Infectious Disease Practitioner

Among patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection who are not receiving antiviral therapy, surface antigen titers and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels may independently predict spontaneous seroconversion, based on a recent case-control study.

Patients with hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) titers less than 1,000 IU/mL were significantly more likely to spontaneously seroconvert, reported principal author Sammy Saab, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

While the predictive value of HBsAg titers has been demonstrated for patients undergoing antiviral therapy, data are limited for spontaneous seroconversion, the investigators wrote in Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.

To learn more about this scenario, the investigators reviewed medical records from 2,126 patients who visited a large community practice in the Los Angeles area between 2014 and 2019. Cases were defined by HBV infection with seroconversion, whereas matched controls were defined by HBV without seroconversion. A variety of demographic and clinical data were also evaluated, including age, ethnicity, sex, HBsAg titer, ALT, HBV DNA, total cholesterol, presence of fatty liver, and other factors.

The investigators identified 167 patients with HBV who were not on antiviral therapy. Of these, 14 underwent seroconversion, and were matched with 70 patients who did not seroconvert. All patients were of Asian descent, most were women, and none had cirrhosis.

Across all demographic and clinical parameters, the two factors that significantly differed between cases and controls were ALT and HBsAg titer. The mean ALT for patients who seroconverted was 17.6 U/L, versus 25.1 U/L in those who did not undergo seroconversion (P less than .01). Similarly, mean titer was lower in the seroconversion group (459.8 vs. 782.0 IU/mL; P = .01).

The investigators noted that seroconversion was more common among patients with an HBsAg titer level less than 1,000 IU/mL. Specifically, 79% of patients who seroconverted had a titer less than 1,000 IU/mL, compared with just 16% of patients who did not seroconvert (P = .001).

HBV DNA levels were not predictive of seroconversion, the investigators noted, which aligns with most, but not all, previous research.

The investigators reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Wu CF et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Feb 11. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001324.

Among patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection who are not receiving antiviral therapy, surface antigen titers and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels may independently predict spontaneous seroconversion, based on a recent case-control study.

Patients with hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) titers less than 1,000 IU/mL were significantly more likely to spontaneously seroconvert, reported principal author Sammy Saab, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

While the predictive value of HBsAg titers has been demonstrated for patients undergoing antiviral therapy, data are limited for spontaneous seroconversion, the investigators wrote in Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.

To learn more about this scenario, the investigators reviewed medical records from 2,126 patients who visited a large community practice in the Los Angeles area between 2014 and 2019. Cases were defined by HBV infection with seroconversion, whereas matched controls were defined by HBV without seroconversion. A variety of demographic and clinical data were also evaluated, including age, ethnicity, sex, HBsAg titer, ALT, HBV DNA, total cholesterol, presence of fatty liver, and other factors.

The investigators identified 167 patients with HBV who were not on antiviral therapy. Of these, 14 underwent seroconversion, and were matched with 70 patients who did not seroconvert. All patients were of Asian descent, most were women, and none had cirrhosis.

Across all demographic and clinical parameters, the two factors that significantly differed between cases and controls were ALT and HBsAg titer. The mean ALT for patients who seroconverted was 17.6 U/L, versus 25.1 U/L in those who did not undergo seroconversion (P less than .01). Similarly, mean titer was lower in the seroconversion group (459.8 vs. 782.0 IU/mL; P = .01).

The investigators noted that seroconversion was more common among patients with an HBsAg titer level less than 1,000 IU/mL. Specifically, 79% of patients who seroconverted had a titer less than 1,000 IU/mL, compared with just 16% of patients who did not seroconvert (P = .001).

HBV DNA levels were not predictive of seroconversion, the investigators noted, which aligns with most, but not all, previous research.

The investigators reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Wu CF et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Feb 11. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001324.

Among patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection who are not receiving antiviral therapy, surface antigen titers and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels may independently predict spontaneous seroconversion, based on a recent case-control study.

Patients with hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) titers less than 1,000 IU/mL were significantly more likely to spontaneously seroconvert, reported principal author Sammy Saab, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

While the predictive value of HBsAg titers has been demonstrated for patients undergoing antiviral therapy, data are limited for spontaneous seroconversion, the investigators wrote in Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.

To learn more about this scenario, the investigators reviewed medical records from 2,126 patients who visited a large community practice in the Los Angeles area between 2014 and 2019. Cases were defined by HBV infection with seroconversion, whereas matched controls were defined by HBV without seroconversion. A variety of demographic and clinical data were also evaluated, including age, ethnicity, sex, HBsAg titer, ALT, HBV DNA, total cholesterol, presence of fatty liver, and other factors.

The investigators identified 167 patients with HBV who were not on antiviral therapy. Of these, 14 underwent seroconversion, and were matched with 70 patients who did not seroconvert. All patients were of Asian descent, most were women, and none had cirrhosis.

Across all demographic and clinical parameters, the two factors that significantly differed between cases and controls were ALT and HBsAg titer. The mean ALT for patients who seroconverted was 17.6 U/L, versus 25.1 U/L in those who did not undergo seroconversion (P less than .01). Similarly, mean titer was lower in the seroconversion group (459.8 vs. 782.0 IU/mL; P = .01).

The investigators noted that seroconversion was more common among patients with an HBsAg titer level less than 1,000 IU/mL. Specifically, 79% of patients who seroconverted had a titer less than 1,000 IU/mL, compared with just 16% of patients who did not seroconvert (P = .001).

HBV DNA levels were not predictive of seroconversion, the investigators noted, which aligns with most, but not all, previous research.

The investigators reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Wu CF et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Feb 11. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001324.

Infectious disease physicians are more than twice as likely to be happy outside of work than in the office, according to Medscape’s 2020 Lifestyle, Happiness, and Burnout Report.

About 25% of infectious disease physicians reported that they were very happy in the office, compared with dermatologists, who had the highest rate of in-office happiness at 41%, according to the Medscape report. The out-of-office happiness rate rose to 52% for ID physicians, compared with the top spot of rheumatologists, who reported a 60% happiness rate.

The burnout rate for ID physicians was 46%, compared with 41% for physicians overall, with 12% of ID physicians reporting that they were both burned out and depressed. Having too many bureaucratic tasks was the most commonly reported reason for ID physician burnout at 49%, followed by a lack of respect from colleagues at 46% and spending too much time at work at 43%.

ID physicians most commonly dealt with burnout by talking with friends/family (49%), exercising (48%), and isolating themselves from others (43%). In addition, 52% of ID physicians reported taking 3-4 weeks of vacation, compared with 44% of all physicians, with 33% of ID physicians saying that they took less than 3 weeks’ vacation.

About 14% of ID physicians reported that they’d contemplated suicide, with 0% reporting that they’d attempted it; 80% reported that they’d never thought about it. About 54% said they weren’t considering seeking professional help for symptoms of burnout or depression, 13% said they’d used therapy in the past but weren’t currently looking, 7% said they were planning on seeking help, and 17% said they were currently seeking help.

The Medscape survey was conducted from June 25 to Sept. 19, 2019, and involved 15,181 physicians.

[email protected]

Infectious disease physicians are more than twice as likely to be happy outside of work than in the office, according to Medscape’s 2020 Lifestyle, Happiness, and Burnout Report.

About 25% of infectious disease physicians reported that they were very happy in the office, compared with dermatologists, who had the highest rate of in-office happiness at 41%, according to the Medscape report. The out-of-office happiness rate rose to 52% for ID physicians, compared with the top spot of rheumatologists, who reported a 60% happiness rate.

The burnout rate for ID physicians was 46%, compared with 41% for physicians overall, with 12% of ID physicians reporting that they were both burned out and depressed. Having too many bureaucratic tasks was the most commonly reported reason for ID physician burnout at 49%, followed by a lack of respect from colleagues at 46% and spending too much time at work at 43%.

ID physicians most commonly dealt with burnout by talking with friends/family (49%), exercising (48%), and isolating themselves from others (43%). In addition, 52% of ID physicians reported taking 3-4 weeks of vacation, compared with 44% of all physicians, with 33% of ID physicians saying that they took less than 3 weeks’ vacation.

About 14% of ID physicians reported that they’d contemplated suicide, with 0% reporting that they’d attempted it; 80% reported that they’d never thought about it. About 54% said they weren’t considering seeking professional help for symptoms of burnout or depression, 13% said they’d used therapy in the past but weren’t currently looking, 7% said they were planning on seeking help, and 17% said they were currently seeking help.

The Medscape survey was conducted from June 25 to Sept. 19, 2019, and involved 15,181 physicians.

[email protected]

Infectious disease physicians are more than twice as likely to be happy outside of work than in the office, according to Medscape’s 2020 Lifestyle, Happiness, and Burnout Report.

About 25% of infectious disease physicians reported that they were very happy in the office, compared with dermatologists, who had the highest rate of in-office happiness at 41%, according to the Medscape report. The out-of-office happiness rate rose to 52% for ID physicians, compared with the top spot of rheumatologists, who reported a 60% happiness rate.

The burnout rate for ID physicians was 46%, compared with 41% for physicians overall, with 12% of ID physicians reporting that they were both burned out and depressed. Having too many bureaucratic tasks was the most commonly reported reason for ID physician burnout at 49%, followed by a lack of respect from colleagues at 46% and spending too much time at work at 43%.

ID physicians most commonly dealt with burnout by talking with friends/family (49%), exercising (48%), and isolating themselves from others (43%). In addition, 52% of ID physicians reported taking 3-4 weeks of vacation, compared with 44% of all physicians, with 33% of ID physicians saying that they took less than 3 weeks’ vacation.

About 14% of ID physicians reported that they’d contemplated suicide, with 0% reporting that they’d attempted it; 80% reported that they’d never thought about it. About 54% said they weren’t considering seeking professional help for symptoms of burnout or depression, 13% said they’d used therapy in the past but weren’t currently looking, 7% said they were planning on seeking help, and 17% said they were currently seeking help.

The Medscape survey was conducted from June 25 to Sept. 19, 2019, and involved 15,181 physicians.

[email protected]

News that the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program will change its Step 1 scoring from a 3-digit number to pass/fail starting Jan. 1, 2022, has set off a flurry of shocked responses from students and physicians.

J. Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview that he was “stunned” when he heard the news on Wednesday and said the switch presents “the single biggest opportunity for medical school education reform since the Flexner Report,” which in 1910 established standards for modern medical education.

Numbers will continue for some tests

The USMLE cosponsors – the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) – said that the Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) exam and Step 3 will continue to be scored numerically. Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) will continue its pass/fail system.

The change was made after Step 1 had been roundly criticized as playing too big a role in the process of becoming a physician and for causing students to study for the test instead of engaging fully in their medical education.

Ramie Fathy, a third-year medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, currently studying for Step 1, said in an interview that it would have been nice personally to have the pass/fail choice, but he predicts both good and unintended consequences in the change.

The positive news, Mr. Fathy said, is that less emphasis will be put on the Step 1 test, which includes memorizing basic science details that may or not be relevant depending on later specialty choice.

“It’s not necessarily measuring what the test makers intended, which was whether or not a student can understand and apply basic science concepts to the practice of medicine,” he said.

“The current system encourages students to get as high a score as possible, which – after a certain point – translates to memorizing many little details that become increasingly less practically relevant,” Mr. Fathy said.

Pressure may move elsewhere?

However, Mr. Fathy worries that, without a scoring system to help decide who stands out in Step 1, residency program directors will depend more on the reputation of candidates’ medical school and the clout of the person writing a letter of recommendation – factors that are often influenced by family resources and social standing. That could wedge a further economic divide into the path to becoming a physician.

Mr. Fathy said he and fellow students are watching for information on what the passing bar will be and what happens with Step 2 Clinical Knowledge exam. USMLE has promised more information as soon as it is available.

“The question is whether that test will replace Step 1 as the standardized metric of student competency,” Mr. Fathy said, which would put more pressure on students further down the medical path.

Will Step 2 anxiety increase?

Dr. Carmody agreed that there is the danger that students now will spend their time studying for Step 2 CK at the expense of other parts of their education.

Meaningful reform will depend on the pass/fail move being coupled with other reforms, most importantly application caps, said Dr. Carmody, who teaches preclinical medical students and works with the residency program.

He has been blogging about Step 1 pass/fail for the past year.

Currently students can apply for as many residencies as they can pay for and Carmody said the number of applications per student has been rising over the past decade.

“That puts program directors under an impossible burden,” he said. “With our Step 1-based system, there’s significant inequality in the number of interviews people get. Programs end up overinviting the same group of people who look good on paper.”

People outside that group respond by sending more applications than they need to just to get a few interviews, Dr. Carmody added.

With caps, students would have an incentive to apply to only those programs in which they had a sincere interest, he said. Program directors also would then be better able to evaluate each application.

Switching Step 1 to pass/fail may have some effect on medical school burnout, Dr. Carmody said.

“It’s one thing to work hard when you’re on call and your patients depend on it,” he said. “But I would have a hard time staying up late every night studying something that I know in my heart is not going to help my patients, but I have to do it because I have to do better than the person who’s studying in the apartment next to me.”

Test has strayed from original purpose

Joseph Safdieh, MD, an assistant dean for clinical curriculum and director of the medical student neurology clerkship for the Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, sees the move as positive overall.

“We should not be using any single metric to define or describe our students’ overall profile,” he said in an interview.

“This has been a very significant anxiety point for our medical students for quite a number of years,” Dr. Safdieh said. “They were frustrated that their entire 4 years of medical school seemingly came down to one number.”

The test was created originally as one of three parts of licensure, he pointed out.

“Over the past 10 or 15 years, the exam has morphed to become a litmus test for very specific residency programs,” he said.

However, Dr. Safdieh has concerns that Step 2 will cultivate the same anxiety and may get too big a spotlight without the Step 1 metric, “although one could argue that test does more accurately reflect clinical material,” he said.

He also worries that students who have selected a specialty by the time they take Step 2 may find late in the game that they are less competitive in their field than they thought they were and may have to make a last-minute switch.

Dr. Safdieh said he thinks Step 2 will be next to go the pass/fail route. In reading between the lines of the announcement, he believes the test cosponsors didn’t make both pass/fail at once because it would have been “a nuclear bomb to the system.”

He credited the cosponsors with making what he called a “bold and momentous decision to initiate radical change in the overall transition between undergraduate and graduate medical education.”

Dr. Safdieh added that few in medicine were expecting Wednesday’s announcement.

“I think many of us were expecting them to go to quartile grading, not to go this far,” he said.

Dr. Safdieh suggested that, among those who may see downstream effects from the pass/fail move are offshore schools, such as those in the Caribbean. “Those schools rely on Step 1 to demonstrate that their students are meeting the rigor,” he said. But he hopes that this will lead to more holistic review.

“We’re hoping that this will force change in the system so that residency directors will look at more than just test-taking ability. They’ll look at publications and scholarship, community service and advocacy and performance in medical school,” Dr. Safdieh said.

Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief medical education officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges said in a statement, “The transition from medical school to residency training is a matter of great concern throughout academic medicine.

“The decision by the NBME and FSMB to change USMLE Step 1 score reporting to pass/fail was very carefully considered to balance student learning and student well-being,” she said. “The medical education community must now work together to identify and implement additional changes to improve the overall UME-GME [undergraduate and graduate medical education] transition system for all stakeholders and the AAMC is committed to helping lead this work.”

Dr. Fathy, Dr. Carmody, and Dr. Safdieh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

News that the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program will change its Step 1 scoring from a 3-digit number to pass/fail starting Jan. 1, 2022, has set off a flurry of shocked responses from students and physicians.

J. Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview that he was “stunned” when he heard the news on Wednesday and said the switch presents “the single biggest opportunity for medical school education reform since the Flexner Report,” which in 1910 established standards for modern medical education.

Numbers will continue for some tests

The USMLE cosponsors – the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) – said that the Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) exam and Step 3 will continue to be scored numerically. Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) will continue its pass/fail system.

The change was made after Step 1 had been roundly criticized as playing too big a role in the process of becoming a physician and for causing students to study for the test instead of engaging fully in their medical education.

Ramie Fathy, a third-year medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, currently studying for Step 1, said in an interview that it would have been nice personally to have the pass/fail choice, but he predicts both good and unintended consequences in the change.

The positive news, Mr. Fathy said, is that less emphasis will be put on the Step 1 test, which includes memorizing basic science details that may or not be relevant depending on later specialty choice.

“It’s not necessarily measuring what the test makers intended, which was whether or not a student can understand and apply basic science concepts to the practice of medicine,” he said.

“The current system encourages students to get as high a score as possible, which – after a certain point – translates to memorizing many little details that become increasingly less practically relevant,” Mr. Fathy said.

Pressure may move elsewhere?

However, Mr. Fathy worries that, without a scoring system to help decide who stands out in Step 1, residency program directors will depend more on the reputation of candidates’ medical school and the clout of the person writing a letter of recommendation – factors that are often influenced by family resources and social standing. That could wedge a further economic divide into the path to becoming a physician.

Mr. Fathy said he and fellow students are watching for information on what the passing bar will be and what happens with Step 2 Clinical Knowledge exam. USMLE has promised more information as soon as it is available.

“The question is whether that test will replace Step 1 as the standardized metric of student competency,” Mr. Fathy said, which would put more pressure on students further down the medical path.

Will Step 2 anxiety increase?

Dr. Carmody agreed that there is the danger that students now will spend their time studying for Step 2 CK at the expense of other parts of their education.

Meaningful reform will depend on the pass/fail move being coupled with other reforms, most importantly application caps, said Dr. Carmody, who teaches preclinical medical students and works with the residency program.

He has been blogging about Step 1 pass/fail for the past year.

Currently students can apply for as many residencies as they can pay for and Carmody said the number of applications per student has been rising over the past decade.

“That puts program directors under an impossible burden,” he said. “With our Step 1-based system, there’s significant inequality in the number of interviews people get. Programs end up overinviting the same group of people who look good on paper.”

People outside that group respond by sending more applications than they need to just to get a few interviews, Dr. Carmody added.

With caps, students would have an incentive to apply to only those programs in which they had a sincere interest, he said. Program directors also would then be better able to evaluate each application.

Switching Step 1 to pass/fail may have some effect on medical school burnout, Dr. Carmody said.

“It’s one thing to work hard when you’re on call and your patients depend on it,” he said. “But I would have a hard time staying up late every night studying something that I know in my heart is not going to help my patients, but I have to do it because I have to do better than the person who’s studying in the apartment next to me.”

Test has strayed from original purpose

Joseph Safdieh, MD, an assistant dean for clinical curriculum and director of the medical student neurology clerkship for the Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, sees the move as positive overall.

“We should not be using any single metric to define or describe our students’ overall profile,” he said in an interview.

“This has been a very significant anxiety point for our medical students for quite a number of years,” Dr. Safdieh said. “They were frustrated that their entire 4 years of medical school seemingly came down to one number.”

The test was created originally as one of three parts of licensure, he pointed out.

“Over the past 10 or 15 years, the exam has morphed to become a litmus test for very specific residency programs,” he said.

However, Dr. Safdieh has concerns that Step 2 will cultivate the same anxiety and may get too big a spotlight without the Step 1 metric, “although one could argue that test does more accurately reflect clinical material,” he said.

He also worries that students who have selected a specialty by the time they take Step 2 may find late in the game that they are less competitive in their field than they thought they were and may have to make a last-minute switch.

Dr. Safdieh said he thinks Step 2 will be next to go the pass/fail route. In reading between the lines of the announcement, he believes the test cosponsors didn’t make both pass/fail at once because it would have been “a nuclear bomb to the system.”

He credited the cosponsors with making what he called a “bold and momentous decision to initiate radical change in the overall transition between undergraduate and graduate medical education.”

Dr. Safdieh added that few in medicine were expecting Wednesday’s announcement.

“I think many of us were expecting them to go to quartile grading, not to go this far,” he said.

Dr. Safdieh suggested that, among those who may see downstream effects from the pass/fail move are offshore schools, such as those in the Caribbean. “Those schools rely on Step 1 to demonstrate that their students are meeting the rigor,” he said. But he hopes that this will lead to more holistic review.

“We’re hoping that this will force change in the system so that residency directors will look at more than just test-taking ability. They’ll look at publications and scholarship, community service and advocacy and performance in medical school,” Dr. Safdieh said.

Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief medical education officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges said in a statement, “The transition from medical school to residency training is a matter of great concern throughout academic medicine.

“The decision by the NBME and FSMB to change USMLE Step 1 score reporting to pass/fail was very carefully considered to balance student learning and student well-being,” she said. “The medical education community must now work together to identify and implement additional changes to improve the overall UME-GME [undergraduate and graduate medical education] transition system for all stakeholders and the AAMC is committed to helping lead this work.”

Dr. Fathy, Dr. Carmody, and Dr. Safdieh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

News that the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program will change its Step 1 scoring from a 3-digit number to pass/fail starting Jan. 1, 2022, has set off a flurry of shocked responses from students and physicians.

J. Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview that he was “stunned” when he heard the news on Wednesday and said the switch presents “the single biggest opportunity for medical school education reform since the Flexner Report,” which in 1910 established standards for modern medical education.

Numbers will continue for some tests

The USMLE cosponsors – the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) – said that the Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) exam and Step 3 will continue to be scored numerically. Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) will continue its pass/fail system.

The change was made after Step 1 had been roundly criticized as playing too big a role in the process of becoming a physician and for causing students to study for the test instead of engaging fully in their medical education.

Ramie Fathy, a third-year medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, currently studying for Step 1, said in an interview that it would have been nice personally to have the pass/fail choice, but he predicts both good and unintended consequences in the change.

The positive news, Mr. Fathy said, is that less emphasis will be put on the Step 1 test, which includes memorizing basic science details that may or not be relevant depending on later specialty choice.

“It’s not necessarily measuring what the test makers intended, which was whether or not a student can understand and apply basic science concepts to the practice of medicine,” he said.

“The current system encourages students to get as high a score as possible, which – after a certain point – translates to memorizing many little details that become increasingly less practically relevant,” Mr. Fathy said.

Pressure may move elsewhere?

However, Mr. Fathy worries that, without a scoring system to help decide who stands out in Step 1, residency program directors will depend more on the reputation of candidates’ medical school and the clout of the person writing a letter of recommendation – factors that are often influenced by family resources and social standing. That could wedge a further economic divide into the path to becoming a physician.

Mr. Fathy said he and fellow students are watching for information on what the passing bar will be and what happens with Step 2 Clinical Knowledge exam. USMLE has promised more information as soon as it is available.

“The question is whether that test will replace Step 1 as the standardized metric of student competency,” Mr. Fathy said, which would put more pressure on students further down the medical path.

Will Step 2 anxiety increase?

Dr. Carmody agreed that there is the danger that students now will spend their time studying for Step 2 CK at the expense of other parts of their education.

Meaningful reform will depend on the pass/fail move being coupled with other reforms, most importantly application caps, said Dr. Carmody, who teaches preclinical medical students and works with the residency program.

He has been blogging about Step 1 pass/fail for the past year.

Currently students can apply for as many residencies as they can pay for and Carmody said the number of applications per student has been rising over the past decade.

“That puts program directors under an impossible burden,” he said. “With our Step 1-based system, there’s significant inequality in the number of interviews people get. Programs end up overinviting the same group of people who look good on paper.”

People outside that group respond by sending more applications than they need to just to get a few interviews, Dr. Carmody added.

With caps, students would have an incentive to apply to only those programs in which they had a sincere interest, he said. Program directors also would then be better able to evaluate each application.

Switching Step 1 to pass/fail may have some effect on medical school burnout, Dr. Carmody said.

“It’s one thing to work hard when you’re on call and your patients depend on it,” he said. “But I would have a hard time staying up late every night studying something that I know in my heart is not going to help my patients, but I have to do it because I have to do better than the person who’s studying in the apartment next to me.”

Test has strayed from original purpose

Joseph Safdieh, MD, an assistant dean for clinical curriculum and director of the medical student neurology clerkship for the Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, sees the move as positive overall.

“We should not be using any single metric to define or describe our students’ overall profile,” he said in an interview.

“This has been a very significant anxiety point for our medical students for quite a number of years,” Dr. Safdieh said. “They were frustrated that their entire 4 years of medical school seemingly came down to one number.”

The test was created originally as one of three parts of licensure, he pointed out.

“Over the past 10 or 15 years, the exam has morphed to become a litmus test for very specific residency programs,” he said.

However, Dr. Safdieh has concerns that Step 2 will cultivate the same anxiety and may get too big a spotlight without the Step 1 metric, “although one could argue that test does more accurately reflect clinical material,” he said.

He also worries that students who have selected a specialty by the time they take Step 2 may find late in the game that they are less competitive in their field than they thought they were and may have to make a last-minute switch.

Dr. Safdieh said he thinks Step 2 will be next to go the pass/fail route. In reading between the lines of the announcement, he believes the test cosponsors didn’t make both pass/fail at once because it would have been “a nuclear bomb to the system.”

He credited the cosponsors with making what he called a “bold and momentous decision to initiate radical change in the overall transition between undergraduate and graduate medical education.”

Dr. Safdieh added that few in medicine were expecting Wednesday’s announcement.

“I think many of us were expecting them to go to quartile grading, not to go this far,” he said.

Dr. Safdieh suggested that, among those who may see downstream effects from the pass/fail move are offshore schools, such as those in the Caribbean. “Those schools rely on Step 1 to demonstrate that their students are meeting the rigor,” he said. But he hopes that this will lead to more holistic review.

“We’re hoping that this will force change in the system so that residency directors will look at more than just test-taking ability. They’ll look at publications and scholarship, community service and advocacy and performance in medical school,” Dr. Safdieh said.

Alison J. Whelan, MD, chief medical education officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges said in a statement, “The transition from medical school to residency training is a matter of great concern throughout academic medicine.

“The decision by the NBME and FSMB to change USMLE Step 1 score reporting to pass/fail was very carefully considered to balance student learning and student well-being,” she said. “The medical education community must now work together to identify and implement additional changes to improve the overall UME-GME [undergraduate and graduate medical education] transition system for all stakeholders and the AAMC is committed to helping lead this work.”

Dr. Fathy, Dr. Carmody, and Dr. Safdieh have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Kobe Bryant knew me. Not personally, of course. I never received an autograph or shook his hand. But once in a while if I was up early enough, I’d run into Kobe at the gym in Newport Beach where he and I both worked out. As he did for all his fans at the gym, he’d make eye contact with me and nod hello. He was always focused on his workout – working with a trainer, never with headphones on. In person, he appeared enormous. Unlike most retired professional athletes, he still was in great shape. No doubt he could have suited up in purple and gold, and played against the Clippers that night if needed.

Featureflash Photo Agency

Being from New England, I never was a Laker fan. But at Kobe’s peak around 2000, I found him inspiring. I recall watching him play right around the time I was studying for my U.S. medical licensing exams. I thought, if Kobe can head to the gym after midnight and take a 1,000 shots to prepare for a game, then I could set my alarm for 4 a.m. and take a few dozen more questions from my First Aid books. Head down, “Kryptonite” cranked on my iPod, I wasn’t going to let anyone in that test room outwork me. Neither did he. I put in the time and, like Kobe in the 2002 conference finals against Sacramento, I crushed it.*

When we moved to California, I followed Kobe and the Lakers until he retired. To be clear, I didn’t aspire to be like him, firstly because I’m slightly shorter than Michael Bloomberg, but also because although accomplished, Kobe made some poor choices at times. Indeed, it seems he might have been kinder and more considerate when he was at the top. But in his retirement he looked to be toiling to make reparations, refocusing his prodigious energy and talent for the benefit of others rather than for just for scoring 81 points. His Rolls Royce was there before mine at the gym, and I was there early. He was still getting up early and now preparing to be a great venture capitalist, podcaster, author, and father to his girls.

Watching him carry kettle bells across the floor one morning, I wondered, do people like Kobe Bryant look to others for inspiration? Or are they are born with an endless supply of it? For me, I seemed to push harder and faster when watching idols pass by. Whether it was Kobe or Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”), Joe Jorizzo, or Barack Obama, I found I could do just a bit more if I had them in mind.

On game days, Kobe spoke of arriving at the arena early, long before anyone. He would use the silent, solo time to reflect on what he needed to do perform that night. I tried this last week, arriving at our clinic early, before any patients or staff. I turned the lights on and took a few minutes to think about what we needed to accomplish that day. I previewed patients on my schedule, searched Up to Date for the latest recommendations on a difficult case. I didn’t know Kobe, but I felt like I did.

CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

When I received the text that Kobe Bryant had died, I was actually working on this column. So I decided to change the topic to write about people who inspire me, ironically inspired by him again. May he rest in peace.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

*This article was updated 2/19/2020.

Kobe Bryant knew me. Not personally, of course. I never received an autograph or shook his hand. But once in a while if I was up early enough, I’d run into Kobe at the gym in Newport Beach where he and I both worked out. As he did for all his fans at the gym, he’d make eye contact with me and nod hello. He was always focused on his workout – working with a trainer, never with headphones on. In person, he appeared enormous. Unlike most retired professional athletes, he still was in great shape. No doubt he could have suited up in purple and gold, and played against the Clippers that night if needed.

Featureflash Photo Agency

Being from New England, I never was a Laker fan. But at Kobe’s peak around 2000, I found him inspiring. I recall watching him play right around the time I was studying for my U.S. medical licensing exams. I thought, if Kobe can head to the gym after midnight and take a 1,000 shots to prepare for a game, then I could set my alarm for 4 a.m. and take a few dozen more questions from my First Aid books. Head down, “Kryptonite” cranked on my iPod, I wasn’t going to let anyone in that test room outwork me. Neither did he. I put in the time and, like Kobe in the 2002 conference finals against Sacramento, I crushed it.*

When we moved to California, I followed Kobe and the Lakers until he retired. To be clear, I didn’t aspire to be like him, firstly because I’m slightly shorter than Michael Bloomberg, but also because although accomplished, Kobe made some poor choices at times. Indeed, it seems he might have been kinder and more considerate when he was at the top. But in his retirement he looked to be toiling to make reparations, refocusing his prodigious energy and talent for the benefit of others rather than for just for scoring 81 points. His Rolls Royce was there before mine at the gym, and I was there early. He was still getting up early and now preparing to be a great venture capitalist, podcaster, author, and father to his girls.

Watching him carry kettle bells across the floor one morning, I wondered, do people like Kobe Bryant look to others for inspiration? Or are they are born with an endless supply of it? For me, I seemed to push harder and faster when watching idols pass by. Whether it was Kobe or Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”), Joe Jorizzo, or Barack Obama, I found I could do just a bit more if I had them in mind.

On game days, Kobe spoke of arriving at the arena early, long before anyone. He would use the silent, solo time to reflect on what he needed to do perform that night. I tried this last week, arriving at our clinic early, before any patients or staff. I turned the lights on and took a few minutes to think about what we needed to accomplish that day. I previewed patients on my schedule, searched Up to Date for the latest recommendations on a difficult case. I didn’t know Kobe, but I felt like I did.

CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

When I received the text that Kobe Bryant had died, I was actually working on this column. So I decided to change the topic to write about people who inspire me, ironically inspired by him again. May he rest in peace.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

*This article was updated 2/19/2020.

Kobe Bryant knew me. Not personally, of course. I never received an autograph or shook his hand. But once in a while if I was up early enough, I’d run into Kobe at the gym in Newport Beach where he and I both worked out. As he did for all his fans at the gym, he’d make eye contact with me and nod hello. He was always focused on his workout – working with a trainer, never with headphones on. In person, he appeared enormous. Unlike most retired professional athletes, he still was in great shape. No doubt he could have suited up in purple and gold, and played against the Clippers that night if needed.

Featureflash Photo Agency

Being from New England, I never was a Laker fan. But at Kobe’s peak around 2000, I found him inspiring. I recall watching him play right around the time I was studying for my U.S. medical licensing exams. I thought, if Kobe can head to the gym after midnight and take a 1,000 shots to prepare for a game, then I could set my alarm for 4 a.m. and take a few dozen more questions from my First Aid books. Head down, “Kryptonite” cranked on my iPod, I wasn’t going to let anyone in that test room outwork me. Neither did he. I put in the time and, like Kobe in the 2002 conference finals against Sacramento, I crushed it.*

When we moved to California, I followed Kobe and the Lakers until he retired. To be clear, I didn’t aspire to be like him, firstly because I’m slightly shorter than Michael Bloomberg, but also because although accomplished, Kobe made some poor choices at times. Indeed, it seems he might have been kinder and more considerate when he was at the top. But in his retirement he looked to be toiling to make reparations, refocusing his prodigious energy and talent for the benefit of others rather than for just for scoring 81 points. His Rolls Royce was there before mine at the gym, and I was there early. He was still getting up early and now preparing to be a great venture capitalist, podcaster, author, and father to his girls.

Watching him carry kettle bells across the floor one morning, I wondered, do people like Kobe Bryant look to others for inspiration? Or are they are born with an endless supply of it? For me, I seemed to push harder and faster when watching idols pass by. Whether it was Kobe or Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”), Joe Jorizzo, or Barack Obama, I found I could do just a bit more if I had them in mind.

On game days, Kobe spoke of arriving at the arena early, long before anyone. He would use the silent, solo time to reflect on what he needed to do perform that night. I tried this last week, arriving at our clinic early, before any patients or staff. I turned the lights on and took a few minutes to think about what we needed to accomplish that day. I previewed patients on my schedule, searched Up to Date for the latest recommendations on a difficult case. I didn’t know Kobe, but I felt like I did.

CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

When I received the text that Kobe Bryant had died, I was actually working on this column. So I decided to change the topic to write about people who inspire me, ironically inspired by him again. May he rest in peace.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected].

*This article was updated 2/19/2020.

Nine infants younger than 1 year of age were infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 and hospitalized in China between Dec. 8, 2019, and Feb. 6, 2020, based on data from the Chinese central government and local health departments.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

“As of February 6, 2020, China reported 31,211 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 637 fatalities,” wrote Min Wei, MD, of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues. However, “few infections in children have been reported.”

In a research letter published in JAMA, the investigators reviewed data from nine infants aged 28 days to 1 year who were hospitalized with a diagnosis of COVID-19 between Dec. 8, 2019, and Feb. 6, 2020. The ages of the infants ranged from 1 month to 11 months, and seven were female. The patients included two children from Beijing, two from Hainan, and one each from the areas of Guangdong, Anhui, Shanghai, Zhejiang, and Guizhou.

All infected infants had at least one infected family member, and the infants’ infections occurred after the family members’ infections; seven infants lived in Wuhan or had family members who had visited Wuhan.

One of the infants had no symptoms but tested positive for the 2019 novel coronavirus, and two others had a diagnosis but missing information on any symptoms. Fever occurred in four patients, and mild upper respiratory tract symptoms occurred in two patients.

None of the infants died, and none reported severe complications or the need for intensive care or mechanical ventilation, the investigators said. The fact that most of the infants were female might suggest that they are more susceptible to the virus than males, although overall COVID-19 viral infections have been more common in adult men, especially those with chronic comorbidities, Dr. Wei and associates noted.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and lack of symptom data for some patients, the researchers said. However, the results confirm that the COVID-19 virus is transmissible to infants younger than 1 year, and adult caregivers should exercise protective measures including wearing masks, washing hands before contact with infants, and routinely sterilizing toys and tableware, they emphasized.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Wei M et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 14. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2131.

Nine infants younger than 1 year of age were infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 and hospitalized in China between Dec. 8, 2019, and Feb. 6, 2020, based on data from the Chinese central government and local health departments.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

“As of February 6, 2020, China reported 31,211 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 637 fatalities,” wrote Min Wei, MD, of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues. However, “few infections in children have been reported.”

In a research letter published in JAMA, the investigators reviewed data from nine infants aged 28 days to 1 year who were hospitalized with a diagnosis of COVID-19 between Dec. 8, 2019, and Feb. 6, 2020. The ages of the infants ranged from 1 month to 11 months, and seven were female. The patients included two children from Beijing, two from Hainan, and one each from the areas of Guangdong, Anhui, Shanghai, Zhejiang, and Guizhou.

All infected infants had at least one infected family member, and the infants’ infections occurred after the family members’ infections; seven infants lived in Wuhan or had family members who had visited Wuhan.

One of the infants had no symptoms but tested positive for the 2019 novel coronavirus, and two others had a diagnosis but missing information on any symptoms. Fever occurred in four patients, and mild upper respiratory tract symptoms occurred in two patients.

None of the infants died, and none reported severe complications or the need for intensive care or mechanical ventilation, the investigators said. The fact that most of the infants were female might suggest that they are more susceptible to the virus than males, although overall COVID-19 viral infections have been more common in adult men, especially those with chronic comorbidities, Dr. Wei and associates noted.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and lack of symptom data for some patients, the researchers said. However, the results confirm that the COVID-19 virus is transmissible to infants younger than 1 year, and adult caregivers should exercise protective measures including wearing masks, washing hands before contact with infants, and routinely sterilizing toys and tableware, they emphasized.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Wei M et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 14. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2131.

Nine infants younger than 1 year of age were infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 and hospitalized in China between Dec. 8, 2019, and Feb. 6, 2020, based on data from the Chinese central government and local health departments.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

“As of February 6, 2020, China reported 31,211 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 637 fatalities,” wrote Min Wei, MD, of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues. However, “few infections in children have been reported.”

In a research letter published in JAMA, the investigators reviewed data from nine infants aged 28 days to 1 year who were hospitalized with a diagnosis of COVID-19 between Dec. 8, 2019, and Feb. 6, 2020. The ages of the infants ranged from 1 month to 11 months, and seven were female. The patients included two children from Beijing, two from Hainan, and one each from the areas of Guangdong, Anhui, Shanghai, Zhejiang, and Guizhou.

All infected infants had at least one infected family member, and the infants’ infections occurred after the family members’ infections; seven infants lived in Wuhan or had family members who had visited Wuhan.

One of the infants had no symptoms but tested positive for the 2019 novel coronavirus, and two others had a diagnosis but missing information on any symptoms. Fever occurred in four patients, and mild upper respiratory tract symptoms occurred in two patients.

None of the infants died, and none reported severe complications or the need for intensive care or mechanical ventilation, the investigators said. The fact that most of the infants were female might suggest that they are more susceptible to the virus than males, although overall COVID-19 viral infections have been more common in adult men, especially those with chronic comorbidities, Dr. Wei and associates noted.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and lack of symptom data for some patients, the researchers said. However, the results confirm that the COVID-19 virus is transmissible to infants younger than 1 year, and adult caregivers should exercise protective measures including wearing masks, washing hands before contact with infants, and routinely sterilizing toys and tableware, they emphasized.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Wei M et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 14. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.2131.

ORLANDO – While the impact of the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak on hospitals outside of China remains to be determined, there are several practical points critical care professionals need to know to be prepared in the face of this dynamic and rapidly evolving outbreak, speakers said at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

“Priorities for us in our hospitals are early detection, infection prevention, staff safety, and obviously, taking care of sick people,” said Ryan C. Maves, MD, of the Naval Medical Center San Diego in a special session on the 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak.*

Approximately 72,000 cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had been reported as of Feb. 17, 2020, the day of Dr. Maves’ talk, according to statistics from Johns Hopkins Center for Science and Engineering in Baltimore. A total of 1,775 deaths had been recorded, nearly all of which were in Hubei Province, the central point of the outbreak. In the United States, the number of cases stood at 15, with no deaths reported.

While the dynamics of the 2019 novel coronavirus are still being learned, the estimated range of spread for droplet transmission is 2 meters, according to Dr. Maves. The duration of environmental persistence is not yet known, but he said that other coronaviruses persist in low-humidity conditions for up to 4 days.

The number of secondary cases that arise from a primary infection, or R0, is estimated to be between 1.5 and 3, though it can change as exposure evolves; by comparison, the R0 for H1N1 influenza has been reported as 1.5, while measles is 12-18, indicating that it is “very contagious,” said Dr. Maves. Severe acute respiratory syndrome had an initial R0 of about 3.5, which he said declined rapidly to 0.7 as environmental and policy controls were put into place.

Critical care professionals need to know how to identify patients at risk of having COVID-19 and determine whether they need further work-up, according to Dr. Maves, who highlighted recent criteria released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The highest-risk category, he said, are individuals exposed to a laboratory-confirmed coronavirus case, which along with fever or signs and symptoms of a lower respiratory illness would be sufficient to classify them as a “person of interest” requiring further evaluation for disease. A history of travel from Hubei Province plus fever and signs/symptoms of lower respiratory illness would also meet criteria for evaluation, according to the CDC, while travel to mainland China would also meet the threshold, if those symptoms required hospitalization.

The CDC also published a step-wise flowchart to evaluate patients who may have been exposed to the 2019 novel coronavirus. According to that flowchart, if an individual has traveled to China or had close contact with someone infected with the 2019 Novel Coronavirus within 14 days of symptoms, and that individual has fever or symptoms of lower respiratory illness such as cough or shortness of breath, then providers should isolate that individual and assess clinical status, in addition to contacting the local health department.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Laura E. Evans, MD, MS, FCCM, of New York University, said she might recommend providers “flip the script” on that CDC algorithm when it comes to identifying patients who may have been exposed.

“I think perhaps what we should be doing at sites of entry is not talking about travel as the first question, but rather fever or symptoms of lower respiratory illnesses as the first question, and use that as the opportunity to implement risk mitigation at that stage,” Dr. Evans said in a presentation on preparing for COVID-19.

Even with “substantial uncertainty” about the potential impact of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus, a significant influx of seriously ill patients would put strain the U.S. health care delivery system, she added.

“None of us have tons of extra capacity in our emergency departments, inpatient units, or ICUs, and I think we need to be prepared for that,” she added. “We need to know what our process is for ‘identify, isolate, and inform,’ and we need to be testing that now.”

Dr. Maves and Dr. Evans both reported that they had no financial conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Maves indicated that the views expressed in his presentation did not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

*Correction, 2/19/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the location of the naval center.

ORLANDO – While the impact of the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak on hospitals outside of China remains to be determined, there are several practical points critical care professionals need to know to be prepared in the face of this dynamic and rapidly evolving outbreak, speakers said at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

“Priorities for us in our hospitals are early detection, infection prevention, staff safety, and obviously, taking care of sick people,” said Ryan C. Maves, MD, of the Naval Medical Center San Diego in a special session on the 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak.*

Approximately 72,000 cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had been reported as of Feb. 17, 2020, the day of Dr. Maves’ talk, according to statistics from Johns Hopkins Center for Science and Engineering in Baltimore. A total of 1,775 deaths had been recorded, nearly all of which were in Hubei Province, the central point of the outbreak. In the United States, the number of cases stood at 15, with no deaths reported.

While the dynamics of the 2019 novel coronavirus are still being learned, the estimated range of spread for droplet transmission is 2 meters, according to Dr. Maves. The duration of environmental persistence is not yet known, but he said that other coronaviruses persist in low-humidity conditions for up to 4 days.

The number of secondary cases that arise from a primary infection, or R0, is estimated to be between 1.5 and 3, though it can change as exposure evolves; by comparison, the R0 for H1N1 influenza has been reported as 1.5, while measles is 12-18, indicating that it is “very contagious,” said Dr. Maves. Severe acute respiratory syndrome had an initial R0 of about 3.5, which he said declined rapidly to 0.7 as environmental and policy controls were put into place.

Critical care professionals need to know how to identify patients at risk of having COVID-19 and determine whether they need further work-up, according to Dr. Maves, who highlighted recent criteria released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The highest-risk category, he said, are individuals exposed to a laboratory-confirmed coronavirus case, which along with fever or signs and symptoms of a lower respiratory illness would be sufficient to classify them as a “person of interest” requiring further evaluation for disease. A history of travel from Hubei Province plus fever and signs/symptoms of lower respiratory illness would also meet criteria for evaluation, according to the CDC, while travel to mainland China would also meet the threshold, if those symptoms required hospitalization.

The CDC also published a step-wise flowchart to evaluate patients who may have been exposed to the 2019 novel coronavirus. According to that flowchart, if an individual has traveled to China or had close contact with someone infected with the 2019 Novel Coronavirus within 14 days of symptoms, and that individual has fever or symptoms of lower respiratory illness such as cough or shortness of breath, then providers should isolate that individual and assess clinical status, in addition to contacting the local health department.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Laura E. Evans, MD, MS, FCCM, of New York University, said she might recommend providers “flip the script” on that CDC algorithm when it comes to identifying patients who may have been exposed.

“I think perhaps what we should be doing at sites of entry is not talking about travel as the first question, but rather fever or symptoms of lower respiratory illnesses as the first question, and use that as the opportunity to implement risk mitigation at that stage,” Dr. Evans said in a presentation on preparing for COVID-19.

Even with “substantial uncertainty” about the potential impact of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus, a significant influx of seriously ill patients would put strain the U.S. health care delivery system, she added.

“None of us have tons of extra capacity in our emergency departments, inpatient units, or ICUs, and I think we need to be prepared for that,” she added. “We need to know what our process is for ‘identify, isolate, and inform,’ and we need to be testing that now.”

Dr. Maves and Dr. Evans both reported that they had no financial conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Maves indicated that the views expressed in his presentation did not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

*Correction, 2/19/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the location of the naval center.

ORLANDO – While the impact of the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak on hospitals outside of China remains to be determined, there are several practical points critical care professionals need to know to be prepared in the face of this dynamic and rapidly evolving outbreak, speakers said at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

“Priorities for us in our hospitals are early detection, infection prevention, staff safety, and obviously, taking care of sick people,” said Ryan C. Maves, MD, of the Naval Medical Center San Diego in a special session on the 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak.*

Approximately 72,000 cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had been reported as of Feb. 17, 2020, the day of Dr. Maves’ talk, according to statistics from Johns Hopkins Center for Science and Engineering in Baltimore. A total of 1,775 deaths had been recorded, nearly all of which were in Hubei Province, the central point of the outbreak. In the United States, the number of cases stood at 15, with no deaths reported.

While the dynamics of the 2019 novel coronavirus are still being learned, the estimated range of spread for droplet transmission is 2 meters, according to Dr. Maves. The duration of environmental persistence is not yet known, but he said that other coronaviruses persist in low-humidity conditions for up to 4 days.

The number of secondary cases that arise from a primary infection, or R0, is estimated to be between 1.5 and 3, though it can change as exposure evolves; by comparison, the R0 for H1N1 influenza has been reported as 1.5, while measles is 12-18, indicating that it is “very contagious,” said Dr. Maves. Severe acute respiratory syndrome had an initial R0 of about 3.5, which he said declined rapidly to 0.7 as environmental and policy controls were put into place.

Critical care professionals need to know how to identify patients at risk of having COVID-19 and determine whether they need further work-up, according to Dr. Maves, who highlighted recent criteria released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The highest-risk category, he said, are individuals exposed to a laboratory-confirmed coronavirus case, which along with fever or signs and symptoms of a lower respiratory illness would be sufficient to classify them as a “person of interest” requiring further evaluation for disease. A history of travel from Hubei Province plus fever and signs/symptoms of lower respiratory illness would also meet criteria for evaluation, according to the CDC, while travel to mainland China would also meet the threshold, if those symptoms required hospitalization.

The CDC also published a step-wise flowchart to evaluate patients who may have been exposed to the 2019 novel coronavirus. According to that flowchart, if an individual has traveled to China or had close contact with someone infected with the 2019 Novel Coronavirus within 14 days of symptoms, and that individual has fever or symptoms of lower respiratory illness such as cough or shortness of breath, then providers should isolate that individual and assess clinical status, in addition to contacting the local health department.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Laura E. Evans, MD, MS, FCCM, of New York University, said she might recommend providers “flip the script” on that CDC algorithm when it comes to identifying patients who may have been exposed.

“I think perhaps what we should be doing at sites of entry is not talking about travel as the first question, but rather fever or symptoms of lower respiratory illnesses as the first question, and use that as the opportunity to implement risk mitigation at that stage,” Dr. Evans said in a presentation on preparing for COVID-19.

Even with “substantial uncertainty” about the potential impact of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus, a significant influx of seriously ill patients would put strain the U.S. health care delivery system, she added.

“None of us have tons of extra capacity in our emergency departments, inpatient units, or ICUs, and I think we need to be prepared for that,” she added. “We need to know what our process is for ‘identify, isolate, and inform,’ and we need to be testing that now.”

Dr. Maves and Dr. Evans both reported that they had no financial conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Maves indicated that the views expressed in his presentation did not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

*Correction, 2/19/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the location of the naval center.

Influenza activity continues to increase, but it has slowed down a bit, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s latest report shows that 6.8% of outpatients visiting health care providers had influenza-like illness during the week ending Feb. 8. That’s up from the previous week’s 6.6%, but that rise of 0.2 percentage points is smaller than the 0.6-point rises that occurred each of the 2 weeks before, and that could mean that activity is slowing.

That slowing, however, is not noticeable from this week’s map, which puts 41 states (there were 35 last week) and Puerto Rico in the red at the highest level of activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale and another three states in the “high” range with levels of 8 or 9, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

That leaves Nevada and Oregon at level 7; Alaska, Florida, and the District of Columbia at level 5; Idaho at level 3, and Delaware with insufficient data (it was at level 5 last week), the CDC said.

The 2019-2020 season’s high activity, fortunately, has not translated into high severity, as overall hospitalization and mortality rates continue to remain at fairly typical levels. Hospitalization rates are elevated among children and young adults, however, and pediatric deaths are now up to 92, the CDC said, which is high for this point in the season.

[email protected]

Influenza activity continues to increase, but it has slowed down a bit, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s latest report shows that 6.8% of outpatients visiting health care providers had influenza-like illness during the week ending Feb. 8. That’s up from the previous week’s 6.6%, but that rise of 0.2 percentage points is smaller than the 0.6-point rises that occurred each of the 2 weeks before, and that could mean that activity is slowing.

That slowing, however, is not noticeable from this week’s map, which puts 41 states (there were 35 last week) and Puerto Rico in the red at the highest level of activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale and another three states in the “high” range with levels of 8 or 9, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

That leaves Nevada and Oregon at level 7; Alaska, Florida, and the District of Columbia at level 5; Idaho at level 3, and Delaware with insufficient data (it was at level 5 last week), the CDC said.

The 2019-2020 season’s high activity, fortunately, has not translated into high severity, as overall hospitalization and mortality rates continue to remain at fairly typical levels. Hospitalization rates are elevated among children and young adults, however, and pediatric deaths are now up to 92, the CDC said, which is high for this point in the season.

[email protected]

Influenza activity continues to increase, but it has slowed down a bit, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s latest report shows that 6.8% of outpatients visiting health care providers had influenza-like illness during the week ending Feb. 8. That’s up from the previous week’s 6.6%, but that rise of 0.2 percentage points is smaller than the 0.6-point rises that occurred each of the 2 weeks before, and that could mean that activity is slowing.

That slowing, however, is not noticeable from this week’s map, which puts 41 states (there were 35 last week) and Puerto Rico in the red at the highest level of activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale and another three states in the “high” range with levels of 8 or 9, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

That leaves Nevada and Oregon at level 7; Alaska, Florida, and the District of Columbia at level 5; Idaho at level 3, and Delaware with insufficient data (it was at level 5 last week), the CDC said.

The 2019-2020 season’s high activity, fortunately, has not translated into high severity, as overall hospitalization and mortality rates continue to remain at fairly typical levels. Hospitalization rates are elevated among children and young adults, however, and pediatric deaths are now up to 92, the CDC said, which is high for this point in the season.

[email protected]

The American College of Cardiology on Feb. 13, 2020, released a clinical bulletin that aims to address cardiac implications of the current epidemic of the novel coronavirus, now known as COVID-19.

The bulletin, reviewed and approved by the college’s Science and Quality Oversight Committee, “provides background on the epidemic, which was first reported in late December 2019, and looks at early cardiac implications from case reports,” the ACC noted in a press release. “It also provides information on the potential cardiac implications from analog viral respiratory pandemics and offers early clinical guidance given current COVID-19 uncertainty.”

The document looks at some early cardiac implications of the infection. For example, early case reports suggest patients with underlying conditions are at higher risk of complications or mortality from the virus, with up to 50% of hospitalized patients having a chronic medical illness, the authors wrote.

About 40% of hospitalized patients confirmed to have the virus have cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, they noted.

In a recent case report on 138 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, they noted, 19.6% developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, 16.7% developed arrhythmia, 8.7% developed shock, 7.2% developed acute cardiac injury, and 3.6% developed acute kidney injury. “Rates of complication were universally higher for ICU patients,” they wrote.

“The first reported death was a 61-year-old male, with a long history of smoking, who succumbed to acute respiratory distress, heart failure, and cardiac arrest,” the document noted. “Early, unpublished first-hand reports suggest at least some patients develop myocarditis.”

Stressing the current uncertainty about the virus, the bulletin provides the following clinical guidance:

• COVID-19 is spread through droplets and can live for substantial periods outside the body; containment and prevention using standard public health and personal strategies for preventing the spread of communicable disease remains the priority.
• In geographies with active COVID-19 transmission (mainly China), it is reasonable to advise patients with underlying cardiovascular disease of the potential increased risk and to encourage additional, reasonable precautions.
• Older adults are less likely to present with fever, thus close assessment for other symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath is warranted.
• Some experts have suggested that the rigorous use of guideline-directed, plaque-stabilizing agents could offer additional protection to cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients during a widespread outbreak (statins, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, acetylsalicylic acid); however, such therapies should be tailored to individual patients.
• It is important for patients with CVD to remain current with vaccinations, including the pneumococcal vaccine, given the increased risk of secondary bacterial infection; it would also be prudent to receive vaccination to prevent another source of fever which could be initially confused with coronavirus infection.
• It may be reasonable to triage COVID-19 patients according to the presence of underlying cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, and other chronic diseases for prioritized treatment.
• Providers are cautioned that classic symptoms and presentation of acute MI may be overshadowed in the context of coronavirus, resulting in underdiagnosis.
• For CVD patients in geographies without widespread COVID-19, emphasis should remain on the threat from influenza, the importance of vaccination and frequent handwashing, and continued adherence to all guideline-directed therapy for underlying chronic conditions.
• COVID-19 is a fast-moving epidemic with an uncertain clinical profile; providers should be prepared for guidance to shift as more information becomes available.

The full clinical update is available here.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology on Feb. 13, 2020, released a clinical bulletin that aims to address cardiac implications of the current epidemic of the novel coronavirus, now known as COVID-19.

The bulletin, reviewed and approved by the college’s Science and Quality Oversight Committee, “provides background on the epidemic, which was first reported in late December 2019, and looks at early cardiac implications from case reports,” the ACC noted in a press release. “It also provides information on the potential cardiac implications from analog viral respiratory pandemics and offers early clinical guidance given current COVID-19 uncertainty.”

The document looks at some early cardiac implications of the infection. For example, early case reports suggest patients with underlying conditions are at higher risk of complications or mortality from the virus, with up to 50% of hospitalized patients having a chronic medical illness, the authors wrote.

About 40% of hospitalized patients confirmed to have the virus have cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, they noted.

In a recent case report on 138 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, they noted, 19.6% developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, 16.7% developed arrhythmia, 8.7% developed shock, 7.2% developed acute cardiac injury, and 3.6% developed acute kidney injury. “Rates of complication were universally higher for ICU patients,” they wrote.

“The first reported death was a 61-year-old male, with a long history of smoking, who succumbed to acute respiratory distress, heart failure, and cardiac arrest,” the document noted. “Early, unpublished first-hand reports suggest at least some patients develop myocarditis.”

Stressing the current uncertainty about the virus, the bulletin provides the following clinical guidance:

• COVID-19 is spread through droplets and can live for substantial periods outside the body; containment and prevention using standard public health and personal strategies for preventing the spread of communicable disease remains the priority.
• In geographies with active COVID-19 transmission (mainly China), it is reasonable to advise patients with underlying cardiovascular disease of the potential increased risk and to encourage additional, reasonable precautions.
• Older adults are less likely to present with fever, thus close assessment for other symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath is warranted.
• Some experts have suggested that the rigorous use of guideline-directed, plaque-stabilizing agents could offer additional protection to cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients during a widespread outbreak (statins, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, acetylsalicylic acid); however, such therapies should be tailored to individual patients.
• It is important for patients with CVD to remain current with vaccinations, including the pneumococcal vaccine, given the increased risk of secondary bacterial infection; it would also be prudent to receive vaccination to prevent another source of fever which could be initially confused with coronavirus infection.
• It may be reasonable to triage COVID-19 patients according to the presence of underlying cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, and other chronic diseases for prioritized treatment.
• Providers are cautioned that classic symptoms and presentation of acute MI may be overshadowed in the context of coronavirus, resulting in underdiagnosis.
• For CVD patients in geographies without widespread COVID-19, emphasis should remain on the threat from influenza, the importance of vaccination and frequent handwashing, and continued adherence to all guideline-directed therapy for underlying chronic conditions.
• COVID-19 is a fast-moving epidemic with an uncertain clinical profile; providers should be prepared for guidance to shift as more information becomes available.

The full clinical update is available here.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology on Feb. 13, 2020, released a clinical bulletin that aims to address cardiac implications of the current epidemic of the novel coronavirus, now known as COVID-19.

The bulletin, reviewed and approved by the college’s Science and Quality Oversight Committee, “provides background on the epidemic, which was first reported in late December 2019, and looks at early cardiac implications from case reports,” the ACC noted in a press release. “It also provides information on the potential cardiac implications from analog viral respiratory pandemics and offers early clinical guidance given current COVID-19 uncertainty.”

The document looks at some early cardiac implications of the infection. For example, early case reports suggest patients with underlying conditions are at higher risk of complications or mortality from the virus, with up to 50% of hospitalized patients having a chronic medical illness, the authors wrote.

About 40% of hospitalized patients confirmed to have the virus have cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, they noted.

In a recent case report on 138 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, they noted, 19.6% developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, 16.7% developed arrhythmia, 8.7% developed shock, 7.2% developed acute cardiac injury, and 3.6% developed acute kidney injury. “Rates of complication were universally higher for ICU patients,” they wrote.

“The first reported death was a 61-year-old male, with a long history of smoking, who succumbed to acute respiratory distress, heart failure, and cardiac arrest,” the document noted. “Early, unpublished first-hand reports suggest at least some patients develop myocarditis.”

Stressing the current uncertainty about the virus, the bulletin provides the following clinical guidance:

• COVID-19 is spread through droplets and can live for substantial periods outside the body; containment and prevention using standard public health and personal strategies for preventing the spread of communicable disease remains the priority.
• In geographies with active COVID-19 transmission (mainly China), it is reasonable to advise patients with underlying cardiovascular disease of the potential increased risk and to encourage additional, reasonable precautions.
• Older adults are less likely to present with fever, thus close assessment for other symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath is warranted.
• Some experts have suggested that the rigorous use of guideline-directed, plaque-stabilizing agents could offer additional protection to cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients during a widespread outbreak (statins, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, acetylsalicylic acid); however, such therapies should be tailored to individual patients.
• It is important for patients with CVD to remain current with vaccinations, including the pneumococcal vaccine, given the increased risk of secondary bacterial infection; it would also be prudent to receive vaccination to prevent another source of fever which could be initially confused with coronavirus infection.
• It may be reasonable to triage COVID-19 patients according to the presence of underlying cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, and other chronic diseases for prioritized treatment.
• Providers are cautioned that classic symptoms and presentation of acute MI may be overshadowed in the context of coronavirus, resulting in underdiagnosis.
• For CVD patients in geographies without widespread COVID-19, emphasis should remain on the threat from influenza, the importance of vaccination and frequent handwashing, and continued adherence to all guideline-directed therapy for underlying chronic conditions.
• COVID-19 is a fast-moving epidemic with an uncertain clinical profile; providers should be prepared for guidance to shift as more information becomes available.

The full clinical update is available here.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As I write this, the 2019 novel coronavirus* continues to spread, exceeding 59,000 cases and 1,300 deaths worldwide. With it spreads fear. In the modern world of social media, misinformation spreads even faster than disease.

Delpixel/Shutterstock

The news about a novel and deadly illness crowds out more substantial worries. Humans are not particularly good at assessing risk or responding rationally and consistently to it. Risk is hard to fully define. If you look up “risk” in Merriam Webster’s online dictionary, you get the simple definition of “possibility of loss or injury; peril.” If you look up risk in Wikipedia, you get 12 pages of explanation and 8 more pages of links and references.

People handle risk differently. Some people are more risk adverse than others. Some get a pleasurable thrill from risk, whether a slot machine or a parachute jump. Most people really don’t comprehend small probabilities, with tens of billions of dollars spent annually on U.S. lotteries.

Because 98% of people who get COVID-19 are recovering, this is not an extinction-level event or the zombie apocalypse. It is a major health hazard, and one where morbidity and mortality might be assuaged by an early and effective public health response, including the population’s adoption of good habits such as hand washing, cough etiquette, and staying home when ill. But fear, discrimination, and misinformation may do more damage than the virus itself.

Three key factors may help reduce the fear factor.

One key factor is accurate communication of health information to the public. This has been severely harmed in the last few years by the promotion of gossip on social media, such as Facebook, within newsfeeds without any vetting, along with a smaller component of deliberate misinformation from untraceable sources. Compare this situation with the decision in May 1988 when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop chose to snail mail a brochure on AIDS to every household in America. It was unprecedented. One element of this communication is the public’s belief that government and health care officials will responsibly and timely convey the information. There are accusations that the Chinese government initially impeded early warnings about COVID-19. Dr. Koop, to his great credit and lifesaving leadership, overcame queasiness within the Reagan administration about issues of morality and taste in discussing some of the HIV information. Alas, no similar leadership occurred in the decade of the 2010s when deaths from the opioid epidemic in the United States skyrocketed to claim more lives annually than car accidents or suicide.

A second factor is the credibility of the scientists. Antivaxxers, climate change deniers, and mercenary scientists have severely damaged that credibility of science, compared with the trust in scientists 50 years ago during the Apollo moon shot.

A third factor is perspective. Poor journalism and clickbait can focus excessively on the rare events as news. Airline crashes make the front page while fatal car accidents, claiming a hundred times more lives annually, don’t even merit a story in local media. Someone wins the lottery weekly but few pay attention to those suffering from gambling debts.

Influenza is killing many times more people than the 2019 novel coronavirus, but the news is focused on cruise ships. In the United States, influenza annually will strike tens of millions, with about 10 per 1,000 hospitalized and 0.5 per 1,000 dying. The novel coronavirus is more lethal. SARS (a coronavirus epidemic in 2003) had 8,000 cases with a mortality rate of 96 per 1,000 while the novel 2019 strain so far is killing about 20 per 1,000. That value may be an overestimate, because there may be a significant fraction of COVID-19 patients with symptoms mild enough that they do not seek medical care and do not get tested and counted.

For perspective, in 1952 the United States reported 50,000 cases of polio (meningitis or paralytic) annually with 3,000 deaths. As many as 95% of cases of poliovirus infection have no or mild symptoms and would not have been reported, so the case fatality rate estimate is skewed. In the 1950s, the United States averaged about 500,000 cases of measles per year, with about 500 deaths annually for a case fatality rate of about 1 per 1,000 in a population that was well nourished with good medical care. In malnourished children without access to modern health care, the case fatality rate can be as high as 100 per 1,000, which is why globally measles killed 142,000 people in 2018, a substantial improvement from 536,000 deaths globally in 2000, but still a leading killer of children worldwide. Vaccines had reduced the annual death toll of polio and measles in the U.S. to zero.

In comparison, in this country the annual incidences are about 70,000 overdose deaths, 50,000 suicides, and 40,000 traffic deaths.

Reassurance is the most common product sold by pediatricians. We look for low-probability, high-impact bad things. Usually we don’t find them and can reassure parents that the child will be okay. Sometimes we spot a higher-risk situation and intervene. My job is to worry professionally so that parents can worry less.

COVID-19 worries me, but irrational people worry me more. The real enemies are fear, disinformation, discrimination, and economic warfare.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

*This article was updated 2/21/2020.

As I write this, the 2019 novel coronavirus* continues to spread, exceeding 59,000 cases and 1,300 deaths worldwide. With it spreads fear. In the modern world of social media, misinformation spreads even faster than disease.

Delpixel/Shutterstock

The news about a novel and deadly illness crowds out more substantial worries. Humans are not particularly good at assessing risk or responding rationally and consistently to it. Risk is hard to fully define. If you look up “risk” in Merriam Webster’s online dictionary, you get the simple definition of “possibility of loss or injury; peril.” If you look up risk in Wikipedia, you get 12 pages of explanation and 8 more pages of links and references.

People handle risk differently. Some people are more risk adverse than others. Some get a pleasurable thrill from risk, whether a slot machine or a parachute jump. Most people really don’t comprehend small probabilities, with tens of billions of dollars spent annually on U.S. lotteries.

Because 98% of people who get COVID-19 are recovering, this is not an extinction-level event or the zombie apocalypse. It is a major health hazard, and one where morbidity and mortality might be assuaged by an early and effective public health response, including the population’s adoption of good habits such as hand washing, cough etiquette, and staying home when ill. But fear, discrimination, and misinformation may do more damage than the virus itself.

Three key factors may help reduce the fear factor.

One key factor is accurate communication of health information to the public. This has been severely harmed in the last few years by the promotion of gossip on social media, such as Facebook, within newsfeeds without any vetting, along with a smaller component of deliberate misinformation from untraceable sources. Compare this situation with the decision in May 1988 when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop chose to snail mail a brochure on AIDS to every household in America. It was unprecedented. One element of this communication is the public’s belief that government and health care officials will responsibly and timely convey the information. There are accusations that the Chinese government initially impeded early warnings about COVID-19. Dr. Koop, to his great credit and lifesaving leadership, overcame queasiness within the Reagan administration about issues of morality and taste in discussing some of the HIV information. Alas, no similar leadership occurred in the decade of the 2010s when deaths from the opioid epidemic in the United States skyrocketed to claim more lives annually than car accidents or suicide.

A second factor is the credibility of the scientists. Antivaxxers, climate change deniers, and mercenary scientists have severely damaged that credibility of science, compared with the trust in scientists 50 years ago during the Apollo moon shot.

A third factor is perspective. Poor journalism and clickbait can focus excessively on the rare events as news. Airline crashes make the front page while fatal car accidents, claiming a hundred times more lives annually, don’t even merit a story in local media. Someone wins the lottery weekly but few pay attention to those suffering from gambling debts.

Influenza is killing many times more people than the 2019 novel coronavirus, but the news is focused on cruise ships. In the United States, influenza annually will strike tens of millions, with about 10 per 1,000 hospitalized and 0.5 per 1,000 dying. The novel coronavirus is more lethal. SARS (a coronavirus epidemic in 2003) had 8,000 cases with a mortality rate of 96 per 1,000 while the novel 2019 strain so far is killing about 20 per 1,000. That value may be an overestimate, because there may be a significant fraction of COVID-19 patients with symptoms mild enough that they do not seek medical care and do not get tested and counted.

For perspective, in 1952 the United States reported 50,000 cases of polio (meningitis or paralytic) annually with 3,000 deaths. As many as 95% of cases of poliovirus infection have no or mild symptoms and would not have been reported, so the case fatality rate estimate is skewed. In the 1950s, the United States averaged about 500,000 cases of measles per year, with about 500 deaths annually for a case fatality rate of about 1 per 1,000 in a population that was well nourished with good medical care. In malnourished children without access to modern health care, the case fatality rate can be as high as 100 per 1,000, which is why globally measles killed 142,000 people in 2018, a substantial improvement from 536,000 deaths globally in 2000, but still a leading killer of children worldwide. Vaccines had reduced the annual death toll of polio and measles in the U.S. to zero.

In comparison, in this country the annual incidences are about 70,000 overdose deaths, 50,000 suicides, and 40,000 traffic deaths.

Reassurance is the most common product sold by pediatricians. We look for low-probability, high-impact bad things. Usually we don’t find them and can reassure parents that the child will be okay. Sometimes we spot a higher-risk situation and intervene. My job is to worry professionally so that parents can worry less.

COVID-19 worries me, but irrational people worry me more. The real enemies are fear, disinformation, discrimination, and economic warfare.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

*This article was updated 2/21/2020.

As I write this, the 2019 novel coronavirus* continues to spread, exceeding 59,000 cases and 1,300 deaths worldwide. With it spreads fear. In the modern world of social media, misinformation spreads even faster than disease.

Delpixel/Shutterstock

The news about a novel and deadly illness crowds out more substantial worries. Humans are not particularly good at assessing risk or responding rationally and consistently to it. Risk is hard to fully define. If you look up “risk” in Merriam Webster’s online dictionary, you get the simple definition of “possibility of loss or injury; peril.” If you look up risk in Wikipedia, you get 12 pages of explanation and 8 more pages of links and references.

People handle risk differently. Some people are more risk adverse than others. Some get a pleasurable thrill from risk, whether a slot machine or a parachute jump. Most people really don’t comprehend small probabilities, with tens of billions of dollars spent annually on U.S. lotteries.

Because 98% of people who get COVID-19 are recovering, this is not an extinction-level event or the zombie apocalypse. It is a major health hazard, and one where morbidity and mortality might be assuaged by an early and effective public health response, including the population’s adoption of good habits such as hand washing, cough etiquette, and staying home when ill. But fear, discrimination, and misinformation may do more damage than the virus itself.

Three key factors may help reduce the fear factor.

One key factor is accurate communication of health information to the public. This has been severely harmed in the last few years by the promotion of gossip on social media, such as Facebook, within newsfeeds without any vetting, along with a smaller component of deliberate misinformation from untraceable sources. Compare this situation with the decision in May 1988 when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop chose to snail mail a brochure on AIDS to every household in America. It was unprecedented. One element of this communication is the public’s belief that government and health care officials will responsibly and timely convey the information. There are accusations that the Chinese government initially impeded early warnings about COVID-19. Dr. Koop, to his great credit and lifesaving leadership, overcame queasiness within the Reagan administration about issues of morality and taste in discussing some of the HIV information. Alas, no similar leadership occurred in the decade of the 2010s when deaths from the opioid epidemic in the United States skyrocketed to claim more lives annually than car accidents or suicide.

A second factor is the credibility of the scientists. Antivaxxers, climate change deniers, and mercenary scientists have severely damaged that credibility of science, compared with the trust in scientists 50 years ago during the Apollo moon shot.

A third factor is perspective. Poor journalism and clickbait can focus excessively on the rare events as news. Airline crashes make the front page while fatal car accidents, claiming a hundred times more lives annually, don’t even merit a story in local media. Someone wins the lottery weekly but few pay attention to those suffering from gambling debts.

Influenza is killing many times more people than the 2019 novel coronavirus, but the news is focused on cruise ships. In the United States, influenza annually will strike tens of millions, with about 10 per 1,000 hospitalized and 0.5 per 1,000 dying. The novel coronavirus is more lethal. SARS (a coronavirus epidemic in 2003) had 8,000 cases with a mortality rate of 96 per 1,000 while the novel 2019 strain so far is killing about 20 per 1,000. That value may be an overestimate, because there may be a significant fraction of COVID-19 patients with symptoms mild enough that they do not seek medical care and do not get tested and counted.

For perspective, in 1952 the United States reported 50,000 cases of polio (meningitis or paralytic) annually with 3,000 deaths. As many as 95% of cases of poliovirus infection have no or mild symptoms and would not have been reported, so the case fatality rate estimate is skewed. In the 1950s, the United States averaged about 500,000 cases of measles per year, with about 500 deaths annually for a case fatality rate of about 1 per 1,000 in a population that was well nourished with good medical care. In malnourished children without access to modern health care, the case fatality rate can be as high as 100 per 1,000, which is why globally measles killed 142,000 people in 2018, a substantial improvement from 536,000 deaths globally in 2000, but still a leading killer of children worldwide. Vaccines had reduced the annual death toll of polio and measles in the U.S. to zero.

In comparison, in this country the annual incidences are about 70,000 overdose deaths, 50,000 suicides, and 40,000 traffic deaths.

Reassurance is the most common product sold by pediatricians. We look for low-probability, high-impact bad things. Usually we don’t find them and can reassure parents that the child will be okay. Sometimes we spot a higher-risk situation and intervene. My job is to worry professionally so that parents can worry less.

COVID-19 worries me, but irrational people worry me more. The real enemies are fear, disinformation, discrimination, and economic warfare.
 

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

*This article was updated 2/21/2020.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two new patients now have the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), bringing the case total in the United States to 15.

The 14th case was discovered in California among a group of people under federal quarantine after returning from the Hubei Province in China. That patient was on a U.S. State Department–chartered flight that arrived in the United States on Feb. 7.

The 15th case was discovered in Texas among a group of people who also are under federal quarantine. That patient arrived on a State Department–chartered flight that arrived on Feb. 7. It is the first person in Texas that has tested positive for 2019-nCoV.

CDC said in a statement announcing the Texas case that there “will likely be additional cases in the coming days and weeks, including among other people recently returned from Wuhan.” Officials noted that more than 600 people who have returned as part of State Department–chartered flights are currently under that 14-day quarantine.

The agency is preparing for more widespread cases of 2019-nCoV.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said that containment has been the early focus for the agency.

“The goal of the measures we have taken to date are to slow the introduction and impact of this disease in the United States, but at some point, we are likely to see community spread in the U.S.,” Dr. Messonnier said during a Feb. 12 teleconference with reporters. She added that the federal response will change over time as the virus spreads.

Dr. Messonnier noted that public health officials are planning for the increased demands that a wider outbreak of 2019-nCov would place on the health care delivery system, including ensuring an adequate supply of medical equipment.

[email protected]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two new patients now have the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), bringing the case total in the United States to 15.

The 14th case was discovered in California among a group of people under federal quarantine after returning from the Hubei Province in China. That patient was on a U.S. State Department–chartered flight that arrived in the United States on Feb. 7.

The 15th case was discovered in Texas among a group of people who also are under federal quarantine. That patient arrived on a State Department–chartered flight that arrived on Feb. 7. It is the first person in Texas that has tested positive for 2019-nCoV.

CDC said in a statement announcing the Texas case that there “will likely be additional cases in the coming days and weeks, including among other people recently returned from Wuhan.” Officials noted that more than 600 people who have returned as part of State Department–chartered flights are currently under that 14-day quarantine.

The agency is preparing for more widespread cases of 2019-nCoV.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said that containment has been the early focus for the agency.

“The goal of the measures we have taken to date are to slow the introduction and impact of this disease in the United States, but at some point, we are likely to see community spread in the U.S.,” Dr. Messonnier said during a Feb. 12 teleconference with reporters. She added that the federal response will change over time as the virus spreads.

Dr. Messonnier noted that public health officials are planning for the increased demands that a wider outbreak of 2019-nCov would place on the health care delivery system, including ensuring an adequate supply of medical equipment.

[email protected]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two new patients now have the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), bringing the case total in the United States to 15.

The 14th case was discovered in California among a group of people under federal quarantine after returning from the Hubei Province in China. That patient was on a U.S. State Department–chartered flight that arrived in the United States on Feb. 7.

The 15th case was discovered in Texas among a group of people who also are under federal quarantine. That patient arrived on a State Department–chartered flight that arrived on Feb. 7. It is the first person in Texas that has tested positive for 2019-nCoV.

CDC said in a statement announcing the Texas case that there “will likely be additional cases in the coming days and weeks, including among other people recently returned from Wuhan.” Officials noted that more than 600 people who have returned as part of State Department–chartered flights are currently under that 14-day quarantine.

The agency is preparing for more widespread cases of 2019-nCoV.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said that containment has been the early focus for the agency.

“The goal of the measures we have taken to date are to slow the introduction and impact of this disease in the United States, but at some point, we are likely to see community spread in the U.S.,” Dr. Messonnier said during a Feb. 12 teleconference with reporters. She added that the federal response will change over time as the virus spreads.

Dr. Messonnier noted that public health officials are planning for the increased demands that a wider outbreak of 2019-nCov would place on the health care delivery system, including ensuring an adequate supply of medical equipment.

[email protected]