Covid ICYMI

Clinical questions: What are the demographics and clinical features of pediatric severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) syndromes, and which admitting demographics and clinical features are predictive of disease severity?

Background: In children, SARS-CoV-2 causes respiratory disease and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) as well as other clinical manifestations. The authors of this study chose to address the gap of identifying characteristics for severe disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, including respiratory disease, MIS-C and other manifestations.

Study design: Retrospective and prospective cohort analysis of hospitalized children

Setting: Participating hospitals in Tri-State Pediatric COVID-19 Consortium, including hospitals in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.

Synopsis: The authors identified hospitalized patients 22 years old or younger who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or met the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Preventions’ MIS-C case definition. For comparative analysis, patients were divided into a respiratory disease group (based on the World Health Organization’s criteria for COVID-19), MIS-C group or other group (based on the primary reason for hospitalization).

The authors included 281 patients in the study. 51% of the patients presented with respiratory disease, 25% with MIS-C and 25% with other symptoms, including gastrointestinal, or fever. 51% of all patients were Hispanic and 23% were non-Black Hispanic. The most common pre-existing comorbidities amongst all groups were obesity (34%) and asthma (14%).

Patients with respiratory disease had a median age of 14 years while those with MIS-C had a median age of 7 years. Patients more commonly identified as non-Hispanic Black in the MIS-C group vs the respiratory group (35% vs. 18%). Obesity and medical complexity were more prevalent in the respiratory group relative to the MIS-C group. 75% of patients with MIS-C had gastrointestinal symptoms. 44% of respiratory patients had a chest radiograph with bilateral infiltrates on admission, and 18% or respiratory patients required invasive mechanical ventilation. The most common complications in the respiratory group were acute respiratory distress syndrome (17%) and acute kidney injury (11%), whereas shock (35%) and cardiac dysfunction (25%) were the most common complications in the MIS-C group. The median length of stay for all patients was 4 days (IQR 2-8 days).

Patients with MIS-C were more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) but all deaths (7 patients) occurred in the respiratory group. 40% of patients with respiratory disease, 56% of patients with MIS-C, and 6% of other patients met the authors’ definition of severe disease (ICU admission > 48 hours). For the respiratory group, younger age, obesity, increasing white blood cell count, hypoxia, and bilateral infiltrates on chest radiograph were independent predictors of severe disease based on multivariate analyses. For the MIS-C group, lower absolute lymphocyte count and increasing CRP at admission were independent predictors of severity.

Bottom line: Mortality in pediatric patients is low. Ethnicity and race were not predictive of disease severity in this model, even though 51% of the patients studied were Hispanic and 23% were non-Hispanic Black. Severity of illness for patients with respiratory disease was found to be associated with younger age, obesity, increasing white blood cell count, hypoxia, and bilateral infiltrates on chest radiograph. Severity of illness in patients with MIS-C was associated with lower absolute lymphocyte count and increasing CRP.

Citation: Fernandes DM, et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 clinical syndromes and predictors of disease severity in hospitalized children and youth. J Pediatr. 2020 Nov 14;S0022-3476(20):31393-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.11.016.

Dr. Kumar is an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.

Clinical questions: What are the demographics and clinical features of pediatric severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) syndromes, and which admitting demographics and clinical features are predictive of disease severity?

Background: In children, SARS-CoV-2 causes respiratory disease and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) as well as other clinical manifestations. The authors of this study chose to address the gap of identifying characteristics for severe disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, including respiratory disease, MIS-C and other manifestations.

Study design: Retrospective and prospective cohort analysis of hospitalized children

Setting: Participating hospitals in Tri-State Pediatric COVID-19 Consortium, including hospitals in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.

Synopsis: The authors identified hospitalized patients 22 years old or younger who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or met the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Preventions’ MIS-C case definition. For comparative analysis, patients were divided into a respiratory disease group (based on the World Health Organization’s criteria for COVID-19), MIS-C group or other group (based on the primary reason for hospitalization).

The authors included 281 patients in the study. 51% of the patients presented with respiratory disease, 25% with MIS-C and 25% with other symptoms, including gastrointestinal, or fever. 51% of all patients were Hispanic and 23% were non-Black Hispanic. The most common pre-existing comorbidities amongst all groups were obesity (34%) and asthma (14%).

Patients with respiratory disease had a median age of 14 years while those with MIS-C had a median age of 7 years. Patients more commonly identified as non-Hispanic Black in the MIS-C group vs the respiratory group (35% vs. 18%). Obesity and medical complexity were more prevalent in the respiratory group relative to the MIS-C group. 75% of patients with MIS-C had gastrointestinal symptoms. 44% of respiratory patients had a chest radiograph with bilateral infiltrates on admission, and 18% or respiratory patients required invasive mechanical ventilation. The most common complications in the respiratory group were acute respiratory distress syndrome (17%) and acute kidney injury (11%), whereas shock (35%) and cardiac dysfunction (25%) were the most common complications in the MIS-C group. The median length of stay for all patients was 4 days (IQR 2-8 days).

Patients with MIS-C were more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) but all deaths (7 patients) occurred in the respiratory group. 40% of patients with respiratory disease, 56% of patients with MIS-C, and 6% of other patients met the authors’ definition of severe disease (ICU admission > 48 hours). For the respiratory group, younger age, obesity, increasing white blood cell count, hypoxia, and bilateral infiltrates on chest radiograph were independent predictors of severe disease based on multivariate analyses. For the MIS-C group, lower absolute lymphocyte count and increasing CRP at admission were independent predictors of severity.

Bottom line: Mortality in pediatric patients is low. Ethnicity and race were not predictive of disease severity in this model, even though 51% of the patients studied were Hispanic and 23% were non-Hispanic Black. Severity of illness for patients with respiratory disease was found to be associated with younger age, obesity, increasing white blood cell count, hypoxia, and bilateral infiltrates on chest radiograph. Severity of illness in patients with MIS-C was associated with lower absolute lymphocyte count and increasing CRP.

Citation: Fernandes DM, et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 clinical syndromes and predictors of disease severity in hospitalized children and youth. J Pediatr. 2020 Nov 14;S0022-3476(20):31393-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.11.016.

Dr. Kumar is an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.

Clinical questions: What are the demographics and clinical features of pediatric severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) syndromes, and which admitting demographics and clinical features are predictive of disease severity?

Background: In children, SARS-CoV-2 causes respiratory disease and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) as well as other clinical manifestations. The authors of this study chose to address the gap of identifying characteristics for severe disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, including respiratory disease, MIS-C and other manifestations.

Study design: Retrospective and prospective cohort analysis of hospitalized children

Setting: Participating hospitals in Tri-State Pediatric COVID-19 Consortium, including hospitals in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.

Synopsis: The authors identified hospitalized patients 22 years old or younger who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or met the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Preventions’ MIS-C case definition. For comparative analysis, patients were divided into a respiratory disease group (based on the World Health Organization’s criteria for COVID-19), MIS-C group or other group (based on the primary reason for hospitalization).

The authors included 281 patients in the study. 51% of the patients presented with respiratory disease, 25% with MIS-C and 25% with other symptoms, including gastrointestinal, or fever. 51% of all patients were Hispanic and 23% were non-Black Hispanic. The most common pre-existing comorbidities amongst all groups were obesity (34%) and asthma (14%).

Patients with respiratory disease had a median age of 14 years while those with MIS-C had a median age of 7 years. Patients more commonly identified as non-Hispanic Black in the MIS-C group vs the respiratory group (35% vs. 18%). Obesity and medical complexity were more prevalent in the respiratory group relative to the MIS-C group. 75% of patients with MIS-C had gastrointestinal symptoms. 44% of respiratory patients had a chest radiograph with bilateral infiltrates on admission, and 18% or respiratory patients required invasive mechanical ventilation. The most common complications in the respiratory group were acute respiratory distress syndrome (17%) and acute kidney injury (11%), whereas shock (35%) and cardiac dysfunction (25%) were the most common complications in the MIS-C group. The median length of stay for all patients was 4 days (IQR 2-8 days).

Patients with MIS-C were more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) but all deaths (7 patients) occurred in the respiratory group. 40% of patients with respiratory disease, 56% of patients with MIS-C, and 6% of other patients met the authors’ definition of severe disease (ICU admission > 48 hours). For the respiratory group, younger age, obesity, increasing white blood cell count, hypoxia, and bilateral infiltrates on chest radiograph were independent predictors of severe disease based on multivariate analyses. For the MIS-C group, lower absolute lymphocyte count and increasing CRP at admission were independent predictors of severity.

Bottom line: Mortality in pediatric patients is low. Ethnicity and race were not predictive of disease severity in this model, even though 51% of the patients studied were Hispanic and 23% were non-Hispanic Black. Severity of illness for patients with respiratory disease was found to be associated with younger age, obesity, increasing white blood cell count, hypoxia, and bilateral infiltrates on chest radiograph. Severity of illness in patients with MIS-C was associated with lower absolute lymphocyte count and increasing CRP.

Citation: Fernandes DM, et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 clinical syndromes and predictors of disease severity in hospitalized children and youth. J Pediatr. 2020 Nov 14;S0022-3476(20):31393-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.11.016.

Dr. Kumar is an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.

Asymptomatic screening of cancer patients receiving anticancer therapy detected a very low rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective study.

Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).

While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.

Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional anticancer therapy in May 2020.

The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.

Results

Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.

With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.

At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.

In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).

In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.

“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.

“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.

Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.

“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.

“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.

Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Asymptomatic screening of cancer patients receiving anticancer therapy detected a very low rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective study.

Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).

While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.

Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional anticancer therapy in May 2020.

The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.

Results

Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.

With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.

At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.

In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).

In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.

“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.

“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.

Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.

“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.

“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.

Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Asymptomatic screening of cancer patients receiving anticancer therapy detected a very low rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective study.

Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).

While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.

Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional anticancer therapy in May 2020.

The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.

Results

Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.

With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.

At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.

In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).

In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.

“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.

“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.

Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.

“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.

“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.

Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

States that implemented mask mandates in 2020 saw a decline in the growth of COVID-19 hospitalizations between March and October 2020, according to a new study published Feb. 5 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Hospitalization growth rates declined by 5.5 percentage points for adults between ages 18-64 about 3 weeks after the mandates were implemented, compared with climbing growth rates in the 4 weeks before mandates.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said she was pleased to see the results, but that it’s “too early” to tell whether President Joe Biden’s recent mask orders have had an effect on cases and hospitalizations in 2021.

“We’re going to be watching the mask data very carefully,” she said during a news briefing with the White House COVID-19 Response Team on Feb. 5. “I think it’s probably still a bit too early to tell, but I’m encouraged with the decrease in case rates right now.”

In another study published Feb. 5 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, trained observers tracked mask use at six universities with mask mandates between September and November 2020. Overall, observers reported that about 92% of people wore masks correctly indoors, which varied based on the type of mask.

About 97% of people used N95 masks correctly, compared with 92% who used cloth masks, and 79% who used bandanas, scarves, or neck gaiters. Cloth masks were most common, and bandanas and scarves were least common.

The Biden administration is considering whether to send masks directly to American households to encourage people to wear them, according to NBC News. The White House COVID-19 Response Team is debating the logistics of mailing out masks, including how many to send and what the mask material would be, the news outlet reported.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers reissued a new statewide mask mandate on Feb. 4, just an hour after the Republican-controlled legislature voted to repeal his previous mandate, according to The Associated Press. Gov. Evers said his priority is to keep people safe and that wearing a mask is the easiest way to do so.

“If the legislature keeps playing politics and we don’t keep wearing masks, we’re going to see more preventable deaths,” he said. “It’s going to take even longer to get our state and our economy back on track.”

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

States that implemented mask mandates in 2020 saw a decline in the growth of COVID-19 hospitalizations between March and October 2020, according to a new study published Feb. 5 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Hospitalization growth rates declined by 5.5 percentage points for adults between ages 18-64 about 3 weeks after the mandates were implemented, compared with climbing growth rates in the 4 weeks before mandates.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said she was pleased to see the results, but that it’s “too early” to tell whether President Joe Biden’s recent mask orders have had an effect on cases and hospitalizations in 2021.

“We’re going to be watching the mask data very carefully,” she said during a news briefing with the White House COVID-19 Response Team on Feb. 5. “I think it’s probably still a bit too early to tell, but I’m encouraged with the decrease in case rates right now.”

In another study published Feb. 5 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, trained observers tracked mask use at six universities with mask mandates between September and November 2020. Overall, observers reported that about 92% of people wore masks correctly indoors, which varied based on the type of mask.

About 97% of people used N95 masks correctly, compared with 92% who used cloth masks, and 79% who used bandanas, scarves, or neck gaiters. Cloth masks were most common, and bandanas and scarves were least common.

The Biden administration is considering whether to send masks directly to American households to encourage people to wear them, according to NBC News. The White House COVID-19 Response Team is debating the logistics of mailing out masks, including how many to send and what the mask material would be, the news outlet reported.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers reissued a new statewide mask mandate on Feb. 4, just an hour after the Republican-controlled legislature voted to repeal his previous mandate, according to The Associated Press. Gov. Evers said his priority is to keep people safe and that wearing a mask is the easiest way to do so.

“If the legislature keeps playing politics and we don’t keep wearing masks, we’re going to see more preventable deaths,” he said. “It’s going to take even longer to get our state and our economy back on track.”

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

States that implemented mask mandates in 2020 saw a decline in the growth of COVID-19 hospitalizations between March and October 2020, according to a new study published Feb. 5 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Hospitalization growth rates declined by 5.5 percentage points for adults between ages 18-64 about 3 weeks after the mandates were implemented, compared with climbing growth rates in the 4 weeks before mandates.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said she was pleased to see the results, but that it’s “too early” to tell whether President Joe Biden’s recent mask orders have had an effect on cases and hospitalizations in 2021.

“We’re going to be watching the mask data very carefully,” she said during a news briefing with the White House COVID-19 Response Team on Feb. 5. “I think it’s probably still a bit too early to tell, but I’m encouraged with the decrease in case rates right now.”

In another study published Feb. 5 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, trained observers tracked mask use at six universities with mask mandates between September and November 2020. Overall, observers reported that about 92% of people wore masks correctly indoors, which varied based on the type of mask.

About 97% of people used N95 masks correctly, compared with 92% who used cloth masks, and 79% who used bandanas, scarves, or neck gaiters. Cloth masks were most common, and bandanas and scarves were least common.

The Biden administration is considering whether to send masks directly to American households to encourage people to wear them, according to NBC News. The White House COVID-19 Response Team is debating the logistics of mailing out masks, including how many to send and what the mask material would be, the news outlet reported.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers reissued a new statewide mask mandate on Feb. 4, just an hour after the Republican-controlled legislature voted to repeal his previous mandate, according to The Associated Press. Gov. Evers said his priority is to keep people safe and that wearing a mask is the easiest way to do so.

“If the legislature keeps playing politics and we don’t keep wearing masks, we’re going to see more preventable deaths,” he said. “It’s going to take even longer to get our state and our economy back on track.”

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

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) COVID-19 vaccine allocation plan showcases several lessons for government and health care leaders in planning for future pandemics.¹ Many state governments—underresourced and overwhelmed with other COVID-19 demands—have struggled to get COVID-19 vaccines into the arms of their residents.² In contrast, the VHA was able to mobilize early to identify vaccine allocation guidelines and proactively prepare facilities to vaccinate VHA staff and veterans as soon as vaccines were approved under Emergency Use Authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration.^3,4

In August 2020, VHA formed a COVID-19 Vaccine Integrated Project Team, composed of 6 subgroups: communications, distribution, education, measurement, policy, prioritization, and vaccine safety. The National Center for Ethics in Health Care weighed in on the ethical justification for the developed vaccination risk stratification framework, which was informed by, but not identical to, that recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.⁵

Prioritizing who gets early access to a potentially life-saving vaccine weighs heavily on those leaders charged with making such decisions. The ethics of scarce resource allocation and triage protocols that may be necessary in a pandemic are often in tension with the patient-centered clinical ethics that health care practitioners (HCPs) encounter. HCPs require assistance in appreciating the ethical rationale for this shift in focus from the preference of the individual to the common good. The same is true for the risk stratification criteria required when there is not sufficient vaccine for all those who could benefit from immunization. Decisions must be transparent to ensure widespread acceptance and trust in the vaccination process. The ethical reasoning and values that are the basis for allocation criteria must be clearly, compassionately, and consistently communicated to the public, as outlined below. Ethical questions or concerns involve a conflict between core values: one of the central tasks of ethical analysis is to identify the available ethical options to resolve value conflicts. Several ethical frameworks for vaccine allocation are available—each balances and weighs the primary values of equity, dignity, beneficence, and utility slightly differently.⁶

For example, utilitarian ethics looks to produce the most good and avoid the most harm for the greatest number of people. Within this framework, there can be different notions of “good,” for example, saving the most lives, the most life years, the most quality life years, or the lives of those who have more life “innings” ahead. The approach of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) focuses on saving the most lives in combination with avoiding suffering from serious illness, minimizing contagion, and preserving the essential workforce. Frameworks that give primacy to 1 notion of the good (ie, saving the most lives) may deprioritize other beneficial outcomes, such as allowing earlier return to work, school, and leisure activities that many find integral to human flourishing. Other ethical theories and principles may be used to support various allocation frameworks. For example, a pragmatic ethics approach might emphasize the importance of adapting the approach based on the evolving science and innovation surrounding COVID-19. Having more than 1 ethically defensible approach is common; the goal in ethics work is to be open to diversity of thought and reflect on the strength of one’s reasoning in resolving a core values conflict. We identify 2 central tenets of pandemic ethics that inform vaccine allocation.

1. Pandemic Ethics Requires Proactive Planning and Reevaluation of Continually Evolving Facts

There is an oft quoted saying among bioethicists: “Good ethics begins with good facts.” One obvious challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic has been the difficulty accessing up-to-date facts to inform decision making. If a main goal of a vaccination plan is to minimize the incidence of serious or fatal COVID-19 disease and contagion, myriad data points are needed to identify the best way to do this. For example, if 2 doses of the same vaccine are needed, this impacts the logistics of identifying, inviting, and scheduling eligible individuals and staffing vaccine clinics as well as ensuring that sufficient personal protective equipment and rescue equipment/medication are available to treat allergic reactions. If the adverse effects of vaccines lead to staff absenteeism or vaccine hesitancy, this needs to be factored into logistics.⁷ Tailored messaging is important to reduce appointment no-shows and vaccine nonadopters.⁸ Transportation to vaccination sites is a relevant factor: how a vaccine is stored, thawed, and reconstituted and its shelf life impacts whether it can be transported after thawing and what must be provided on site.

Consideration of the multifaceted factors influencing a successful vaccination campaign requires proactive planning and the readiness to pivot when new information is revealed. For example, vaccine appointment no-shows should be anticipated along with a fair process for allocating unused vaccine that would otherwise be wasted. This is an example of responsible stewardship of a scarce and life-saving resource. A higher than anticipated no-show rate would require revisiting a facility’s approach to ensuring that waste is avoided while the process is perceived to be fair and transparent. Ethical theories and principles cannot do all the work here; mindful attention to detail and proactive, informed planning are critical. Fortunately, the VA is well resourced in this domain, whereas many state health departments floundered in their response, causing unnecessary vaccination delays.⁹

2. Utility: Necessary But Insufficient

Most ethical approaches recognize to some extent that seeking good and minimizing harm is of value. However, a strictly utilitarian approach is insufficient to address the core values in conflict surrounding how best to allocate limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine. For example, some may argue that prioritizing the elderly or those in long-term care facilities like VA’s community living centers because they have the highest COVID-19 mortality rate produces less net benefit than prioritizing younger veterans with comorbidities or certain higher risk essential workers. There are 2 important points to make here.

First, the VHA vaccination plan balances utility with other ethical principles, namely, treating people with equal concern, and addressing health inequities, including a focus on justice and valuing the worth and dignity of each person. Rather than giving everyone an equal chance via lottery, the prioritization plan recognizes that some people have greater need or would stand to better mitigate viral contagion and preserve the essential workforce if they were vaccinated earlier. However, the principle of justice requires that efforts are made to treat like cases the same to avoid perceptions of bias, and to demonstrate respect for the dignity of each individual by way of promoting a fair vaccination process.

This requires transparency, consistency, and delivery of respectful and accurate communication. For example, the VA recognizes that lifetime exposure to social injustice produces health inequities that make Black, Hispanic, and Native American persons more susceptible to contracting COVID-19 and suffering serious or fatal illness. The approach to addressing this inequity is by giving priority to those with higher risk factors. Again, this is an example of blending and balancing ethical principles of utility and justice—that is, recognizing and remedying social injustice is of value both because it will help achieve better outcomes for persons of color and because it is inherently worthwhile to oppose injustice.

However, contrary to some news reports, the VHA approach does not allocate by race/ethnicity alone, as it does by age.^10,11 Doing so would present logistical challenges—for example, race/ethnicity is not an objective classification as is age, and reconciling individuals’ self-reports could create confusion or chaos that is antithetical to a fair, streamlined vaccination program. Putting veterans of color at the front of the vaccination line could backfire by amplifying worries that they are being exposed to vaccine that is not fully tested (a common contributor to vaccine hesitancy, particularly among communities of color familiar with prior exploitation and abuse in the name of science).

Discriminating based on race/ethnicity alone in the spirit of achieving equity would be precedent setting for the VA and would require a strong ethical justification. The decision to prioritize for vaccine based on risk factors strives to achieve this balance of equity and utility, as it encompasses VA staff and veterans of color by way of their status as essential workers or those with comorbidities. However, it is important to address race-based access barriers and vaccine hesitancy to satisfy the equity demands. This effort is underway (eg, engaging community champions and developing tailored educational resources to reach diverse communities).

In addition, pragmatic ethics recognizes that an overly granular, complicated allocation plan would be inefficient to implement. While it might be true that some veterans who are aged < 65 years may be at higher risk from COVID-19 than some elderly veterans, achieving the goals of fairness and transparency requires establishing a vaccine prioritization plan that is both ethically defensible and feasibly implementable (ie, achieves its goal of getting “needles into arms”). For example, veterans aged ≥ 65 years may be invited to schedule their vaccination before younger veterans, but any veteran may be accepted “on-call” for vaccine appointment no-shows via first-come, first-served or by lottery. Flexibility of response is crucial. This played out in adding flexibility around the decision to vaccinate veterans aged ≥ 75 years before those aged 65 to 74 years, after revisiting how this prioritization might affect feasibility and throughput and opting to allow the opportunity to include those aged ≥ 65 years.

There will no doubt be additional modifications to the vaccine allocation plan as more data become available. Since the danger of fueling suspicion and distrust is high (ie, that certain privileged people are jumping the line, as we heard reports of in some non-VA facilities).¹² There is an obvious ethical duty to explain why the chosen approach is ethically defensible. VA facility leaders should be able to answer how their approach achieves the goals of avoiding serious or fatal illness, reducing contagion, and preserving the essential workforce while ensuring a fair, respectful, evidence-based, and transparent process.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) COVID-19 vaccine allocation plan showcases several lessons for government and health care leaders in planning for future pandemics.¹ Many state governments—underresourced and overwhelmed with other COVID-19 demands—have struggled to get COVID-19 vaccines into the arms of their residents.² In contrast, the VHA was able to mobilize early to identify vaccine allocation guidelines and proactively prepare facilities to vaccinate VHA staff and veterans as soon as vaccines were approved under Emergency Use Authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration.^3,4

In August 2020, VHA formed a COVID-19 Vaccine Integrated Project Team, composed of 6 subgroups: communications, distribution, education, measurement, policy, prioritization, and vaccine safety. The National Center for Ethics in Health Care weighed in on the ethical justification for the developed vaccination risk stratification framework, which was informed by, but not identical to, that recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.⁵

Prioritizing who gets early access to a potentially life-saving vaccine weighs heavily on those leaders charged with making such decisions. The ethics of scarce resource allocation and triage protocols that may be necessary in a pandemic are often in tension with the patient-centered clinical ethics that health care practitioners (HCPs) encounter. HCPs require assistance in appreciating the ethical rationale for this shift in focus from the preference of the individual to the common good. The same is true for the risk stratification criteria required when there is not sufficient vaccine for all those who could benefit from immunization. Decisions must be transparent to ensure widespread acceptance and trust in the vaccination process. The ethical reasoning and values that are the basis for allocation criteria must be clearly, compassionately, and consistently communicated to the public, as outlined below. Ethical questions or concerns involve a conflict between core values: one of the central tasks of ethical analysis is to identify the available ethical options to resolve value conflicts. Several ethical frameworks for vaccine allocation are available—each balances and weighs the primary values of equity, dignity, beneficence, and utility slightly differently.⁶

For example, utilitarian ethics looks to produce the most good and avoid the most harm for the greatest number of people. Within this framework, there can be different notions of “good,” for example, saving the most lives, the most life years, the most quality life years, or the lives of those who have more life “innings” ahead. The approach of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) focuses on saving the most lives in combination with avoiding suffering from serious illness, minimizing contagion, and preserving the essential workforce. Frameworks that give primacy to 1 notion of the good (ie, saving the most lives) may deprioritize other beneficial outcomes, such as allowing earlier return to work, school, and leisure activities that many find integral to human flourishing. Other ethical theories and principles may be used to support various allocation frameworks. For example, a pragmatic ethics approach might emphasize the importance of adapting the approach based on the evolving science and innovation surrounding COVID-19. Having more than 1 ethically defensible approach is common; the goal in ethics work is to be open to diversity of thought and reflect on the strength of one’s reasoning in resolving a core values conflict. We identify 2 central tenets of pandemic ethics that inform vaccine allocation.

1. Pandemic Ethics Requires Proactive Planning and Reevaluation of Continually Evolving Facts

There is an oft quoted saying among bioethicists: “Good ethics begins with good facts.” One obvious challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic has been the difficulty accessing up-to-date facts to inform decision making. If a main goal of a vaccination plan is to minimize the incidence of serious or fatal COVID-19 disease and contagion, myriad data points are needed to identify the best way to do this. For example, if 2 doses of the same vaccine are needed, this impacts the logistics of identifying, inviting, and scheduling eligible individuals and staffing vaccine clinics as well as ensuring that sufficient personal protective equipment and rescue equipment/medication are available to treat allergic reactions. If the adverse effects of vaccines lead to staff absenteeism or vaccine hesitancy, this needs to be factored into logistics.⁷ Tailored messaging is important to reduce appointment no-shows and vaccine nonadopters.⁸ Transportation to vaccination sites is a relevant factor: how a vaccine is stored, thawed, and reconstituted and its shelf life impacts whether it can be transported after thawing and what must be provided on site.

Consideration of the multifaceted factors influencing a successful vaccination campaign requires proactive planning and the readiness to pivot when new information is revealed. For example, vaccine appointment no-shows should be anticipated along with a fair process for allocating unused vaccine that would otherwise be wasted. This is an example of responsible stewardship of a scarce and life-saving resource. A higher than anticipated no-show rate would require revisiting a facility’s approach to ensuring that waste is avoided while the process is perceived to be fair and transparent. Ethical theories and principles cannot do all the work here; mindful attention to detail and proactive, informed planning are critical. Fortunately, the VA is well resourced in this domain, whereas many state health departments floundered in their response, causing unnecessary vaccination delays.⁹

2. Utility: Necessary But Insufficient

Most ethical approaches recognize to some extent that seeking good and minimizing harm is of value. However, a strictly utilitarian approach is insufficient to address the core values in conflict surrounding how best to allocate limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine. For example, some may argue that prioritizing the elderly or those in long-term care facilities like VA’s community living centers because they have the highest COVID-19 mortality rate produces less net benefit than prioritizing younger veterans with comorbidities or certain higher risk essential workers. There are 2 important points to make here.

First, the VHA vaccination plan balances utility with other ethical principles, namely, treating people with equal concern, and addressing health inequities, including a focus on justice and valuing the worth and dignity of each person. Rather than giving everyone an equal chance via lottery, the prioritization plan recognizes that some people have greater need or would stand to better mitigate viral contagion and preserve the essential workforce if they were vaccinated earlier. However, the principle of justice requires that efforts are made to treat like cases the same to avoid perceptions of bias, and to demonstrate respect for the dignity of each individual by way of promoting a fair vaccination process.

This requires transparency, consistency, and delivery of respectful and accurate communication. For example, the VA recognizes that lifetime exposure to social injustice produces health inequities that make Black, Hispanic, and Native American persons more susceptible to contracting COVID-19 and suffering serious or fatal illness. The approach to addressing this inequity is by giving priority to those with higher risk factors. Again, this is an example of blending and balancing ethical principles of utility and justice—that is, recognizing and remedying social injustice is of value both because it will help achieve better outcomes for persons of color and because it is inherently worthwhile to oppose injustice.

However, contrary to some news reports, the VHA approach does not allocate by race/ethnicity alone, as it does by age.^10,11 Doing so would present logistical challenges—for example, race/ethnicity is not an objective classification as is age, and reconciling individuals’ self-reports could create confusion or chaos that is antithetical to a fair, streamlined vaccination program. Putting veterans of color at the front of the vaccination line could backfire by amplifying worries that they are being exposed to vaccine that is not fully tested (a common contributor to vaccine hesitancy, particularly among communities of color familiar with prior exploitation and abuse in the name of science).

Discriminating based on race/ethnicity alone in the spirit of achieving equity would be precedent setting for the VA and would require a strong ethical justification. The decision to prioritize for vaccine based on risk factors strives to achieve this balance of equity and utility, as it encompasses VA staff and veterans of color by way of their status as essential workers or those with comorbidities. However, it is important to address race-based access barriers and vaccine hesitancy to satisfy the equity demands. This effort is underway (eg, engaging community champions and developing tailored educational resources to reach diverse communities).

In addition, pragmatic ethics recognizes that an overly granular, complicated allocation plan would be inefficient to implement. While it might be true that some veterans who are aged < 65 years may be at higher risk from COVID-19 than some elderly veterans, achieving the goals of fairness and transparency requires establishing a vaccine prioritization plan that is both ethically defensible and feasibly implementable (ie, achieves its goal of getting “needles into arms”). For example, veterans aged ≥ 65 years may be invited to schedule their vaccination before younger veterans, but any veteran may be accepted “on-call” for vaccine appointment no-shows via first-come, first-served or by lottery. Flexibility of response is crucial. This played out in adding flexibility around the decision to vaccinate veterans aged ≥ 75 years before those aged 65 to 74 years, after revisiting how this prioritization might affect feasibility and throughput and opting to allow the opportunity to include those aged ≥ 65 years.

There will no doubt be additional modifications to the vaccine allocation plan as more data become available. Since the danger of fueling suspicion and distrust is high (ie, that certain privileged people are jumping the line, as we heard reports of in some non-VA facilities).¹² There is an obvious ethical duty to explain why the chosen approach is ethically defensible. VA facility leaders should be able to answer how their approach achieves the goals of avoiding serious or fatal illness, reducing contagion, and preserving the essential workforce while ensuring a fair, respectful, evidence-based, and transparent process.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) COVID-19 vaccine allocation plan showcases several lessons for government and health care leaders in planning for future pandemics.¹ Many state governments—underresourced and overwhelmed with other COVID-19 demands—have struggled to get COVID-19 vaccines into the arms of their residents.² In contrast, the VHA was able to mobilize early to identify vaccine allocation guidelines and proactively prepare facilities to vaccinate VHA staff and veterans as soon as vaccines were approved under Emergency Use Authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration.^3,4

In August 2020, VHA formed a COVID-19 Vaccine Integrated Project Team, composed of 6 subgroups: communications, distribution, education, measurement, policy, prioritization, and vaccine safety. The National Center for Ethics in Health Care weighed in on the ethical justification for the developed vaccination risk stratification framework, which was informed by, but not identical to, that recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.⁵

Prioritizing who gets early access to a potentially life-saving vaccine weighs heavily on those leaders charged with making such decisions. The ethics of scarce resource allocation and triage protocols that may be necessary in a pandemic are often in tension with the patient-centered clinical ethics that health care practitioners (HCPs) encounter. HCPs require assistance in appreciating the ethical rationale for this shift in focus from the preference of the individual to the common good. The same is true for the risk stratification criteria required when there is not sufficient vaccine for all those who could benefit from immunization. Decisions must be transparent to ensure widespread acceptance and trust in the vaccination process. The ethical reasoning and values that are the basis for allocation criteria must be clearly, compassionately, and consistently communicated to the public, as outlined below. Ethical questions or concerns involve a conflict between core values: one of the central tasks of ethical analysis is to identify the available ethical options to resolve value conflicts. Several ethical frameworks for vaccine allocation are available—each balances and weighs the primary values of equity, dignity, beneficence, and utility slightly differently.⁶

For example, utilitarian ethics looks to produce the most good and avoid the most harm for the greatest number of people. Within this framework, there can be different notions of “good,” for example, saving the most lives, the most life years, the most quality life years, or the lives of those who have more life “innings” ahead. The approach of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) focuses on saving the most lives in combination with avoiding suffering from serious illness, minimizing contagion, and preserving the essential workforce. Frameworks that give primacy to 1 notion of the good (ie, saving the most lives) may deprioritize other beneficial outcomes, such as allowing earlier return to work, school, and leisure activities that many find integral to human flourishing. Other ethical theories and principles may be used to support various allocation frameworks. For example, a pragmatic ethics approach might emphasize the importance of adapting the approach based on the evolving science and innovation surrounding COVID-19. Having more than 1 ethically defensible approach is common; the goal in ethics work is to be open to diversity of thought and reflect on the strength of one’s reasoning in resolving a core values conflict. We identify 2 central tenets of pandemic ethics that inform vaccine allocation.

1. Pandemic Ethics Requires Proactive Planning and Reevaluation of Continually Evolving Facts

There is an oft quoted saying among bioethicists: “Good ethics begins with good facts.” One obvious challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic has been the difficulty accessing up-to-date facts to inform decision making. If a main goal of a vaccination plan is to minimize the incidence of serious or fatal COVID-19 disease and contagion, myriad data points are needed to identify the best way to do this. For example, if 2 doses of the same vaccine are needed, this impacts the logistics of identifying, inviting, and scheduling eligible individuals and staffing vaccine clinics as well as ensuring that sufficient personal protective equipment and rescue equipment/medication are available to treat allergic reactions. If the adverse effects of vaccines lead to staff absenteeism or vaccine hesitancy, this needs to be factored into logistics.⁷ Tailored messaging is important to reduce appointment no-shows and vaccine nonadopters.⁸ Transportation to vaccination sites is a relevant factor: how a vaccine is stored, thawed, and reconstituted and its shelf life impacts whether it can be transported after thawing and what must be provided on site.

Consideration of the multifaceted factors influencing a successful vaccination campaign requires proactive planning and the readiness to pivot when new information is revealed. For example, vaccine appointment no-shows should be anticipated along with a fair process for allocating unused vaccine that would otherwise be wasted. This is an example of responsible stewardship of a scarce and life-saving resource. A higher than anticipated no-show rate would require revisiting a facility’s approach to ensuring that waste is avoided while the process is perceived to be fair and transparent. Ethical theories and principles cannot do all the work here; mindful attention to detail and proactive, informed planning are critical. Fortunately, the VA is well resourced in this domain, whereas many state health departments floundered in their response, causing unnecessary vaccination delays.⁹

2. Utility: Necessary But Insufficient

Most ethical approaches recognize to some extent that seeking good and minimizing harm is of value. However, a strictly utilitarian approach is insufficient to address the core values in conflict surrounding how best to allocate limited doses of COVID-19 vaccine. For example, some may argue that prioritizing the elderly or those in long-term care facilities like VA’s community living centers because they have the highest COVID-19 mortality rate produces less net benefit than prioritizing younger veterans with comorbidities or certain higher risk essential workers. There are 2 important points to make here.

First, the VHA vaccination plan balances utility with other ethical principles, namely, treating people with equal concern, and addressing health inequities, including a focus on justice and valuing the worth and dignity of each person. Rather than giving everyone an equal chance via lottery, the prioritization plan recognizes that some people have greater need or would stand to better mitigate viral contagion and preserve the essential workforce if they were vaccinated earlier. However, the principle of justice requires that efforts are made to treat like cases the same to avoid perceptions of bias, and to demonstrate respect for the dignity of each individual by way of promoting a fair vaccination process.

This requires transparency, consistency, and delivery of respectful and accurate communication. For example, the VA recognizes that lifetime exposure to social injustice produces health inequities that make Black, Hispanic, and Native American persons more susceptible to contracting COVID-19 and suffering serious or fatal illness. The approach to addressing this inequity is by giving priority to those with higher risk factors. Again, this is an example of blending and balancing ethical principles of utility and justice—that is, recognizing and remedying social injustice is of value both because it will help achieve better outcomes for persons of color and because it is inherently worthwhile to oppose injustice.

However, contrary to some news reports, the VHA approach does not allocate by race/ethnicity alone, as it does by age.^10,11 Doing so would present logistical challenges—for example, race/ethnicity is not an objective classification as is age, and reconciling individuals’ self-reports could create confusion or chaos that is antithetical to a fair, streamlined vaccination program. Putting veterans of color at the front of the vaccination line could backfire by amplifying worries that they are being exposed to vaccine that is not fully tested (a common contributor to vaccine hesitancy, particularly among communities of color familiar with prior exploitation and abuse in the name of science).

Discriminating based on race/ethnicity alone in the spirit of achieving equity would be precedent setting for the VA and would require a strong ethical justification. The decision to prioritize for vaccine based on risk factors strives to achieve this balance of equity and utility, as it encompasses VA staff and veterans of color by way of their status as essential workers or those with comorbidities. However, it is important to address race-based access barriers and vaccine hesitancy to satisfy the equity demands. This effort is underway (eg, engaging community champions and developing tailored educational resources to reach diverse communities).

In addition, pragmatic ethics recognizes that an overly granular, complicated allocation plan would be inefficient to implement. While it might be true that some veterans who are aged < 65 years may be at higher risk from COVID-19 than some elderly veterans, achieving the goals of fairness and transparency requires establishing a vaccine prioritization plan that is both ethically defensible and feasibly implementable (ie, achieves its goal of getting “needles into arms”). For example, veterans aged ≥ 65 years may be invited to schedule their vaccination before younger veterans, but any veteran may be accepted “on-call” for vaccine appointment no-shows via first-come, first-served or by lottery. Flexibility of response is crucial. This played out in adding flexibility around the decision to vaccinate veterans aged ≥ 75 years before those aged 65 to 74 years, after revisiting how this prioritization might affect feasibility and throughput and opting to allow the opportunity to include those aged ≥ 65 years.

There will no doubt be additional modifications to the vaccine allocation plan as more data become available. Since the danger of fueling suspicion and distrust is high (ie, that certain privileged people are jumping the line, as we heard reports of in some non-VA facilities).¹² There is an obvious ethical duty to explain why the chosen approach is ethically defensible. VA facility leaders should be able to answer how their approach achieves the goals of avoiding serious or fatal illness, reducing contagion, and preserving the essential workforce while ensuring a fair, respectful, evidence-based, and transparent process.

Little has been known about children sick enough with COVID-19 to require intensive care because such patients are relatively few, but preliminary data analyzed from a nationwide registry indicate that they are more likely to be older, to be Black, and to have asthma.

Gastrointestinal distress is also more common in children with severe COVID-19, according to research by Sandeep Tripathi, MD. Dr. Tripathi, a pediatric intensivist and associate professor at the University of Illinois at Peoria, presented the findings on Feb. 3 at the Society for Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) 2021 Critical Care Congress.
 

Registry data gathered from 49 sites

Results from the SCCM’s VIRUS: COVID-19 Registry, which involved data from 49 sites, included 181 children admitted to an intensive care unit between February and July 2020. Those in the ICU were older than patients who did not receive care in the ICU (10 years vs. 3.67 years; P < .01) and were more likely to be Black (28.8% vs. 17.8%; P = .02).

More of the patients who required intensive care had preexisting conditions (58.2% vs. 44.3%; P = .01), the most common of which was asthma.

For both the ICU patients and the non-ICU group, the most common presenting symptom was fever.

Symptoms that were more common among children needing ICU care included nausea/vomiting (38.4% vs. 22.1%; P < .01), dyspnea (31.8% vs. 17.7%; P < .01), and abdominal pain (25.2% vs. 14.1%; P < .01).

Significantly higher proportions of ICU patients had multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood (MIS-C) (44.2% vs. 6.8%; P < .01) and acute kidney injury (9.34% vs. 1.7%; P < .01).

“The children who presented with MIS-C tended to be much sicker than children who present with just COVID,” Dr. Tripathi said in an interview.

In this analysis, among children in ICUs with COVID, the mortality rate was 4%, Dr. Tripathi said.

He said he hopes the information, which will be periodically published with updated data, will raise awareness of which children might be likely to experience progression to severe disease.

“The information may help physicians be more mindful of deterioration in those patients and be more aggressive in their management,” he said. When children are brought to the emergency department with the features this analysis highlights, he said, “physicians should have a low threshold for treating or admitting the patients.”

Another study that was presented on Feb. 3 in parallel with the registry study described patterns of illness among 68 children hospitalized with COVID-19 in a tertiary-care pediatric center.

In that analysis, Meghana Nadiger, MD, a critical care fellow with Nicklaus Children’s Hospital in Miami, found that all patients admitted to the pediatric ICU (n = 17) had either MIS-C or severe illness and COVID-19-related Kawasaki-like disease.

The investigators also found that the patients with serious illness were more commonly adolescents with elevated body mass index (73%). In this study, 83.8% of the hospitalized children were Hispanic. They also found that 88.8% of the children older than 2 years who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 were overweight or obese, with a BMI >25 kg/m².

Jerry Zimmerman, MD, PhD, SCCM’s immediate past president, said in an interview that he found it interesting that in the Nadiger study, “All of the children with severe illness had MIS-C as compared to adults, who typically are critically ill with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.” Dr. Zimmerman was not involved in either study.

He said that although the high percentage of Hispanic patients in the hospitalized population may reflect the high percentage of Hispanic children in the Miami area, it may also reflect challenges of controlling the disease in the Hispanic community. Such challenges might include shortages of personal protective equipment, poorer access to health care, and difficulty in social distancing.

Dr. Zimmerman pointed out that obesity is an important risk factor for COVID-19 and that according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, childhood obesity is much more common among Hispanics (25.8%) and non-Hispanic Blacks persons (22.0%) compared with non-Hispanic White persons (14.1%).

The VIRUS registry is funded in part by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Tripathi, Dr. Nadiger, and Dr. Zimmerman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Little has been known about children sick enough with COVID-19 to require intensive care because such patients are relatively few, but preliminary data analyzed from a nationwide registry indicate that they are more likely to be older, to be Black, and to have asthma.

Gastrointestinal distress is also more common in children with severe COVID-19, according to research by Sandeep Tripathi, MD. Dr. Tripathi, a pediatric intensivist and associate professor at the University of Illinois at Peoria, presented the findings on Feb. 3 at the Society for Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) 2021 Critical Care Congress.
 

Registry data gathered from 49 sites

Results from the SCCM’s VIRUS: COVID-19 Registry, which involved data from 49 sites, included 181 children admitted to an intensive care unit between February and July 2020. Those in the ICU were older than patients who did not receive care in the ICU (10 years vs. 3.67 years; P < .01) and were more likely to be Black (28.8% vs. 17.8%; P = .02).

More of the patients who required intensive care had preexisting conditions (58.2% vs. 44.3%; P = .01), the most common of which was asthma.

For both the ICU patients and the non-ICU group, the most common presenting symptom was fever.

Symptoms that were more common among children needing ICU care included nausea/vomiting (38.4% vs. 22.1%; P < .01), dyspnea (31.8% vs. 17.7%; P < .01), and abdominal pain (25.2% vs. 14.1%; P < .01).

Significantly higher proportions of ICU patients had multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood (MIS-C) (44.2% vs. 6.8%; P < .01) and acute kidney injury (9.34% vs. 1.7%; P < .01).

“The children who presented with MIS-C tended to be much sicker than children who present with just COVID,” Dr. Tripathi said in an interview.

In this analysis, among children in ICUs with COVID, the mortality rate was 4%, Dr. Tripathi said.

He said he hopes the information, which will be periodically published with updated data, will raise awareness of which children might be likely to experience progression to severe disease.

“The information may help physicians be more mindful of deterioration in those patients and be more aggressive in their management,” he said. When children are brought to the emergency department with the features this analysis highlights, he said, “physicians should have a low threshold for treating or admitting the patients.”

Another study that was presented on Feb. 3 in parallel with the registry study described patterns of illness among 68 children hospitalized with COVID-19 in a tertiary-care pediatric center.

In that analysis, Meghana Nadiger, MD, a critical care fellow with Nicklaus Children’s Hospital in Miami, found that all patients admitted to the pediatric ICU (n = 17) had either MIS-C or severe illness and COVID-19-related Kawasaki-like disease.

The investigators also found that the patients with serious illness were more commonly adolescents with elevated body mass index (73%). In this study, 83.8% of the hospitalized children were Hispanic. They also found that 88.8% of the children older than 2 years who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 were overweight or obese, with a BMI >25 kg/m².

Jerry Zimmerman, MD, PhD, SCCM’s immediate past president, said in an interview that he found it interesting that in the Nadiger study, “All of the children with severe illness had MIS-C as compared to adults, who typically are critically ill with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.” Dr. Zimmerman was not involved in either study.

He said that although the high percentage of Hispanic patients in the hospitalized population may reflect the high percentage of Hispanic children in the Miami area, it may also reflect challenges of controlling the disease in the Hispanic community. Such challenges might include shortages of personal protective equipment, poorer access to health care, and difficulty in social distancing.

Dr. Zimmerman pointed out that obesity is an important risk factor for COVID-19 and that according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, childhood obesity is much more common among Hispanics (25.8%) and non-Hispanic Blacks persons (22.0%) compared with non-Hispanic White persons (14.1%).

The VIRUS registry is funded in part by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Tripathi, Dr. Nadiger, and Dr. Zimmerman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Little has been known about children sick enough with COVID-19 to require intensive care because such patients are relatively few, but preliminary data analyzed from a nationwide registry indicate that they are more likely to be older, to be Black, and to have asthma.

Gastrointestinal distress is also more common in children with severe COVID-19, according to research by Sandeep Tripathi, MD. Dr. Tripathi, a pediatric intensivist and associate professor at the University of Illinois at Peoria, presented the findings on Feb. 3 at the Society for Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) 2021 Critical Care Congress.
 

Registry data gathered from 49 sites

Results from the SCCM’s VIRUS: COVID-19 Registry, which involved data from 49 sites, included 181 children admitted to an intensive care unit between February and July 2020. Those in the ICU were older than patients who did not receive care in the ICU (10 years vs. 3.67 years; P < .01) and were more likely to be Black (28.8% vs. 17.8%; P = .02).

More of the patients who required intensive care had preexisting conditions (58.2% vs. 44.3%; P = .01), the most common of which was asthma.

For both the ICU patients and the non-ICU group, the most common presenting symptom was fever.

Symptoms that were more common among children needing ICU care included nausea/vomiting (38.4% vs. 22.1%; P < .01), dyspnea (31.8% vs. 17.7%; P < .01), and abdominal pain (25.2% vs. 14.1%; P < .01).

Significantly higher proportions of ICU patients had multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood (MIS-C) (44.2% vs. 6.8%; P < .01) and acute kidney injury (9.34% vs. 1.7%; P < .01).

“The children who presented with MIS-C tended to be much sicker than children who present with just COVID,” Dr. Tripathi said in an interview.

In this analysis, among children in ICUs with COVID, the mortality rate was 4%, Dr. Tripathi said.

He said he hopes the information, which will be periodically published with updated data, will raise awareness of which children might be likely to experience progression to severe disease.

“The information may help physicians be more mindful of deterioration in those patients and be more aggressive in their management,” he said. When children are brought to the emergency department with the features this analysis highlights, he said, “physicians should have a low threshold for treating or admitting the patients.”

Another study that was presented on Feb. 3 in parallel with the registry study described patterns of illness among 68 children hospitalized with COVID-19 in a tertiary-care pediatric center.

In that analysis, Meghana Nadiger, MD, a critical care fellow with Nicklaus Children’s Hospital in Miami, found that all patients admitted to the pediatric ICU (n = 17) had either MIS-C or severe illness and COVID-19-related Kawasaki-like disease.

The investigators also found that the patients with serious illness were more commonly adolescents with elevated body mass index (73%). In this study, 83.8% of the hospitalized children were Hispanic. They also found that 88.8% of the children older than 2 years who had been hospitalized with COVID-19 were overweight or obese, with a BMI >25 kg/m².

Jerry Zimmerman, MD, PhD, SCCM’s immediate past president, said in an interview that he found it interesting that in the Nadiger study, “All of the children with severe illness had MIS-C as compared to adults, who typically are critically ill with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.” Dr. Zimmerman was not involved in either study.

He said that although the high percentage of Hispanic patients in the hospitalized population may reflect the high percentage of Hispanic children in the Miami area, it may also reflect challenges of controlling the disease in the Hispanic community. Such challenges might include shortages of personal protective equipment, poorer access to health care, and difficulty in social distancing.

Dr. Zimmerman pointed out that obesity is an important risk factor for COVID-19 and that according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, childhood obesity is much more common among Hispanics (25.8%) and non-Hispanic Blacks persons (22.0%) compared with non-Hispanic White persons (14.1%).

The VIRUS registry is funded in part by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Tripathi, Dr. Nadiger, and Dr. Zimmerman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has revised its emergency use authorization for COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of the latest available data.

The revision states that only high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma can be used and only in hospitalized patients who are early in the disease course and those with impaired humoral immunity who cannot produce an adequate antibody response.

The revisions stem from new clinical trial data analyzed or reported since the original EUA was issued in August 2020. The original EUA did not have these restrictions.

“This and other changes to the EUA represent important updates to the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 patients,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing the revisions.

“COVID-19 convalescent plasma used according to the revised EUA may have efficacy, and its known and potential benefits outweigh its known and potential risks,” the FDA said.

The agency said it revoked use of low-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of new data from clinical trials, including randomized, controlled trials, that have failed to demonstrate that low-titer convalescent plasma may be effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The FDA’s updated fact sheet for health care providers on the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma also notes that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma late in the disease course, following respiratory failure requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation, hasn’t been found to have clinical benefit.

The revised EUA also includes several additional tests that can be used to manufacture COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“With this update, nine tests are now included in the EUA for testing plasma donations for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as a manufacturing step to determine suitability before release,” the FDA said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has revised its emergency use authorization for COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of the latest available data.

The revision states that only high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma can be used and only in hospitalized patients who are early in the disease course and those with impaired humoral immunity who cannot produce an adequate antibody response.

The revisions stem from new clinical trial data analyzed or reported since the original EUA was issued in August 2020. The original EUA did not have these restrictions.

“This and other changes to the EUA represent important updates to the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 patients,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing the revisions.

“COVID-19 convalescent plasma used according to the revised EUA may have efficacy, and its known and potential benefits outweigh its known and potential risks,” the FDA said.

The agency said it revoked use of low-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of new data from clinical trials, including randomized, controlled trials, that have failed to demonstrate that low-titer convalescent plasma may be effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The FDA’s updated fact sheet for health care providers on the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma also notes that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma late in the disease course, following respiratory failure requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation, hasn’t been found to have clinical benefit.

The revised EUA also includes several additional tests that can be used to manufacture COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“With this update, nine tests are now included in the EUA for testing plasma donations for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as a manufacturing step to determine suitability before release,” the FDA said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has revised its emergency use authorization for COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of the latest available data.

The revision states that only high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma can be used and only in hospitalized patients who are early in the disease course and those with impaired humoral immunity who cannot produce an adequate antibody response.

The revisions stem from new clinical trial data analyzed or reported since the original EUA was issued in August 2020. The original EUA did not have these restrictions.

“This and other changes to the EUA represent important updates to the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 patients,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing the revisions.

“COVID-19 convalescent plasma used according to the revised EUA may have efficacy, and its known and potential benefits outweigh its known and potential risks,” the FDA said.

The agency said it revoked use of low-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma on the basis of new data from clinical trials, including randomized, controlled trials, that have failed to demonstrate that low-titer convalescent plasma may be effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The FDA’s updated fact sheet for health care providers on the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma also notes that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma late in the disease course, following respiratory failure requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation, hasn’t been found to have clinical benefit.

The revised EUA also includes several additional tests that can be used to manufacture COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“With this update, nine tests are now included in the EUA for testing plasma donations for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as a manufacturing step to determine suitability before release,” the FDA said.

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

As of January 10, 2021, a reported 4,041,396 first doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine had been administered in the US. Reports of 1,266 (0.03%) adverse effects (AEs) after receipt of the vaccine were submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID-19 Response Team and Food and Drug Administration in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report early release.

The researchers screened VAERS reports that described suspected severe allergic reactions and anaphylaxis and collected information from medical records and outreach to healthcare facilities, providers, and recipients. They identified 108 reports for further review as possible severe allergic reaction, including anaphylaxis, a rare vaccination reaction. Ten cases were determined to be anaphylaxis—or a rate of 2.5 cases per million vaccine doses administered. Nine of the cases were people with a documented history of allergies or allergic reactions; 5 had a history of anaphylaxis.

The median interval from vaccine receipt to symptom onset was 7.5 minutes. Eight people had follow-up information available; all had recovered or were discharged. Of the case reports that were determined not to be anaphylaxis, 47 were assessed as nonanaphylactic allergic reactions and 47 were considered nonallergic adverse events. Four cases lacked enough information to be determined.

Based on those preliminary findings, it appears anaphylaxis is rare after the Moderna vaccination, but the researchers note that comparisons with other non–COVID-19 vaccines are constrained due to the limited information available this early in the vaccination program. They did cite an analysis of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, also an mRNA vaccine, which estimated an initial rate of 11.1 cases per million doses after the first shot.

The researchers found a “strong female predominance” of anaphylaxis for both vaccines. All 10 anaphylaxis cases reported with the Moderna vaccine were in women. However, during the analytic period, 61% of first doses were given to women, vs 36% to men. Similarly, two thirds of first doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were administered to women, and women were more affected.

Postvaccine COVID-19 Infections

But patients shouldn’t be too hasty to assume that symptoms after the vaccination are vaccine related, researchers at Israel’s Sheba Medical Center warn. The mere availability of a vaccine may lead to a certain laxity of precautions and a consequent rise in COVID-19 cases. “Thus, almost every physical complaint after vaccination poses a true diagnostic dilemma,” they point out, “as to whether an adverse reaction or a new COVID-19 infection is the cause.”

They studied 4,081 healthcare workers given the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Of the vaccinated healthcare workers, 22 (0.54%) later had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Thirteen were tested because they had symptoms, usually an influenza-like illness that included fever, chills, cough, headache, myalgia, and sore throat. The median time between the first dose of vaccine and first symptoms was 3.5 days (one HCW had symptoms before immunization).

The vaccine, BNT162b2, is not likely to protect against clinical disease during the first days after receipt of the first dose, the researchers say. Efficacy was 52% a week after the first dose and positive COVID-19 cases were described among vaccinees even early after the second dose.

Clinicians should have a high level of suspicion of reported symptoms, the researchers advise, and avoid dismissing complaints as vaccine related until true infection is ruled out and the vaccine recipient is tested.

As of January 10, 2021, a reported 4,041,396 first doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine had been administered in the US. Reports of 1,266 (0.03%) adverse effects (AEs) after receipt of the vaccine were submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID-19 Response Team and Food and Drug Administration in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report early release.

The researchers screened VAERS reports that described suspected severe allergic reactions and anaphylaxis and collected information from medical records and outreach to healthcare facilities, providers, and recipients. They identified 108 reports for further review as possible severe allergic reaction, including anaphylaxis, a rare vaccination reaction. Ten cases were determined to be anaphylaxis—or a rate of 2.5 cases per million vaccine doses administered. Nine of the cases were people with a documented history of allergies or allergic reactions; 5 had a history of anaphylaxis.

The median interval from vaccine receipt to symptom onset was 7.5 minutes. Eight people had follow-up information available; all had recovered or were discharged. Of the case reports that were determined not to be anaphylaxis, 47 were assessed as nonanaphylactic allergic reactions and 47 were considered nonallergic adverse events. Four cases lacked enough information to be determined.

Based on those preliminary findings, it appears anaphylaxis is rare after the Moderna vaccination, but the researchers note that comparisons with other non–COVID-19 vaccines are constrained due to the limited information available this early in the vaccination program. They did cite an analysis of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, also an mRNA vaccine, which estimated an initial rate of 11.1 cases per million doses after the first shot.

The researchers found a “strong female predominance” of anaphylaxis for both vaccines. All 10 anaphylaxis cases reported with the Moderna vaccine were in women. However, during the analytic period, 61% of first doses were given to women, vs 36% to men. Similarly, two thirds of first doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were administered to women, and women were more affected.

Postvaccine COVID-19 Infections

But patients shouldn’t be too hasty to assume that symptoms after the vaccination are vaccine related, researchers at Israel’s Sheba Medical Center warn. The mere availability of a vaccine may lead to a certain laxity of precautions and a consequent rise in COVID-19 cases. “Thus, almost every physical complaint after vaccination poses a true diagnostic dilemma,” they point out, “as to whether an adverse reaction or a new COVID-19 infection is the cause.”

They studied 4,081 healthcare workers given the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Of the vaccinated healthcare workers, 22 (0.54%) later had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Thirteen were tested because they had symptoms, usually an influenza-like illness that included fever, chills, cough, headache, myalgia, and sore throat. The median time between the first dose of vaccine and first symptoms was 3.5 days (one HCW had symptoms before immunization).

The vaccine, BNT162b2, is not likely to protect against clinical disease during the first days after receipt of the first dose, the researchers say. Efficacy was 52% a week after the first dose and positive COVID-19 cases were described among vaccinees even early after the second dose.

Clinicians should have a high level of suspicion of reported symptoms, the researchers advise, and avoid dismissing complaints as vaccine related until true infection is ruled out and the vaccine recipient is tested.

As of January 10, 2021, a reported 4,041,396 first doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine had been administered in the US. Reports of 1,266 (0.03%) adverse effects (AEs) after receipt of the vaccine were submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID-19 Response Team and Food and Drug Administration in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report early release.

The researchers screened VAERS reports that described suspected severe allergic reactions and anaphylaxis and collected information from medical records and outreach to healthcare facilities, providers, and recipients. They identified 108 reports for further review as possible severe allergic reaction, including anaphylaxis, a rare vaccination reaction. Ten cases were determined to be anaphylaxis—or a rate of 2.5 cases per million vaccine doses administered. Nine of the cases were people with a documented history of allergies or allergic reactions; 5 had a history of anaphylaxis.

The median interval from vaccine receipt to symptom onset was 7.5 minutes. Eight people had follow-up information available; all had recovered or were discharged. Of the case reports that were determined not to be anaphylaxis, 47 were assessed as nonanaphylactic allergic reactions and 47 were considered nonallergic adverse events. Four cases lacked enough information to be determined.

Based on those preliminary findings, it appears anaphylaxis is rare after the Moderna vaccination, but the researchers note that comparisons with other non–COVID-19 vaccines are constrained due to the limited information available this early in the vaccination program. They did cite an analysis of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, also an mRNA vaccine, which estimated an initial rate of 11.1 cases per million doses after the first shot.

The researchers found a “strong female predominance” of anaphylaxis for both vaccines. All 10 anaphylaxis cases reported with the Moderna vaccine were in women. However, during the analytic period, 61% of first doses were given to women, vs 36% to men. Similarly, two thirds of first doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were administered to women, and women were more affected.

Postvaccine COVID-19 Infections

But patients shouldn’t be too hasty to assume that symptoms after the vaccination are vaccine related, researchers at Israel’s Sheba Medical Center warn. The mere availability of a vaccine may lead to a certain laxity of precautions and a consequent rise in COVID-19 cases. “Thus, almost every physical complaint after vaccination poses a true diagnostic dilemma,” they point out, “as to whether an adverse reaction or a new COVID-19 infection is the cause.”

They studied 4,081 healthcare workers given the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Of the vaccinated healthcare workers, 22 (0.54%) later had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Thirteen were tested because they had symptoms, usually an influenza-like illness that included fever, chills, cough, headache, myalgia, and sore throat. The median time between the first dose of vaccine and first symptoms was 3.5 days (one HCW had symptoms before immunization).

The vaccine, BNT162b2, is not likely to protect against clinical disease during the first days after receipt of the first dose, the researchers say. Efficacy was 52% a week after the first dose and positive COVID-19 cases were described among vaccinees even early after the second dose.

Clinicians should have a high level of suspicion of reported symptoms, the researchers advise, and avoid dismissing complaints as vaccine related until true infection is ruled out and the vaccine recipient is tested.

COVID-19 did not discriminate when it came to the impact it imposed on our hospitalist community. As the nomenclature moves away from the negative connotations of ‘burnout’ to ‘wellbeing,’ the pandemic has taught us something important about being intentional about our personal health: we must secure our own oxygen masks before helping others.

In February 2020, the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Wellbeing Taskforce efforts quickly changed focus from addressing general wellbeing, to wellbeing during COVID-19. Our Taskforce was commissioned by SHM’s Board with a new charge: Address immediate and ongoing needs of well-being and resiliency support for hospitalists during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this essay, I will discuss how our SHM Wellbeing Taskforce approached the overall topic of wellbeing for hospitalists during the COVID-19 pandemic, including some of our Taskforce group experiences.

The Taskforce started with a framework to aide in cultivating open and authentic conversations within hospital medicine groups. Creating spaces for honest sharing around how providers are doing is a crucial first step to reducing stigma, building mutual support within a group, and elevating issues of wellbeing to the level where structural change can take place. The Taskforce established two objectives for normalizing and mitigating stressors we face as hospitalists during the COVID-19 pandemic:

• Provide a framework for hospitalists to take their own emotional pulse
• Provide an approach to reduce stigma of hospitalists who are suffering from pandemic stress

While a more typical approach to fix stress and burnout is using formal institutional interventions, we used the value and insight provided by SHM’s 7 Drivers of Burnout in Hospital Medicine to help guide the creation of SHM resources in addressing the severe emotional strain being felt across the country by hospitalists. The 7 Drivers support the idea that the social role peers and hospital leaders can make a crucial difference in mitigating stress and burnout. Two examples of social support come to mind from the Wellbeing Taskforce experience:

• Participate in your meetings. One example comes from a member of our group who had underestimated the “healing power” that our group meetings had provided to his psyche. The simple act of participating in our Taskforce meeting and being in the presence of our group had provided such a positive impact that he was better able to face the “death and misery” in his unit with a smile on his face.
• Share what is stressful. The second example of social support comes from an hour of Zoom-based facilitation meetings between the SHM’s Wellbeing Taskforce members and Chapter Leaders in late October. During our Taskforce debrief after the meeting, we came to realize the enormous burden of grief our peers were carrying as one hospitalist had lost a group colleague the previous week due to suicide. Our member who led this meeting was moved – as were we – at how this had impacted his small team, and he was reminded he was not alone.

To form meaningful relationships that foster support, there needs to be a space where people can safely come together at times that initially might feel awkward. After taking steps toward your peers, these conversations can become normalized and contribute to meaningful relationships, providing the opportunity for healthy exchanges on vulnerable topics like emotional and psychological wellbeing. A printable guide for this specific purpose (“HM COVID-19 Check-In Guide for Self and Peers”) was designed to help hospitalists move into safe and supportive conversations with each other. While it is difficult to place a value on the importance these types of conversations have on individual wellbeing, it is known that the quality of a positive work environment where people feel supported can moderate stress, morale, and depression. In other words, hospitalist groups can positively contribute to their social environment during stressful times by sharing meaningful and difficult experiences with one another.

Second, the Taskforce created a social media campaign to provide a public social space for sharing hospitalists’ COVID-19 experiences. We believed that sharing collective experiences with the theme of #YouAreNotAlone and a complementary social media campaign, SHM Cares, on SHM’s social media channels, would further connect the national hospitalist community and provide a different communication pathway to decrease a sense of isolation. This idea came from the second social support idea mentioned earlier to share what is stressful with others in a safe space. We understood that some hospitalists would be more comfortable sharing publicly their comments, photos, and videos in achieving a sense of hospitalist unity.

Using our shared experiences, we identified three pillars for the final structure of the HM COVID-19 Check-In Guide for Self and Peers:

• Pillar 1. Recognize your issues. Recall our oxygen mask metaphor and this is what we mean by recognizing symptoms of new stressors (e.g., sleeplessness, irritability, forgetfulness).
• Pillar 2. Know what to say. A simple open-ended question about how the other person is working through the pandemic is an easy way to start a connection. We learned from a mental health perspective that it is unlikely that you could say anything to make a situation worse by offering a listening ear.
• Pillar 3. Check in with others. Listen to others without trying to fix the person or the situation. When appropriate, offer humorous reflections without diminishing the problem. Be a partner and commit to check in regularly with the other person.

Cultivating human connections outside of your immediate peer group can be valuable and offer additional perspective to stressful situations. For instance, one of my roles as a hospitalist administrator has been offering support by regularly listening as my physicians ‘talk out’ their day confidentially for as long as they needed. Offering open conversation in a safe and confidential way can have a healing effect. As one of my former hospitalists used to say, if issues are not addressed, they will “ooze out somewhere else.”

The HM COVID-19 Check-In Guide for Self and Peers and the SHM Cares social media campaign was the result of the Taskforce’s collective observations to help others normalize the feeling that ‘it’s OK not to be OK.’ Using the pandemic as context, the 7 Drivers of Hospitalist Burnout reminded us that the increased burnout issues we face will require continued attention past the pandemic. The value in cultivating human connections has never been more important. The SHM Wellbeing Taskforce is committed to provide continued resources. Checking in with others and listening to peers are all part of a personal wellbeing and resilience strategy. On behalf of the SHM Wellbeing Taskforce, we hope the information in this article will highlight the importance of continued attention to personal wellbeing during and after the pandemic.

Dr. Robinson received her PhD in organizational learning, performance and change from Colorado State University in 2019. Her dissertation topic was exploring hospitalist burnout, engagement, and social support. She is administrative director of inpatient medicine at St. Mary’s Medical Center in Grand Junction, Colo., a part of SCL Health. She has volunteered in numerous SHM committees, and currently serves on the SHM Wellbeing Taskforce.

COVID-19 did not discriminate when it came to the impact it imposed on our hospitalist community. As the nomenclature moves away from the negative connotations of ‘burnout’ to ‘wellbeing,’ the pandemic has taught us something important about being intentional about our personal health: we must secure our own oxygen masks before helping others.

In February 2020, the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Wellbeing Taskforce efforts quickly changed focus from addressing general wellbeing, to wellbeing during COVID-19. Our Taskforce was commissioned by SHM’s Board with a new charge: Address immediate and ongoing needs of well-being and resiliency support for hospitalists during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this essay, I will discuss how our SHM Wellbeing Taskforce approached the overall topic of wellbeing for hospitalists during the COVID-19 pandemic, including some of our Taskforce group experiences.

The Taskforce started with a framework to aide in cultivating open and authentic conversations within hospital medicine groups. Creating spaces for honest sharing around how providers are doing is a crucial first step to reducing stigma, building mutual support within a group, and elevating issues of wellbeing to the level where structural change can take place. The Taskforce established two objectives for normalizing and mitigating stressors we face as hospitalists during the COVID-19 pandemic:

• Provide a framework for hospitalists to take their own emotional pulse
• Provide an approach to reduce stigma of hospitalists who are suffering from pandemic stress

While a more typical approach to fix stress and burnout is using formal institutional interventions, we used the value and insight provided by SHM’s 7 Drivers of Burnout in Hospital Medicine to help guide the creation of SHM resources in addressing the severe emotional strain being felt across the country by hospitalists. The 7 Drivers support the idea that the social role peers and hospital leaders can make a crucial difference in mitigating stress and burnout. Two examples of social support come to mind from the Wellbeing Taskforce experience:

• Participate in your meetings. One example comes from a member of our group who had underestimated the “healing power” that our group meetings had provided to his psyche. The simple act of participating in our Taskforce meeting and being in the presence of our group had provided such a positive impact that he was better able to face the “death and misery” in his unit with a smile on his face.
• Share what is stressful. The second example of social support comes from an hour of Zoom-based facilitation meetings between the SHM’s Wellbeing Taskforce members and Chapter Leaders in late October. During our Taskforce debrief after the meeting, we came to realize the enormous burden of grief our peers were carrying as one hospitalist had lost a group colleague the previous week due to suicide. Our member who led this meeting was moved – as were we – at how this had impacted his small team, and he was reminded he was not alone.

To form meaningful relationships that foster support, there needs to be a space where people can safely come together at times that initially might feel awkward. After taking steps toward your peers, these conversations can become normalized and contribute to meaningful relationships, providing the opportunity for healthy exchanges on vulnerable topics like emotional and psychological wellbeing. A printable guide for this specific purpose (“HM COVID-19 Check-In Guide for Self and Peers”) was designed to help hospitalists move into safe and supportive conversations with each other. While it is difficult to place a value on the importance these types of conversations have on individual wellbeing, it is known that the quality of a positive work environment where people feel supported can moderate stress, morale, and depression. In other words, hospitalist groups can positively contribute to their social environment during stressful times by sharing meaningful and difficult experiences with one another.

Second, the Taskforce created a social media campaign to provide a public social space for sharing hospitalists’ COVID-19 experiences. We believed that sharing collective experiences with the theme of #YouAreNotAlone and a complementary social media campaign, SHM Cares, on SHM’s social media channels, would further connect the national hospitalist community and provide a different communication pathway to decrease a sense of isolation. This idea came from the second social support idea mentioned earlier to share what is stressful with others in a safe space. We understood that some hospitalists would be more comfortable sharing publicly their comments, photos, and videos in achieving a sense of hospitalist unity.

Using our shared experiences, we identified three pillars for the final structure of the HM COVID-19 Check-In Guide for Self and Peers:

• Pillar 1. Recognize your issues. Recall our oxygen mask metaphor and this is what we mean by recognizing symptoms of new stressors (e.g., sleeplessness, irritability, forgetfulness).
• Pillar 2. Know what to say. A simple open-ended question about how the other person is working through the pandemic is an easy way to start a connection. We learned from a mental health perspective that it is unlikely that you could say anything to make a situation worse by offering a listening ear.
• Pillar 3. Check in with others. Listen to others without trying to fix the person or the situation. When appropriate, offer humorous reflections without diminishing the problem. Be a partner and commit to check in regularly with the other person.

Cultivating human connections outside of your immediate peer group can be valuable and offer additional perspective to stressful situations. For instance, one of my roles as a hospitalist administrator has been offering support by regularly listening as my physicians ‘talk out’ their day confidentially for as long as they needed. Offering open conversation in a safe and confidential way can have a healing effect. As one of my former hospitalists used to say, if issues are not addressed, they will “ooze out somewhere else.”

The HM COVID-19 Check-In Guide for Self and Peers and the SHM Cares social media campaign was the result of the Taskforce’s collective observations to help others normalize the feeling that ‘it’s OK not to be OK.’ Using the pandemic as context, the 7 Drivers of Hospitalist Burnout reminded us that the increased burnout issues we face will require continued attention past the pandemic. The value in cultivating human connections has never been more important. The SHM Wellbeing Taskforce is committed to provide continued resources. Checking in with others and listening to peers are all part of a personal wellbeing and resilience strategy. On behalf of the SHM Wellbeing Taskforce, we hope the information in this article will highlight the importance of continued attention to personal wellbeing during and after the pandemic.

Dr. Robinson received her PhD in organizational learning, performance and change from Colorado State University in 2019. Her dissertation topic was exploring hospitalist burnout, engagement, and social support. She is administrative director of inpatient medicine at St. Mary’s Medical Center in Grand Junction, Colo., a part of SCL Health. She has volunteered in numerous SHM committees, and currently serves on the SHM Wellbeing Taskforce.

COVID-19 did not discriminate when it came to the impact it imposed on our hospitalist community. As the nomenclature moves away from the negative connotations of ‘burnout’ to ‘wellbeing,’ the pandemic has taught us something important about being intentional about our personal health: we must secure our own oxygen masks before helping others.

In February 2020, the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Wellbeing Taskforce efforts quickly changed focus from addressing general wellbeing, to wellbeing during COVID-19. Our Taskforce was commissioned by SHM’s Board with a new charge: Address immediate and ongoing needs of well-being and resiliency support for hospitalists during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this essay, I will discuss how our SHM Wellbeing Taskforce approached the overall topic of wellbeing for hospitalists during the COVID-19 pandemic, including some of our Taskforce group experiences.

The Taskforce started with a framework to aide in cultivating open and authentic conversations within hospital medicine groups. Creating spaces for honest sharing around how providers are doing is a crucial first step to reducing stigma, building mutual support within a group, and elevating issues of wellbeing to the level where structural change can take place. The Taskforce established two objectives for normalizing and mitigating stressors we face as hospitalists during the COVID-19 pandemic:

• Provide a framework for hospitalists to take their own emotional pulse
• Provide an approach to reduce stigma of hospitalists who are suffering from pandemic stress

While a more typical approach to fix stress and burnout is using formal institutional interventions, we used the value and insight provided by SHM’s 7 Drivers of Burnout in Hospital Medicine to help guide the creation of SHM resources in addressing the severe emotional strain being felt across the country by hospitalists. The 7 Drivers support the idea that the social role peers and hospital leaders can make a crucial difference in mitigating stress and burnout. Two examples of social support come to mind from the Wellbeing Taskforce experience:

• Participate in your meetings. One example comes from a member of our group who had underestimated the “healing power” that our group meetings had provided to his psyche. The simple act of participating in our Taskforce meeting and being in the presence of our group had provided such a positive impact that he was better able to face the “death and misery” in his unit with a smile on his face.
• Share what is stressful. The second example of social support comes from an hour of Zoom-based facilitation meetings between the SHM’s Wellbeing Taskforce members and Chapter Leaders in late October. During our Taskforce debrief after the meeting, we came to realize the enormous burden of grief our peers were carrying as one hospitalist had lost a group colleague the previous week due to suicide. Our member who led this meeting was moved – as were we – at how this had impacted his small team, and he was reminded he was not alone.

To form meaningful relationships that foster support, there needs to be a space where people can safely come together at times that initially might feel awkward. After taking steps toward your peers, these conversations can become normalized and contribute to meaningful relationships, providing the opportunity for healthy exchanges on vulnerable topics like emotional and psychological wellbeing. A printable guide for this specific purpose (“HM COVID-19 Check-In Guide for Self and Peers”) was designed to help hospitalists move into safe and supportive conversations with each other. While it is difficult to place a value on the importance these types of conversations have on individual wellbeing, it is known that the quality of a positive work environment where people feel supported can moderate stress, morale, and depression. In other words, hospitalist groups can positively contribute to their social environment during stressful times by sharing meaningful and difficult experiences with one another.

Second, the Taskforce created a social media campaign to provide a public social space for sharing hospitalists’ COVID-19 experiences. We believed that sharing collective experiences with the theme of #YouAreNotAlone and a complementary social media campaign, SHM Cares, on SHM’s social media channels, would further connect the national hospitalist community and provide a different communication pathway to decrease a sense of isolation. This idea came from the second social support idea mentioned earlier to share what is stressful with others in a safe space. We understood that some hospitalists would be more comfortable sharing publicly their comments, photos, and videos in achieving a sense of hospitalist unity.

Using our shared experiences, we identified three pillars for the final structure of the HM COVID-19 Check-In Guide for Self and Peers:

• Pillar 1. Recognize your issues. Recall our oxygen mask metaphor and this is what we mean by recognizing symptoms of new stressors (e.g., sleeplessness, irritability, forgetfulness).
• Pillar 2. Know what to say. A simple open-ended question about how the other person is working through the pandemic is an easy way to start a connection. We learned from a mental health perspective that it is unlikely that you could say anything to make a situation worse by offering a listening ear.
• Pillar 3. Check in with others. Listen to others without trying to fix the person or the situation. When appropriate, offer humorous reflections without diminishing the problem. Be a partner and commit to check in regularly with the other person.

Cultivating human connections outside of your immediate peer group can be valuable and offer additional perspective to stressful situations. For instance, one of my roles as a hospitalist administrator has been offering support by regularly listening as my physicians ‘talk out’ their day confidentially for as long as they needed. Offering open conversation in a safe and confidential way can have a healing effect. As one of my former hospitalists used to say, if issues are not addressed, they will “ooze out somewhere else.”

The HM COVID-19 Check-In Guide for Self and Peers and the SHM Cares social media campaign was the result of the Taskforce’s collective observations to help others normalize the feeling that ‘it’s OK not to be OK.’ Using the pandemic as context, the 7 Drivers of Hospitalist Burnout reminded us that the increased burnout issues we face will require continued attention past the pandemic. The value in cultivating human connections has never been more important. The SHM Wellbeing Taskforce is committed to provide continued resources. Checking in with others and listening to peers are all part of a personal wellbeing and resilience strategy. On behalf of the SHM Wellbeing Taskforce, we hope the information in this article will highlight the importance of continued attention to personal wellbeing during and after the pandemic.

Dr. Robinson received her PhD in organizational learning, performance and change from Colorado State University in 2019. Her dissertation topic was exploring hospitalist burnout, engagement, and social support. She is administrative director of inpatient medicine at St. Mary’s Medical Center in Grand Junction, Colo., a part of SCL Health. She has volunteered in numerous SHM committees, and currently serves on the SHM Wellbeing Taskforce.

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to treat COVID-19 are in ample supply, but scant evidence on their effectiveness, paltry reimbursement, and a lack of a planned infrastructure to administer them has led to major underutilization of these potentially useful therapies, according to a new report from The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The 35-page report described missed opportunities to work with states and hospitals to establish trust with clinicians and patients and to set up an infusion infrastructure to funnel patients to sites. Though the therapies still need more study, they should be an option for the right patient at the right time, said the National Academies experts in their report, Rapid Expert Consultation on Allocating COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Therapies and Other Novel Therapeutics.

“No potentially eligible patient should be left uninformed, and no eligible patient should be denied access, if there are doses available and the patient and doctor agree it is a reasonable course,” they concluded. The report also noted that underuse, and in particular underuse by members of vulnerable and underserved communities “raises concerns about exacerbating already dramatic health disparities.”

The federal government has spent $375 million on Eli Lilly’s bamlanivimab and $450 million on Regeneron’s casirivimab plus imdevimab cocktail, and agreed last month to spend as much as $2.6 billion more on up to 1.25 million additional doses.

Some 785,000 doses of the two therapeutics have been produced and about a half million have been distributed to states. But about three quarters have gone unused. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has launched an online treatment locater to try to spur interest in the therapies.

But the federal government hasn’t addressed some of the basic barriers to use of the monoclonals, said the National Academies experts.

“Lack of awareness, interest, and confidence in COVID-19 mAb therapies among patients and providers are major issues,” they said in the report. Patients who have tested positive might not want to travel to an infusion site, while others might not have access to health care or only seek such treatments when it’s too late. Some who are eligible might not have the time, resources, or transportation to go to a site and sit through a 2-hour treatment.

In addition, “the supply and availability of infusion centers and personnel was identified as a greater constraint than the supply of COVID-19 mAbs,” said the report.
 

Cost a big impediment

While the federal government has covered the cost of the therapies, hospitals and patients inevitably incur related costs.

“The fragmented payment system in the United States has not provided adequate support to cover the spectrum of costs associated with COVID-19 mAb therapies,” said the report. That is compounded by chronic underfunding and restrictions on federally qualified health centers for community health, the report said.

Patients may have to pay for testing, office visits, follow-up appointments, transportation to and from the infusion site, and potentially a copay for the administration of the drug.

While Medicare pays hospitals $309 per infusion, that might not be enough, especially if a hospital or other site had to build out a new infusion center, the report shows. For clinicians, the administrative payment under Medicare Part B does “not cover the total practice cost to furnish infusion services, resulting in a substantial cost-reimbursement disparity,” the report states.

In addition, there are no specific codes for observing patients during the 2-hour procedure.

“The established Medicare payment rate for furnishing COVID-19 mAb therapies does not cover the cost associated with coordinating care for those patients, nor does it justify the risk and opportunity costs associated with investing in infrastructure modifications to safely integrate COVID-19 patients into existing facilities or building temporary infusion capacity,” the report concluded.
 

More data needed

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued emergency-use authorizations (EUAs) for the two monoclonal therapies based on phase 2 trial data, and that leaves a lot of uncertainty, noted the National Academies.

In trials, both therapies reduced COVID-19-related hospitalizations and emergency room visits within 28 days after treatment among patients at high risk of progression, compared with those who received placebo.

But clinicians aren’t certain about who should use the monoclonals, said the report. The underuse has in turn led to trouble collecting data – either through ongoing trials or in starting new trials.

The National Academies recommended allocating the monoclonal antibodies in a way that would give rise to better data collection to inform clinicians. Payers could support the development of a core data platform or registry, or Medicare could develop pilot trials, said the report.

Lilly and UnitedHealth Group are collaborating on a study in high-risk Medicare patients, according to Reuters. Patients who test positive will be given bamlanivimab at home.

“Building infusion capacity and developing the evidence base about the impact of COVID-19 mAbs on clinical outcomes other than hospitalization, including mortality, are the most promising strategies for increasing effective utilization moving forward,” stated the National Academies report.

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

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to treat COVID-19 are in ample supply, but scant evidence on their effectiveness, paltry reimbursement, and a lack of a planned infrastructure to administer them has led to major underutilization of these potentially useful therapies, according to a new report from The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The 35-page report described missed opportunities to work with states and hospitals to establish trust with clinicians and patients and to set up an infusion infrastructure to funnel patients to sites. Though the therapies still need more study, they should be an option for the right patient at the right time, said the National Academies experts in their report, Rapid Expert Consultation on Allocating COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Therapies and Other Novel Therapeutics.

“No potentially eligible patient should be left uninformed, and no eligible patient should be denied access, if there are doses available and the patient and doctor agree it is a reasonable course,” they concluded. The report also noted that underuse, and in particular underuse by members of vulnerable and underserved communities “raises concerns about exacerbating already dramatic health disparities.”

The federal government has spent $375 million on Eli Lilly’s bamlanivimab and $450 million on Regeneron’s casirivimab plus imdevimab cocktail, and agreed last month to spend as much as $2.6 billion more on up to 1.25 million additional doses.

Some 785,000 doses of the two therapeutics have been produced and about a half million have been distributed to states. But about three quarters have gone unused. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has launched an online treatment locater to try to spur interest in the therapies.

But the federal government hasn’t addressed some of the basic barriers to use of the monoclonals, said the National Academies experts.

“Lack of awareness, interest, and confidence in COVID-19 mAb therapies among patients and providers are major issues,” they said in the report. Patients who have tested positive might not want to travel to an infusion site, while others might not have access to health care or only seek such treatments when it’s too late. Some who are eligible might not have the time, resources, or transportation to go to a site and sit through a 2-hour treatment.

In addition, “the supply and availability of infusion centers and personnel was identified as a greater constraint than the supply of COVID-19 mAbs,” said the report.
 

Cost a big impediment

While the federal government has covered the cost of the therapies, hospitals and patients inevitably incur related costs.

“The fragmented payment system in the United States has not provided adequate support to cover the spectrum of costs associated with COVID-19 mAb therapies,” said the report. That is compounded by chronic underfunding and restrictions on federally qualified health centers for community health, the report said.

Patients may have to pay for testing, office visits, follow-up appointments, transportation to and from the infusion site, and potentially a copay for the administration of the drug.

While Medicare pays hospitals $309 per infusion, that might not be enough, especially if a hospital or other site had to build out a new infusion center, the report shows. For clinicians, the administrative payment under Medicare Part B does “not cover the total practice cost to furnish infusion services, resulting in a substantial cost-reimbursement disparity,” the report states.

In addition, there are no specific codes for observing patients during the 2-hour procedure.

“The established Medicare payment rate for furnishing COVID-19 mAb therapies does not cover the cost associated with coordinating care for those patients, nor does it justify the risk and opportunity costs associated with investing in infrastructure modifications to safely integrate COVID-19 patients into existing facilities or building temporary infusion capacity,” the report concluded.
 

More data needed

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued emergency-use authorizations (EUAs) for the two monoclonal therapies based on phase 2 trial data, and that leaves a lot of uncertainty, noted the National Academies.

In trials, both therapies reduced COVID-19-related hospitalizations and emergency room visits within 28 days after treatment among patients at high risk of progression, compared with those who received placebo.

But clinicians aren’t certain about who should use the monoclonals, said the report. The underuse has in turn led to trouble collecting data – either through ongoing trials or in starting new trials.

The National Academies recommended allocating the monoclonal antibodies in a way that would give rise to better data collection to inform clinicians. Payers could support the development of a core data platform or registry, or Medicare could develop pilot trials, said the report.

Lilly and UnitedHealth Group are collaborating on a study in high-risk Medicare patients, according to Reuters. Patients who test positive will be given bamlanivimab at home.

“Building infusion capacity and developing the evidence base about the impact of COVID-19 mAbs on clinical outcomes other than hospitalization, including mortality, are the most promising strategies for increasing effective utilization moving forward,” stated the National Academies report.

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

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to treat COVID-19 are in ample supply, but scant evidence on their effectiveness, paltry reimbursement, and a lack of a planned infrastructure to administer them has led to major underutilization of these potentially useful therapies, according to a new report from The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The 35-page report described missed opportunities to work with states and hospitals to establish trust with clinicians and patients and to set up an infusion infrastructure to funnel patients to sites. Though the therapies still need more study, they should be an option for the right patient at the right time, said the National Academies experts in their report, Rapid Expert Consultation on Allocating COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody Therapies and Other Novel Therapeutics.

“No potentially eligible patient should be left uninformed, and no eligible patient should be denied access, if there are doses available and the patient and doctor agree it is a reasonable course,” they concluded. The report also noted that underuse, and in particular underuse by members of vulnerable and underserved communities “raises concerns about exacerbating already dramatic health disparities.”

The federal government has spent $375 million on Eli Lilly’s bamlanivimab and $450 million on Regeneron’s casirivimab plus imdevimab cocktail, and agreed last month to spend as much as $2.6 billion more on up to 1.25 million additional doses.

Some 785,000 doses of the two therapeutics have been produced and about a half million have been distributed to states. But about three quarters have gone unused. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has launched an online treatment locater to try to spur interest in the therapies.

But the federal government hasn’t addressed some of the basic barriers to use of the monoclonals, said the National Academies experts.

“Lack of awareness, interest, and confidence in COVID-19 mAb therapies among patients and providers are major issues,” they said in the report. Patients who have tested positive might not want to travel to an infusion site, while others might not have access to health care or only seek such treatments when it’s too late. Some who are eligible might not have the time, resources, or transportation to go to a site and sit through a 2-hour treatment.

In addition, “the supply and availability of infusion centers and personnel was identified as a greater constraint than the supply of COVID-19 mAbs,” said the report.
 

Cost a big impediment

While the federal government has covered the cost of the therapies, hospitals and patients inevitably incur related costs.

“The fragmented payment system in the United States has not provided adequate support to cover the spectrum of costs associated with COVID-19 mAb therapies,” said the report. That is compounded by chronic underfunding and restrictions on federally qualified health centers for community health, the report said.

Patients may have to pay for testing, office visits, follow-up appointments, transportation to and from the infusion site, and potentially a copay for the administration of the drug.

While Medicare pays hospitals $309 per infusion, that might not be enough, especially if a hospital or other site had to build out a new infusion center, the report shows. For clinicians, the administrative payment under Medicare Part B does “not cover the total practice cost to furnish infusion services, resulting in a substantial cost-reimbursement disparity,” the report states.

In addition, there are no specific codes for observing patients during the 2-hour procedure.

“The established Medicare payment rate for furnishing COVID-19 mAb therapies does not cover the cost associated with coordinating care for those patients, nor does it justify the risk and opportunity costs associated with investing in infrastructure modifications to safely integrate COVID-19 patients into existing facilities or building temporary infusion capacity,” the report concluded.
 

More data needed

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued emergency-use authorizations (EUAs) for the two monoclonal therapies based on phase 2 trial data, and that leaves a lot of uncertainty, noted the National Academies.

In trials, both therapies reduced COVID-19-related hospitalizations and emergency room visits within 28 days after treatment among patients at high risk of progression, compared with those who received placebo.

But clinicians aren’t certain about who should use the monoclonals, said the report. The underuse has in turn led to trouble collecting data – either through ongoing trials or in starting new trials.

The National Academies recommended allocating the monoclonal antibodies in a way that would give rise to better data collection to inform clinicians. Payers could support the development of a core data platform or registry, or Medicare could develop pilot trials, said the report.

Lilly and UnitedHealth Group are collaborating on a study in high-risk Medicare patients, according to Reuters. Patients who test positive will be given bamlanivimab at home.

“Building infusion capacity and developing the evidence base about the impact of COVID-19 mAbs on clinical outcomes other than hospitalization, including mortality, are the most promising strategies for increasing effective utilization moving forward,” stated the National Academies report.

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