MDedge Emergency Medicine

New cases of COVID-19 in children largely held steady over the Thanksgiving holiday, but hospital admissions are telling a somewhat different story.

New pediatric COVID cases for the week ending on Thanksgiving (11/18-11/24) were up by 5.3% over the previous week, but in the most recent week (11/25-12/1) new cases dropped by 2.6%, according to state data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

In both weeks, though, the total case count stayed below 30,000 – a streak that has now lasted 8 weeks – so the actual number of weekly cases remained fairly low, the AAP/CHA weekly report indicates.

The nation’s emergency departments also experienced a small Thanksgiving bump, as the proportion of visits with diagnosed COVID went from 1.0% of all ED visits for children aged 0-11 years on Nov. 14 to 2.0% on Nov. 27, just 3 days after the official holiday, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate was down to 1.5% on Dec. 1, and similar patterns can be seen for children aged 12-15 and 16-17 years.

New hospital admissions, on the other hand, seem to be following a different path, at least according to the CDC. The hospitalization rate for children aged 0-17 years bottomed out at 0.16 new admissions per 100,000 population back on Oct. 21 and has climbed fairly steadily since then. It was up to 0.20 per 100,000 by Nov. 14, had reached 0.22 per 100,000 on Thanksgiving day (11/24), and then continued to 0.26 per 100,000 by Dec. 2, the latest date for which CDC data are available.

The hospitalization story, however, offers yet another twist. The New York Times, using data from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, reports that new COVID-related admissions have held steady at 1.0 per 100,000 since Nov. 18. The rate is much higher than has been reported by the CDC, but no increase can be seen in recent weeks among children, which is not the case for Americans overall, Medscape recently reported.

New cases of COVID-19 in children largely held steady over the Thanksgiving holiday, but hospital admissions are telling a somewhat different story.

New pediatric COVID cases for the week ending on Thanksgiving (11/18-11/24) were up by 5.3% over the previous week, but in the most recent week (11/25-12/1) new cases dropped by 2.6%, according to state data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

In both weeks, though, the total case count stayed below 30,000 – a streak that has now lasted 8 weeks – so the actual number of weekly cases remained fairly low, the AAP/CHA weekly report indicates.

The nation’s emergency departments also experienced a small Thanksgiving bump, as the proportion of visits with diagnosed COVID went from 1.0% of all ED visits for children aged 0-11 years on Nov. 14 to 2.0% on Nov. 27, just 3 days after the official holiday, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate was down to 1.5% on Dec. 1, and similar patterns can be seen for children aged 12-15 and 16-17 years.

New hospital admissions, on the other hand, seem to be following a different path, at least according to the CDC. The hospitalization rate for children aged 0-17 years bottomed out at 0.16 new admissions per 100,000 population back on Oct. 21 and has climbed fairly steadily since then. It was up to 0.20 per 100,000 by Nov. 14, had reached 0.22 per 100,000 on Thanksgiving day (11/24), and then continued to 0.26 per 100,000 by Dec. 2, the latest date for which CDC data are available.

The hospitalization story, however, offers yet another twist. The New York Times, using data from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, reports that new COVID-related admissions have held steady at 1.0 per 100,000 since Nov. 18. The rate is much higher than has been reported by the CDC, but no increase can be seen in recent weeks among children, which is not the case for Americans overall, Medscape recently reported.

New cases of COVID-19 in children largely held steady over the Thanksgiving holiday, but hospital admissions are telling a somewhat different story.

New pediatric COVID cases for the week ending on Thanksgiving (11/18-11/24) were up by 5.3% over the previous week, but in the most recent week (11/25-12/1) new cases dropped by 2.6%, according to state data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

In both weeks, though, the total case count stayed below 30,000 – a streak that has now lasted 8 weeks – so the actual number of weekly cases remained fairly low, the AAP/CHA weekly report indicates.

The nation’s emergency departments also experienced a small Thanksgiving bump, as the proportion of visits with diagnosed COVID went from 1.0% of all ED visits for children aged 0-11 years on Nov. 14 to 2.0% on Nov. 27, just 3 days after the official holiday, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate was down to 1.5% on Dec. 1, and similar patterns can be seen for children aged 12-15 and 16-17 years.

New hospital admissions, on the other hand, seem to be following a different path, at least according to the CDC. The hospitalization rate for children aged 0-17 years bottomed out at 0.16 new admissions per 100,000 population back on Oct. 21 and has climbed fairly steadily since then. It was up to 0.20 per 100,000 by Nov. 14, had reached 0.22 per 100,000 on Thanksgiving day (11/24), and then continued to 0.26 per 100,000 by Dec. 2, the latest date for which CDC data are available.

The hospitalization story, however, offers yet another twist. The New York Times, using data from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, reports that new COVID-related admissions have held steady at 1.0 per 100,000 since Nov. 18. The rate is much higher than has been reported by the CDC, but no increase can be seen in recent weeks among children, which is not the case for Americans overall, Medscape recently reported.

Another survey has shown that Americans are largely unaware of the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

The new findings, from a nationally representative survey that included responses from 3,865 adults, show a low awareness of the cancer risk from alcohol, and also that the risk varies by type of drink. Just under a third (31.2%) of respondents thought that consuming liquor/spirits was associated with a risk of cancer, but this fell to 24.9% for drinking beer and even further, to 20.3%, for drinking wine.

In fact, some respondents though the opposite – that drinking alcohol has health benefits; 10.3% of respondents thought that drinking wine was associated with a decreased cancer risk, while 2.25% thought the same for drinking beer, and 1.7% thought that for drinking liquor.

Most U.S. adults (> 50%) reported not knowing how these beverages affected cancer risk, the authors report.

“This study’s findings underscore the need to develop interventions for educating the public about the cancer risks of alcohol use, particularly in the prevailing context of national dialogue about the purported heart health benefits of wine,” commented senior author William M. P. Klein, PhD, associate director of the National Cancer Institute’s Behavioral Research Program, in a statement.

“All types of alcoholic beverages, including wine, increase cancer risk,” Dr. Klein said.

The findings were published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The results echo the findings of a previous national survey that also found that the majority of Americans are not aware that alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of developing a variety of cancers.

In contrast, within the scientific community, there is long-standing and increasing awareness of alcohol consumption as a leading modifiable risk factor for cancer, and there is a growing movement calling for more public health awareness of the link.

Recently, there has been some public support for adding written warnings about the cancer risk from alcohol. A Citizen Petition was filed in 2021, and in August 2022, The New England Journal of Medicine issued a call for new labeling.

Several cancer organizations are petitioning for warnings to be added to alcoholic beverages. The petition is supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, all in collaboration with several public health organizations. Proposed labeling would read: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

Dr. Klein and colleagues suggest that public health interventions, including mass media campaigns, cancer warning labels, and patient-provider communications, could help disseminate information about cancer and alcohol. “Educating the public about how alcohol increases cancer risk will not only empower consumers to make more informed decisions but may also prevent and reduce excessive alcohol use, as well as cancer morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was supported by the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Another survey has shown that Americans are largely unaware of the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

The new findings, from a nationally representative survey that included responses from 3,865 adults, show a low awareness of the cancer risk from alcohol, and also that the risk varies by type of drink. Just under a third (31.2%) of respondents thought that consuming liquor/spirits was associated with a risk of cancer, but this fell to 24.9% for drinking beer and even further, to 20.3%, for drinking wine.

In fact, some respondents though the opposite – that drinking alcohol has health benefits; 10.3% of respondents thought that drinking wine was associated with a decreased cancer risk, while 2.25% thought the same for drinking beer, and 1.7% thought that for drinking liquor.

Most U.S. adults (> 50%) reported not knowing how these beverages affected cancer risk, the authors report.

“This study’s findings underscore the need to develop interventions for educating the public about the cancer risks of alcohol use, particularly in the prevailing context of national dialogue about the purported heart health benefits of wine,” commented senior author William M. P. Klein, PhD, associate director of the National Cancer Institute’s Behavioral Research Program, in a statement.

“All types of alcoholic beverages, including wine, increase cancer risk,” Dr. Klein said.

The findings were published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The results echo the findings of a previous national survey that also found that the majority of Americans are not aware that alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of developing a variety of cancers.

In contrast, within the scientific community, there is long-standing and increasing awareness of alcohol consumption as a leading modifiable risk factor for cancer, and there is a growing movement calling for more public health awareness of the link.

Recently, there has been some public support for adding written warnings about the cancer risk from alcohol. A Citizen Petition was filed in 2021, and in August 2022, The New England Journal of Medicine issued a call for new labeling.

Several cancer organizations are petitioning for warnings to be added to alcoholic beverages. The petition is supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, all in collaboration with several public health organizations. Proposed labeling would read: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

Dr. Klein and colleagues suggest that public health interventions, including mass media campaigns, cancer warning labels, and patient-provider communications, could help disseminate information about cancer and alcohol. “Educating the public about how alcohol increases cancer risk will not only empower consumers to make more informed decisions but may also prevent and reduce excessive alcohol use, as well as cancer morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was supported by the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Another survey has shown that Americans are largely unaware of the link between alcohol consumption and cancer.

The new findings, from a nationally representative survey that included responses from 3,865 adults, show a low awareness of the cancer risk from alcohol, and also that the risk varies by type of drink. Just under a third (31.2%) of respondents thought that consuming liquor/spirits was associated with a risk of cancer, but this fell to 24.9% for drinking beer and even further, to 20.3%, for drinking wine.

In fact, some respondents though the opposite – that drinking alcohol has health benefits; 10.3% of respondents thought that drinking wine was associated with a decreased cancer risk, while 2.25% thought the same for drinking beer, and 1.7% thought that for drinking liquor.

Most U.S. adults (> 50%) reported not knowing how these beverages affected cancer risk, the authors report.

“This study’s findings underscore the need to develop interventions for educating the public about the cancer risks of alcohol use, particularly in the prevailing context of national dialogue about the purported heart health benefits of wine,” commented senior author William M. P. Klein, PhD, associate director of the National Cancer Institute’s Behavioral Research Program, in a statement.

“All types of alcoholic beverages, including wine, increase cancer risk,” Dr. Klein said.

The findings were published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The results echo the findings of a previous national survey that also found that the majority of Americans are not aware that alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of developing a variety of cancers.

In contrast, within the scientific community, there is long-standing and increasing awareness of alcohol consumption as a leading modifiable risk factor for cancer, and there is a growing movement calling for more public health awareness of the link.

Recently, there has been some public support for adding written warnings about the cancer risk from alcohol. A Citizen Petition was filed in 2021, and in August 2022, The New England Journal of Medicine issued a call for new labeling.

Several cancer organizations are petitioning for warnings to be added to alcoholic beverages. The petition is supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, all in collaboration with several public health organizations. Proposed labeling would read: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

Dr. Klein and colleagues suggest that public health interventions, including mass media campaigns, cancer warning labels, and patient-provider communications, could help disseminate information about cancer and alcohol. “Educating the public about how alcohol increases cancer risk will not only empower consumers to make more informed decisions but may also prevent and reduce excessive alcohol use, as well as cancer morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was supported by the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences at the National Cancer Institute. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A randomized trial indicating that surgical masks are not inferior to N95 masks in protecting health care workers against COVID-19 has sparked international criticism.

The study’s senior author is John Conly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.), and Alberta Health Services. The findings are not consistent with those of many other studies on this topic.

Commenting about Dr. Conly’s study, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, wrote: “It’s woefully underpowered but ruled out a doubling of hazard for use of medical masks.”

The study, which was partially funded by the World Health Organization, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This is not the first time that Dr. Conly, who also advises the WHO, has been the subject of controversy. He previously denied that COVID-19 is airborne – a position that is contradicted by strong evidence. In 2021, Dr. Conly made headlines with his controversial claim that N95 respirators can cause harms, including oxygen depletion and carbon dioxide retention.

A detailed examination by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pointed out numerous scientific flaws in the study, including inconsistent use of both types of masks. The study also examined health care workers in four very different countries (Canada, Israel, Egypt, and Pakistan) during different periods of the pandemic, which may have affected the results. Furthermore, the study did not account for vaccination status and lacked a control group. CIDRAP receives funding from 3M, which makes N95 respirators.

In a commentary published alongside the study, Roger Chou, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that the results were “not definitive,” with “a generous noninferiority threshold” that is actually “consistent with up to a relative 70% increased risk ... which may be unacceptable to many health workers.”

Lead study author Mark Loeb, MD, professor of infectious diseases at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., defended the findings. “The confidence intervals around this, that is, what the possible results could be if the trial was repeated many times, range from −2.5% to 4.9%,” he told this news organization. “This means that the risk of a COVID-19 infection in those using the medical masks could have ranged from anywhere from 2.5% reduction in risk to a 4.9% increase in risk. Readers and policy makers can decide for themselves about this.”

“There is no point continuing to run underpowered, poorly designed studies that are designed to confirm existing biases,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, professor of global biosecurity and head of the Biosecurity Program at the Kirby Institute, Sydney, said in an interview. “The new study in Annals of Internal Medicine is entirely consistent with our finding that to prevent infection, you need an N95, and it needs to be worn throughout the whole shift. A surgical mask and intermittent use of N95 are equally ineffective. This should not surprise anyone, given a surgical mask is not designed as respiratory protection but is designed to prevent splash or spray of liquid on the face. Only a respirator is designed as respiratory protection through both the seal around the face and the filter of the face piece to prevent inhalation of virus laden aerosols, but you need to wear it continually in a high-risk environment like a hospital.”

“It makes zero sense to do a randomized trial on something you can measure directly,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist, professor, and director of the NSF Center for Aerosol Impacts on Chemistry of the Environment at the University of California, San Diego. “In fact, many studies have shown aerosols leaking out of surgical masks. Surgical masks are designed to block large spray droplets. Aerosols (0.5-3 mcm), which have been shown to contain infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus, travel with the air flow, and escape.”

“This study ... will be used to justify policies of supplying health care workers, and perhaps patients and visitors, too, with inadequate protection,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.

“These authors have been pushing back against treating COVID as airborne for 3 years,” David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “So, you’ll see these folks brandishing this very flawed trial to justify continuing the infection control practices that have been so disastrous throughout the pandemic.”

The study was funded by the World Health Organization, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Juravinski Research Institute. Dr. Conly reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Pfizer, and the WHO. Dr. Chou disclosed being a methodologist for WHO guidelines on infection prevention and control measures for COVID-19. Dr. Loeb disclosed payment for expert testimony on personal protective equipment from the government of Manitoba and the Peel District School Board. Dr. MacIntyre has led a large body of research on masks and respirators in health workers, including four randomized clinical trials. She is the author of a book, “Dark Winter: An insider’s guide to pandemics and biosecurity” (Syndey: NewSouth Publishing, 2022), which covers the history and politics of the controversies around N95 and masks. Dr. Prather reported no disclosures. Dr. Greenhalgh is a member of Independent SAGE and an unpaid adviser to the philanthropic fund Balvi. Dr. Fisman has served as a paid legal expert for the Ontario Nurses’ Association in their challenge to Directive 5, which restricted access to N95 masks in health care. He also served as a paid legal expert for the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario in its efforts to make schools safer in Ontario.

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

A randomized trial indicating that surgical masks are not inferior to N95 masks in protecting health care workers against COVID-19 has sparked international criticism.

The study’s senior author is John Conly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.), and Alberta Health Services. The findings are not consistent with those of many other studies on this topic.

Commenting about Dr. Conly’s study, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, wrote: “It’s woefully underpowered but ruled out a doubling of hazard for use of medical masks.”

The study, which was partially funded by the World Health Organization, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This is not the first time that Dr. Conly, who also advises the WHO, has been the subject of controversy. He previously denied that COVID-19 is airborne – a position that is contradicted by strong evidence. In 2021, Dr. Conly made headlines with his controversial claim that N95 respirators can cause harms, including oxygen depletion and carbon dioxide retention.

A detailed examination by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pointed out numerous scientific flaws in the study, including inconsistent use of both types of masks. The study also examined health care workers in four very different countries (Canada, Israel, Egypt, and Pakistan) during different periods of the pandemic, which may have affected the results. Furthermore, the study did not account for vaccination status and lacked a control group. CIDRAP receives funding from 3M, which makes N95 respirators.

In a commentary published alongside the study, Roger Chou, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that the results were “not definitive,” with “a generous noninferiority threshold” that is actually “consistent with up to a relative 70% increased risk ... which may be unacceptable to many health workers.”

Lead study author Mark Loeb, MD, professor of infectious diseases at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., defended the findings. “The confidence intervals around this, that is, what the possible results could be if the trial was repeated many times, range from −2.5% to 4.9%,” he told this news organization. “This means that the risk of a COVID-19 infection in those using the medical masks could have ranged from anywhere from 2.5% reduction in risk to a 4.9% increase in risk. Readers and policy makers can decide for themselves about this.”

“There is no point continuing to run underpowered, poorly designed studies that are designed to confirm existing biases,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, professor of global biosecurity and head of the Biosecurity Program at the Kirby Institute, Sydney, said in an interview. “The new study in Annals of Internal Medicine is entirely consistent with our finding that to prevent infection, you need an N95, and it needs to be worn throughout the whole shift. A surgical mask and intermittent use of N95 are equally ineffective. This should not surprise anyone, given a surgical mask is not designed as respiratory protection but is designed to prevent splash or spray of liquid on the face. Only a respirator is designed as respiratory protection through both the seal around the face and the filter of the face piece to prevent inhalation of virus laden aerosols, but you need to wear it continually in a high-risk environment like a hospital.”

“It makes zero sense to do a randomized trial on something you can measure directly,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist, professor, and director of the NSF Center for Aerosol Impacts on Chemistry of the Environment at the University of California, San Diego. “In fact, many studies have shown aerosols leaking out of surgical masks. Surgical masks are designed to block large spray droplets. Aerosols (0.5-3 mcm), which have been shown to contain infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus, travel with the air flow, and escape.”

“This study ... will be used to justify policies of supplying health care workers, and perhaps patients and visitors, too, with inadequate protection,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.

“These authors have been pushing back against treating COVID as airborne for 3 years,” David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “So, you’ll see these folks brandishing this very flawed trial to justify continuing the infection control practices that have been so disastrous throughout the pandemic.”

The study was funded by the World Health Organization, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Juravinski Research Institute. Dr. Conly reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Pfizer, and the WHO. Dr. Chou disclosed being a methodologist for WHO guidelines on infection prevention and control measures for COVID-19. Dr. Loeb disclosed payment for expert testimony on personal protective equipment from the government of Manitoba and the Peel District School Board. Dr. MacIntyre has led a large body of research on masks and respirators in health workers, including four randomized clinical trials. She is the author of a book, “Dark Winter: An insider’s guide to pandemics and biosecurity” (Syndey: NewSouth Publishing, 2022), which covers the history and politics of the controversies around N95 and masks. Dr. Prather reported no disclosures. Dr. Greenhalgh is a member of Independent SAGE and an unpaid adviser to the philanthropic fund Balvi. Dr. Fisman has served as a paid legal expert for the Ontario Nurses’ Association in their challenge to Directive 5, which restricted access to N95 masks in health care. He also served as a paid legal expert for the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario in its efforts to make schools safer in Ontario.

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

A randomized trial indicating that surgical masks are not inferior to N95 masks in protecting health care workers against COVID-19 has sparked international criticism.

The study’s senior author is John Conly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.), and Alberta Health Services. The findings are not consistent with those of many other studies on this topic.

Commenting about Dr. Conly’s study, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, wrote: “It’s woefully underpowered but ruled out a doubling of hazard for use of medical masks.”

The study, which was partially funded by the World Health Organization, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This is not the first time that Dr. Conly, who also advises the WHO, has been the subject of controversy. He previously denied that COVID-19 is airborne – a position that is contradicted by strong evidence. In 2021, Dr. Conly made headlines with his controversial claim that N95 respirators can cause harms, including oxygen depletion and carbon dioxide retention.

A detailed examination by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pointed out numerous scientific flaws in the study, including inconsistent use of both types of masks. The study also examined health care workers in four very different countries (Canada, Israel, Egypt, and Pakistan) during different periods of the pandemic, which may have affected the results. Furthermore, the study did not account for vaccination status and lacked a control group. CIDRAP receives funding from 3M, which makes N95 respirators.

In a commentary published alongside the study, Roger Chou, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that the results were “not definitive,” with “a generous noninferiority threshold” that is actually “consistent with up to a relative 70% increased risk ... which may be unacceptable to many health workers.”

Lead study author Mark Loeb, MD, professor of infectious diseases at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., defended the findings. “The confidence intervals around this, that is, what the possible results could be if the trial was repeated many times, range from −2.5% to 4.9%,” he told this news organization. “This means that the risk of a COVID-19 infection in those using the medical masks could have ranged from anywhere from 2.5% reduction in risk to a 4.9% increase in risk. Readers and policy makers can decide for themselves about this.”

“There is no point continuing to run underpowered, poorly designed studies that are designed to confirm existing biases,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, professor of global biosecurity and head of the Biosecurity Program at the Kirby Institute, Sydney, said in an interview. “The new study in Annals of Internal Medicine is entirely consistent with our finding that to prevent infection, you need an N95, and it needs to be worn throughout the whole shift. A surgical mask and intermittent use of N95 are equally ineffective. This should not surprise anyone, given a surgical mask is not designed as respiratory protection but is designed to prevent splash or spray of liquid on the face. Only a respirator is designed as respiratory protection through both the seal around the face and the filter of the face piece to prevent inhalation of virus laden aerosols, but you need to wear it continually in a high-risk environment like a hospital.”

“It makes zero sense to do a randomized trial on something you can measure directly,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist, professor, and director of the NSF Center for Aerosol Impacts on Chemistry of the Environment at the University of California, San Diego. “In fact, many studies have shown aerosols leaking out of surgical masks. Surgical masks are designed to block large spray droplets. Aerosols (0.5-3 mcm), which have been shown to contain infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus, travel with the air flow, and escape.”

“This study ... will be used to justify policies of supplying health care workers, and perhaps patients and visitors, too, with inadequate protection,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.

“These authors have been pushing back against treating COVID as airborne for 3 years,” David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “So, you’ll see these folks brandishing this very flawed trial to justify continuing the infection control practices that have been so disastrous throughout the pandemic.”

The study was funded by the World Health Organization, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Juravinski Research Institute. Dr. Conly reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Pfizer, and the WHO. Dr. Chou disclosed being a methodologist for WHO guidelines on infection prevention and control measures for COVID-19. Dr. Loeb disclosed payment for expert testimony on personal protective equipment from the government of Manitoba and the Peel District School Board. Dr. MacIntyre has led a large body of research on masks and respirators in health workers, including four randomized clinical trials. She is the author of a book, “Dark Winter: An insider’s guide to pandemics and biosecurity” (Syndey: NewSouth Publishing, 2022), which covers the history and politics of the controversies around N95 and masks. Dr. Prather reported no disclosures. Dr. Greenhalgh is a member of Independent SAGE and an unpaid adviser to the philanthropic fund Balvi. Dr. Fisman has served as a paid legal expert for the Ontario Nurses’ Association in their challenge to Directive 5, which restricted access to N95 masks in health care. He also served as a paid legal expert for the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario in its efforts to make schools safer in Ontario.

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

Eric Andrew Salata, MD, a 54-year-old internist based in Naples, Florida, made headlines 2 weeks ago when he was arrested by local police and charged with sexual battery on two of his patients, according to a police statement.

A week later, a Collier County Sheriff’s deputy found Dr. Salata’s body near his Naples home with a gunshot wound to the head, according to police. The medical examiner later ruled it a suicide.

Dr. Salata co-owned Pura Vida Medical Spa in Naples with his wife Jill Salata, a certified family nurse practitioner. They specialized in cosmetic treatment and surgery.

Naples police said that they arrested Dr. Salata after two female patients accused the doctor of allegedly drugging and raping them while they were still unconscious.

Both victims described being given nitrous oxide, also called laughing gas, for sedation and pain from the cosmetic procedure. The first victim, age 51, said Dr. Salata prescribed alprazolam (Xanax) to take before the procedure and then also gave her nitrous oxide and tequila, causing her to black out, according to NBC2 News.

The second victim, age 72, told police that as the nitrous oxide was wearing off, she found Dr. Salata performing sexual intercourse. The victim felt shocked after the sedation subsided about what had taken place, contacted police, and submitted to a sexual assault examination, according to the police statement.

At Dr. Salata’s November 22 hearing before Judge Michael Provost, a prosecutor asked the judge whether Dr. Salata should surrender his firearms; Provost reportedly dismissed the idea.

“It is disappointing and frustrating that Dr. Salata has escaped justice,” said one victim’s attorney, Adam Horowitz, in a blog post. “Yet, we are relieved that no other women will be assaulted by Dr. Salata again. It took tremendous courage for my client to tell her truth. She was ready to hold him accountable in court.”

Horowitz says he plans to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of his client against Dr. Salata’s estate. The Naples police are continuing their investigation into the victims’ cases, which now includes a third woman, said spokesman Lt. Bryan McGinn.

Meanwhile, the Pura Vida Medical Spa has closed permanently and its website has been deleted. One reviewer named Soul F. wrote on the spa’s Yelp page: “And now may God have mercy on this rapist’s soul. Amen.”

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

Eric Andrew Salata, MD, a 54-year-old internist based in Naples, Florida, made headlines 2 weeks ago when he was arrested by local police and charged with sexual battery on two of his patients, according to a police statement.

A week later, a Collier County Sheriff’s deputy found Dr. Salata’s body near his Naples home with a gunshot wound to the head, according to police. The medical examiner later ruled it a suicide.

Dr. Salata co-owned Pura Vida Medical Spa in Naples with his wife Jill Salata, a certified family nurse practitioner. They specialized in cosmetic treatment and surgery.

Naples police said that they arrested Dr. Salata after two female patients accused the doctor of allegedly drugging and raping them while they were still unconscious.

Both victims described being given nitrous oxide, also called laughing gas, for sedation and pain from the cosmetic procedure. The first victim, age 51, said Dr. Salata prescribed alprazolam (Xanax) to take before the procedure and then also gave her nitrous oxide and tequila, causing her to black out, according to NBC2 News.

The second victim, age 72, told police that as the nitrous oxide was wearing off, she found Dr. Salata performing sexual intercourse. The victim felt shocked after the sedation subsided about what had taken place, contacted police, and submitted to a sexual assault examination, according to the police statement.

At Dr. Salata’s November 22 hearing before Judge Michael Provost, a prosecutor asked the judge whether Dr. Salata should surrender his firearms; Provost reportedly dismissed the idea.

“It is disappointing and frustrating that Dr. Salata has escaped justice,” said one victim’s attorney, Adam Horowitz, in a blog post. “Yet, we are relieved that no other women will be assaulted by Dr. Salata again. It took tremendous courage for my client to tell her truth. She was ready to hold him accountable in court.”

Horowitz says he plans to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of his client against Dr. Salata’s estate. The Naples police are continuing their investigation into the victims’ cases, which now includes a third woman, said spokesman Lt. Bryan McGinn.

Meanwhile, the Pura Vida Medical Spa has closed permanently and its website has been deleted. One reviewer named Soul F. wrote on the spa’s Yelp page: “And now may God have mercy on this rapist’s soul. Amen.”

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

Eric Andrew Salata, MD, a 54-year-old internist based in Naples, Florida, made headlines 2 weeks ago when he was arrested by local police and charged with sexual battery on two of his patients, according to a police statement.

A week later, a Collier County Sheriff’s deputy found Dr. Salata’s body near his Naples home with a gunshot wound to the head, according to police. The medical examiner later ruled it a suicide.

Dr. Salata co-owned Pura Vida Medical Spa in Naples with his wife Jill Salata, a certified family nurse practitioner. They specialized in cosmetic treatment and surgery.

Naples police said that they arrested Dr. Salata after two female patients accused the doctor of allegedly drugging and raping them while they were still unconscious.

Both victims described being given nitrous oxide, also called laughing gas, for sedation and pain from the cosmetic procedure. The first victim, age 51, said Dr. Salata prescribed alprazolam (Xanax) to take before the procedure and then also gave her nitrous oxide and tequila, causing her to black out, according to NBC2 News.

The second victim, age 72, told police that as the nitrous oxide was wearing off, she found Dr. Salata performing sexual intercourse. The victim felt shocked after the sedation subsided about what had taken place, contacted police, and submitted to a sexual assault examination, according to the police statement.

At Dr. Salata’s November 22 hearing before Judge Michael Provost, a prosecutor asked the judge whether Dr. Salata should surrender his firearms; Provost reportedly dismissed the idea.

“It is disappointing and frustrating that Dr. Salata has escaped justice,” said one victim’s attorney, Adam Horowitz, in a blog post. “Yet, we are relieved that no other women will be assaulted by Dr. Salata again. It took tremendous courage for my client to tell her truth. She was ready to hold him accountable in court.”

Horowitz says he plans to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of his client against Dr. Salata’s estate. The Naples police are continuing their investigation into the victims’ cases, which now includes a third woman, said spokesman Lt. Bryan McGinn.

Meanwhile, the Pura Vida Medical Spa has closed permanently and its website has been deleted. One reviewer named Soul F. wrote on the spa’s Yelp page: “And now may God have mercy on this rapist’s soul. Amen.”

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

Drug overdose deaths in pregnant and postpartum women rose by about 81% from 2017 to 2020, researchers report in a JAMA research letter published online Dec. 6.

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths were highest in 2020 as the COVID pandemic began, according to the researchers, Emilie Bruzelius, MPH, and Silvia S. Martins, MD, PHD, with the department of epidemiology, Columbia University School of Public Health in New York.

The deaths were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) pregnancy-related codes and death certificate pregnancy checkbox status.

The checkbox, part of all states’ death certificates, asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death (early postpartum) or within 43-365 days of death (late postpartum).
 

Sharp increase at start of COVID pandemic

The authors note that pregnancy-related overdose deaths have been climbing from 2007 to 2019, but increased sharply in 2020.

“Pregnant and postpartum persons are known to face barriers to accessing drug treatment and harm-reduction services, which when compounded by pandemic-associated stressors, health care shutdowns, and increasingly volatile unregulated drug supply may have increased fatal overdose risk,” the authors write.

Of the 7,642 pregnancy-related deaths in the study period, 1,249 were overdose-related, leading to a cumulative overdose death rate of 8.35 per 100,000. From 2017 to 2020, pregnancy-related overdose deaths rose from 6.56 to 11.85 per 100,000. That translates to an absolute change rate of 5.30 per 100,000 and a relative increase of 81%.

The trend mirrors a pattern in people of reproductive age overall, the authors write.

Overdose mortality among reproductive age women similarly increased from 14.37 to 19.76 per 100,000 (absolute change rate, 5.39 [95% confidence interval, 4.94-5.85] per 100,000; relative increase of 38%).
 

Fentanyl deaths increase

The researchers found large increases in deaths involving fentanyl and other synthetics and psychostimulants (methamphetamine and cocaine, for example).

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines, heroin, and prescription opioids, however, were mostly stable from 2017 to 2020.

Numbers of late postpartum overdose deaths were notable in the paper.

In that group, there were 3.95 deaths per 100,000, compared with those pregnant at the time of death (2.99 per 100,000 or those identified as early postpartum (1.39 per 100 000).

Davida Schiff, MD, director of the Perinatal and Family-based Substance Use Disorder Care Massachusetts General Hospital substance use disorders initiative in Boston, told this publication it’s important to realize from this study that late postpartum period is the highest-risk period and also the time “when many states that have not expanded Medicaid cut off insurance needed to access life-saving health care services.”“Pregnancy is an important touch point of increased health care access, yet pregnant and parenting people face unique social and legal consequences from their substance use,” Dr. Schiff said.

She added, “I’m left wondering how many of the deaths reported could have been avoided if fear of a punitive response when engaging with our health care system had not prevented them from seeking out the care they needed.”

Dr. Schiff said the study highlights the importance of the pregnancy-checkbox addition to death records to better characterize pregnancy-associated deaths that previously were likely undercounted.

The authors and Dr. Schiff declare no relevant financial relationships.

Drug overdose deaths in pregnant and postpartum women rose by about 81% from 2017 to 2020, researchers report in a JAMA research letter published online Dec. 6.

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths were highest in 2020 as the COVID pandemic began, according to the researchers, Emilie Bruzelius, MPH, and Silvia S. Martins, MD, PHD, with the department of epidemiology, Columbia University School of Public Health in New York.

The deaths were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) pregnancy-related codes and death certificate pregnancy checkbox status.

The checkbox, part of all states’ death certificates, asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death (early postpartum) or within 43-365 days of death (late postpartum).
 

Sharp increase at start of COVID pandemic

The authors note that pregnancy-related overdose deaths have been climbing from 2007 to 2019, but increased sharply in 2020.

“Pregnant and postpartum persons are known to face barriers to accessing drug treatment and harm-reduction services, which when compounded by pandemic-associated stressors, health care shutdowns, and increasingly volatile unregulated drug supply may have increased fatal overdose risk,” the authors write.

Of the 7,642 pregnancy-related deaths in the study period, 1,249 were overdose-related, leading to a cumulative overdose death rate of 8.35 per 100,000. From 2017 to 2020, pregnancy-related overdose deaths rose from 6.56 to 11.85 per 100,000. That translates to an absolute change rate of 5.30 per 100,000 and a relative increase of 81%.

The trend mirrors a pattern in people of reproductive age overall, the authors write.

Overdose mortality among reproductive age women similarly increased from 14.37 to 19.76 per 100,000 (absolute change rate, 5.39 [95% confidence interval, 4.94-5.85] per 100,000; relative increase of 38%).
 

Fentanyl deaths increase

The researchers found large increases in deaths involving fentanyl and other synthetics and psychostimulants (methamphetamine and cocaine, for example).

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines, heroin, and prescription opioids, however, were mostly stable from 2017 to 2020.

Numbers of late postpartum overdose deaths were notable in the paper.

In that group, there were 3.95 deaths per 100,000, compared with those pregnant at the time of death (2.99 per 100,000 or those identified as early postpartum (1.39 per 100 000).

Davida Schiff, MD, director of the Perinatal and Family-based Substance Use Disorder Care Massachusetts General Hospital substance use disorders initiative in Boston, told this publication it’s important to realize from this study that late postpartum period is the highest-risk period and also the time “when many states that have not expanded Medicaid cut off insurance needed to access life-saving health care services.”“Pregnancy is an important touch point of increased health care access, yet pregnant and parenting people face unique social and legal consequences from their substance use,” Dr. Schiff said.

She added, “I’m left wondering how many of the deaths reported could have been avoided if fear of a punitive response when engaging with our health care system had not prevented them from seeking out the care they needed.”

Dr. Schiff said the study highlights the importance of the pregnancy-checkbox addition to death records to better characterize pregnancy-associated deaths that previously were likely undercounted.

The authors and Dr. Schiff declare no relevant financial relationships.

Drug overdose deaths in pregnant and postpartum women rose by about 81% from 2017 to 2020, researchers report in a JAMA research letter published online Dec. 6.

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths were highest in 2020 as the COVID pandemic began, according to the researchers, Emilie Bruzelius, MPH, and Silvia S. Martins, MD, PHD, with the department of epidemiology, Columbia University School of Public Health in New York.

The deaths were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) pregnancy-related codes and death certificate pregnancy checkbox status.

The checkbox, part of all states’ death certificates, asks whether the person was pregnant at the time of death, within 42 days of death (early postpartum) or within 43-365 days of death (late postpartum).
 

Sharp increase at start of COVID pandemic

The authors note that pregnancy-related overdose deaths have been climbing from 2007 to 2019, but increased sharply in 2020.

“Pregnant and postpartum persons are known to face barriers to accessing drug treatment and harm-reduction services, which when compounded by pandemic-associated stressors, health care shutdowns, and increasingly volatile unregulated drug supply may have increased fatal overdose risk,” the authors write.

Of the 7,642 pregnancy-related deaths in the study period, 1,249 were overdose-related, leading to a cumulative overdose death rate of 8.35 per 100,000. From 2017 to 2020, pregnancy-related overdose deaths rose from 6.56 to 11.85 per 100,000. That translates to an absolute change rate of 5.30 per 100,000 and a relative increase of 81%.

The trend mirrors a pattern in people of reproductive age overall, the authors write.

Overdose mortality among reproductive age women similarly increased from 14.37 to 19.76 per 100,000 (absolute change rate, 5.39 [95% confidence interval, 4.94-5.85] per 100,000; relative increase of 38%).
 

Fentanyl deaths increase

The researchers found large increases in deaths involving fentanyl and other synthetics and psychostimulants (methamphetamine and cocaine, for example).

Pregnancy-associated overdose deaths involving benzodiazepines, heroin, and prescription opioids, however, were mostly stable from 2017 to 2020.

Numbers of late postpartum overdose deaths were notable in the paper.

In that group, there were 3.95 deaths per 100,000, compared with those pregnant at the time of death (2.99 per 100,000 or those identified as early postpartum (1.39 per 100 000).

Davida Schiff, MD, director of the Perinatal and Family-based Substance Use Disorder Care Massachusetts General Hospital substance use disorders initiative in Boston, told this publication it’s important to realize from this study that late postpartum period is the highest-risk period and also the time “when many states that have not expanded Medicaid cut off insurance needed to access life-saving health care services.”“Pregnancy is an important touch point of increased health care access, yet pregnant and parenting people face unique social and legal consequences from their substance use,” Dr. Schiff said.

She added, “I’m left wondering how many of the deaths reported could have been avoided if fear of a punitive response when engaging with our health care system had not prevented them from seeking out the care they needed.”

Dr. Schiff said the study highlights the importance of the pregnancy-checkbox addition to death records to better characterize pregnancy-associated deaths that previously were likely undercounted.

The authors and Dr. Schiff declare no relevant financial relationships.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is cautioning physicians and parents to be on the lookout for unnecessary diagnostic testing associated with several common pediatric conditions.

Children seen for these conditions in emergency settings and even in primary care offices could experience avoidable pain, exposure to harmful radiation, and other harms, according to the group.

“The emergency department has the ability to rapidly perform myriad diagnostic tests and receive results quickly,” said Paul Mullan, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Section of Emergency Medicine’s Choosing Wisely task force. “However, this comes with the danger of diagnostic overtesting.”

The five recommendations are as follows:

• Radiographs should not be obtained for children with bronchiolitis, croup, asthma, or first-time wheezing.
• Laboratory tests for screening should not be undertaken in the medical clearance process of children who require inpatient psychiatric admission unless clinically indicated.
• Laboratory testing or a CT scan of the head should not be ordered for a child with an unprovoked, generalized seizure or a simple febrile seizure whose mental status has returned to baseline.
• Abdominal radiographs should not be obtained for suspected constipation.
• Comprehensive viral panel testing should not be undertaken for children who are suspected of having respiratory viral illnesses.

The AAP task force partnered with Choosing Wisely Canada to create the recommendations. The list is the first of its kind to be published jointly by two countries, according to the release.

“We hope this Choosing Wisely list will encourage clinicians to rely on their clinical skills and avoid unnecessary tests,” said Dr. Mullan, who is also a physician at Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters and professor of pediatrics at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics is cautioning physicians and parents to be on the lookout for unnecessary diagnostic testing associated with several common pediatric conditions.

Children seen for these conditions in emergency settings and even in primary care offices could experience avoidable pain, exposure to harmful radiation, and other harms, according to the group.

“The emergency department has the ability to rapidly perform myriad diagnostic tests and receive results quickly,” said Paul Mullan, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Section of Emergency Medicine’s Choosing Wisely task force. “However, this comes with the danger of diagnostic overtesting.”

The five recommendations are as follows:

• Radiographs should not be obtained for children with bronchiolitis, croup, asthma, or first-time wheezing.
• Laboratory tests for screening should not be undertaken in the medical clearance process of children who require inpatient psychiatric admission unless clinically indicated.
• Laboratory testing or a CT scan of the head should not be ordered for a child with an unprovoked, generalized seizure or a simple febrile seizure whose mental status has returned to baseline.
• Abdominal radiographs should not be obtained for suspected constipation.
• Comprehensive viral panel testing should not be undertaken for children who are suspected of having respiratory viral illnesses.

The AAP task force partnered with Choosing Wisely Canada to create the recommendations. The list is the first of its kind to be published jointly by two countries, according to the release.

“We hope this Choosing Wisely list will encourage clinicians to rely on their clinical skills and avoid unnecessary tests,” said Dr. Mullan, who is also a physician at Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters and professor of pediatrics at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics is cautioning physicians and parents to be on the lookout for unnecessary diagnostic testing associated with several common pediatric conditions.

Children seen for these conditions in emergency settings and even in primary care offices could experience avoidable pain, exposure to harmful radiation, and other harms, according to the group.

“The emergency department has the ability to rapidly perform myriad diagnostic tests and receive results quickly,” said Paul Mullan, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Section of Emergency Medicine’s Choosing Wisely task force. “However, this comes with the danger of diagnostic overtesting.”

The five recommendations are as follows:

• Radiographs should not be obtained for children with bronchiolitis, croup, asthma, or first-time wheezing.
• Laboratory tests for screening should not be undertaken in the medical clearance process of children who require inpatient psychiatric admission unless clinically indicated.
• Laboratory testing or a CT scan of the head should not be ordered for a child with an unprovoked, generalized seizure or a simple febrile seizure whose mental status has returned to baseline.
• Abdominal radiographs should not be obtained for suspected constipation.
• Comprehensive viral panel testing should not be undertaken for children who are suspected of having respiratory viral illnesses.

The AAP task force partnered with Choosing Wisely Canada to create the recommendations. The list is the first of its kind to be published jointly by two countries, according to the release.

“We hope this Choosing Wisely list will encourage clinicians to rely on their clinical skills and avoid unnecessary tests,” said Dr. Mullan, who is also a physician at Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters and professor of pediatrics at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

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

(Reuters) – Eli Lilly’s COVID-19 drug bebtelovimab is not currently authorized for emergency use in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration said, citing it is not expected to neutralize the dominant BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 subvariants of Omicron.

The announcement on Nov. 30 takes away authorization from the last COVID-19 monoclonal antibody treatment, leaving Pfizer’s antiviral drug Paxlovid, Merck’s Lagevrio, and Gilead Sciences’ Veklury as treatments for the disease, besides convalescent plasma for some patients.

AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody Evusheld is also authorized for protection against COVID-19 infection in some people.

Eli Lilly and its authorized distributors have paused commercial distribution of the monoclonal antibody until further notice from the agency, while the U.S. government has also paused fulfillment of any pending requests under its scheme to help uninsured and underinsured Americans access the drug.

The drug, which was discovered by Abcellera and commercialized by Eli Lilly, received an authorization from the FDA in February.

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 have become the dominant strains in the United States after a steady increase in prevalence over the last 2 months, surpassing Omicron’s BA.5 subvariant, which had driven cases earlier in the year.

The subvariants accounted for around 57% of the cases nationally, as per government data last week.

Reuters Health Information © 2022 

(Reuters) – Eli Lilly’s COVID-19 drug bebtelovimab is not currently authorized for emergency use in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration said, citing it is not expected to neutralize the dominant BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 subvariants of Omicron.

The announcement on Nov. 30 takes away authorization from the last COVID-19 monoclonal antibody treatment, leaving Pfizer’s antiviral drug Paxlovid, Merck’s Lagevrio, and Gilead Sciences’ Veklury as treatments for the disease, besides convalescent plasma for some patients.

AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody Evusheld is also authorized for protection against COVID-19 infection in some people.

Eli Lilly and its authorized distributors have paused commercial distribution of the monoclonal antibody until further notice from the agency, while the U.S. government has also paused fulfillment of any pending requests under its scheme to help uninsured and underinsured Americans access the drug.

The drug, which was discovered by Abcellera and commercialized by Eli Lilly, received an authorization from the FDA in February.

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 have become the dominant strains in the United States after a steady increase in prevalence over the last 2 months, surpassing Omicron’s BA.5 subvariant, which had driven cases earlier in the year.

The subvariants accounted for around 57% of the cases nationally, as per government data last week.

Reuters Health Information © 2022 

(Reuters) – Eli Lilly’s COVID-19 drug bebtelovimab is not currently authorized for emergency use in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration said, citing it is not expected to neutralize the dominant BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 subvariants of Omicron.

The announcement on Nov. 30 takes away authorization from the last COVID-19 monoclonal antibody treatment, leaving Pfizer’s antiviral drug Paxlovid, Merck’s Lagevrio, and Gilead Sciences’ Veklury as treatments for the disease, besides convalescent plasma for some patients.

AstraZeneca’s monoclonal antibody Evusheld is also authorized for protection against COVID-19 infection in some people.

Eli Lilly and its authorized distributors have paused commercial distribution of the monoclonal antibody until further notice from the agency, while the U.S. government has also paused fulfillment of any pending requests under its scheme to help uninsured and underinsured Americans access the drug.

The drug, which was discovered by Abcellera and commercialized by Eli Lilly, received an authorization from the FDA in February.

BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 have become the dominant strains in the United States after a steady increase in prevalence over the last 2 months, surpassing Omicron’s BA.5 subvariant, which had driven cases earlier in the year.

The subvariants accounted for around 57% of the cases nationally, as per government data last week.

Reuters Health Information © 2022 

Doctors suspect the worst respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season in years just ended, and the story of a child who had a serious respiratory infection provides a glimpse of what health care providers saw in the fall of 2022.

RSV cases peaked in mid-November, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with RSV-associated hospitalizations in the United States among patients 0-4 years having maxed out five times higher than they were at the same time in 2021. These surges strained providers and left parents scrambling for care. Fortunately, pediatric hospitalizations appear to be subsiding.

In interviews, the parents of the child who had a severe case of RSV reflected on their son’s bout with the illness, and doctors described challenges to dealing with the surge in RSV cases this season. The physicians also offered advice on how recognize and respond to future cases of the virus.
 

Sebastian Witt’s story

“I didn’t even know what RSV was,” said Malte Witt, whose son, Sebastian, 2, was recently hospitalized for RSV in Denver.

Mr. Witt and his wife, Emily Witt, both 32, thought they were dealing with a typical cold until Sebastian’s condition dramatically deteriorated about 36 hours after symptom onset.

“He basically just slumped over and collapsed, coughing uncontrollably,” Mr. Witt said in an interview. “He couldn’t catch his breath.”

The Witts rushed Sebastian to the ED at Children’s Hospital Colorado, expecting to see a doctor immediately. Instead, they spent the night in an overcrowded waiting room alongside many other families in the same situation.

“There was no room for anyone to sit anywhere,” Mr. Witt said. “There were people sitting on the floor. I counted maybe six children hooked up to oxygen when we walked in.”

After waiting approximately 45 minutes, a nurse checked Sebastian’s oxygen saturation. The readings were 79%-83%. This range is significantly below thresholds for supplemental oxygen described by most pediatric guidelines, which range from 90 to 94%.

The nurse connected Sebastian to bottled oxygen in the waiting room, and a recheck 4 hours later showed that his oxygen saturation had improved.

But the improvement didn’t last.

“At roughly hour 10 in the waiting room – it was 4 in the morning – you could tell that Seb was exhausted, really not acting like himself,” Mr. Witt said. “We thought maybe it’s just late at night, he hasn’t really slept. But then Emily noticed that his oxygen tank had run out.”

Mr. Witt told a nurse, and after another check revealed low oxygen saturation, Sebastian was finally admitted.
 

Early RSV surge strains pediatric providers

With RSV-associated hospitalizations peaking at 48 per 100,000 children, Colorado has been among the states hardest hit by the virus. New Mexico – where hospitalizations peaked at 56.4 per 100,000 children – comes in second. Even in states like California, where hospitalization rates have been almost 10-fold lower than New Mexico, pediatric providers have been stretched to their limits.

“Many hospitals are really being overwhelmed with admissions for RSV, both routine RSV – relatively mild hospitalizations with bronchiolitis – as well as kids in the ICU with more severe cases,” said Dean Blumberg, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, said in an interview.

Dr. Blumberg believes the severity of the 2022-2023 RSV season is likely COVID related.

“All community-associated respiratory viral infections are out of whack because of the pandemic, and all the masking and social distancing that was occurring,” he said.

This may also explain why older kids are coming down with more severe cases of RSV.

“Some children are getting RSV for the first time as older children,” Dr. Blumberg said, noting that, historically, most children were infected in the first 2 years of life. “There are reports of children 3 or 4 years of age being admitted with their first episode of RSV because of the [COVID] pandemic.”

This year’s RSV season is also notable for arriving early, potentially catching the community off guard, according to Jennifer D. Kusma, MD, a primary care pediatrician at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

“People who should have been protected often weren’t protected yet,” Dr. Kusma said in an interview.
 

Treatments new, old, and unproven

On Nov. 17, in the midst of the RSV surge, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued updated guidance for palivizumab, an RSV-targeting monoclonal antibody labeled for children at risk of severe RSV, including those with pre-existing lung or heart conditions, and infants with a history of premature birth (less than or equal to 35 weeks’ gestational age).

“If RSV disease activity persists at high levels in a given region through the fall and winter, the AAP supports providing more than five consecutive doses of palivizumab to eligible children,” the update stated.

Insurance companies appear to be responding in kind, covering additional doses for children in need.

“[Payers] have agreed that, if [palivizumab] needs to be given for an additional month or 2 or 3, then they’re making a commitment that they’ll reimburse hospitals for providing that,” Dr. Blumberg said.

For ineligible patients, such as Sebastian, who was born prematurely at 36 weeks – 1 week shy of the label requirement – treatment relies upon supportive care with oxygen and IV fluids.

At home, parents are left with simpler options.

Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Kusma recommended keeping children hydrated, maintaining humidified air, and using saline nose drops with bulb suction to clear mucus.

In the Witts’ experience, that last step may be easier said than done.

“Every time a nurse would walk into the room, Sebastian would yell: ‘Go away, doctor! I don’t want snot sucker!’” Mr. Witt said.

“If you over snot-suck, that’s really uncomfortable for the kid, and really hard for you,” Ms. Witt said. “And it doesn’t make much of a difference. It’s just very hard to find a middle ground, where you’re helping and keeping them comfortable.”

Some parents are turning to novel strategies, such as nebulized hypertonic saline, currently marketed on Amazon for children with RSV.

Although the AAP offers a weak recommendation for nebulized hypertonic saline in children hospitalized more than 72 hours, they advise against it in the emergency setting, citing inconsistent findings in clinical trials.

To any parents tempted by thousands of positive Amazon reviews, Dr. Blumberg said, “I wouldn’t waste my money on that.”

Dr. Kusma agreed.

“[Nebulized hypertonic saline] can be irritating,” she said. “It’s saltwater, essentially. If a parent is in the position where they’re worried about their child’s breathing to the point that they think they need to use it, I would err on the side of calling your pediatrician and being seen.”
 

Going in, coming home

Dr. Kusma said parents should seek medical attention if a child is breathing faster and working harder to get air. Increased work of breathing is characterized by pulling of the skin at the notch where the throat meets the chest bone (tracheal tugging), and flattening of the belly that makes the ribcage more prominent.

Mr. Witt saw these signs in Sebastian. He knew they were significant, because a friend who is a nurse had previously shown him some examples of children who exhibited these symptoms online.

“That’s how I knew that things were actually really dangerous,” Mr. Witt said. “Had she not shown me those videos a month and a half before this happened, I don’t know that we would have hit the alarm bell as quickly as we did.”

After spending their second night and the following day in a cramped preoperative room converted to manage overflow from the emergency department, Sebastian’s condition improved, and he was discharged. The Witts are relieved to be home, but frustrations from their ordeal remain, especially considering the estimated $5,000 in out-of-pocket costs they expect to pay.

“How is this our health care system?” Ms. Witt asked. “This is unbelievable.”
 

An optimistic outlook

RSV seasons typically demonstrate a clear peak, followed by a decline through the rest of the season, suggesting better times lie ahead; however, this season has been anything but typical.

“I’m hopeful that it will just go away and stay away,” Dr. Kusma said, citing this trend. “But I can’t know for sure.”

To anxious parents, Dr. Blumberg offered an optimistic view of RSV seasons to come.

“There’s hope,” he said. “There are vaccines that are being developed that are very close to FDA approval. So, it’s possible that this time next year, we might have widespread RSV vaccination available for children so that we don’t have to go through this nightmare again.”

Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Kusma disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Doctors suspect the worst respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season in years just ended, and the story of a child who had a serious respiratory infection provides a glimpse of what health care providers saw in the fall of 2022.

RSV cases peaked in mid-November, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with RSV-associated hospitalizations in the United States among patients 0-4 years having maxed out five times higher than they were at the same time in 2021. These surges strained providers and left parents scrambling for care. Fortunately, pediatric hospitalizations appear to be subsiding.

In interviews, the parents of the child who had a severe case of RSV reflected on their son’s bout with the illness, and doctors described challenges to dealing with the surge in RSV cases this season. The physicians also offered advice on how recognize and respond to future cases of the virus.
 

Sebastian Witt’s story

“I didn’t even know what RSV was,” said Malte Witt, whose son, Sebastian, 2, was recently hospitalized for RSV in Denver.

Mr. Witt and his wife, Emily Witt, both 32, thought they were dealing with a typical cold until Sebastian’s condition dramatically deteriorated about 36 hours after symptom onset.

“He basically just slumped over and collapsed, coughing uncontrollably,” Mr. Witt said in an interview. “He couldn’t catch his breath.”

The Witts rushed Sebastian to the ED at Children’s Hospital Colorado, expecting to see a doctor immediately. Instead, they spent the night in an overcrowded waiting room alongside many other families in the same situation.

“There was no room for anyone to sit anywhere,” Mr. Witt said. “There were people sitting on the floor. I counted maybe six children hooked up to oxygen when we walked in.”

After waiting approximately 45 minutes, a nurse checked Sebastian’s oxygen saturation. The readings were 79%-83%. This range is significantly below thresholds for supplemental oxygen described by most pediatric guidelines, which range from 90 to 94%.

The nurse connected Sebastian to bottled oxygen in the waiting room, and a recheck 4 hours later showed that his oxygen saturation had improved.

But the improvement didn’t last.

“At roughly hour 10 in the waiting room – it was 4 in the morning – you could tell that Seb was exhausted, really not acting like himself,” Mr. Witt said. “We thought maybe it’s just late at night, he hasn’t really slept. But then Emily noticed that his oxygen tank had run out.”

Mr. Witt told a nurse, and after another check revealed low oxygen saturation, Sebastian was finally admitted.
 

Early RSV surge strains pediatric providers

With RSV-associated hospitalizations peaking at 48 per 100,000 children, Colorado has been among the states hardest hit by the virus. New Mexico – where hospitalizations peaked at 56.4 per 100,000 children – comes in second. Even in states like California, where hospitalization rates have been almost 10-fold lower than New Mexico, pediatric providers have been stretched to their limits.

“Many hospitals are really being overwhelmed with admissions for RSV, both routine RSV – relatively mild hospitalizations with bronchiolitis – as well as kids in the ICU with more severe cases,” said Dean Blumberg, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, said in an interview.

Dr. Blumberg believes the severity of the 2022-2023 RSV season is likely COVID related.

“All community-associated respiratory viral infections are out of whack because of the pandemic, and all the masking and social distancing that was occurring,” he said.

This may also explain why older kids are coming down with more severe cases of RSV.

“Some children are getting RSV for the first time as older children,” Dr. Blumberg said, noting that, historically, most children were infected in the first 2 years of life. “There are reports of children 3 or 4 years of age being admitted with their first episode of RSV because of the [COVID] pandemic.”

This year’s RSV season is also notable for arriving early, potentially catching the community off guard, according to Jennifer D. Kusma, MD, a primary care pediatrician at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

“People who should have been protected often weren’t protected yet,” Dr. Kusma said in an interview.
 

Treatments new, old, and unproven

On Nov. 17, in the midst of the RSV surge, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued updated guidance for palivizumab, an RSV-targeting monoclonal antibody labeled for children at risk of severe RSV, including those with pre-existing lung or heart conditions, and infants with a history of premature birth (less than or equal to 35 weeks’ gestational age).

“If RSV disease activity persists at high levels in a given region through the fall and winter, the AAP supports providing more than five consecutive doses of palivizumab to eligible children,” the update stated.

Insurance companies appear to be responding in kind, covering additional doses for children in need.

“[Payers] have agreed that, if [palivizumab] needs to be given for an additional month or 2 or 3, then they’re making a commitment that they’ll reimburse hospitals for providing that,” Dr. Blumberg said.

For ineligible patients, such as Sebastian, who was born prematurely at 36 weeks – 1 week shy of the label requirement – treatment relies upon supportive care with oxygen and IV fluids.

At home, parents are left with simpler options.

Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Kusma recommended keeping children hydrated, maintaining humidified air, and using saline nose drops with bulb suction to clear mucus.

In the Witts’ experience, that last step may be easier said than done.

“Every time a nurse would walk into the room, Sebastian would yell: ‘Go away, doctor! I don’t want snot sucker!’” Mr. Witt said.

“If you over snot-suck, that’s really uncomfortable for the kid, and really hard for you,” Ms. Witt said. “And it doesn’t make much of a difference. It’s just very hard to find a middle ground, where you’re helping and keeping them comfortable.”

Some parents are turning to novel strategies, such as nebulized hypertonic saline, currently marketed on Amazon for children with RSV.

Although the AAP offers a weak recommendation for nebulized hypertonic saline in children hospitalized more than 72 hours, they advise against it in the emergency setting, citing inconsistent findings in clinical trials.

To any parents tempted by thousands of positive Amazon reviews, Dr. Blumberg said, “I wouldn’t waste my money on that.”

Dr. Kusma agreed.

“[Nebulized hypertonic saline] can be irritating,” she said. “It’s saltwater, essentially. If a parent is in the position where they’re worried about their child’s breathing to the point that they think they need to use it, I would err on the side of calling your pediatrician and being seen.”
 

Going in, coming home

Dr. Kusma said parents should seek medical attention if a child is breathing faster and working harder to get air. Increased work of breathing is characterized by pulling of the skin at the notch where the throat meets the chest bone (tracheal tugging), and flattening of the belly that makes the ribcage more prominent.

Mr. Witt saw these signs in Sebastian. He knew they were significant, because a friend who is a nurse had previously shown him some examples of children who exhibited these symptoms online.

“That’s how I knew that things were actually really dangerous,” Mr. Witt said. “Had she not shown me those videos a month and a half before this happened, I don’t know that we would have hit the alarm bell as quickly as we did.”

After spending their second night and the following day in a cramped preoperative room converted to manage overflow from the emergency department, Sebastian’s condition improved, and he was discharged. The Witts are relieved to be home, but frustrations from their ordeal remain, especially considering the estimated $5,000 in out-of-pocket costs they expect to pay.

“How is this our health care system?” Ms. Witt asked. “This is unbelievable.”
 

An optimistic outlook

RSV seasons typically demonstrate a clear peak, followed by a decline through the rest of the season, suggesting better times lie ahead; however, this season has been anything but typical.

“I’m hopeful that it will just go away and stay away,” Dr. Kusma said, citing this trend. “But I can’t know for sure.”

To anxious parents, Dr. Blumberg offered an optimistic view of RSV seasons to come.

“There’s hope,” he said. “There are vaccines that are being developed that are very close to FDA approval. So, it’s possible that this time next year, we might have widespread RSV vaccination available for children so that we don’t have to go through this nightmare again.”

Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Kusma disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Doctors suspect the worst respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season in years just ended, and the story of a child who had a serious respiratory infection provides a glimpse of what health care providers saw in the fall of 2022.

RSV cases peaked in mid-November, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with RSV-associated hospitalizations in the United States among patients 0-4 years having maxed out five times higher than they were at the same time in 2021. These surges strained providers and left parents scrambling for care. Fortunately, pediatric hospitalizations appear to be subsiding.

In interviews, the parents of the child who had a severe case of RSV reflected on their son’s bout with the illness, and doctors described challenges to dealing with the surge in RSV cases this season. The physicians also offered advice on how recognize and respond to future cases of the virus.
 

Sebastian Witt’s story

“I didn’t even know what RSV was,” said Malte Witt, whose son, Sebastian, 2, was recently hospitalized for RSV in Denver.

Mr. Witt and his wife, Emily Witt, both 32, thought they were dealing with a typical cold until Sebastian’s condition dramatically deteriorated about 36 hours after symptom onset.

“He basically just slumped over and collapsed, coughing uncontrollably,” Mr. Witt said in an interview. “He couldn’t catch his breath.”

The Witts rushed Sebastian to the ED at Children’s Hospital Colorado, expecting to see a doctor immediately. Instead, they spent the night in an overcrowded waiting room alongside many other families in the same situation.

“There was no room for anyone to sit anywhere,” Mr. Witt said. “There were people sitting on the floor. I counted maybe six children hooked up to oxygen when we walked in.”

After waiting approximately 45 minutes, a nurse checked Sebastian’s oxygen saturation. The readings were 79%-83%. This range is significantly below thresholds for supplemental oxygen described by most pediatric guidelines, which range from 90 to 94%.

The nurse connected Sebastian to bottled oxygen in the waiting room, and a recheck 4 hours later showed that his oxygen saturation had improved.

But the improvement didn’t last.

“At roughly hour 10 in the waiting room – it was 4 in the morning – you could tell that Seb was exhausted, really not acting like himself,” Mr. Witt said. “We thought maybe it’s just late at night, he hasn’t really slept. But then Emily noticed that his oxygen tank had run out.”

Mr. Witt told a nurse, and after another check revealed low oxygen saturation, Sebastian was finally admitted.
 

Early RSV surge strains pediatric providers

With RSV-associated hospitalizations peaking at 48 per 100,000 children, Colorado has been among the states hardest hit by the virus. New Mexico – where hospitalizations peaked at 56.4 per 100,000 children – comes in second. Even in states like California, where hospitalization rates have been almost 10-fold lower than New Mexico, pediatric providers have been stretched to their limits.

“Many hospitals are really being overwhelmed with admissions for RSV, both routine RSV – relatively mild hospitalizations with bronchiolitis – as well as kids in the ICU with more severe cases,” said Dean Blumberg, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, said in an interview.

Dr. Blumberg believes the severity of the 2022-2023 RSV season is likely COVID related.

“All community-associated respiratory viral infections are out of whack because of the pandemic, and all the masking and social distancing that was occurring,” he said.

This may also explain why older kids are coming down with more severe cases of RSV.

“Some children are getting RSV for the first time as older children,” Dr. Blumberg said, noting that, historically, most children were infected in the first 2 years of life. “There are reports of children 3 or 4 years of age being admitted with their first episode of RSV because of the [COVID] pandemic.”

This year’s RSV season is also notable for arriving early, potentially catching the community off guard, according to Jennifer D. Kusma, MD, a primary care pediatrician at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

“People who should have been protected often weren’t protected yet,” Dr. Kusma said in an interview.
 

Treatments new, old, and unproven

On Nov. 17, in the midst of the RSV surge, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued updated guidance for palivizumab, an RSV-targeting monoclonal antibody labeled for children at risk of severe RSV, including those with pre-existing lung or heart conditions, and infants with a history of premature birth (less than or equal to 35 weeks’ gestational age).

“If RSV disease activity persists at high levels in a given region through the fall and winter, the AAP supports providing more than five consecutive doses of palivizumab to eligible children,” the update stated.

Insurance companies appear to be responding in kind, covering additional doses for children in need.

“[Payers] have agreed that, if [palivizumab] needs to be given for an additional month or 2 or 3, then they’re making a commitment that they’ll reimburse hospitals for providing that,” Dr. Blumberg said.

For ineligible patients, such as Sebastian, who was born prematurely at 36 weeks – 1 week shy of the label requirement – treatment relies upon supportive care with oxygen and IV fluids.

At home, parents are left with simpler options.

Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Kusma recommended keeping children hydrated, maintaining humidified air, and using saline nose drops with bulb suction to clear mucus.

In the Witts’ experience, that last step may be easier said than done.

“Every time a nurse would walk into the room, Sebastian would yell: ‘Go away, doctor! I don’t want snot sucker!’” Mr. Witt said.

“If you over snot-suck, that’s really uncomfortable for the kid, and really hard for you,” Ms. Witt said. “And it doesn’t make much of a difference. It’s just very hard to find a middle ground, where you’re helping and keeping them comfortable.”

Some parents are turning to novel strategies, such as nebulized hypertonic saline, currently marketed on Amazon for children with RSV.

Although the AAP offers a weak recommendation for nebulized hypertonic saline in children hospitalized more than 72 hours, they advise against it in the emergency setting, citing inconsistent findings in clinical trials.

To any parents tempted by thousands of positive Amazon reviews, Dr. Blumberg said, “I wouldn’t waste my money on that.”

Dr. Kusma agreed.

“[Nebulized hypertonic saline] can be irritating,” she said. “It’s saltwater, essentially. If a parent is in the position where they’re worried about their child’s breathing to the point that they think they need to use it, I would err on the side of calling your pediatrician and being seen.”
 

Going in, coming home

Dr. Kusma said parents should seek medical attention if a child is breathing faster and working harder to get air. Increased work of breathing is characterized by pulling of the skin at the notch where the throat meets the chest bone (tracheal tugging), and flattening of the belly that makes the ribcage more prominent.

Mr. Witt saw these signs in Sebastian. He knew they were significant, because a friend who is a nurse had previously shown him some examples of children who exhibited these symptoms online.

“That’s how I knew that things were actually really dangerous,” Mr. Witt said. “Had she not shown me those videos a month and a half before this happened, I don’t know that we would have hit the alarm bell as quickly as we did.”

After spending their second night and the following day in a cramped preoperative room converted to manage overflow from the emergency department, Sebastian’s condition improved, and he was discharged. The Witts are relieved to be home, but frustrations from their ordeal remain, especially considering the estimated $5,000 in out-of-pocket costs they expect to pay.

“How is this our health care system?” Ms. Witt asked. “This is unbelievable.”
 

An optimistic outlook

RSV seasons typically demonstrate a clear peak, followed by a decline through the rest of the season, suggesting better times lie ahead; however, this season has been anything but typical.

“I’m hopeful that it will just go away and stay away,” Dr. Kusma said, citing this trend. “But I can’t know for sure.”

To anxious parents, Dr. Blumberg offered an optimistic view of RSV seasons to come.

“There’s hope,” he said. “There are vaccines that are being developed that are very close to FDA approval. So, it’s possible that this time next year, we might have widespread RSV vaccination available for children so that we don’t have to go through this nightmare again.”

Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Kusma disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Outcomes were similar for comatose patients who received 36 versus 72 hours of device-based temperature control after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a randomized trial shows.

“Since 2005, active fever prevention in comatose patients has been advocated by the guidelines for 72 hours after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest,” Christian Hassager, MD, of the University of Copenhagen, told this news organization. “Our study is the first randomized trial ever on this subject – and it challenges the guidelines.”

At 90 days, a primary endpoint – a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a high Cerebral Performance Category score – occurred in 32.4% of those in the 36-hour group and 33.6% of those in the 72-hour group; mortality was 29.5% versus 30.3%, respectively.

The study was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine. The results were also presented at the Resuscitation Science Symposium during the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
 

No significant differences

Assessment of the two device-based fever-prevention strategies for the duration was a predefined, additional randomly assigned open-label intervention in the Blood Pressure and Oxygenation Targets in Post Resuscitation Care (BOX) trial, which involved comatose adult patients who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at two Danish cardiac arrest centers.

The main BOX analysis compared different primary strategies in these patients in a two-by-two factorial design: higher versus lower blood pressure targets and higher versus lower oxygenation targets. They found no difference between the various strategies in terms of death and discharge from hospital in a poor neurologic state. Those results were presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress on Aug. 27, and simultaneously published in separate articles in The New England Journal of Medicine.

For this current analysis, a total of 789 comatose patients (mean age, 62; 80% men) received device-based temperature control targeting 36° C for 24 hours followed by 37° C for either 12 or 48 hours (total intervention times, 36 and 72 hours, respectively) or until the patient regained consciousness.

Patients were kept sedated and were receiving mechanical ventilation during the temperature control at 36° C, the authors note. Target core body temperature was controlled using commercially available surface cooling at one of the sites in 286 patients (Criticool and Allon, Belmont Medical Technologies) and using intravenous cooling in 503 patients at the other site (Thermogard XP, and Cool Line Catheter, Zoll).

Body temperature was maintained at 37° C with the same type of device that had been used for 36° C during the initial 24 hours. If the patient awakened, cooling was terminated.

Physicians in both groups were permitted to use non–device-based fever treatment (that is, for a body temperature > 37.5° C) with drugs such as paracetamol, by uncovering the patient’s body, or both, at the discretion of the treating physician. Ice packs or pads were not used.

The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a Cerebral Performance Category of 3 or 4 (range, 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) within 90 days after randomization.

Secondary outcomes at 90 days included death from any cause and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score (range, 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive ability).

A primary endpoint event occurred in 32.3% of patients in the 36-hour group and in 33.6% of those in the 72-hour group (hazard ratio, 0.99). Mortality was 29.5% in the 36-hour group and 30.3% in the 72-hour group.

The median Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores were 26 and 27, respectively. No significant between-group differences in the incidence of adverse events were observed.

The authors concluded that “active device-based fever prevention for 36 or 72 hours after cardiac arrest did not result in significantly different percentages of patients dying or having severe disability or coma.”

Dr. Hassager added, “We will continue with a new trial where we will randomize to treatment as usual or immediate wakeup call and no temperature intervention at all.”
 

Findings ‘very persuasive’

Intensivist Ken Parhar, MD, clinical associate professor, Critical Care Medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, and medical director, Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit, commented on the study.

“The findings are very clear and very persuasive,” he said. “I think this should be incorporated into future guidelines, though it would be nice to see the trial repeated in another center.”

Dr. Parhar has kept comatose patients under temperature control for less than 72 hours, but mainly because those patients started to wake up. “This study provides clarity on the safety of that process – that we don’t have to unnecessarily keep somebody sedated just for an arbitrary timeline,” he said. “Beyond 36 hours, we need to continue to use our judgment.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, as was the work of one of the coauthors. Dr. Hassager’s work was funded by a grant from the Lundbeck Foundation; he also received an individual research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, as well as honoraria from ABIOMED. No other disclosures were declared.

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

Outcomes were similar for comatose patients who received 36 versus 72 hours of device-based temperature control after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a randomized trial shows.

“Since 2005, active fever prevention in comatose patients has been advocated by the guidelines for 72 hours after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest,” Christian Hassager, MD, of the University of Copenhagen, told this news organization. “Our study is the first randomized trial ever on this subject – and it challenges the guidelines.”

At 90 days, a primary endpoint – a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a high Cerebral Performance Category score – occurred in 32.4% of those in the 36-hour group and 33.6% of those in the 72-hour group; mortality was 29.5% versus 30.3%, respectively.

The study was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine. The results were also presented at the Resuscitation Science Symposium during the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
 

No significant differences

Assessment of the two device-based fever-prevention strategies for the duration was a predefined, additional randomly assigned open-label intervention in the Blood Pressure and Oxygenation Targets in Post Resuscitation Care (BOX) trial, which involved comatose adult patients who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at two Danish cardiac arrest centers.

The main BOX analysis compared different primary strategies in these patients in a two-by-two factorial design: higher versus lower blood pressure targets and higher versus lower oxygenation targets. They found no difference between the various strategies in terms of death and discharge from hospital in a poor neurologic state. Those results were presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress on Aug. 27, and simultaneously published in separate articles in The New England Journal of Medicine.

For this current analysis, a total of 789 comatose patients (mean age, 62; 80% men) received device-based temperature control targeting 36° C for 24 hours followed by 37° C for either 12 or 48 hours (total intervention times, 36 and 72 hours, respectively) or until the patient regained consciousness.

Patients were kept sedated and were receiving mechanical ventilation during the temperature control at 36° C, the authors note. Target core body temperature was controlled using commercially available surface cooling at one of the sites in 286 patients (Criticool and Allon, Belmont Medical Technologies) and using intravenous cooling in 503 patients at the other site (Thermogard XP, and Cool Line Catheter, Zoll).

Body temperature was maintained at 37° C with the same type of device that had been used for 36° C during the initial 24 hours. If the patient awakened, cooling was terminated.

Physicians in both groups were permitted to use non–device-based fever treatment (that is, for a body temperature > 37.5° C) with drugs such as paracetamol, by uncovering the patient’s body, or both, at the discretion of the treating physician. Ice packs or pads were not used.

The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a Cerebral Performance Category of 3 or 4 (range, 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) within 90 days after randomization.

Secondary outcomes at 90 days included death from any cause and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score (range, 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive ability).

A primary endpoint event occurred in 32.3% of patients in the 36-hour group and in 33.6% of those in the 72-hour group (hazard ratio, 0.99). Mortality was 29.5% in the 36-hour group and 30.3% in the 72-hour group.

The median Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores were 26 and 27, respectively. No significant between-group differences in the incidence of adverse events were observed.

The authors concluded that “active device-based fever prevention for 36 or 72 hours after cardiac arrest did not result in significantly different percentages of patients dying or having severe disability or coma.”

Dr. Hassager added, “We will continue with a new trial where we will randomize to treatment as usual or immediate wakeup call and no temperature intervention at all.”
 

Findings ‘very persuasive’

Intensivist Ken Parhar, MD, clinical associate professor, Critical Care Medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, and medical director, Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit, commented on the study.

“The findings are very clear and very persuasive,” he said. “I think this should be incorporated into future guidelines, though it would be nice to see the trial repeated in another center.”

Dr. Parhar has kept comatose patients under temperature control for less than 72 hours, but mainly because those patients started to wake up. “This study provides clarity on the safety of that process – that we don’t have to unnecessarily keep somebody sedated just for an arbitrary timeline,” he said. “Beyond 36 hours, we need to continue to use our judgment.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, as was the work of one of the coauthors. Dr. Hassager’s work was funded by a grant from the Lundbeck Foundation; he also received an individual research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, as well as honoraria from ABIOMED. No other disclosures were declared.

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

Outcomes were similar for comatose patients who received 36 versus 72 hours of device-based temperature control after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a randomized trial shows.

“Since 2005, active fever prevention in comatose patients has been advocated by the guidelines for 72 hours after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest,” Christian Hassager, MD, of the University of Copenhagen, told this news organization. “Our study is the first randomized trial ever on this subject – and it challenges the guidelines.”

At 90 days, a primary endpoint – a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a high Cerebral Performance Category score – occurred in 32.4% of those in the 36-hour group and 33.6% of those in the 72-hour group; mortality was 29.5% versus 30.3%, respectively.

The study was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine. The results were also presented at the Resuscitation Science Symposium during the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
 

No significant differences

Assessment of the two device-based fever-prevention strategies for the duration was a predefined, additional randomly assigned open-label intervention in the Blood Pressure and Oxygenation Targets in Post Resuscitation Care (BOX) trial, which involved comatose adult patients who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at two Danish cardiac arrest centers.

The main BOX analysis compared different primary strategies in these patients in a two-by-two factorial design: higher versus lower blood pressure targets and higher versus lower oxygenation targets. They found no difference between the various strategies in terms of death and discharge from hospital in a poor neurologic state. Those results were presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress on Aug. 27, and simultaneously published in separate articles in The New England Journal of Medicine.

For this current analysis, a total of 789 comatose patients (mean age, 62; 80% men) received device-based temperature control targeting 36° C for 24 hours followed by 37° C for either 12 or 48 hours (total intervention times, 36 and 72 hours, respectively) or until the patient regained consciousness.

Patients were kept sedated and were receiving mechanical ventilation during the temperature control at 36° C, the authors note. Target core body temperature was controlled using commercially available surface cooling at one of the sites in 286 patients (Criticool and Allon, Belmont Medical Technologies) and using intravenous cooling in 503 patients at the other site (Thermogard XP, and Cool Line Catheter, Zoll).

Body temperature was maintained at 37° C with the same type of device that had been used for 36° C during the initial 24 hours. If the patient awakened, cooling was terminated.

Physicians in both groups were permitted to use non–device-based fever treatment (that is, for a body temperature > 37.5° C) with drugs such as paracetamol, by uncovering the patient’s body, or both, at the discretion of the treating physician. Ice packs or pads were not used.

The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a Cerebral Performance Category of 3 or 4 (range, 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) within 90 days after randomization.

Secondary outcomes at 90 days included death from any cause and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score (range, 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive ability).

A primary endpoint event occurred in 32.3% of patients in the 36-hour group and in 33.6% of those in the 72-hour group (hazard ratio, 0.99). Mortality was 29.5% in the 36-hour group and 30.3% in the 72-hour group.

The median Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores were 26 and 27, respectively. No significant between-group differences in the incidence of adverse events were observed.

The authors concluded that “active device-based fever prevention for 36 or 72 hours after cardiac arrest did not result in significantly different percentages of patients dying or having severe disability or coma.”

Dr. Hassager added, “We will continue with a new trial where we will randomize to treatment as usual or immediate wakeup call and no temperature intervention at all.”
 

Findings ‘very persuasive’

Intensivist Ken Parhar, MD, clinical associate professor, Critical Care Medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, and medical director, Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit, commented on the study.

“The findings are very clear and very persuasive,” he said. “I think this should be incorporated into future guidelines, though it would be nice to see the trial repeated in another center.”

Dr. Parhar has kept comatose patients under temperature control for less than 72 hours, but mainly because those patients started to wake up. “This study provides clarity on the safety of that process – that we don’t have to unnecessarily keep somebody sedated just for an arbitrary timeline,” he said. “Beyond 36 hours, we need to continue to use our judgment.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, as was the work of one of the coauthors. Dr. Hassager’s work was funded by a grant from the Lundbeck Foundation; he also received an individual research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, as well as honoraria from ABIOMED. No other disclosures were declared.

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

Sitting across from a patient explaining a complicated treatment proposal, protocol, or medication may be one of the most complex yet crucial tasks you have as a physician. Although informed consent is at the forefront of shared decisions between you and your patient, there’s a fine line between providing enough information on the risks and benefits of a particular treatment and knowing you’ve explained it well enough to fully educate your patient about their choices.

According to the Medscape “Right and Wrong in Medicine: Life, Death, and Wrenching Choices” report, how you handle the informed consent process can be the difference between a positive outcome and a negative one.

“It is a bit of a fine line because unless your patient happens to be a health care provider, medicine is complicated for patients to understand,” said David L. Feldman, MD, chief medical officer at The Doctors Company, the nation’s largest medical malpractice insurer in New York.

In addition, documenting the interaction is critical, said James Giordano, PhD, MPhil, professor in the departments of neurology and biochemistry and chief of the neuroethics studies program at the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington.

“As with anything in medicine, the key rule is that if it’s not documented, it’s not done,” he said. “This also means diligent documentation in all aspects of the medical record, including the electronic medical record and the written one.”

That said, it’s important to know what’s enough and what’s too granular when you discuss a procedure with your patients, said Erum N. Ilyas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Schweiger Dermatology and a bioethicist near Philadelphia.

“One of the most challenging aspects of informed consent, especially for young physicians, is how to discuss a procedure or a medication in a manner that is both relevant and concise,” Dr. llyas said. “I’ve had residents about to perform a skin biopsy spend several minutes covering every aspect of every potential outcome of a routine skin biopsy. The patient is left traumatized and confused as to whether they should proceed with the small procedure.”

Instead, the goal of informed consent is to ensure that the patient has a general overview of the procedure and is empowered, knowing that the decision to proceed is, indeed, part of their decision-making process.

How long an informed consent discussion takes depends on the procedure.

“When I was in practice as a plastic surgeon, the conversations varied from the straightforward ‘I’m taking this mole off your cheek, and there’s a risk of scarring and bleeding’ to talking about a mastectomy and breast reconstruction, which could take an hour or more to discuss,” Dr. Feldman said.

Ultimately, it’s as essential for doctors to explain the risks associated with a procedure as it is for patients to understand precisely what’s involved, Dr. Ilyas added.

She also recommends creating a flow to the conversation that places the discussion of risks within the context of why the procedure is being performed. This way, clarity about both the risks and the need for the treatment or procedure can be achieved.

When doing so, it’s critical to make sure you’re speaking your patient’s language – literally.

“Have a translator in the room if needed,” Dr. Feldman added. “If your patient is hearing or sight impaired, you need to have every contingency ready to ensure that everyone is in complete communication.”
 

Document, document, document!

To best protect yourself, the patient must consent to each procedure and intervention via active, informed consent, said Dr. Giordano.

“It’s not enough to hand a patient a piece of paper and say sign it,” he said. “There should be some documented evidence that the patient has not only read the document but that the key parts of the document have been explained and that the patient’s level of comprehension has been assessed and verified.”

It is vital if the patient has a disability, a neurological impairment, or a neurocognitive or psychiatric condition that might impede his or her ability to understand the consent that’s being sought.

In addition, it’s best if a ‘clinical proxy’ handles the consent (for example, a nurse, office worker, or case manager).

“This can be very helpful because it means you’ve had third-party documentation of informed consent,” Dr. Giordano said. “It should then be re-documented with you as the clinician and stated that the patient has affirmatively and actively agreed to treatment.”
 

What happens when things go wrong?

If you’re sued over informed consent, with the patient claiming that you didn’t fully explain the potential risks, the first thing to consider is why this happened.

“Very often, these situations occur if there was some difficulty or competency of communication,” Dr. Giordano said. “You may have done everything right, but somehow the patient hasn’t gained an understanding of the procedure required.”

Physicians must take a hard look at how they’re explaining risks and possible side effects. For doctors who perform these procedures regularly, the risks may seem small, and they may unconsciously minimize them to the patient. But when something goes wrong, the patient may then feel that they didn’t fully understand the frequency of poor outcomes, or the potential severity.

Next, it’s important to perform a ‘gap analysis’ to assess why something went awry. That means, look at all the potential factors involved to identify which one was the weak link.

“It might be that the patient was on a signing frenzy and signed away but didn’t receive active and informed content,” Dr. Giordano said. “The goal is to learn how to close the gap for this case and for future cases.”

To protect yourself, consider using technology to your advantage, especially since lawsuits over informed consent usually happen several years after the procedure. This is when a patient might argue that you didn’t tell them about possible complications and that they might have opted out of the procedure if they had known about those issues ahead of time.

“Even before the statute of limitations is up for a lawsuit, it could be five years from the time the procedure occurred due to the length of time a lawsuit can take,” Dr. Feldman said. “That’s why it’s important to take a video of your conversation or make a recording of the informed consent conversation. This way if there’s a question of what you said, there’s a video of it.”

For many physicians, this would be a big change – to video record and then store all their informed consent conversations. It could most likely help you if a lawsuit occurs, but some physicians may feel that process to be cumbersome and time-consuming, and they’d rather find another way to ensure that patients understand the risks.

Ultimately, however, if there’s a legal question involved with informed consent, the general thinking is that the effect on the patient must be harmful for it to stand up.

“The question becomes whether the outcome rendered that gap in the consenting process forgivable,” Dr. Giordano said. “The hope is that there was nothing harmful to the patient and that the benefit of the procedure was demonstrable despite any gaps in the informed consent process.”

In the end, informed consent should be a matter of good communication before, during, and after any treatment or procedure.

“When you form a relationship with a patient who needs any procedure, small or large, you’re going to be guiding them through a very scary thing,” Dr. Feldman said. “You want to make patients feel like you care about them and that, while neither you nor the system is perfect, you’ll take care of them. That’s the bottom line.”

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

Sitting across from a patient explaining a complicated treatment proposal, protocol, or medication may be one of the most complex yet crucial tasks you have as a physician. Although informed consent is at the forefront of shared decisions between you and your patient, there’s a fine line between providing enough information on the risks and benefits of a particular treatment and knowing you’ve explained it well enough to fully educate your patient about their choices.

According to the Medscape “Right and Wrong in Medicine: Life, Death, and Wrenching Choices” report, how you handle the informed consent process can be the difference between a positive outcome and a negative one.

“It is a bit of a fine line because unless your patient happens to be a health care provider, medicine is complicated for patients to understand,” said David L. Feldman, MD, chief medical officer at The Doctors Company, the nation’s largest medical malpractice insurer in New York.

In addition, documenting the interaction is critical, said James Giordano, PhD, MPhil, professor in the departments of neurology and biochemistry and chief of the neuroethics studies program at the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington.

“As with anything in medicine, the key rule is that if it’s not documented, it’s not done,” he said. “This also means diligent documentation in all aspects of the medical record, including the electronic medical record and the written one.”

That said, it’s important to know what’s enough and what’s too granular when you discuss a procedure with your patients, said Erum N. Ilyas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Schweiger Dermatology and a bioethicist near Philadelphia.

“One of the most challenging aspects of informed consent, especially for young physicians, is how to discuss a procedure or a medication in a manner that is both relevant and concise,” Dr. llyas said. “I’ve had residents about to perform a skin biopsy spend several minutes covering every aspect of every potential outcome of a routine skin biopsy. The patient is left traumatized and confused as to whether they should proceed with the small procedure.”

Instead, the goal of informed consent is to ensure that the patient has a general overview of the procedure and is empowered, knowing that the decision to proceed is, indeed, part of their decision-making process.

How long an informed consent discussion takes depends on the procedure.

“When I was in practice as a plastic surgeon, the conversations varied from the straightforward ‘I’m taking this mole off your cheek, and there’s a risk of scarring and bleeding’ to talking about a mastectomy and breast reconstruction, which could take an hour or more to discuss,” Dr. Feldman said.

Ultimately, it’s as essential for doctors to explain the risks associated with a procedure as it is for patients to understand precisely what’s involved, Dr. Ilyas added.

She also recommends creating a flow to the conversation that places the discussion of risks within the context of why the procedure is being performed. This way, clarity about both the risks and the need for the treatment or procedure can be achieved.

When doing so, it’s critical to make sure you’re speaking your patient’s language – literally.

“Have a translator in the room if needed,” Dr. Feldman added. “If your patient is hearing or sight impaired, you need to have every contingency ready to ensure that everyone is in complete communication.”
 

Document, document, document!

To best protect yourself, the patient must consent to each procedure and intervention via active, informed consent, said Dr. Giordano.

“It’s not enough to hand a patient a piece of paper and say sign it,” he said. “There should be some documented evidence that the patient has not only read the document but that the key parts of the document have been explained and that the patient’s level of comprehension has been assessed and verified.”

It is vital if the patient has a disability, a neurological impairment, or a neurocognitive or psychiatric condition that might impede his or her ability to understand the consent that’s being sought.

In addition, it’s best if a ‘clinical proxy’ handles the consent (for example, a nurse, office worker, or case manager).

“This can be very helpful because it means you’ve had third-party documentation of informed consent,” Dr. Giordano said. “It should then be re-documented with you as the clinician and stated that the patient has affirmatively and actively agreed to treatment.”
 

What happens when things go wrong?

If you’re sued over informed consent, with the patient claiming that you didn’t fully explain the potential risks, the first thing to consider is why this happened.

“Very often, these situations occur if there was some difficulty or competency of communication,” Dr. Giordano said. “You may have done everything right, but somehow the patient hasn’t gained an understanding of the procedure required.”

Physicians must take a hard look at how they’re explaining risks and possible side effects. For doctors who perform these procedures regularly, the risks may seem small, and they may unconsciously minimize them to the patient. But when something goes wrong, the patient may then feel that they didn’t fully understand the frequency of poor outcomes, or the potential severity.

Next, it’s important to perform a ‘gap analysis’ to assess why something went awry. That means, look at all the potential factors involved to identify which one was the weak link.

“It might be that the patient was on a signing frenzy and signed away but didn’t receive active and informed content,” Dr. Giordano said. “The goal is to learn how to close the gap for this case and for future cases.”

To protect yourself, consider using technology to your advantage, especially since lawsuits over informed consent usually happen several years after the procedure. This is when a patient might argue that you didn’t tell them about possible complications and that they might have opted out of the procedure if they had known about those issues ahead of time.

“Even before the statute of limitations is up for a lawsuit, it could be five years from the time the procedure occurred due to the length of time a lawsuit can take,” Dr. Feldman said. “That’s why it’s important to take a video of your conversation or make a recording of the informed consent conversation. This way if there’s a question of what you said, there’s a video of it.”

For many physicians, this would be a big change – to video record and then store all their informed consent conversations. It could most likely help you if a lawsuit occurs, but some physicians may feel that process to be cumbersome and time-consuming, and they’d rather find another way to ensure that patients understand the risks.

Ultimately, however, if there’s a legal question involved with informed consent, the general thinking is that the effect on the patient must be harmful for it to stand up.

“The question becomes whether the outcome rendered that gap in the consenting process forgivable,” Dr. Giordano said. “The hope is that there was nothing harmful to the patient and that the benefit of the procedure was demonstrable despite any gaps in the informed consent process.”

In the end, informed consent should be a matter of good communication before, during, and after any treatment or procedure.

“When you form a relationship with a patient who needs any procedure, small or large, you’re going to be guiding them through a very scary thing,” Dr. Feldman said. “You want to make patients feel like you care about them and that, while neither you nor the system is perfect, you’ll take care of them. That’s the bottom line.”

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

Sitting across from a patient explaining a complicated treatment proposal, protocol, or medication may be one of the most complex yet crucial tasks you have as a physician. Although informed consent is at the forefront of shared decisions between you and your patient, there’s a fine line between providing enough information on the risks and benefits of a particular treatment and knowing you’ve explained it well enough to fully educate your patient about their choices.

According to the Medscape “Right and Wrong in Medicine: Life, Death, and Wrenching Choices” report, how you handle the informed consent process can be the difference between a positive outcome and a negative one.

“It is a bit of a fine line because unless your patient happens to be a health care provider, medicine is complicated for patients to understand,” said David L. Feldman, MD, chief medical officer at The Doctors Company, the nation’s largest medical malpractice insurer in New York.

In addition, documenting the interaction is critical, said James Giordano, PhD, MPhil, professor in the departments of neurology and biochemistry and chief of the neuroethics studies program at the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington.

“As with anything in medicine, the key rule is that if it’s not documented, it’s not done,” he said. “This also means diligent documentation in all aspects of the medical record, including the electronic medical record and the written one.”

That said, it’s important to know what’s enough and what’s too granular when you discuss a procedure with your patients, said Erum N. Ilyas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Schweiger Dermatology and a bioethicist near Philadelphia.

“One of the most challenging aspects of informed consent, especially for young physicians, is how to discuss a procedure or a medication in a manner that is both relevant and concise,” Dr. llyas said. “I’ve had residents about to perform a skin biopsy spend several minutes covering every aspect of every potential outcome of a routine skin biopsy. The patient is left traumatized and confused as to whether they should proceed with the small procedure.”

Instead, the goal of informed consent is to ensure that the patient has a general overview of the procedure and is empowered, knowing that the decision to proceed is, indeed, part of their decision-making process.

How long an informed consent discussion takes depends on the procedure.

“When I was in practice as a plastic surgeon, the conversations varied from the straightforward ‘I’m taking this mole off your cheek, and there’s a risk of scarring and bleeding’ to talking about a mastectomy and breast reconstruction, which could take an hour or more to discuss,” Dr. Feldman said.

Ultimately, it’s as essential for doctors to explain the risks associated with a procedure as it is for patients to understand precisely what’s involved, Dr. Ilyas added.

She also recommends creating a flow to the conversation that places the discussion of risks within the context of why the procedure is being performed. This way, clarity about both the risks and the need for the treatment or procedure can be achieved.

When doing so, it’s critical to make sure you’re speaking your patient’s language – literally.

“Have a translator in the room if needed,” Dr. Feldman added. “If your patient is hearing or sight impaired, you need to have every contingency ready to ensure that everyone is in complete communication.”
 

Document, document, document!

To best protect yourself, the patient must consent to each procedure and intervention via active, informed consent, said Dr. Giordano.

“It’s not enough to hand a patient a piece of paper and say sign it,” he said. “There should be some documented evidence that the patient has not only read the document but that the key parts of the document have been explained and that the patient’s level of comprehension has been assessed and verified.”

It is vital if the patient has a disability, a neurological impairment, or a neurocognitive or psychiatric condition that might impede his or her ability to understand the consent that’s being sought.

In addition, it’s best if a ‘clinical proxy’ handles the consent (for example, a nurse, office worker, or case manager).

“This can be very helpful because it means you’ve had third-party documentation of informed consent,” Dr. Giordano said. “It should then be re-documented with you as the clinician and stated that the patient has affirmatively and actively agreed to treatment.”
 

What happens when things go wrong?

If you’re sued over informed consent, with the patient claiming that you didn’t fully explain the potential risks, the first thing to consider is why this happened.

“Very often, these situations occur if there was some difficulty or competency of communication,” Dr. Giordano said. “You may have done everything right, but somehow the patient hasn’t gained an understanding of the procedure required.”

Physicians must take a hard look at how they’re explaining risks and possible side effects. For doctors who perform these procedures regularly, the risks may seem small, and they may unconsciously minimize them to the patient. But when something goes wrong, the patient may then feel that they didn’t fully understand the frequency of poor outcomes, or the potential severity.

Next, it’s important to perform a ‘gap analysis’ to assess why something went awry. That means, look at all the potential factors involved to identify which one was the weak link.

“It might be that the patient was on a signing frenzy and signed away but didn’t receive active and informed content,” Dr. Giordano said. “The goal is to learn how to close the gap for this case and for future cases.”

To protect yourself, consider using technology to your advantage, especially since lawsuits over informed consent usually happen several years after the procedure. This is when a patient might argue that you didn’t tell them about possible complications and that they might have opted out of the procedure if they had known about those issues ahead of time.

“Even before the statute of limitations is up for a lawsuit, it could be five years from the time the procedure occurred due to the length of time a lawsuit can take,” Dr. Feldman said. “That’s why it’s important to take a video of your conversation or make a recording of the informed consent conversation. This way if there’s a question of what you said, there’s a video of it.”

For many physicians, this would be a big change – to video record and then store all their informed consent conversations. It could most likely help you if a lawsuit occurs, but some physicians may feel that process to be cumbersome and time-consuming, and they’d rather find another way to ensure that patients understand the risks.

Ultimately, however, if there’s a legal question involved with informed consent, the general thinking is that the effect on the patient must be harmful for it to stand up.

“The question becomes whether the outcome rendered that gap in the consenting process forgivable,” Dr. Giordano said. “The hope is that there was nothing harmful to the patient and that the benefit of the procedure was demonstrable despite any gaps in the informed consent process.”

In the end, informed consent should be a matter of good communication before, during, and after any treatment or procedure.

“When you form a relationship with a patient who needs any procedure, small or large, you’re going to be guiding them through a very scary thing,” Dr. Feldman said. “You want to make patients feel like you care about them and that, while neither you nor the system is perfect, you’ll take care of them. That’s the bottom line.”

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