness looks like on as close to a real-world level as we can, as quickly as we can,” said Mr. Pitts, who is president and cofounder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, and who also does consulting work for the FDA. “I understand that health care professionals are overworked and overburdened right now. I applaud them for their heroic work. But that doesn’t mean that we can shirk off collecting the data. When I was at the FDA, I helped address the SARS epidemic. The agency attitude at that point was, ‘Let’s get things that just might work through the process, as long as the cure isn’t going to be worse than the disease.’ I think that’s the attitude that’s leading the charge today.”

[email protected]

As the proportion of patients infected with COVID-19 continues to rise in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is facilitating access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma for use in patients with serious or immediately life-threatening COVID-19 infections.

While clinical trials are underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of administering convalescent plasma to patients with COVID-19, the FDA is granting clinicians permission for use of investigational convalescent plasma under single-patient emergency Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs), since no known cure exists and a vaccine is more than 1 year away from becoming available.

This allows the use of an investigational drug for the treatment of an individual patient by a licensed physician upon FDA authorization. This does not include the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the prevention of infection, according to a statement issued by the agency on March 24.

“It is possible that convalescent plasma that contains antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) might be effective against the infection,” the FDA statement reads. “Use of convalescent plasma has been studied in outbreaks of other respiratory infections, including the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, 2003 SARS-CoV-1 epidemic, and the 2012 MERS-CoV epidemic. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not been shown to be effective in every disease studied.”

“I think the FDA got caught initially a little flat-footed when it came to the development of COVID-19 tests, but they’re quickly catching up,” Peter J. Pitts, who was the FDA’s associate commissioner from 2002 to 2004, said in an interview. “I think that the attitude now is, ‘If it’s safe, let’s create a pathway to see how these things work in the real world.’ I think that’s going to be as true for treatments to lessen the symptoms and shorten the duration of the disease, as well as convalescent plasma as a potential alternative to a yet-to-be-developed vaccine.”

At the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Terry B. Gernsheimer, MD, and her colleagues are recruiting recovered COVID-19 patients to donate plasma for seriously ill patients affected with the virus. “The thought of using convalescent plasma makes total sense, because it’s immediately available, and it’s something that we can try to give people,” said Dr. Gernsheimer, a hematologist who is professor of medicine at the medical school. “It’s been used in China, and reports should be coming out shortly about their experience with this.”

In a case series that appeared in JAMA on March 27 (doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4783), Chinese researchers led by Chenguang Shen, PhD, reported findings from five critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome who received a transfusion with convalescent plasma at Shenzhen Third People’s Hospital 10 and 22 days after hospital admission. The patients ranged in age from 36 to 73 years, three were men, and all were receiving mechanical ventilation at the time of treatment.

Dr. Shen and colleagues reported that viral loads decreased and became negative within 12 days following the transfusion. Three of the patients were discharged from the hospital after a length of stay that ranged from 51 to 55 days, and two remain in stable condition at 37 days after the transfusion. The researchers pointed out that all patients received antiviral agents, including interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir, during and following convalescent plasma treatment, “which also may have contributed to the viral clearance observed.”

Under the FDA policy on emergency IND use, COVID-19 convalescent plasma must only be collected from recovered individuals if they are eligible to donate blood, required testing must be performed, and the donation must be found suitable.

Potential donors “are going to be screened the way all blood donors are screened,” Dr. Gernsheimer said. “It’s not going to be any less safe than any unit of plasma that’s on the shelf that comes from our volunteer donors. There are always transfusion reactions that we have to worry about, [and] there are potentially unknown pathogens that we don’t yet know about that we are not yet testing for. It’s the regular risk we see with any unit of plasma.”

She added that COVID-19 survivors appear to start increasing their titer of the antibody around day 28. “We’ll be looking for recovered individuals who have had a documented infection, and whose symptoms started about 28 days before we collect,” she said.

The FDA advises clinicians to address several considerations for donor eligibility, including prior diagnosis of COVID-19 documented by a laboratory test; complete resolution of symptoms at least 14 days prior to donation; female donors negative for HLA antibodies or male donors, and negative results for COVID-19 either from one or more nasopharyngeal swab specimens or by a molecular diagnostic test from blood. [A partial list of available tests can be accessed on the FDA website.] The agency also advises that donors have defined SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody titers, if testing can be conducted (optimally greater than 1:320).

Patients eligible to receive COVID-19 convalescent plasma must have a severe or immediately life-threatening infection with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The agency defines severe disease as dyspnea, respiratory frequency of 30 per minute or greater, blood oxygen saturation of 93% or less, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of less than 300, and/or lung infiltrates of greater than 50% within 24-48 hours. Life-threatening disease is defined as respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction or failure. Patients must provide informed consent.

The potential risks of receiving COVID-19 convalescent plasma remain unknown, according to Dr. Gernsheimer. “What some people have thought about is, could there be such an inflammatory response with the virus that we would initially see these patients get worse?” she said. “My understanding is that has not occurred in China yet, but we don’t have all those data. But we always worry if we have something that’s going to cause inflammation around an infection, for example, that could initially make it more difficult to breathe if it’s a lung infection. So far, my understanding is that has not been seen.”

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response within 4-8 hours, requesting clinicians may complete form 3296 and submit it by email to [email protected].

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response in less than 4 hours, or if the clinician is unable to complete and submit form 3926 because of extenuating circumstances, verbal authorization can be sought by calling the FDA’s Office of Emergency Operations at 1-866-300-4374.

The FDA is working with the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other government partners to develop protocols for use by multiple investigators in order to coordinate the collection and use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“It’s crucial that data be captured for every patient so that we really understand what safety and effectiveness looks like on as close to a real-world level as we can, as quickly as we can,” said Mr. Pitts, who is president and cofounder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, and who also does consulting work for the FDA. “I understand that health care professionals are overworked and overburdened right now. I applaud them for their heroic work. But that doesn’t mean that we can shirk off collecting the data. When I was at the FDA, I helped address the SARS epidemic. The agency attitude at that point was, ‘Let’s get things that just might work through the process, as long as the cure isn’t going to be worse than the disease.’ I think that’s the attitude that’s leading the charge today.”

[email protected]

Reports of three neonates with elevated IgM antibody concentrations whose mothers had COVID-19 in two articles raise questions about whether the infants may have been infected with the virus in utero.

Courtesy CDC

The data, while provocative, “are not conclusive and do not prove in utero transmission” of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), editorialists cautioned.

“The suggestion of in utero transmission rests on IgM detection in these 3 neonates, and IgM is a challenging way to diagnose many congenital infections,” David W. Kimberlin, MD, and Sergio Stagno, MD, of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in their editorial. “IgM antibodies are too large to cross the placenta and so detection in a newborn reasonably could be assumed to reflect fetal production following in utero infection. However, most congenital infections are not diagnosed based on IgM detection because IgM assays can be prone to false-positive and false-negative results, along with cross-reactivity and testing challenges.”

None of the three infants had a positive reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result, “so there is not virologic evidence for congenital infection in these cases to support the serologic suggestion of in utero transmission,” the editorialists noted.
 

Examining the possibility of vertical transmission

A prior case series of nine pregnant women found no transmission of the virus from mother to child, but the question of in utero transmission is not settled, said Lan Dong, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues. In their research letter, the investigators described a newborn with elevated IgM antibodies to novel coronavirus 2019 born to a mother with COVID-19. The infant was delivered by cesarean section February 22, 2020, at Renmin Hospital in a negative-pressure isolation room.

“The mother wore an N95 mask and did not hold the infant,” the researchers said. “The neonate had no symptoms and was immediately quarantined in the neonatal intensive care unit. At 2 hours of age, the SARS-CoV-2 IgG level was 140.32 AU/mL and the IgM level was 45.83 AU/mL.” Although the infant may have been infected at delivery, IgM antibodies usually take days to appear, Dr. Dong and colleagues wrote. “The infant’s repeatedly negative RT-PCR test results on nasopharyngeal swabs are difficult to explain, although these tests are not always positive with infection. ... Additional examination of maternal and newborn samples should be done to confirm this preliminary observation.”
 

A review of infants’ serologic characteristics

Hui Zeng, MD, of the department of laboratory medicine at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues retrospectively reviewed clinical records and laboratory results for six pregnant women with COVID-19, according to a study in JAMA. The women had mild clinical manifestations and were admitted to Zhongnan Hospital between February 16 and March 6. “All had cesarean deliveries in their third trimester in negative pressure isolation rooms,” the investigators said. “All mothers wore masks, and all medical staff wore protective suits and double masks. The infants were isolated from their mothers immediately after delivery.”

Two of the infants had elevated IgG and IgM concentrations. IgM “is not usually transferred from mother to fetus because of its larger macromolecular structure. ... Whether the placentas of women in this study were damaged and abnormal is unknown,” Dr. Zeng and colleagues said. “Alternatively, IgM could have been produced by the infant if the virus crossed the placenta.”

“Although these 2 studies deserve careful evaluation, more definitive evidence is needed” before physicians can “counsel pregnant women that their fetuses are at risk from congenital infection with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno concluded.

Dr. Dong and associates had no conflicts of interest. Their work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Project and others. Dr. Zeng and colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures. Their study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Zhongnan Hospital. Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Dong L et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4621; Zeng H et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4861.

Reports of three neonates with elevated IgM antibody concentrations whose mothers had COVID-19 in two articles raise questions about whether the infants may have been infected with the virus in utero.

Courtesy CDC

The data, while provocative, “are not conclusive and do not prove in utero transmission” of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), editorialists cautioned.

“The suggestion of in utero transmission rests on IgM detection in these 3 neonates, and IgM is a challenging way to diagnose many congenital infections,” David W. Kimberlin, MD, and Sergio Stagno, MD, of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in their editorial. “IgM antibodies are too large to cross the placenta and so detection in a newborn reasonably could be assumed to reflect fetal production following in utero infection. However, most congenital infections are not diagnosed based on IgM detection because IgM assays can be prone to false-positive and false-negative results, along with cross-reactivity and testing challenges.”

None of the three infants had a positive reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result, “so there is not virologic evidence for congenital infection in these cases to support the serologic suggestion of in utero transmission,” the editorialists noted.
 

Examining the possibility of vertical transmission

A prior case series of nine pregnant women found no transmission of the virus from mother to child, but the question of in utero transmission is not settled, said Lan Dong, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues. In their research letter, the investigators described a newborn with elevated IgM antibodies to novel coronavirus 2019 born to a mother with COVID-19. The infant was delivered by cesarean section February 22, 2020, at Renmin Hospital in a negative-pressure isolation room.

“The mother wore an N95 mask and did not hold the infant,” the researchers said. “The neonate had no symptoms and was immediately quarantined in the neonatal intensive care unit. At 2 hours of age, the SARS-CoV-2 IgG level was 140.32 AU/mL and the IgM level was 45.83 AU/mL.” Although the infant may have been infected at delivery, IgM antibodies usually take days to appear, Dr. Dong and colleagues wrote. “The infant’s repeatedly negative RT-PCR test results on nasopharyngeal swabs are difficult to explain, although these tests are not always positive with infection. ... Additional examination of maternal and newborn samples should be done to confirm this preliminary observation.”
 

A review of infants’ serologic characteristics

Hui Zeng, MD, of the department of laboratory medicine at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues retrospectively reviewed clinical records and laboratory results for six pregnant women with COVID-19, according to a study in JAMA. The women had mild clinical manifestations and were admitted to Zhongnan Hospital between February 16 and March 6. “All had cesarean deliveries in their third trimester in negative pressure isolation rooms,” the investigators said. “All mothers wore masks, and all medical staff wore protective suits and double masks. The infants were isolated from their mothers immediately after delivery.”

Two of the infants had elevated IgG and IgM concentrations. IgM “is not usually transferred from mother to fetus because of its larger macromolecular structure. ... Whether the placentas of women in this study were damaged and abnormal is unknown,” Dr. Zeng and colleagues said. “Alternatively, IgM could have been produced by the infant if the virus crossed the placenta.”

“Although these 2 studies deserve careful evaluation, more definitive evidence is needed” before physicians can “counsel pregnant women that their fetuses are at risk from congenital infection with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno concluded.

Dr. Dong and associates had no conflicts of interest. Their work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Project and others. Dr. Zeng and colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures. Their study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Zhongnan Hospital. Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Dong L et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4621; Zeng H et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4861.

Reports of three neonates with elevated IgM antibody concentrations whose mothers had COVID-19 in two articles raise questions about whether the infants may have been infected with the virus in utero.

Courtesy CDC

The data, while provocative, “are not conclusive and do not prove in utero transmission” of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), editorialists cautioned.

“The suggestion of in utero transmission rests on IgM detection in these 3 neonates, and IgM is a challenging way to diagnose many congenital infections,” David W. Kimberlin, MD, and Sergio Stagno, MD, of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in their editorial. “IgM antibodies are too large to cross the placenta and so detection in a newborn reasonably could be assumed to reflect fetal production following in utero infection. However, most congenital infections are not diagnosed based on IgM detection because IgM assays can be prone to false-positive and false-negative results, along with cross-reactivity and testing challenges.”

None of the three infants had a positive reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result, “so there is not virologic evidence for congenital infection in these cases to support the serologic suggestion of in utero transmission,” the editorialists noted.
 

Examining the possibility of vertical transmission

A prior case series of nine pregnant women found no transmission of the virus from mother to child, but the question of in utero transmission is not settled, said Lan Dong, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues. In their research letter, the investigators described a newborn with elevated IgM antibodies to novel coronavirus 2019 born to a mother with COVID-19. The infant was delivered by cesarean section February 22, 2020, at Renmin Hospital in a negative-pressure isolation room.

“The mother wore an N95 mask and did not hold the infant,” the researchers said. “The neonate had no symptoms and was immediately quarantined in the neonatal intensive care unit. At 2 hours of age, the SARS-CoV-2 IgG level was 140.32 AU/mL and the IgM level was 45.83 AU/mL.” Although the infant may have been infected at delivery, IgM antibodies usually take days to appear, Dr. Dong and colleagues wrote. “The infant’s repeatedly negative RT-PCR test results on nasopharyngeal swabs are difficult to explain, although these tests are not always positive with infection. ... Additional examination of maternal and newborn samples should be done to confirm this preliminary observation.”
 

A review of infants’ serologic characteristics

Hui Zeng, MD, of the department of laboratory medicine at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues retrospectively reviewed clinical records and laboratory results for six pregnant women with COVID-19, according to a study in JAMA. The women had mild clinical manifestations and were admitted to Zhongnan Hospital between February 16 and March 6. “All had cesarean deliveries in their third trimester in negative pressure isolation rooms,” the investigators said. “All mothers wore masks, and all medical staff wore protective suits and double masks. The infants were isolated from their mothers immediately after delivery.”

Two of the infants had elevated IgG and IgM concentrations. IgM “is not usually transferred from mother to fetus because of its larger macromolecular structure. ... Whether the placentas of women in this study were damaged and abnormal is unknown,” Dr. Zeng and colleagues said. “Alternatively, IgM could have been produced by the infant if the virus crossed the placenta.”

“Although these 2 studies deserve careful evaluation, more definitive evidence is needed” before physicians can “counsel pregnant women that their fetuses are at risk from congenital infection with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno concluded.

Dr. Dong and associates had no conflicts of interest. Their work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Project and others. Dr. Zeng and colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures. Their study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Zhongnan Hospital. Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Dong L et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4621; Zeng H et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4861.

As most 2020 medical conferences have, one by one, been canceled or rescheduled as virtual meetings in the time of a pandemic, some physicians and other healthcare professionals are wondering if this is the year that will change the scene forever.

Amid the choruses of resignation (“Unfortunately, it’s the right thing to do.”) and optimism (“See you next year!”), there have been plenty of voices describing another broad sentiment – that all was not well with medical meetings even before the coronavirus.

One dominant criticism is that there are too many meetings.

Indeed, there are many, many meetings. During 2005–2015, there were 30,000-plus medical meetings in the United States, according to a report from the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association.

Most of those are of little value, tweeted Dhruv Khullar, MD, an internist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City (@DhruvKhullar): “One possible consequence of cancelling so many meetings due to #COVID19 is that we realize we probably don’t need most of them.”

The tweet was liked 1.9K times, which is high for a medical post. Comments were mostly in agreement, with some skepticism.

Michaela West, MD, PhD, a surgeon at North Memorial Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, responded (@MichaelaWst): “Agree. COVID-19 may forever change our perspective regarding medical professional meetings.”

Nwando Olayiwola, MD, chair of family medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, strongly agreed (@DrNwando): “This is the tweet I wish I tweeted.”

However, Kelly Swords, MD, MPH, urologist, University of California, San Diego, in a dissenting opinion, stated the obvious (@k_dagger): “Except there is no substitute for human interaction.”
 

Worth the Effort?

The cancellation of medical meetings has given those who regularly attend an opportunity to reassess their value and to question the worth of the effort involved in attending in person.

David Steensma, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Harvard Medical School, Boston, (@DavidSteensma) tweeted that he would like to scale back: “The present crisis is an opportunity to reassess what is actually necessary and rebalance [in terms of meetings].”

Travel to meetings is often unpleasant, said others.

Chris Palatucci, life sciences executive recruiter, Coulter Partners, Boston, tweeted (@LifeSciRcruitr): “I will die a happy man if I never get on another plane. Glorified bus travel.” He also believes that once the coronavirus crisis is over, its “silver lining” will be the realization that “40% of all meetings are unnecessary.”

Many professionals have welcomed the announcements that major conferences have been canceled and will be conducted virtually.

The latest change is from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), whose annual meeting was to be held in Chicago at the end of May but will now be held online.

Virtual ASCO will be more manageable – and comfy, said Fumiko Ladd Chino, MD, radiation oncologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

She (@fumikochino) explained why in a recent tweet: “1) I will be finally able to see ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS I wanted to see instead of wandering around feeling overwhelmed. 2) I will be able to FOCUS on the presentations and not searching for a power outlet. 3) PAJAMAS.”

Virtual meetings already beat real meetings, added Adriana Scheliga, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Brazilian National Cancer Institute (@linfopedia): “I’ve been saying this for a while. For me the best ASCO Meetings, for example, are the “virtual meetings!”

However, meetings in place are also very much about professional community and mutual support, reminds Susan E. Sedory, MA, executive director, Society of Interventional Radiology, which canceled its meeting March 6 in a multifaceted process described by Medscape Medical News.
 

Is This the Time to Evaluate Meetings?

Coming up soon is the first major conference to go virtual after being canceled – the American College of Cardiology (ACC), which has been one of the top 20 largest meetings in the United States by attendance.

This meeting, which was to have taken place in Chicago on March 28–30, will now occur online on those days. The ACC says it will stream all “live” sessions on demand and provide access to additional videos, abstracts, and slides for at least 90 days after the meeting. And it will be free to anyone with an Internet connection.

Medical meetings in distant locales may bounce back, as they have grown into a very big business. ASCO is illustrative.

The group’s first scientific annual meeting was held in 1965 in Philadelphia, with about 70 members and invited guests in attendance. Fast forward 50-plus years to 2019: there were 42,500 attendees, a 4.4% increase from 2018. Notably, the top countries in attendance in 2019 were the United States and China.

Not everyone is happy that canceled meetings are being held online in the middle of a pandemic.

“In a COVID-19 world, the brain cannot focus on nonviral topics,” said commentator John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Kentucky, in his regular column for Medscape Cardiology/theheart.org.

The virtual ACC meeting should be canceled or delayed – to mirror what is happening in the world, he argues. “In hospitals, we have postponed the elective to make room for the coming surge. Shouldn’t ACC do the same? After the crisis passes, we can have a virtual meeting with a proper discussion of the science,” he writes.

But #MedTwitter, with its collective constructive criticism of medical meetings, is perhaps proof that the brain can function – and arrive at clarity – when under pandemic duress.

“Am I the only one experiencing a certain relief at the cancellation of multiple trips and meetings, and vowing to let this revelation affect my decision making in the future,” tweeted Steven Joffe, MD, MPH, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (@Steve Joffe).

Louise Perkins King, MD, a bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, responded to Joffe. Hoping not to “belittle” the suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, she (@louise_p_king) addressed her healthcare colleagues: “...there is potential for us all to learn what is essential travel and burden and what is not from this. I hope it leads to lasting change.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As most 2020 medical conferences have, one by one, been canceled or rescheduled as virtual meetings in the time of a pandemic, some physicians and other healthcare professionals are wondering if this is the year that will change the scene forever.

Amid the choruses of resignation (“Unfortunately, it’s the right thing to do.”) and optimism (“See you next year!”), there have been plenty of voices describing another broad sentiment – that all was not well with medical meetings even before the coronavirus.

One dominant criticism is that there are too many meetings.

Indeed, there are many, many meetings. During 2005–2015, there were 30,000-plus medical meetings in the United States, according to a report from the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association.

Most of those are of little value, tweeted Dhruv Khullar, MD, an internist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City (@DhruvKhullar): “One possible consequence of cancelling so many meetings due to #COVID19 is that we realize we probably don’t need most of them.”

The tweet was liked 1.9K times, which is high for a medical post. Comments were mostly in agreement, with some skepticism.

Michaela West, MD, PhD, a surgeon at North Memorial Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, responded (@MichaelaWst): “Agree. COVID-19 may forever change our perspective regarding medical professional meetings.”

Nwando Olayiwola, MD, chair of family medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, strongly agreed (@DrNwando): “This is the tweet I wish I tweeted.”

However, Kelly Swords, MD, MPH, urologist, University of California, San Diego, in a dissenting opinion, stated the obvious (@k_dagger): “Except there is no substitute for human interaction.”
 

Worth the Effort?

The cancellation of medical meetings has given those who regularly attend an opportunity to reassess their value and to question the worth of the effort involved in attending in person.

David Steensma, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Harvard Medical School, Boston, (@DavidSteensma) tweeted that he would like to scale back: “The present crisis is an opportunity to reassess what is actually necessary and rebalance [in terms of meetings].”

Travel to meetings is often unpleasant, said others.

Chris Palatucci, life sciences executive recruiter, Coulter Partners, Boston, tweeted (@LifeSciRcruitr): “I will die a happy man if I never get on another plane. Glorified bus travel.” He also believes that once the coronavirus crisis is over, its “silver lining” will be the realization that “40% of all meetings are unnecessary.”

Many professionals have welcomed the announcements that major conferences have been canceled and will be conducted virtually.

The latest change is from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), whose annual meeting was to be held in Chicago at the end of May but will now be held online.

Virtual ASCO will be more manageable – and comfy, said Fumiko Ladd Chino, MD, radiation oncologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

She (@fumikochino) explained why in a recent tweet: “1) I will be finally able to see ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS I wanted to see instead of wandering around feeling overwhelmed. 2) I will be able to FOCUS on the presentations and not searching for a power outlet. 3) PAJAMAS.”

Virtual meetings already beat real meetings, added Adriana Scheliga, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Brazilian National Cancer Institute (@linfopedia): “I’ve been saying this for a while. For me the best ASCO Meetings, for example, are the “virtual meetings!”

However, meetings in place are also very much about professional community and mutual support, reminds Susan E. Sedory, MA, executive director, Society of Interventional Radiology, which canceled its meeting March 6 in a multifaceted process described by Medscape Medical News.
 

Is This the Time to Evaluate Meetings?

Coming up soon is the first major conference to go virtual after being canceled – the American College of Cardiology (ACC), which has been one of the top 20 largest meetings in the United States by attendance.

This meeting, which was to have taken place in Chicago on March 28–30, will now occur online on those days. The ACC says it will stream all “live” sessions on demand and provide access to additional videos, abstracts, and slides for at least 90 days after the meeting. And it will be free to anyone with an Internet connection.

Medical meetings in distant locales may bounce back, as they have grown into a very big business. ASCO is illustrative.

The group’s first scientific annual meeting was held in 1965 in Philadelphia, with about 70 members and invited guests in attendance. Fast forward 50-plus years to 2019: there were 42,500 attendees, a 4.4% increase from 2018. Notably, the top countries in attendance in 2019 were the United States and China.

Not everyone is happy that canceled meetings are being held online in the middle of a pandemic.

“In a COVID-19 world, the brain cannot focus on nonviral topics,” said commentator John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Kentucky, in his regular column for Medscape Cardiology/theheart.org.

The virtual ACC meeting should be canceled or delayed – to mirror what is happening in the world, he argues. “In hospitals, we have postponed the elective to make room for the coming surge. Shouldn’t ACC do the same? After the crisis passes, we can have a virtual meeting with a proper discussion of the science,” he writes.

But #MedTwitter, with its collective constructive criticism of medical meetings, is perhaps proof that the brain can function – and arrive at clarity – when under pandemic duress.

“Am I the only one experiencing a certain relief at the cancellation of multiple trips and meetings, and vowing to let this revelation affect my decision making in the future,” tweeted Steven Joffe, MD, MPH, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (@Steve Joffe).

Louise Perkins King, MD, a bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, responded to Joffe. Hoping not to “belittle” the suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, she (@louise_p_king) addressed her healthcare colleagues: “...there is potential for us all to learn what is essential travel and burden and what is not from this. I hope it leads to lasting change.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As most 2020 medical conferences have, one by one, been canceled or rescheduled as virtual meetings in the time of a pandemic, some physicians and other healthcare professionals are wondering if this is the year that will change the scene forever.

Amid the choruses of resignation (“Unfortunately, it’s the right thing to do.”) and optimism (“See you next year!”), there have been plenty of voices describing another broad sentiment – that all was not well with medical meetings even before the coronavirus.

One dominant criticism is that there are too many meetings.

Indeed, there are many, many meetings. During 2005–2015, there were 30,000-plus medical meetings in the United States, according to a report from the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association.

Most of those are of little value, tweeted Dhruv Khullar, MD, an internist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City (@DhruvKhullar): “One possible consequence of cancelling so many meetings due to #COVID19 is that we realize we probably don’t need most of them.”

The tweet was liked 1.9K times, which is high for a medical post. Comments were mostly in agreement, with some skepticism.

Michaela West, MD, PhD, a surgeon at North Memorial Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, responded (@MichaelaWst): “Agree. COVID-19 may forever change our perspective regarding medical professional meetings.”

Nwando Olayiwola, MD, chair of family medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, strongly agreed (@DrNwando): “This is the tweet I wish I tweeted.”

However, Kelly Swords, MD, MPH, urologist, University of California, San Diego, in a dissenting opinion, stated the obvious (@k_dagger): “Except there is no substitute for human interaction.”
 

Worth the Effort?

The cancellation of medical meetings has given those who regularly attend an opportunity to reassess their value and to question the worth of the effort involved in attending in person.

David Steensma, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Harvard Medical School, Boston, (@DavidSteensma) tweeted that he would like to scale back: “The present crisis is an opportunity to reassess what is actually necessary and rebalance [in terms of meetings].”

Travel to meetings is often unpleasant, said others.

Chris Palatucci, life sciences executive recruiter, Coulter Partners, Boston, tweeted (@LifeSciRcruitr): “I will die a happy man if I never get on another plane. Glorified bus travel.” He also believes that once the coronavirus crisis is over, its “silver lining” will be the realization that “40% of all meetings are unnecessary.”

Many professionals have welcomed the announcements that major conferences have been canceled and will be conducted virtually.

The latest change is from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), whose annual meeting was to be held in Chicago at the end of May but will now be held online.

Virtual ASCO will be more manageable – and comfy, said Fumiko Ladd Chino, MD, radiation oncologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

She (@fumikochino) explained why in a recent tweet: “1) I will be finally able to see ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS I wanted to see instead of wandering around feeling overwhelmed. 2) I will be able to FOCUS on the presentations and not searching for a power outlet. 3) PAJAMAS.”

Virtual meetings already beat real meetings, added Adriana Scheliga, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Brazilian National Cancer Institute (@linfopedia): “I’ve been saying this for a while. For me the best ASCO Meetings, for example, are the “virtual meetings!”

However, meetings in place are also very much about professional community and mutual support, reminds Susan E. Sedory, MA, executive director, Society of Interventional Radiology, which canceled its meeting March 6 in a multifaceted process described by Medscape Medical News.
 

Is This the Time to Evaluate Meetings?

Coming up soon is the first major conference to go virtual after being canceled – the American College of Cardiology (ACC), which has been one of the top 20 largest meetings in the United States by attendance.

This meeting, which was to have taken place in Chicago on March 28–30, will now occur online on those days. The ACC says it will stream all “live” sessions on demand and provide access to additional videos, abstracts, and slides for at least 90 days after the meeting. And it will be free to anyone with an Internet connection.

Medical meetings in distant locales may bounce back, as they have grown into a very big business. ASCO is illustrative.

The group’s first scientific annual meeting was held in 1965 in Philadelphia, with about 70 members and invited guests in attendance. Fast forward 50-plus years to 2019: there were 42,500 attendees, a 4.4% increase from 2018. Notably, the top countries in attendance in 2019 were the United States and China.

Not everyone is happy that canceled meetings are being held online in the middle of a pandemic.

“In a COVID-19 world, the brain cannot focus on nonviral topics,” said commentator John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Kentucky, in his regular column for Medscape Cardiology/theheart.org.

The virtual ACC meeting should be canceled or delayed – to mirror what is happening in the world, he argues. “In hospitals, we have postponed the elective to make room for the coming surge. Shouldn’t ACC do the same? After the crisis passes, we can have a virtual meeting with a proper discussion of the science,” he writes.

But #MedTwitter, with its collective constructive criticism of medical meetings, is perhaps proof that the brain can function – and arrive at clarity – when under pandemic duress.

“Am I the only one experiencing a certain relief at the cancellation of multiple trips and meetings, and vowing to let this revelation affect my decision making in the future,” tweeted Steven Joffe, MD, MPH, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (@Steve Joffe).

Louise Perkins King, MD, a bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, responded to Joffe. Hoping not to “belittle” the suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, she (@louise_p_king) addressed her healthcare colleagues: “...there is potential for us all to learn what is essential travel and burden and what is not from this. I hope it leads to lasting change.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.