User login
COVID-19: A primary care perspective
With the COVID-19 pandemic, we are experiencing a once-in-a-100-year event. Dr. Steven A. Schulz, who is serving children on the front line in upstate New York, and I outline some of the challenges primary care pediatricians have been facing and solutions that have succeeded.
Reduction in direct patient care and its consequences
Because of the unknowns of COVID-19, many parents have not wanted to bring their children to a medical office because of fear of contracting SARS-CoV-2. At the same time, pediatricians have restricted in-person visits to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 and to help flatten the curve of infection. Use of pediatric medical professional services, compared with last year, dropped by 52% in March 2020 and by 58% in April, according to FAIR Health, a nonprofit organization that manages a database of 31 million claims. This is resulting in decreased immunization rates, which increases concern for secondary spikes of other preventable illnesses; for example, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that, from mid-March to mid-April 2020, physicians in the Vaccines for Children program ordered 2.5 million fewer doses of vaccines and 250,000 fewer doses of measles-containing vaccines, compared with the same period in 2019. Fewer children are being seen for well visits, which means opportunities are lost for adequate monitoring of growth, development, physical wellness, and social determinants of health.
This is occurring at a time when families have been experiencing increased stress in terms of finances, social isolation, finding adequate child care, and serving as parent, teacher, and breadwinner. An increase in injuries is occurring because of inadequate parental supervision because many parents have been distracted while working from home. An increase in cases of severe abuse is occurring because schools, child care providers, physicians, and other mandated reporters in the community have decreased interaction with children. Children’s Hospital Colorado in Colorado Springs saw a 118% increase in the number of trauma cases in its ED between January and April 2020. Some of these were accidental injuries caused by falls or bicycle accidents, but there was a 200% increase in nonaccidental trauma, which was associated with a steep fall in calls to the state’s child abuse hotline. Academic gains are being lost, and there has been worry for a prolonged “summer slide” risk, especially for children living in poverty and children with developmental disabilities.
The COVID-19 pandemic also is affecting physicians and staff. As frontline personnel, we are at risk to contract the virus, and news media reminds us of severe illness and deaths among health care workers. The pandemic is affecting financial viability; estimated revenue of pediatric offices fell by 45% in March 2020 and 48% in April, compared with the previous year, according to FAIR Health. Nurses and staff have been furloughed. Practices have had to apply for grants and Paycheck Protection Program funds while extending credit lines.
Limited testing capability for SARS-CoV-2
Testing for SARS-CoV-2 has been variably available. There have been problems with false positive and especially false negative results (BMJ. 2020 May 12. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1808).The best specimen collection method has yet to be determined. Blood testing for antibody has been touted, but it remains unclear if there is clinical benefit because a positive result offers no guarantee of immunity, and immunity may quickly wane. Perhaps widespread primary care office–based testing will be in place by the fall, with hope for future reliable point of care results.
Evolving knowledge regarding SARS-CoV-2 and MIS-C
It initially was thought that children were relatively spared from serious illness caused by COVID-19. Then reports of cases of newly identified multisystem inflammatory syndrome of children occurred. It has been unclear how children contribute to the spread of COVID-19 illness, although emerging evidence indicates it is lower than adult transmission. What will happen when children return to school and daycare in the fall?
The challenges have led to creative solutions for how to deliver care.
Adapting to telehealth to provide care
At least for the short term, HIPAA regulations have been relaxed to allow for video visits using platforms such as FaceTime, Skype, Zoom, Doximity, and Doxy.me. Some of these platforms are HIPAA compliant and will be long-term solutions; however, electronic medical record portals allowing for video visits are the more secure option, according to HIPAA.
It has been a learning experience to see what can be accomplished with a video visit. Taking a history and visual examination of injuries and rashes has been possible. Addressing mental health concerns through the video exchange generally has been effective.
However, video visits change the provider-patient interpersonal dynamic and offer only visual exam capabilities, compared with an in-person visit. We cannot look in ears, palpate a liver and spleen, touch and examine a joint or bone, or feel a rash. Video visits also are dependent on the quality of patient Internet access, sufficient data plans, and mutual capabilities to address the inevitable technological glitches on the provider’s end as well. Expanding information technology infrastructure ability and added licensure costs have occurred. Practices and health systems have been working with insurance companies to ensure telephone and video visits are reimbursed on a comparable level to in-office visits.
A new type of office visit and developing appropriate safety plans
Patients must be universally screened prior to arrival during appointment scheduling for well and illness visits. Patients aged older than 2 years and caregivers must wear masks on entering the facility. In many practices, patients are scheduled during specific sick or well visit time slots throughout the day. Waiting rooms chairs need to be spaced for 6-foot social distancing, and cars in the parking lot often serve as waiting rooms until staff can meet patients at the door and take them to the exam room. Alternate entrances, car-side exams, and drive-by and/or tent testing facilities often have become part of the new normal everyday practice. Creating virtual visit time blocks in provider’s schedules has allowed for decreased office congestion. Patients often are checked out from their room, as opposed to waiting in a line at a check out desk. Nurse triage protocols also have been adapted and enhanced to meet needs and concerns.
With the need for summer physicals and many regions opening up, a gradual return toward baseline has been evolving, although some of the twists of a “new normal” will stay in place. The new normal has been for providers and staff to wear surgical masks and face shields; sometimes N95 masks, gloves, and gowns have been needed. Cleaning rooms and equipment between patient visits has become a major, new time-consuming task. Acquiring and maintaining adequate supplies has been a challenge.
Summary
The American Academy of Pediatrics, CDC, and state and local health departments have been providing informative and regular updates, webinars, and best practices guidelines. Pediatricians, community organizations, schools, and mental health professionals have been collaborating, overcoming hurdles, and working together to help mitigate the effects of the pandemic on children, their families, and our communities. Continued education, cooperation, and adaptation will be needed in the months ahead. If there is a silver lining to this pandemic experience, it may be that families have grown closer together as they sheltered in place (and we have grown closer to our own families as well). One day perhaps a child who lived through this pandemic might be asked what it was like, and their recollection might be that it was a wonderful time because their parents stayed home all the time, took care of them, taught them their school work, and took lots of long family walks.
Dr. Schulz is pediatric medical director, Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. Dr. Schulz and Dr. Pichichero said they have no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].
This article was updated 7/16/2020.
With the COVID-19 pandemic, we are experiencing a once-in-a-100-year event. Dr. Steven A. Schulz, who is serving children on the front line in upstate New York, and I outline some of the challenges primary care pediatricians have been facing and solutions that have succeeded.
Reduction in direct patient care and its consequences
Because of the unknowns of COVID-19, many parents have not wanted to bring their children to a medical office because of fear of contracting SARS-CoV-2. At the same time, pediatricians have restricted in-person visits to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 and to help flatten the curve of infection. Use of pediatric medical professional services, compared with last year, dropped by 52% in March 2020 and by 58% in April, according to FAIR Health, a nonprofit organization that manages a database of 31 million claims. This is resulting in decreased immunization rates, which increases concern for secondary spikes of other preventable illnesses; for example, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that, from mid-March to mid-April 2020, physicians in the Vaccines for Children program ordered 2.5 million fewer doses of vaccines and 250,000 fewer doses of measles-containing vaccines, compared with the same period in 2019. Fewer children are being seen for well visits, which means opportunities are lost for adequate monitoring of growth, development, physical wellness, and social determinants of health.
This is occurring at a time when families have been experiencing increased stress in terms of finances, social isolation, finding adequate child care, and serving as parent, teacher, and breadwinner. An increase in injuries is occurring because of inadequate parental supervision because many parents have been distracted while working from home. An increase in cases of severe abuse is occurring because schools, child care providers, physicians, and other mandated reporters in the community have decreased interaction with children. Children’s Hospital Colorado in Colorado Springs saw a 118% increase in the number of trauma cases in its ED between January and April 2020. Some of these were accidental injuries caused by falls or bicycle accidents, but there was a 200% increase in nonaccidental trauma, which was associated with a steep fall in calls to the state’s child abuse hotline. Academic gains are being lost, and there has been worry for a prolonged “summer slide” risk, especially for children living in poverty and children with developmental disabilities.
The COVID-19 pandemic also is affecting physicians and staff. As frontline personnel, we are at risk to contract the virus, and news media reminds us of severe illness and deaths among health care workers. The pandemic is affecting financial viability; estimated revenue of pediatric offices fell by 45% in March 2020 and 48% in April, compared with the previous year, according to FAIR Health. Nurses and staff have been furloughed. Practices have had to apply for grants and Paycheck Protection Program funds while extending credit lines.
Limited testing capability for SARS-CoV-2
Testing for SARS-CoV-2 has been variably available. There have been problems with false positive and especially false negative results (BMJ. 2020 May 12. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1808).The best specimen collection method has yet to be determined. Blood testing for antibody has been touted, but it remains unclear if there is clinical benefit because a positive result offers no guarantee of immunity, and immunity may quickly wane. Perhaps widespread primary care office–based testing will be in place by the fall, with hope for future reliable point of care results.
Evolving knowledge regarding SARS-CoV-2 and MIS-C
It initially was thought that children were relatively spared from serious illness caused by COVID-19. Then reports of cases of newly identified multisystem inflammatory syndrome of children occurred. It has been unclear how children contribute to the spread of COVID-19 illness, although emerging evidence indicates it is lower than adult transmission. What will happen when children return to school and daycare in the fall?
The challenges have led to creative solutions for how to deliver care.
Adapting to telehealth to provide care
At least for the short term, HIPAA regulations have been relaxed to allow for video visits using platforms such as FaceTime, Skype, Zoom, Doximity, and Doxy.me. Some of these platforms are HIPAA compliant and will be long-term solutions; however, electronic medical record portals allowing for video visits are the more secure option, according to HIPAA.
It has been a learning experience to see what can be accomplished with a video visit. Taking a history and visual examination of injuries and rashes has been possible. Addressing mental health concerns through the video exchange generally has been effective.
However, video visits change the provider-patient interpersonal dynamic and offer only visual exam capabilities, compared with an in-person visit. We cannot look in ears, palpate a liver and spleen, touch and examine a joint or bone, or feel a rash. Video visits also are dependent on the quality of patient Internet access, sufficient data plans, and mutual capabilities to address the inevitable technological glitches on the provider’s end as well. Expanding information technology infrastructure ability and added licensure costs have occurred. Practices and health systems have been working with insurance companies to ensure telephone and video visits are reimbursed on a comparable level to in-office visits.
A new type of office visit and developing appropriate safety plans
Patients must be universally screened prior to arrival during appointment scheduling for well and illness visits. Patients aged older than 2 years and caregivers must wear masks on entering the facility. In many practices, patients are scheduled during specific sick or well visit time slots throughout the day. Waiting rooms chairs need to be spaced for 6-foot social distancing, and cars in the parking lot often serve as waiting rooms until staff can meet patients at the door and take them to the exam room. Alternate entrances, car-side exams, and drive-by and/or tent testing facilities often have become part of the new normal everyday practice. Creating virtual visit time blocks in provider’s schedules has allowed for decreased office congestion. Patients often are checked out from their room, as opposed to waiting in a line at a check out desk. Nurse triage protocols also have been adapted and enhanced to meet needs and concerns.
With the need for summer physicals and many regions opening up, a gradual return toward baseline has been evolving, although some of the twists of a “new normal” will stay in place. The new normal has been for providers and staff to wear surgical masks and face shields; sometimes N95 masks, gloves, and gowns have been needed. Cleaning rooms and equipment between patient visits has become a major, new time-consuming task. Acquiring and maintaining adequate supplies has been a challenge.
Summary
The American Academy of Pediatrics, CDC, and state and local health departments have been providing informative and regular updates, webinars, and best practices guidelines. Pediatricians, community organizations, schools, and mental health professionals have been collaborating, overcoming hurdles, and working together to help mitigate the effects of the pandemic on children, their families, and our communities. Continued education, cooperation, and adaptation will be needed in the months ahead. If there is a silver lining to this pandemic experience, it may be that families have grown closer together as they sheltered in place (and we have grown closer to our own families as well). One day perhaps a child who lived through this pandemic might be asked what it was like, and their recollection might be that it was a wonderful time because their parents stayed home all the time, took care of them, taught them their school work, and took lots of long family walks.
Dr. Schulz is pediatric medical director, Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. Dr. Schulz and Dr. Pichichero said they have no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].
This article was updated 7/16/2020.
With the COVID-19 pandemic, we are experiencing a once-in-a-100-year event. Dr. Steven A. Schulz, who is serving children on the front line in upstate New York, and I outline some of the challenges primary care pediatricians have been facing and solutions that have succeeded.
Reduction in direct patient care and its consequences
Because of the unknowns of COVID-19, many parents have not wanted to bring their children to a medical office because of fear of contracting SARS-CoV-2. At the same time, pediatricians have restricted in-person visits to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 and to help flatten the curve of infection. Use of pediatric medical professional services, compared with last year, dropped by 52% in March 2020 and by 58% in April, according to FAIR Health, a nonprofit organization that manages a database of 31 million claims. This is resulting in decreased immunization rates, which increases concern for secondary spikes of other preventable illnesses; for example, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that, from mid-March to mid-April 2020, physicians in the Vaccines for Children program ordered 2.5 million fewer doses of vaccines and 250,000 fewer doses of measles-containing vaccines, compared with the same period in 2019. Fewer children are being seen for well visits, which means opportunities are lost for adequate monitoring of growth, development, physical wellness, and social determinants of health.
This is occurring at a time when families have been experiencing increased stress in terms of finances, social isolation, finding adequate child care, and serving as parent, teacher, and breadwinner. An increase in injuries is occurring because of inadequate parental supervision because many parents have been distracted while working from home. An increase in cases of severe abuse is occurring because schools, child care providers, physicians, and other mandated reporters in the community have decreased interaction with children. Children’s Hospital Colorado in Colorado Springs saw a 118% increase in the number of trauma cases in its ED between January and April 2020. Some of these were accidental injuries caused by falls or bicycle accidents, but there was a 200% increase in nonaccidental trauma, which was associated with a steep fall in calls to the state’s child abuse hotline. Academic gains are being lost, and there has been worry for a prolonged “summer slide” risk, especially for children living in poverty and children with developmental disabilities.
The COVID-19 pandemic also is affecting physicians and staff. As frontline personnel, we are at risk to contract the virus, and news media reminds us of severe illness and deaths among health care workers. The pandemic is affecting financial viability; estimated revenue of pediatric offices fell by 45% in March 2020 and 48% in April, compared with the previous year, according to FAIR Health. Nurses and staff have been furloughed. Practices have had to apply for grants and Paycheck Protection Program funds while extending credit lines.
Limited testing capability for SARS-CoV-2
Testing for SARS-CoV-2 has been variably available. There have been problems with false positive and especially false negative results (BMJ. 2020 May 12. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1808).The best specimen collection method has yet to be determined. Blood testing for antibody has been touted, but it remains unclear if there is clinical benefit because a positive result offers no guarantee of immunity, and immunity may quickly wane. Perhaps widespread primary care office–based testing will be in place by the fall, with hope for future reliable point of care results.
Evolving knowledge regarding SARS-CoV-2 and MIS-C
It initially was thought that children were relatively spared from serious illness caused by COVID-19. Then reports of cases of newly identified multisystem inflammatory syndrome of children occurred. It has been unclear how children contribute to the spread of COVID-19 illness, although emerging evidence indicates it is lower than adult transmission. What will happen when children return to school and daycare in the fall?
The challenges have led to creative solutions for how to deliver care.
Adapting to telehealth to provide care
At least for the short term, HIPAA regulations have been relaxed to allow for video visits using platforms such as FaceTime, Skype, Zoom, Doximity, and Doxy.me. Some of these platforms are HIPAA compliant and will be long-term solutions; however, electronic medical record portals allowing for video visits are the more secure option, according to HIPAA.
It has been a learning experience to see what can be accomplished with a video visit. Taking a history and visual examination of injuries and rashes has been possible. Addressing mental health concerns through the video exchange generally has been effective.
However, video visits change the provider-patient interpersonal dynamic and offer only visual exam capabilities, compared with an in-person visit. We cannot look in ears, palpate a liver and spleen, touch and examine a joint or bone, or feel a rash. Video visits also are dependent on the quality of patient Internet access, sufficient data plans, and mutual capabilities to address the inevitable technological glitches on the provider’s end as well. Expanding information technology infrastructure ability and added licensure costs have occurred. Practices and health systems have been working with insurance companies to ensure telephone and video visits are reimbursed on a comparable level to in-office visits.
A new type of office visit and developing appropriate safety plans
Patients must be universally screened prior to arrival during appointment scheduling for well and illness visits. Patients aged older than 2 years and caregivers must wear masks on entering the facility. In many practices, patients are scheduled during specific sick or well visit time slots throughout the day. Waiting rooms chairs need to be spaced for 6-foot social distancing, and cars in the parking lot often serve as waiting rooms until staff can meet patients at the door and take them to the exam room. Alternate entrances, car-side exams, and drive-by and/or tent testing facilities often have become part of the new normal everyday practice. Creating virtual visit time blocks in provider’s schedules has allowed for decreased office congestion. Patients often are checked out from their room, as opposed to waiting in a line at a check out desk. Nurse triage protocols also have been adapted and enhanced to meet needs and concerns.
With the need for summer physicals and many regions opening up, a gradual return toward baseline has been evolving, although some of the twists of a “new normal” will stay in place. The new normal has been for providers and staff to wear surgical masks and face shields; sometimes N95 masks, gloves, and gowns have been needed. Cleaning rooms and equipment between patient visits has become a major, new time-consuming task. Acquiring and maintaining adequate supplies has been a challenge.
Summary
The American Academy of Pediatrics, CDC, and state and local health departments have been providing informative and regular updates, webinars, and best practices guidelines. Pediatricians, community organizations, schools, and mental health professionals have been collaborating, overcoming hurdles, and working together to help mitigate the effects of the pandemic on children, their families, and our communities. Continued education, cooperation, and adaptation will be needed in the months ahead. If there is a silver lining to this pandemic experience, it may be that families have grown closer together as they sheltered in place (and we have grown closer to our own families as well). One day perhaps a child who lived through this pandemic might be asked what it was like, and their recollection might be that it was a wonderful time because their parents stayed home all the time, took care of them, taught them their school work, and took lots of long family walks.
Dr. Schulz is pediatric medical director, Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. Dr. Schulz and Dr. Pichichero said they have no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].
This article was updated 7/16/2020.
The public’s trust in science
Having been a bench research scientist 30 years ago, I am flabbergasted at what is and is not currently possible. In a few weeks, scientists sequenced a novel coronavirus and used the genetic sequence to select candidate molecules for a vaccine. But we still can’t reliably say how much protection a cloth mask provides. Worse yet, even if/when we could reliably quantify contagion, it isn’t clear that the public will believe us anyhow.
The good news is that the public worldwide did believe scientists about the threat of a pandemic and the need to flatten the curve. Saving lives has not been about the strength of an antibiotic or the skill in managing a ventilator, but the credibility of medical scientists. The degree of acceptance was variable and subject to a variety of delays caused by regional politicians, but The bad news is that the public’s trust in that scientific advice has waned, the willingness to accept onerous restrictions has fatigued, and the cooperation for maintaining these social changes is evaporating.
I will leave pontificating about the spread of COVID-19 to other experts in other forums. My focus is on the public’s trust in the professionalism of physicians, nurses, medical scientists, and the health care industry as a whole. That trust has been our most valuable tool in fighting the pandemic so far. There have been situations in which weaknesses in modern science have let society down during the pandemic of the century. In my February 2020 column, at the beginning of the outbreak, a month before it was declared a pandemic, when its magnitude was still unclear, I emphasized the importance of having a trusted scientific spokesperson providing timely, accurate information to the public. That, obviously, did not happen in the United States and the degree of the ensuing disaster is still to be revealed.
Scientists have made some wrong decisions about this novel threat. The advice on masks is an illustrative example. For many years, infection control nurses have insisted that medical students wear a mask to protect themselves, even if they were observing rounds from just inside the doorway of a room of a baby with bronchiolitis. The landfills are full of briefly worn surgical masks. Now the story goes: Surgical masks don’t protect staff; they protect others. Changes like that contribute to a credibility gap.
For 3 months, there was conflicting advice about the appropriateness of masks. In early March 2020, some health care workers were disciplined for wearing personal masks. Now, most scientists recommend the public use masks to reduce contagion. Significant subgroups in the U.S. population have refused, mostly to signal their contrarian politics. In June there was an anecdote of a success story from the Show Me state of Missouri, where a mask is credited for preventing an outbreak from a sick hair stylist.
It is hard to find something more reliable than an anecdote. On June 1, a meta-analysis funded by the World Health Organization was published online by Lancet. It supports the idea that masks are beneficial. It is mostly forest plots, so you can try to interpret it yourself. There were 172 observational studies in the systematic review, and the meta-analysis contains 44 relevant comparative studies and 0 randomized controlled trials. Most of those forest plots have an I2 of 75% or worse, which to me indicates that they are not much more reliable than a good anecdote. My primary conclusion was that modern academic science, in an era with a shortage of toilet paper, should convert to printing on soft tissue paper.
It is important to note that the guesstimated overall benefit of cloth masks was a relative risk of 0.30. That benefit is easily nullified if the false security of a mask causes people to congregate together in groups three times larger or for three times more minutes. N95 masks were more effective.
A different article was published in PNAS on June 11. Its senior author was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995. That article touted the benefits of masks. The article is facing heavy criticism for flaws in methodology and flaws in the peer review process. A long list of signatories have joined a letter asking for the article’s retraction.
This article, when combined with the two instances of prominent articles being retracted in the prior month by the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, is accumulating evidence the peer review system is not working as intended.
There are many heroes in this pandemic, from the frontline health care workers in hotspots to the grocery workers and cleaning staff. There is hope, indeed some faith, that medical scientists in the foreseeable future will provide treatments and a vaccine for this viral plague. This month, the credibility of scientists again plays a major role as communities respond to outbreaks related to reopening the economy. Let’s celebrate the victories, resolve to fix the impure system, and restore a high level of public trust in science. Lives depend on it.
Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
Having been a bench research scientist 30 years ago, I am flabbergasted at what is and is not currently possible. In a few weeks, scientists sequenced a novel coronavirus and used the genetic sequence to select candidate molecules for a vaccine. But we still can’t reliably say how much protection a cloth mask provides. Worse yet, even if/when we could reliably quantify contagion, it isn’t clear that the public will believe us anyhow.
The good news is that the public worldwide did believe scientists about the threat of a pandemic and the need to flatten the curve. Saving lives has not been about the strength of an antibiotic or the skill in managing a ventilator, but the credibility of medical scientists. The degree of acceptance was variable and subject to a variety of delays caused by regional politicians, but The bad news is that the public’s trust in that scientific advice has waned, the willingness to accept onerous restrictions has fatigued, and the cooperation for maintaining these social changes is evaporating.
I will leave pontificating about the spread of COVID-19 to other experts in other forums. My focus is on the public’s trust in the professionalism of physicians, nurses, medical scientists, and the health care industry as a whole. That trust has been our most valuable tool in fighting the pandemic so far. There have been situations in which weaknesses in modern science have let society down during the pandemic of the century. In my February 2020 column, at the beginning of the outbreak, a month before it was declared a pandemic, when its magnitude was still unclear, I emphasized the importance of having a trusted scientific spokesperson providing timely, accurate information to the public. That, obviously, did not happen in the United States and the degree of the ensuing disaster is still to be revealed.
Scientists have made some wrong decisions about this novel threat. The advice on masks is an illustrative example. For many years, infection control nurses have insisted that medical students wear a mask to protect themselves, even if they were observing rounds from just inside the doorway of a room of a baby with bronchiolitis. The landfills are full of briefly worn surgical masks. Now the story goes: Surgical masks don’t protect staff; they protect others. Changes like that contribute to a credibility gap.
For 3 months, there was conflicting advice about the appropriateness of masks. In early March 2020, some health care workers were disciplined for wearing personal masks. Now, most scientists recommend the public use masks to reduce contagion. Significant subgroups in the U.S. population have refused, mostly to signal their contrarian politics. In June there was an anecdote of a success story from the Show Me state of Missouri, where a mask is credited for preventing an outbreak from a sick hair stylist.
It is hard to find something more reliable than an anecdote. On June 1, a meta-analysis funded by the World Health Organization was published online by Lancet. It supports the idea that masks are beneficial. It is mostly forest plots, so you can try to interpret it yourself. There were 172 observational studies in the systematic review, and the meta-analysis contains 44 relevant comparative studies and 0 randomized controlled trials. Most of those forest plots have an I2 of 75% or worse, which to me indicates that they are not much more reliable than a good anecdote. My primary conclusion was that modern academic science, in an era with a shortage of toilet paper, should convert to printing on soft tissue paper.
It is important to note that the guesstimated overall benefit of cloth masks was a relative risk of 0.30. That benefit is easily nullified if the false security of a mask causes people to congregate together in groups three times larger or for three times more minutes. N95 masks were more effective.
A different article was published in PNAS on June 11. Its senior author was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995. That article touted the benefits of masks. The article is facing heavy criticism for flaws in methodology and flaws in the peer review process. A long list of signatories have joined a letter asking for the article’s retraction.
This article, when combined with the two instances of prominent articles being retracted in the prior month by the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, is accumulating evidence the peer review system is not working as intended.
There are many heroes in this pandemic, from the frontline health care workers in hotspots to the grocery workers and cleaning staff. There is hope, indeed some faith, that medical scientists in the foreseeable future will provide treatments and a vaccine for this viral plague. This month, the credibility of scientists again plays a major role as communities respond to outbreaks related to reopening the economy. Let’s celebrate the victories, resolve to fix the impure system, and restore a high level of public trust in science. Lives depend on it.
Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
Having been a bench research scientist 30 years ago, I am flabbergasted at what is and is not currently possible. In a few weeks, scientists sequenced a novel coronavirus and used the genetic sequence to select candidate molecules for a vaccine. But we still can’t reliably say how much protection a cloth mask provides. Worse yet, even if/when we could reliably quantify contagion, it isn’t clear that the public will believe us anyhow.
The good news is that the public worldwide did believe scientists about the threat of a pandemic and the need to flatten the curve. Saving lives has not been about the strength of an antibiotic or the skill in managing a ventilator, but the credibility of medical scientists. The degree of acceptance was variable and subject to a variety of delays caused by regional politicians, but The bad news is that the public’s trust in that scientific advice has waned, the willingness to accept onerous restrictions has fatigued, and the cooperation for maintaining these social changes is evaporating.
I will leave pontificating about the spread of COVID-19 to other experts in other forums. My focus is on the public’s trust in the professionalism of physicians, nurses, medical scientists, and the health care industry as a whole. That trust has been our most valuable tool in fighting the pandemic so far. There have been situations in which weaknesses in modern science have let society down during the pandemic of the century. In my February 2020 column, at the beginning of the outbreak, a month before it was declared a pandemic, when its magnitude was still unclear, I emphasized the importance of having a trusted scientific spokesperson providing timely, accurate information to the public. That, obviously, did not happen in the United States and the degree of the ensuing disaster is still to be revealed.
Scientists have made some wrong decisions about this novel threat. The advice on masks is an illustrative example. For many years, infection control nurses have insisted that medical students wear a mask to protect themselves, even if they were observing rounds from just inside the doorway of a room of a baby with bronchiolitis. The landfills are full of briefly worn surgical masks. Now the story goes: Surgical masks don’t protect staff; they protect others. Changes like that contribute to a credibility gap.
For 3 months, there was conflicting advice about the appropriateness of masks. In early March 2020, some health care workers were disciplined for wearing personal masks. Now, most scientists recommend the public use masks to reduce contagion. Significant subgroups in the U.S. population have refused, mostly to signal their contrarian politics. In June there was an anecdote of a success story from the Show Me state of Missouri, where a mask is credited for preventing an outbreak from a sick hair stylist.
It is hard to find something more reliable than an anecdote. On June 1, a meta-analysis funded by the World Health Organization was published online by Lancet. It supports the idea that masks are beneficial. It is mostly forest plots, so you can try to interpret it yourself. There were 172 observational studies in the systematic review, and the meta-analysis contains 44 relevant comparative studies and 0 randomized controlled trials. Most of those forest plots have an I2 of 75% or worse, which to me indicates that they are not much more reliable than a good anecdote. My primary conclusion was that modern academic science, in an era with a shortage of toilet paper, should convert to printing on soft tissue paper.
It is important to note that the guesstimated overall benefit of cloth masks was a relative risk of 0.30. That benefit is easily nullified if the false security of a mask causes people to congregate together in groups three times larger or for three times more minutes. N95 masks were more effective.
A different article was published in PNAS on June 11. Its senior author was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995. That article touted the benefits of masks. The article is facing heavy criticism for flaws in methodology and flaws in the peer review process. A long list of signatories have joined a letter asking for the article’s retraction.
This article, when combined with the two instances of prominent articles being retracted in the prior month by the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, is accumulating evidence the peer review system is not working as intended.
There are many heroes in this pandemic, from the frontline health care workers in hotspots to the grocery workers and cleaning staff. There is hope, indeed some faith, that medical scientists in the foreseeable future will provide treatments and a vaccine for this viral plague. This month, the credibility of scientists again plays a major role as communities respond to outbreaks related to reopening the economy. Let’s celebrate the victories, resolve to fix the impure system, and restore a high level of public trust in science. Lives depend on it.
Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
COVID-19 symptoms can linger for months
Clinicians and researchers have focused on the acute phase of COVID-19 infection, but it’s increasingly clear that some recovered patients discharged from acute care need continued monitoring for long-lasting effects, a study has found.
In a research letter published online July 9 in JAMA, Angelo Carfi, MD, and colleagues from the Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post–Acute Care Study Group in Rome, report that
Postdischarge assessments of patients who met criteria for SARS-CoV-2 negativity, including a reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction test, were conducted from April 21 to May 29. Among the results:
- Only 12.6% of the 143 patients were completely free of any COVID-19 symptom
- About 32% of patients had one or two symptoms and 55% had three or more
- None had fever or other signs and symptoms of acute illness
- About 53% of patients still had fatigue, 43.4% had dyspnea, 27.3% had joint pain, and had 21.7% chest pain
- About 44% reported worsened quality of life on the EuroQol visual analog scale.
The sample cohort, assessed in a COVID-19 patient service recently established at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli had a mean age of 56.5 years and 37% were women. The mean length of hospital stay was 13.5 days. During their hospitalization, 72.7% of patients showed evidence of interstitial pneumonia. Noninvasive ventilation was given to 14.7% of patients and 4.9% received invasive ventilation.
The reality of lingering symptoms has led Dr. Carfi’s clinic to schedule a final “wrap-up visit” for patients after full assessment. “On that occasion the doctor prescribes anything necessary to correct the anomalies found during the full evaluation,” Dr. Carfi, a geriatrician at the Gemelli clinic, said in an interview. “These usually include vitamin supplementation and, in selected cases, a new drug prescription such as a blood thinner if necessary.”
Patients can also enroll in a training program in which breathing status is monitored.
In North America, doctors are also addressing the reality that the road to recovery can be a long and upward one, with persistent symptoms worse than those seen with acute influenza infection. “We see patients who were first diagnosed in March or April and still have symptoms in July,” said Zijian Chen, MD, an endocrinologist and medical director of Mount Sinai Health System’s Center for Post-COVID Care in New York.
“Persistent symptoms are much worse for COVID patients than flu patients. Even flu patients who spent time in the intensive care unit recover fully, and we can optimize their breathing before discharge,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.
As in the Italian study, Dr. Chen sees patients with COVID-19 who have ongoing shortness of breath, some requiring supplemental oxygen, or with persistent chest pain on exertion, blood clotting problems, poor concentration, gastrointestinal distress, and reduced muscle strength and impaired grasping power. He doesn’t rule out permanent lung damage in some. “Even asymptomatic individuals already show lung scarring on imaging,” he said.
The Mount Sinai program provides specialized interdisciplinary management that may include CT scans, endoscopy, and drugs such as respiratory medications or anticoagulants. It also offers training to combat the fatigue and deconditioning caused by the infection, symptoms that are not medically treatable but impact quality of life.
“These patients do get better, but I expect they may still have symptoms requiring monitoring after a year,” Dr. Chen said.
The study received no specific funding. Dr. Carfi and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Clinicians and researchers have focused on the acute phase of COVID-19 infection, but it’s increasingly clear that some recovered patients discharged from acute care need continued monitoring for long-lasting effects, a study has found.
In a research letter published online July 9 in JAMA, Angelo Carfi, MD, and colleagues from the Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post–Acute Care Study Group in Rome, report that
Postdischarge assessments of patients who met criteria for SARS-CoV-2 negativity, including a reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction test, were conducted from April 21 to May 29. Among the results:
- Only 12.6% of the 143 patients were completely free of any COVID-19 symptom
- About 32% of patients had one or two symptoms and 55% had three or more
- None had fever or other signs and symptoms of acute illness
- About 53% of patients still had fatigue, 43.4% had dyspnea, 27.3% had joint pain, and had 21.7% chest pain
- About 44% reported worsened quality of life on the EuroQol visual analog scale.
The sample cohort, assessed in a COVID-19 patient service recently established at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli had a mean age of 56.5 years and 37% were women. The mean length of hospital stay was 13.5 days. During their hospitalization, 72.7% of patients showed evidence of interstitial pneumonia. Noninvasive ventilation was given to 14.7% of patients and 4.9% received invasive ventilation.
The reality of lingering symptoms has led Dr. Carfi’s clinic to schedule a final “wrap-up visit” for patients after full assessment. “On that occasion the doctor prescribes anything necessary to correct the anomalies found during the full evaluation,” Dr. Carfi, a geriatrician at the Gemelli clinic, said in an interview. “These usually include vitamin supplementation and, in selected cases, a new drug prescription such as a blood thinner if necessary.”
Patients can also enroll in a training program in which breathing status is monitored.
In North America, doctors are also addressing the reality that the road to recovery can be a long and upward one, with persistent symptoms worse than those seen with acute influenza infection. “We see patients who were first diagnosed in March or April and still have symptoms in July,” said Zijian Chen, MD, an endocrinologist and medical director of Mount Sinai Health System’s Center for Post-COVID Care in New York.
“Persistent symptoms are much worse for COVID patients than flu patients. Even flu patients who spent time in the intensive care unit recover fully, and we can optimize their breathing before discharge,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.
As in the Italian study, Dr. Chen sees patients with COVID-19 who have ongoing shortness of breath, some requiring supplemental oxygen, or with persistent chest pain on exertion, blood clotting problems, poor concentration, gastrointestinal distress, and reduced muscle strength and impaired grasping power. He doesn’t rule out permanent lung damage in some. “Even asymptomatic individuals already show lung scarring on imaging,” he said.
The Mount Sinai program provides specialized interdisciplinary management that may include CT scans, endoscopy, and drugs such as respiratory medications or anticoagulants. It also offers training to combat the fatigue and deconditioning caused by the infection, symptoms that are not medically treatable but impact quality of life.
“These patients do get better, but I expect they may still have symptoms requiring monitoring after a year,” Dr. Chen said.
The study received no specific funding. Dr. Carfi and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Clinicians and researchers have focused on the acute phase of COVID-19 infection, but it’s increasingly clear that some recovered patients discharged from acute care need continued monitoring for long-lasting effects, a study has found.
In a research letter published online July 9 in JAMA, Angelo Carfi, MD, and colleagues from the Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post–Acute Care Study Group in Rome, report that
Postdischarge assessments of patients who met criteria for SARS-CoV-2 negativity, including a reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction test, were conducted from April 21 to May 29. Among the results:
- Only 12.6% of the 143 patients were completely free of any COVID-19 symptom
- About 32% of patients had one or two symptoms and 55% had three or more
- None had fever or other signs and symptoms of acute illness
- About 53% of patients still had fatigue, 43.4% had dyspnea, 27.3% had joint pain, and had 21.7% chest pain
- About 44% reported worsened quality of life on the EuroQol visual analog scale.
The sample cohort, assessed in a COVID-19 patient service recently established at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli had a mean age of 56.5 years and 37% were women. The mean length of hospital stay was 13.5 days. During their hospitalization, 72.7% of patients showed evidence of interstitial pneumonia. Noninvasive ventilation was given to 14.7% of patients and 4.9% received invasive ventilation.
The reality of lingering symptoms has led Dr. Carfi’s clinic to schedule a final “wrap-up visit” for patients after full assessment. “On that occasion the doctor prescribes anything necessary to correct the anomalies found during the full evaluation,” Dr. Carfi, a geriatrician at the Gemelli clinic, said in an interview. “These usually include vitamin supplementation and, in selected cases, a new drug prescription such as a blood thinner if necessary.”
Patients can also enroll in a training program in which breathing status is monitored.
In North America, doctors are also addressing the reality that the road to recovery can be a long and upward one, with persistent symptoms worse than those seen with acute influenza infection. “We see patients who were first diagnosed in March or April and still have symptoms in July,” said Zijian Chen, MD, an endocrinologist and medical director of Mount Sinai Health System’s Center for Post-COVID Care in New York.
“Persistent symptoms are much worse for COVID patients than flu patients. Even flu patients who spent time in the intensive care unit recover fully, and we can optimize their breathing before discharge,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.
As in the Italian study, Dr. Chen sees patients with COVID-19 who have ongoing shortness of breath, some requiring supplemental oxygen, or with persistent chest pain on exertion, blood clotting problems, poor concentration, gastrointestinal distress, and reduced muscle strength and impaired grasping power. He doesn’t rule out permanent lung damage in some. “Even asymptomatic individuals already show lung scarring on imaging,” he said.
The Mount Sinai program provides specialized interdisciplinary management that may include CT scans, endoscopy, and drugs such as respiratory medications or anticoagulants. It also offers training to combat the fatigue and deconditioning caused by the infection, symptoms that are not medically treatable but impact quality of life.
“These patients do get better, but I expect they may still have symptoms requiring monitoring after a year,” Dr. Chen said.
The study received no specific funding. Dr. Carfi and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Six snags docs hit when seeing patients again
Sachin Dave, MD, an internist in Greenwood, Ind., never thought he’d tell his patients to avoid coming into the office. But these days, he must balance the need for face-to-face visits with the risk for COVID-19 transmission. Although he connects with most patients by telehealth, some patients still demand in-office care.
“My older patients actually insist on coming to see me in person,” said Dr. Dave, who is part of Indiana Internal Medicine Consultants, a large group practice near Indianapolis. “I have to tell them it’s not safe.”
It’s a minor hitch as his practice ramps up again – but one of those things you can’t overlook, he said. “We need to educate our patients and communicate the risk to them.”
senior vice president of patient safety and risk management for the Doctors Company, a physician-owned malpractice insurer. “It’s about minimizing risk.”
As practices increase patient volume, physicians are juggling a desire for a return to patient care and increased revenue with a need to maximize patient and staff safety. Avoiding some of these common snags may help make the transition smoother.
1. Unclear or nonexistent polices and protocols
Some physicians know what general rules they want to follow, but they haven’t conveyed them in a readily available document. Although you and your staff may have a sense of what they are, patients may be less aware of how mandatory you consider them. It’s important to develop a formal framework that you will follow and to make sure patients and staff know it.
Dr. Dave and colleagues have stringent safety protocols in place for the small percentage of patients he does feel a need to be seen in person. Masks are mandatory for staff and patients. The waiting room is set up for social distancing. If it begins getting crowded, patients are asked to wait in their cars until an exam room is ready.
“I’m not going to see a patient who refuses to put a mask on, because when I put a mask on, I’m trying to protect my patients,” said Dr. Dave. He makes it clear that he expects the same from his patients; they must wear a mask to protect his staff and himself.
“I am going to let them in with the caveat that they don’t have qualms about wearing a mask. If they have qualms about wearing a mask, then I have qualms about seeing them in person,” he said.
Be sure that all patients understand and will adhere to your protocols before they come to the office. Patients should be triaged over the phone before arriving, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. (Remember that refusing assessment or care could lead to issues of patient abandonment.)
When you don’t really have a framework to follow, you don’t really know what the structure is going to be and how your practice is going to provide care. The question is, how do you build a framework for right now? said Ron Holder, chief operations officer of the Medical Group Management Association. “The first step is do no harm.”
2. Trying to see too many patients too soon
On average, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% decrease in patient volume since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, according to the MGMA. It’s natural that many want to ramp up immediately and go back to their prior patient volume. But they need to take it slow and ensure that the correct safety protocols are in place, Mr. Holder said.
For example, telehealth is still reimbursable at parity, so physicians should keep taking advantage of that. MGMA’s practice reopening checklist has links to additional resources and considerations.
Some doctors want to see an overload of patients and want to get back to how they practiced before the pandemic, says orthopedic surgeon Charles Ruotolo, MD, president of Total Orthopedics and Sports Medicine in Massapequa, N.Y., and chairman of the department of orthopedics, Nassau University Medical Center, East Meadow, N.Y., “but at the same time, you know we still have to limit how many people are coming into the office.”
It’s not fair if some doctors in your practice are seeing 45 patients daily as they did previously whereas others are seeing half that many, he explained. “We must remain cognizant and constantly review schedules and remember we have to still keep the numbers down.”
“COVID is not going to be completely over in our lifetime,” says Evan Levine, MD, a cardiologist in Ridgefield, Conn. Taking advantage of technologies is one way to reduce risk.
He predicts that the demand will continue to increase as patients become more comfortable with virtual visits. Using Bluetooth and WiFi devices to assess patients is no longer futuristic and can help reduce the number of people in the waiting room, according to Dr. Levine, a solo practitioner and author of “What Your Doctor Won’t (or Can’t) Tell You.” “That’s a very good thing, especially as we look to fall and to flu season.”
3. Undercommunicating with patients and staff
Don’t assume patients know that you’ve opened back up and are seeing people in the office, Mr. Holder said. Update your practice website, send letters or newsletters to patients’ homes, maintain telephone and email contact, and post signs at the facility explaining your reopening process. The CDC has an excellent phone script that practices can adapt. Everyone should know what to expect and what’s expected of them.
He advised overcommunicating – more than you think is necessary – to your staff and patients. Tell them about the extra steps you’re taking. Let them know that their safety and health are the most important thing and that you are taking all these extra measures to make sure that they feel comfortable.
Keep staff appraised of policy changes. Stress what you’re doing to ensure the safety of your team members. “Even though you could be doing all those things, if you’re not communicating, then no one knows it,” said Mr. Holder.
He predicted the practices that emerge stronger from this crisis will be those with great patient education that have built up a lot of goodwill. Patients should know they can go to this practice’s patient portal as a trusted resource about COVID-19 and safety-related measures. This approach will pay dividends over the long term.
4. Giving inadequate staff training and holding too-high expectations
Staff members are scared, really scared, Ms. Bashaw said. Some may not return because they’re unsure what to expect; others may have to stay home to care for children or older relatives. Clear guidance on what is being done to ensure everyone’s safety, what is expected from staff, and flexibility with scheduling can help address these issues.
Most practices’ staff are not used to donning and removing personal protective equipment, and they’re not used to wearing masks when working with patients. Expect some mistakes.
“We had a scenario where a provider was in a room with an older patient, and the provider pulled his mask down so the patient could hear him better. He then kept the mask down while giving the patient an injection. When the family found out, they were very upset,” Ms. Bashaw related. “It was done with good intentions, to improve communication, but it’s a slip-up that could have found him liable if she became ill.”
Dr. Ruotolo had to implement new policies throughout his practice’s multiple locations in the New York metro area. They encompassed everything from staggering appointments and staff to establishing designated employee eating areas so front desk staff weren’t taking their masks off to snack.
Having specific guidelines for staff helps reassure patients that safety protocols are being adhered to. “Patients want to see we’re all doing the right thing,” he said.
Have those policies clearly written so everyone’s on the same page, Dr. Ruotolo advised. Also make sure staff knows what the rules are for patients.
Dr. Ruotolo’s reception staff hand every patient a disinfectant wipe when they arrive. They are asked to wipe down the check-in kiosk before and after using it. Assistants know not to cut corners when disinfecting exam rooms, equipment, or tables. “It’s the little things you have to think about, and make sure it’s reiterated with your staff so they’re doing it.”
If your practice isn’t back up to full staffing volume, it’s a good idea to cross train staff members so some jobs overlap, suggests Mr. Holder. Although smaller practices may already do this, at larger practices, staff members’ roles may be more specific. “You may be able to pull employees from other positions in the practice, but it’s a good idea to have some redundancy.”
5. Neglecting to document everything – even more so than before
The standard of care is changing every day, and so are the regulations, says Ms. Bashaw. Many physicians who work in larger practices or for health systems don’t take advantage of internal risk management departments, which can help them keep tabs on all of these changes.
Writing down simple protocols and having a consistent work flow are extremely important right now. What have you told staff and patients? Are they comfortable with how you’re minimizing their risk? Physicians can find a seven-page checklist that helps practitioners organize and methodically go through reopening process at the Doctors Company website.
Implementing state and local statutes or public health requirements and keeping track of when things stop and start can be complex, says Ms. Bashaw. Take a look at your pre–COVID-19 policies and procedures, and make sure you’re on top of the current standards for your office, including staff education. The most important step is connecting with your local public health authority and taking direction from them.
Ms. Bashaw strongly encouraged physicians to conduct huddles with their staff; it’s an evidence-based leadership practice that’s important from a medical malpractice perspective. Review the day’s game plan, then conduct a debriefing at the end of the day.
Discuss what worked well, what didn’t, and what tomorrow looks like. And be sure to document it all. “A standard routine and debrief gets everyone on the same page and shows due diligence,” she said.
Keep an administrative file so 2 years down the road, you remember what you did and when. That way, if there’s a problem or a breach or the standard isn’t adhered to, it’s documented in the file. Note what happened and when and what was done to mitigate it or what corrective action was taken.
All practices need to stay on top of regulatory changes. Smaller practices don’t have full-time staff dedicated to monitoring what’s happening in Washington. Associations such as the MGMA can help target what’s important and actionable.
6. Forgetting about your own and your staff’s physical and mental health
Physicians need to be worried about burnout and mental health problems from their team members, their colleagues, their patients, and themselves, according to Mr. Holder.
“There’s a mental exhaustion that is just pervasive in the world and the United States right now about all this COVID stuff and stress, not to mention all the other things that are going on,” he said.
That’s going to carry over, so physicians must make sure there’s a positive culture at the practice, where everyone’s taking care of and watching out for each other.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Sachin Dave, MD, an internist in Greenwood, Ind., never thought he’d tell his patients to avoid coming into the office. But these days, he must balance the need for face-to-face visits with the risk for COVID-19 transmission. Although he connects with most patients by telehealth, some patients still demand in-office care.
“My older patients actually insist on coming to see me in person,” said Dr. Dave, who is part of Indiana Internal Medicine Consultants, a large group practice near Indianapolis. “I have to tell them it’s not safe.”
It’s a minor hitch as his practice ramps up again – but one of those things you can’t overlook, he said. “We need to educate our patients and communicate the risk to them.”
senior vice president of patient safety and risk management for the Doctors Company, a physician-owned malpractice insurer. “It’s about minimizing risk.”
As practices increase patient volume, physicians are juggling a desire for a return to patient care and increased revenue with a need to maximize patient and staff safety. Avoiding some of these common snags may help make the transition smoother.
1. Unclear or nonexistent polices and protocols
Some physicians know what general rules they want to follow, but they haven’t conveyed them in a readily available document. Although you and your staff may have a sense of what they are, patients may be less aware of how mandatory you consider them. It’s important to develop a formal framework that you will follow and to make sure patients and staff know it.
Dr. Dave and colleagues have stringent safety protocols in place for the small percentage of patients he does feel a need to be seen in person. Masks are mandatory for staff and patients. The waiting room is set up for social distancing. If it begins getting crowded, patients are asked to wait in their cars until an exam room is ready.
“I’m not going to see a patient who refuses to put a mask on, because when I put a mask on, I’m trying to protect my patients,” said Dr. Dave. He makes it clear that he expects the same from his patients; they must wear a mask to protect his staff and himself.
“I am going to let them in with the caveat that they don’t have qualms about wearing a mask. If they have qualms about wearing a mask, then I have qualms about seeing them in person,” he said.
Be sure that all patients understand and will adhere to your protocols before they come to the office. Patients should be triaged over the phone before arriving, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. (Remember that refusing assessment or care could lead to issues of patient abandonment.)
When you don’t really have a framework to follow, you don’t really know what the structure is going to be and how your practice is going to provide care. The question is, how do you build a framework for right now? said Ron Holder, chief operations officer of the Medical Group Management Association. “The first step is do no harm.”
2. Trying to see too many patients too soon
On average, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% decrease in patient volume since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, according to the MGMA. It’s natural that many want to ramp up immediately and go back to their prior patient volume. But they need to take it slow and ensure that the correct safety protocols are in place, Mr. Holder said.
For example, telehealth is still reimbursable at parity, so physicians should keep taking advantage of that. MGMA’s practice reopening checklist has links to additional resources and considerations.
Some doctors want to see an overload of patients and want to get back to how they practiced before the pandemic, says orthopedic surgeon Charles Ruotolo, MD, president of Total Orthopedics and Sports Medicine in Massapequa, N.Y., and chairman of the department of orthopedics, Nassau University Medical Center, East Meadow, N.Y., “but at the same time, you know we still have to limit how many people are coming into the office.”
It’s not fair if some doctors in your practice are seeing 45 patients daily as they did previously whereas others are seeing half that many, he explained. “We must remain cognizant and constantly review schedules and remember we have to still keep the numbers down.”
“COVID is not going to be completely over in our lifetime,” says Evan Levine, MD, a cardiologist in Ridgefield, Conn. Taking advantage of technologies is one way to reduce risk.
He predicts that the demand will continue to increase as patients become more comfortable with virtual visits. Using Bluetooth and WiFi devices to assess patients is no longer futuristic and can help reduce the number of people in the waiting room, according to Dr. Levine, a solo practitioner and author of “What Your Doctor Won’t (or Can’t) Tell You.” “That’s a very good thing, especially as we look to fall and to flu season.”
3. Undercommunicating with patients and staff
Don’t assume patients know that you’ve opened back up and are seeing people in the office, Mr. Holder said. Update your practice website, send letters or newsletters to patients’ homes, maintain telephone and email contact, and post signs at the facility explaining your reopening process. The CDC has an excellent phone script that practices can adapt. Everyone should know what to expect and what’s expected of them.
He advised overcommunicating – more than you think is necessary – to your staff and patients. Tell them about the extra steps you’re taking. Let them know that their safety and health are the most important thing and that you are taking all these extra measures to make sure that they feel comfortable.
Keep staff appraised of policy changes. Stress what you’re doing to ensure the safety of your team members. “Even though you could be doing all those things, if you’re not communicating, then no one knows it,” said Mr. Holder.
He predicted the practices that emerge stronger from this crisis will be those with great patient education that have built up a lot of goodwill. Patients should know they can go to this practice’s patient portal as a trusted resource about COVID-19 and safety-related measures. This approach will pay dividends over the long term.
4. Giving inadequate staff training and holding too-high expectations
Staff members are scared, really scared, Ms. Bashaw said. Some may not return because they’re unsure what to expect; others may have to stay home to care for children or older relatives. Clear guidance on what is being done to ensure everyone’s safety, what is expected from staff, and flexibility with scheduling can help address these issues.
Most practices’ staff are not used to donning and removing personal protective equipment, and they’re not used to wearing masks when working with patients. Expect some mistakes.
“We had a scenario where a provider was in a room with an older patient, and the provider pulled his mask down so the patient could hear him better. He then kept the mask down while giving the patient an injection. When the family found out, they were very upset,” Ms. Bashaw related. “It was done with good intentions, to improve communication, but it’s a slip-up that could have found him liable if she became ill.”
Dr. Ruotolo had to implement new policies throughout his practice’s multiple locations in the New York metro area. They encompassed everything from staggering appointments and staff to establishing designated employee eating areas so front desk staff weren’t taking their masks off to snack.
Having specific guidelines for staff helps reassure patients that safety protocols are being adhered to. “Patients want to see we’re all doing the right thing,” he said.
Have those policies clearly written so everyone’s on the same page, Dr. Ruotolo advised. Also make sure staff knows what the rules are for patients.
Dr. Ruotolo’s reception staff hand every patient a disinfectant wipe when they arrive. They are asked to wipe down the check-in kiosk before and after using it. Assistants know not to cut corners when disinfecting exam rooms, equipment, or tables. “It’s the little things you have to think about, and make sure it’s reiterated with your staff so they’re doing it.”
If your practice isn’t back up to full staffing volume, it’s a good idea to cross train staff members so some jobs overlap, suggests Mr. Holder. Although smaller practices may already do this, at larger practices, staff members’ roles may be more specific. “You may be able to pull employees from other positions in the practice, but it’s a good idea to have some redundancy.”
5. Neglecting to document everything – even more so than before
The standard of care is changing every day, and so are the regulations, says Ms. Bashaw. Many physicians who work in larger practices or for health systems don’t take advantage of internal risk management departments, which can help them keep tabs on all of these changes.
Writing down simple protocols and having a consistent work flow are extremely important right now. What have you told staff and patients? Are they comfortable with how you’re minimizing their risk? Physicians can find a seven-page checklist that helps practitioners organize and methodically go through reopening process at the Doctors Company website.
Implementing state and local statutes or public health requirements and keeping track of when things stop and start can be complex, says Ms. Bashaw. Take a look at your pre–COVID-19 policies and procedures, and make sure you’re on top of the current standards for your office, including staff education. The most important step is connecting with your local public health authority and taking direction from them.
Ms. Bashaw strongly encouraged physicians to conduct huddles with their staff; it’s an evidence-based leadership practice that’s important from a medical malpractice perspective. Review the day’s game plan, then conduct a debriefing at the end of the day.
Discuss what worked well, what didn’t, and what tomorrow looks like. And be sure to document it all. “A standard routine and debrief gets everyone on the same page and shows due diligence,” she said.
Keep an administrative file so 2 years down the road, you remember what you did and when. That way, if there’s a problem or a breach or the standard isn’t adhered to, it’s documented in the file. Note what happened and when and what was done to mitigate it or what corrective action was taken.
All practices need to stay on top of regulatory changes. Smaller practices don’t have full-time staff dedicated to monitoring what’s happening in Washington. Associations such as the MGMA can help target what’s important and actionable.
6. Forgetting about your own and your staff’s physical and mental health
Physicians need to be worried about burnout and mental health problems from their team members, their colleagues, their patients, and themselves, according to Mr. Holder.
“There’s a mental exhaustion that is just pervasive in the world and the United States right now about all this COVID stuff and stress, not to mention all the other things that are going on,” he said.
That’s going to carry over, so physicians must make sure there’s a positive culture at the practice, where everyone’s taking care of and watching out for each other.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Sachin Dave, MD, an internist in Greenwood, Ind., never thought he’d tell his patients to avoid coming into the office. But these days, he must balance the need for face-to-face visits with the risk for COVID-19 transmission. Although he connects with most patients by telehealth, some patients still demand in-office care.
“My older patients actually insist on coming to see me in person,” said Dr. Dave, who is part of Indiana Internal Medicine Consultants, a large group practice near Indianapolis. “I have to tell them it’s not safe.”
It’s a minor hitch as his practice ramps up again – but one of those things you can’t overlook, he said. “We need to educate our patients and communicate the risk to them.”
senior vice president of patient safety and risk management for the Doctors Company, a physician-owned malpractice insurer. “It’s about minimizing risk.”
As practices increase patient volume, physicians are juggling a desire for a return to patient care and increased revenue with a need to maximize patient and staff safety. Avoiding some of these common snags may help make the transition smoother.
1. Unclear or nonexistent polices and protocols
Some physicians know what general rules they want to follow, but they haven’t conveyed them in a readily available document. Although you and your staff may have a sense of what they are, patients may be less aware of how mandatory you consider them. It’s important to develop a formal framework that you will follow and to make sure patients and staff know it.
Dr. Dave and colleagues have stringent safety protocols in place for the small percentage of patients he does feel a need to be seen in person. Masks are mandatory for staff and patients. The waiting room is set up for social distancing. If it begins getting crowded, patients are asked to wait in their cars until an exam room is ready.
“I’m not going to see a patient who refuses to put a mask on, because when I put a mask on, I’m trying to protect my patients,” said Dr. Dave. He makes it clear that he expects the same from his patients; they must wear a mask to protect his staff and himself.
“I am going to let them in with the caveat that they don’t have qualms about wearing a mask. If they have qualms about wearing a mask, then I have qualms about seeing them in person,” he said.
Be sure that all patients understand and will adhere to your protocols before they come to the office. Patients should be triaged over the phone before arriving, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. (Remember that refusing assessment or care could lead to issues of patient abandonment.)
When you don’t really have a framework to follow, you don’t really know what the structure is going to be and how your practice is going to provide care. The question is, how do you build a framework for right now? said Ron Holder, chief operations officer of the Medical Group Management Association. “The first step is do no harm.”
2. Trying to see too many patients too soon
On average, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% decrease in patient volume since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, according to the MGMA. It’s natural that many want to ramp up immediately and go back to their prior patient volume. But they need to take it slow and ensure that the correct safety protocols are in place, Mr. Holder said.
For example, telehealth is still reimbursable at parity, so physicians should keep taking advantage of that. MGMA’s practice reopening checklist has links to additional resources and considerations.
Some doctors want to see an overload of patients and want to get back to how they practiced before the pandemic, says orthopedic surgeon Charles Ruotolo, MD, president of Total Orthopedics and Sports Medicine in Massapequa, N.Y., and chairman of the department of orthopedics, Nassau University Medical Center, East Meadow, N.Y., “but at the same time, you know we still have to limit how many people are coming into the office.”
It’s not fair if some doctors in your practice are seeing 45 patients daily as they did previously whereas others are seeing half that many, he explained. “We must remain cognizant and constantly review schedules and remember we have to still keep the numbers down.”
“COVID is not going to be completely over in our lifetime,” says Evan Levine, MD, a cardiologist in Ridgefield, Conn. Taking advantage of technologies is one way to reduce risk.
He predicts that the demand will continue to increase as patients become more comfortable with virtual visits. Using Bluetooth and WiFi devices to assess patients is no longer futuristic and can help reduce the number of people in the waiting room, according to Dr. Levine, a solo practitioner and author of “What Your Doctor Won’t (or Can’t) Tell You.” “That’s a very good thing, especially as we look to fall and to flu season.”
3. Undercommunicating with patients and staff
Don’t assume patients know that you’ve opened back up and are seeing people in the office, Mr. Holder said. Update your practice website, send letters or newsletters to patients’ homes, maintain telephone and email contact, and post signs at the facility explaining your reopening process. The CDC has an excellent phone script that practices can adapt. Everyone should know what to expect and what’s expected of them.
He advised overcommunicating – more than you think is necessary – to your staff and patients. Tell them about the extra steps you’re taking. Let them know that their safety and health are the most important thing and that you are taking all these extra measures to make sure that they feel comfortable.
Keep staff appraised of policy changes. Stress what you’re doing to ensure the safety of your team members. “Even though you could be doing all those things, if you’re not communicating, then no one knows it,” said Mr. Holder.
He predicted the practices that emerge stronger from this crisis will be those with great patient education that have built up a lot of goodwill. Patients should know they can go to this practice’s patient portal as a trusted resource about COVID-19 and safety-related measures. This approach will pay dividends over the long term.
4. Giving inadequate staff training and holding too-high expectations
Staff members are scared, really scared, Ms. Bashaw said. Some may not return because they’re unsure what to expect; others may have to stay home to care for children or older relatives. Clear guidance on what is being done to ensure everyone’s safety, what is expected from staff, and flexibility with scheduling can help address these issues.
Most practices’ staff are not used to donning and removing personal protective equipment, and they’re not used to wearing masks when working with patients. Expect some mistakes.
“We had a scenario where a provider was in a room with an older patient, and the provider pulled his mask down so the patient could hear him better. He then kept the mask down while giving the patient an injection. When the family found out, they were very upset,” Ms. Bashaw related. “It was done with good intentions, to improve communication, but it’s a slip-up that could have found him liable if she became ill.”
Dr. Ruotolo had to implement new policies throughout his practice’s multiple locations in the New York metro area. They encompassed everything from staggering appointments and staff to establishing designated employee eating areas so front desk staff weren’t taking their masks off to snack.
Having specific guidelines for staff helps reassure patients that safety protocols are being adhered to. “Patients want to see we’re all doing the right thing,” he said.
Have those policies clearly written so everyone’s on the same page, Dr. Ruotolo advised. Also make sure staff knows what the rules are for patients.
Dr. Ruotolo’s reception staff hand every patient a disinfectant wipe when they arrive. They are asked to wipe down the check-in kiosk before and after using it. Assistants know not to cut corners when disinfecting exam rooms, equipment, or tables. “It’s the little things you have to think about, and make sure it’s reiterated with your staff so they’re doing it.”
If your practice isn’t back up to full staffing volume, it’s a good idea to cross train staff members so some jobs overlap, suggests Mr. Holder. Although smaller practices may already do this, at larger practices, staff members’ roles may be more specific. “You may be able to pull employees from other positions in the practice, but it’s a good idea to have some redundancy.”
5. Neglecting to document everything – even more so than before
The standard of care is changing every day, and so are the regulations, says Ms. Bashaw. Many physicians who work in larger practices or for health systems don’t take advantage of internal risk management departments, which can help them keep tabs on all of these changes.
Writing down simple protocols and having a consistent work flow are extremely important right now. What have you told staff and patients? Are they comfortable with how you’re minimizing their risk? Physicians can find a seven-page checklist that helps practitioners organize and methodically go through reopening process at the Doctors Company website.
Implementing state and local statutes or public health requirements and keeping track of when things stop and start can be complex, says Ms. Bashaw. Take a look at your pre–COVID-19 policies and procedures, and make sure you’re on top of the current standards for your office, including staff education. The most important step is connecting with your local public health authority and taking direction from them.
Ms. Bashaw strongly encouraged physicians to conduct huddles with their staff; it’s an evidence-based leadership practice that’s important from a medical malpractice perspective. Review the day’s game plan, then conduct a debriefing at the end of the day.
Discuss what worked well, what didn’t, and what tomorrow looks like. And be sure to document it all. “A standard routine and debrief gets everyone on the same page and shows due diligence,” she said.
Keep an administrative file so 2 years down the road, you remember what you did and when. That way, if there’s a problem or a breach or the standard isn’t adhered to, it’s documented in the file. Note what happened and when and what was done to mitigate it or what corrective action was taken.
All practices need to stay on top of regulatory changes. Smaller practices don’t have full-time staff dedicated to monitoring what’s happening in Washington. Associations such as the MGMA can help target what’s important and actionable.
6. Forgetting about your own and your staff’s physical and mental health
Physicians need to be worried about burnout and mental health problems from their team members, their colleagues, their patients, and themselves, according to Mr. Holder.
“There’s a mental exhaustion that is just pervasive in the world and the United States right now about all this COVID stuff and stress, not to mention all the other things that are going on,” he said.
That’s going to carry over, so physicians must make sure there’s a positive culture at the practice, where everyone’s taking care of and watching out for each other.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death even without diabetes
new research indicates.
The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.
Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.
Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.
Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.
“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.
“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications
The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.
Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.
“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.
Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications.
The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.
Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.
In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).
Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).
Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.
Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.
Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.
The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research indicates.
The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.
Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.
Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.
Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.
“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.
“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications
The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.
Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.
“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.
Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications.
The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.
Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.
In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).
Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).
Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.
Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.
Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.
The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research indicates.
The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.
Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.
Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.
Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.
“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.
“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications
The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.
Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.
“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.
Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications.
The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.
Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.
In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).
Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).
Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.
Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.
Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.
The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Infants around the world with bronchiolitis received excess tests despite guidelines
While guidelines for bronchiolitis aim to reduce gratuitous tests and treatments, one-third of infants presenting at EDs with bronchiolitis receive an unnecessary intervention, according to a new global study.
For infants with symptoms of bronchiolitis, viral testing, blood tests, and chest x-rays are discouraged in most cases. Antibiotics are not recommended as treatment.
In a study published in Pediatrics, Amy Zipursky, MD, of the Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto, and colleagues, reviewed records for 2,359 infants aged 2-11 months diagnosed with bronchiolitis during the year 2013. The data came from a network of 38 EDs in the Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Dr. Zipursky and colleagues found that, while 8% of infants in the cohort had been treated with antibiotics, 33% had received at least one nonrecommended test, with rates ranging widely across regions. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, for example, only 15% received such a test, compared with 50% in Spain and Portugal.
Of the children given antibiotics, two-thirds had suspected bacterial infections, the researchers found. Antibiotic use was highest in the United States, at 11% of infants seen for bronchiolitis, and lowest in the United Kingdom and Ireland at 4%. Administration of chest x-rays – which occurred in nearly a quarter of the cohort – increased the likelihood of antibiotics being administered (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-3.24) independent of fever or severe symptoms.
The most common nonrecommended tests performed in the study were:
- Nasopharyngeal viral testing without admission to hospital (n = 591).
- Chest x-ray without ICU admission (n = 507).
- Complete blood counts (n = 222).
- Blood cultures (n = 129).
- Urinalysis in the absence of fever (n = 86).
- Febrile infants 3 months of age or less had blood cultures (n = 49).
In some treatment centers the rate of nonrecommended tests performed was 6%, while others saw rates of 74%.
“Despite the evidence that laboratory testing rarely impacts bronchiolitis management and that bacterial infections in bronchiolitis are uncommon, our study reveals that these tests continue to be performed frequently in many parts of the world,” Dr. Zipursky and colleagues wrote in their analysis.
“Plausible reasons may include ‘automatic’ blood draws with intravenous placement, uncertainty about institutional policies, perceived need for reassurance about the diagnosis, perception of ‘doing something,’ and parental desire for a viral label,” the authors surmised. “Because parental pressure to provide interventions may be a driver of care in infants with bronchiolitis in some countries, ED clinicians need to have higher confidence in the evidence-based bronchiolitis care and convey this trust to families.”
The researchers listed among the weaknesses of their study its retrospective design, and that results from x-rays and lab tests performed were not available.
In an editorial comment accompanying the study, Joseph J. Zorc, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, noted that some of the regional differences seen in the study may be attributable to different clinical criteria used to diagnose bronchiolitis. In the United Kingdom, for example, national guidelines include the presence of crackles, while in North America guidelines focus on wheeze. “Perhaps clinicians in the United Kingdom accept the presence of crackles as an expected finding in infant with bronchiolitis and are less likely to order imaging,” Dr. Zorc said (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146[2]:e20193684).
He also pointed out that the coronavirus pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID- 19) could have an impact on global testing and treatment practices for bronchiolitis, as coronaviruses are a known cause of bronchiolitis. The Pediatric Emergency Research Network, comprising the 38 EDs from which Dr. Zipursky and colleagues drew their data, is conducting a prospective study looking at pediatric disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.
The “collaboration of international networks of pediatric emergency providers is an encouraging sign of potential opportunities to come ... [providing] an opportunity to evaluate variation that can lead to innovation,” Dr. Zorc concluded.
Dr. Zipursky and colleagues reported no external funding or relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zorc reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Zipursky A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146(2):e2020002311.
While guidelines for bronchiolitis aim to reduce gratuitous tests and treatments, one-third of infants presenting at EDs with bronchiolitis receive an unnecessary intervention, according to a new global study.
For infants with symptoms of bronchiolitis, viral testing, blood tests, and chest x-rays are discouraged in most cases. Antibiotics are not recommended as treatment.
In a study published in Pediatrics, Amy Zipursky, MD, of the Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto, and colleagues, reviewed records for 2,359 infants aged 2-11 months diagnosed with bronchiolitis during the year 2013. The data came from a network of 38 EDs in the Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Dr. Zipursky and colleagues found that, while 8% of infants in the cohort had been treated with antibiotics, 33% had received at least one nonrecommended test, with rates ranging widely across regions. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, for example, only 15% received such a test, compared with 50% in Spain and Portugal.
Of the children given antibiotics, two-thirds had suspected bacterial infections, the researchers found. Antibiotic use was highest in the United States, at 11% of infants seen for bronchiolitis, and lowest in the United Kingdom and Ireland at 4%. Administration of chest x-rays – which occurred in nearly a quarter of the cohort – increased the likelihood of antibiotics being administered (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-3.24) independent of fever or severe symptoms.
The most common nonrecommended tests performed in the study were:
- Nasopharyngeal viral testing without admission to hospital (n = 591).
- Chest x-ray without ICU admission (n = 507).
- Complete blood counts (n = 222).
- Blood cultures (n = 129).
- Urinalysis in the absence of fever (n = 86).
- Febrile infants 3 months of age or less had blood cultures (n = 49).
In some treatment centers the rate of nonrecommended tests performed was 6%, while others saw rates of 74%.
“Despite the evidence that laboratory testing rarely impacts bronchiolitis management and that bacterial infections in bronchiolitis are uncommon, our study reveals that these tests continue to be performed frequently in many parts of the world,” Dr. Zipursky and colleagues wrote in their analysis.
“Plausible reasons may include ‘automatic’ blood draws with intravenous placement, uncertainty about institutional policies, perceived need for reassurance about the diagnosis, perception of ‘doing something,’ and parental desire for a viral label,” the authors surmised. “Because parental pressure to provide interventions may be a driver of care in infants with bronchiolitis in some countries, ED clinicians need to have higher confidence in the evidence-based bronchiolitis care and convey this trust to families.”
The researchers listed among the weaknesses of their study its retrospective design, and that results from x-rays and lab tests performed were not available.
In an editorial comment accompanying the study, Joseph J. Zorc, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, noted that some of the regional differences seen in the study may be attributable to different clinical criteria used to diagnose bronchiolitis. In the United Kingdom, for example, national guidelines include the presence of crackles, while in North America guidelines focus on wheeze. “Perhaps clinicians in the United Kingdom accept the presence of crackles as an expected finding in infant with bronchiolitis and are less likely to order imaging,” Dr. Zorc said (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146[2]:e20193684).
He also pointed out that the coronavirus pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID- 19) could have an impact on global testing and treatment practices for bronchiolitis, as coronaviruses are a known cause of bronchiolitis. The Pediatric Emergency Research Network, comprising the 38 EDs from which Dr. Zipursky and colleagues drew their data, is conducting a prospective study looking at pediatric disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.
The “collaboration of international networks of pediatric emergency providers is an encouraging sign of potential opportunities to come ... [providing] an opportunity to evaluate variation that can lead to innovation,” Dr. Zorc concluded.
Dr. Zipursky and colleagues reported no external funding or relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zorc reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Zipursky A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146(2):e2020002311.
While guidelines for bronchiolitis aim to reduce gratuitous tests and treatments, one-third of infants presenting at EDs with bronchiolitis receive an unnecessary intervention, according to a new global study.
For infants with symptoms of bronchiolitis, viral testing, blood tests, and chest x-rays are discouraged in most cases. Antibiotics are not recommended as treatment.
In a study published in Pediatrics, Amy Zipursky, MD, of the Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto, and colleagues, reviewed records for 2,359 infants aged 2-11 months diagnosed with bronchiolitis during the year 2013. The data came from a network of 38 EDs in the Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Dr. Zipursky and colleagues found that, while 8% of infants in the cohort had been treated with antibiotics, 33% had received at least one nonrecommended test, with rates ranging widely across regions. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, for example, only 15% received such a test, compared with 50% in Spain and Portugal.
Of the children given antibiotics, two-thirds had suspected bacterial infections, the researchers found. Antibiotic use was highest in the United States, at 11% of infants seen for bronchiolitis, and lowest in the United Kingdom and Ireland at 4%. Administration of chest x-rays – which occurred in nearly a quarter of the cohort – increased the likelihood of antibiotics being administered (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-3.24) independent of fever or severe symptoms.
The most common nonrecommended tests performed in the study were:
- Nasopharyngeal viral testing without admission to hospital (n = 591).
- Chest x-ray without ICU admission (n = 507).
- Complete blood counts (n = 222).
- Blood cultures (n = 129).
- Urinalysis in the absence of fever (n = 86).
- Febrile infants 3 months of age or less had blood cultures (n = 49).
In some treatment centers the rate of nonrecommended tests performed was 6%, while others saw rates of 74%.
“Despite the evidence that laboratory testing rarely impacts bronchiolitis management and that bacterial infections in bronchiolitis are uncommon, our study reveals that these tests continue to be performed frequently in many parts of the world,” Dr. Zipursky and colleagues wrote in their analysis.
“Plausible reasons may include ‘automatic’ blood draws with intravenous placement, uncertainty about institutional policies, perceived need for reassurance about the diagnosis, perception of ‘doing something,’ and parental desire for a viral label,” the authors surmised. “Because parental pressure to provide interventions may be a driver of care in infants with bronchiolitis in some countries, ED clinicians need to have higher confidence in the evidence-based bronchiolitis care and convey this trust to families.”
The researchers listed among the weaknesses of their study its retrospective design, and that results from x-rays and lab tests performed were not available.
In an editorial comment accompanying the study, Joseph J. Zorc, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, noted that some of the regional differences seen in the study may be attributable to different clinical criteria used to diagnose bronchiolitis. In the United Kingdom, for example, national guidelines include the presence of crackles, while in North America guidelines focus on wheeze. “Perhaps clinicians in the United Kingdom accept the presence of crackles as an expected finding in infant with bronchiolitis and are less likely to order imaging,” Dr. Zorc said (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146[2]:e20193684).
He also pointed out that the coronavirus pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID- 19) could have an impact on global testing and treatment practices for bronchiolitis, as coronaviruses are a known cause of bronchiolitis. The Pediatric Emergency Research Network, comprising the 38 EDs from which Dr. Zipursky and colleagues drew their data, is conducting a prospective study looking at pediatric disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.
The “collaboration of international networks of pediatric emergency providers is an encouraging sign of potential opportunities to come ... [providing] an opportunity to evaluate variation that can lead to innovation,” Dr. Zorc concluded.
Dr. Zipursky and colleagues reported no external funding or relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zorc reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Zipursky A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146(2):e2020002311.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: In a global cohort, 33% of infants received at least one nonrecommended test, most commonly viral tests, chest x-rays, and blood cultures.
Study details: A retrospective cohort of 2,359 infants aged 2-11 months seen in 38 EDs in developed countries.
Disclosures: Dr. Zipursky and colleagues reported no external funding or relevant financial disclosures.
Source: Zipursky A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146(2):e2020002311.
Children rarely transmit SARS-CoV-2 within households
“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.
In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.
In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said
In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.
The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.
Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).
The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.
In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.
the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”
“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.
“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.
In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.
In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said
In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.
The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.
Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).
The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.
In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.
the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”
“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.
“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.
In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.
In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said
In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.
The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.
Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).
The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.
In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.
the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”
“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Even a few days of steroids may be risky, new study suggests
Extended use of corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory conditions puts patients at risk for serious adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cataracts, and diabetes. Now, a growing body of evidence suggests that even short bursts of these drugs are associated with serious risks.
Most recently, a population-based study of more than 2.6 million people found that taking corticosteroids for 14 days or less was associated with a substantially greater risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, sepsis, and heart failure, particularly within the first 30 days after therapy.
In the study, Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, PhD, a professor in the division of allergy, asthma, and rheumatology in the department of pediatrics at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and colleagues used a self-controlled case series to analyze data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database of medical claims. They compared patients’ conditions in the period from 5 to 90 days before treatment to conditions from the periods from 5 to 30 days and from 31 to 90 days after therapy.
With a median duration of 3 days of treatment, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.84) for GI bleeding, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.70-2.32) for sepsis, and 2.37 (95% CI, 2.13-2.63) for heart failure.
Given the findings, physicians should weigh the benefits against the risks of rare but potentially serious consequences of these anti-inflammatory drugs, according to the authors.
“After initiating patients on oral steroid bursts, physicians should be on the lookout for these severe adverse events, particularly within the first month after initiation of steroid therapy,” Dr. Yao said in an interview.
The findings were published online July 6 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Of the 15,859,129 adult Asians in the Taiwanese database, the study included 2,623,327 adults aged 20-64 years who received single steroid bursts (14 days or less) between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015.
Almost 60% of the indications were for skin disorders, such as eczema and urticaria, and for respiratory tract infections, such as sinusitis and acute pharyngitis. Among specialties, dermatology, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics accounted for 88% of prescriptions.
“Our findings are important for physicians and guideline developers because short-term use of oral corticosteroids is common and the real-world safety of this approach remains unclear,” the authors wrote. They acknowledged that the database did not provide information on such potential confounders as disease severity and lifestyle factors, nor did it include children and vulnerable individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the results.
The findings echo those of a 2017 cohort study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That study, by Akbar K. Waljee, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues, included data on more than 1.5 million privately insured U.S. adults. The researchers included somewhat longer steroid bursts of up to 30 days’ duration and found that use of the drugs was associated with a greater than fivefold increased risk for sepsis, a more than threefold increased risk for venous thromboembolism, and a nearly twofold increased risk for fracture within 30 days of starting treatment.
Furthermore, the elevated risk persisted at prednisone-equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/d (IRR, 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P < .001).
The U.S. study also found that during the 3-year period from 2012 to 2014, more than 20% of patients were prescribed short-term oral corticosteroids.
“Both studies indicate that these short-term regimens are more common in the real world than was previously thought and are not risk free,” Dr. Yao said.
Recognition that corticosteroids are associated with adverse events has been building for decades, according to the authors of an editorial that accompanies the new study.
“However, we commonly use short corticosteroid ‘bursts’ for minor ailments despite a lack of evidence for meaningful benefit. We are now learning that bursts as short as 3 days may increase risk for serious AEs, even in young and healthy people,” wrote editorialists Beth I. Wallace, MD, of the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, and Dr. Waljee, who led the 2017 study.
Dr. Wallace and Dr. Waljee drew parallels between corticosteroid bursts and other short-term regimens, such as of antibiotics and opiates, in which prescriber preference and sometimes patient pressure play a role. “All of these treatments have well-defined indications but can cause net harm when used. We can thus conceive of a corticosteroid stewardship model of targeted interventions that aims to reduce inappropriate prescribing,” they wrote.
In an interview, Dr. Wallace, a rheumatologist who prescribes oral steroids fairly frequently, noted that the Taiwan study is the first to investigate steroid bursts. “Up till now, these very short courses have flown under the radar. Clinicians very commonly prescribe short courses to help relieve symptoms of self-limited conditions like bronchitis, and we assume that because the exposure duration is short, the risks are low, especially for patients who are otherwise healthy.”
She warned that the data in the current study indicate that these short bursts – even at the lower end of the 1- to 2-week courses American physicians prescribe most often – carry small but real increases in risk for serious AEs. “And these increases were seen in young, healthy people, not just in people with preexisting conditions,” she said. “So, we might need to start thinking harder about how we are prescribing even these very short courses of steroids and try to use steroids only when their meaningful benefits really outweigh the risk.”
She noted that a patient with a chronic inflammatory condition such as rheumatoid arthritis may benefit substantially from short-term steroids to treat a disease flare. In that specific case, the benefits of short-term steroids may outweigh the risks, Dr. Wallace said.
But not everyone thinks a new strategy is needed. For Whitney A. High, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, the overprescribing of short-term corticosteroids is not a problem, and dermatologists are already exercising caution.
“I only prescribe these drugs short term to, at a guess, about 1 in 40 patients and only when a patient is miserable and quality of life is being seriously affected,” he said in an interview. “And that’s something that can’t be measured in a database study like the one from Taiwan but only in a risk-benefit analysis,” he said.
Furthermore, dermatologists have other drugs and technologies in their armamentarium, including topical steroids with occlusion or with wet wraps, phototherapy, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcipotriene, methotrexate and other immunosuppressive agents, and biologics. “In fact, many of these agents are specifically referred to as steroid-sparing,” Dr. High said.
Nor does he experience much pressure from patients to prescribe these drugs. “While occasionally I may encounter a patient who places pressure on me for oral steroids, it’s probably not nearly as frequently as providers in other fields are pressured to prescribe antibiotics or narcotics,” he said.
According to the Taiwanese researchers, the next step is to conduct more studies, including clinical trials, to determine optimal use of corticosteroids by monitoring adverse events. In the meantime, for practitioners such as Dr. Wallace and Dr. High, there is ample evidence from several recent studies of the harms of short-term corticosteroids, whereas the benefits for patients with self-limiting conditions remain uncertain. “This and other studies like it quite appropriately remind providers to avoid oral steroids when they’re not necessary and to seek alternatives where possible,” Dr. High said.
The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Chang Gung Medical Foundation, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Yao has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wu has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. The editorialists and Dr. High have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace received an NIH grant during the writing of the editorial.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Extended use of corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory conditions puts patients at risk for serious adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cataracts, and diabetes. Now, a growing body of evidence suggests that even short bursts of these drugs are associated with serious risks.
Most recently, a population-based study of more than 2.6 million people found that taking corticosteroids for 14 days or less was associated with a substantially greater risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, sepsis, and heart failure, particularly within the first 30 days after therapy.
In the study, Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, PhD, a professor in the division of allergy, asthma, and rheumatology in the department of pediatrics at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and colleagues used a self-controlled case series to analyze data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database of medical claims. They compared patients’ conditions in the period from 5 to 90 days before treatment to conditions from the periods from 5 to 30 days and from 31 to 90 days after therapy.
With a median duration of 3 days of treatment, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.84) for GI bleeding, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.70-2.32) for sepsis, and 2.37 (95% CI, 2.13-2.63) for heart failure.
Given the findings, physicians should weigh the benefits against the risks of rare but potentially serious consequences of these anti-inflammatory drugs, according to the authors.
“After initiating patients on oral steroid bursts, physicians should be on the lookout for these severe adverse events, particularly within the first month after initiation of steroid therapy,” Dr. Yao said in an interview.
The findings were published online July 6 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Of the 15,859,129 adult Asians in the Taiwanese database, the study included 2,623,327 adults aged 20-64 years who received single steroid bursts (14 days or less) between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015.
Almost 60% of the indications were for skin disorders, such as eczema and urticaria, and for respiratory tract infections, such as sinusitis and acute pharyngitis. Among specialties, dermatology, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics accounted for 88% of prescriptions.
“Our findings are important for physicians and guideline developers because short-term use of oral corticosteroids is common and the real-world safety of this approach remains unclear,” the authors wrote. They acknowledged that the database did not provide information on such potential confounders as disease severity and lifestyle factors, nor did it include children and vulnerable individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the results.
The findings echo those of a 2017 cohort study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That study, by Akbar K. Waljee, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues, included data on more than 1.5 million privately insured U.S. adults. The researchers included somewhat longer steroid bursts of up to 30 days’ duration and found that use of the drugs was associated with a greater than fivefold increased risk for sepsis, a more than threefold increased risk for venous thromboembolism, and a nearly twofold increased risk for fracture within 30 days of starting treatment.
Furthermore, the elevated risk persisted at prednisone-equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/d (IRR, 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P < .001).
The U.S. study also found that during the 3-year period from 2012 to 2014, more than 20% of patients were prescribed short-term oral corticosteroids.
“Both studies indicate that these short-term regimens are more common in the real world than was previously thought and are not risk free,” Dr. Yao said.
Recognition that corticosteroids are associated with adverse events has been building for decades, according to the authors of an editorial that accompanies the new study.
“However, we commonly use short corticosteroid ‘bursts’ for minor ailments despite a lack of evidence for meaningful benefit. We are now learning that bursts as short as 3 days may increase risk for serious AEs, even in young and healthy people,” wrote editorialists Beth I. Wallace, MD, of the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, and Dr. Waljee, who led the 2017 study.
Dr. Wallace and Dr. Waljee drew parallels between corticosteroid bursts and other short-term regimens, such as of antibiotics and opiates, in which prescriber preference and sometimes patient pressure play a role. “All of these treatments have well-defined indications but can cause net harm when used. We can thus conceive of a corticosteroid stewardship model of targeted interventions that aims to reduce inappropriate prescribing,” they wrote.
In an interview, Dr. Wallace, a rheumatologist who prescribes oral steroids fairly frequently, noted that the Taiwan study is the first to investigate steroid bursts. “Up till now, these very short courses have flown under the radar. Clinicians very commonly prescribe short courses to help relieve symptoms of self-limited conditions like bronchitis, and we assume that because the exposure duration is short, the risks are low, especially for patients who are otherwise healthy.”
She warned that the data in the current study indicate that these short bursts – even at the lower end of the 1- to 2-week courses American physicians prescribe most often – carry small but real increases in risk for serious AEs. “And these increases were seen in young, healthy people, not just in people with preexisting conditions,” she said. “So, we might need to start thinking harder about how we are prescribing even these very short courses of steroids and try to use steroids only when their meaningful benefits really outweigh the risk.”
She noted that a patient with a chronic inflammatory condition such as rheumatoid arthritis may benefit substantially from short-term steroids to treat a disease flare. In that specific case, the benefits of short-term steroids may outweigh the risks, Dr. Wallace said.
But not everyone thinks a new strategy is needed. For Whitney A. High, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, the overprescribing of short-term corticosteroids is not a problem, and dermatologists are already exercising caution.
“I only prescribe these drugs short term to, at a guess, about 1 in 40 patients and only when a patient is miserable and quality of life is being seriously affected,” he said in an interview. “And that’s something that can’t be measured in a database study like the one from Taiwan but only in a risk-benefit analysis,” he said.
Furthermore, dermatologists have other drugs and technologies in their armamentarium, including topical steroids with occlusion or with wet wraps, phototherapy, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcipotriene, methotrexate and other immunosuppressive agents, and biologics. “In fact, many of these agents are specifically referred to as steroid-sparing,” Dr. High said.
Nor does he experience much pressure from patients to prescribe these drugs. “While occasionally I may encounter a patient who places pressure on me for oral steroids, it’s probably not nearly as frequently as providers in other fields are pressured to prescribe antibiotics or narcotics,” he said.
According to the Taiwanese researchers, the next step is to conduct more studies, including clinical trials, to determine optimal use of corticosteroids by monitoring adverse events. In the meantime, for practitioners such as Dr. Wallace and Dr. High, there is ample evidence from several recent studies of the harms of short-term corticosteroids, whereas the benefits for patients with self-limiting conditions remain uncertain. “This and other studies like it quite appropriately remind providers to avoid oral steroids when they’re not necessary and to seek alternatives where possible,” Dr. High said.
The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Chang Gung Medical Foundation, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Yao has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wu has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. The editorialists and Dr. High have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace received an NIH grant during the writing of the editorial.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Extended use of corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory conditions puts patients at risk for serious adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cataracts, and diabetes. Now, a growing body of evidence suggests that even short bursts of these drugs are associated with serious risks.
Most recently, a population-based study of more than 2.6 million people found that taking corticosteroids for 14 days or less was associated with a substantially greater risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, sepsis, and heart failure, particularly within the first 30 days after therapy.
In the study, Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, PhD, a professor in the division of allergy, asthma, and rheumatology in the department of pediatrics at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and colleagues used a self-controlled case series to analyze data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database of medical claims. They compared patients’ conditions in the period from 5 to 90 days before treatment to conditions from the periods from 5 to 30 days and from 31 to 90 days after therapy.
With a median duration of 3 days of treatment, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.84) for GI bleeding, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.70-2.32) for sepsis, and 2.37 (95% CI, 2.13-2.63) for heart failure.
Given the findings, physicians should weigh the benefits against the risks of rare but potentially serious consequences of these anti-inflammatory drugs, according to the authors.
“After initiating patients on oral steroid bursts, physicians should be on the lookout for these severe adverse events, particularly within the first month after initiation of steroid therapy,” Dr. Yao said in an interview.
The findings were published online July 6 in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Of the 15,859,129 adult Asians in the Taiwanese database, the study included 2,623,327 adults aged 20-64 years who received single steroid bursts (14 days or less) between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015.
Almost 60% of the indications were for skin disorders, such as eczema and urticaria, and for respiratory tract infections, such as sinusitis and acute pharyngitis. Among specialties, dermatology, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics accounted for 88% of prescriptions.
“Our findings are important for physicians and guideline developers because short-term use of oral corticosteroids is common and the real-world safety of this approach remains unclear,” the authors wrote. They acknowledged that the database did not provide information on such potential confounders as disease severity and lifestyle factors, nor did it include children and vulnerable individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the results.
The findings echo those of a 2017 cohort study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That study, by Akbar K. Waljee, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues, included data on more than 1.5 million privately insured U.S. adults. The researchers included somewhat longer steroid bursts of up to 30 days’ duration and found that use of the drugs was associated with a greater than fivefold increased risk for sepsis, a more than threefold increased risk for venous thromboembolism, and a nearly twofold increased risk for fracture within 30 days of starting treatment.
Furthermore, the elevated risk persisted at prednisone-equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/d (IRR, 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P < .001).
The U.S. study also found that during the 3-year period from 2012 to 2014, more than 20% of patients were prescribed short-term oral corticosteroids.
“Both studies indicate that these short-term regimens are more common in the real world than was previously thought and are not risk free,” Dr. Yao said.
Recognition that corticosteroids are associated with adverse events has been building for decades, according to the authors of an editorial that accompanies the new study.
“However, we commonly use short corticosteroid ‘bursts’ for minor ailments despite a lack of evidence for meaningful benefit. We are now learning that bursts as short as 3 days may increase risk for serious AEs, even in young and healthy people,” wrote editorialists Beth I. Wallace, MD, of the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, and Dr. Waljee, who led the 2017 study.
Dr. Wallace and Dr. Waljee drew parallels between corticosteroid bursts and other short-term regimens, such as of antibiotics and opiates, in which prescriber preference and sometimes patient pressure play a role. “All of these treatments have well-defined indications but can cause net harm when used. We can thus conceive of a corticosteroid stewardship model of targeted interventions that aims to reduce inappropriate prescribing,” they wrote.
In an interview, Dr. Wallace, a rheumatologist who prescribes oral steroids fairly frequently, noted that the Taiwan study is the first to investigate steroid bursts. “Up till now, these very short courses have flown under the radar. Clinicians very commonly prescribe short courses to help relieve symptoms of self-limited conditions like bronchitis, and we assume that because the exposure duration is short, the risks are low, especially for patients who are otherwise healthy.”
She warned that the data in the current study indicate that these short bursts – even at the lower end of the 1- to 2-week courses American physicians prescribe most often – carry small but real increases in risk for serious AEs. “And these increases were seen in young, healthy people, not just in people with preexisting conditions,” she said. “So, we might need to start thinking harder about how we are prescribing even these very short courses of steroids and try to use steroids only when their meaningful benefits really outweigh the risk.”
She noted that a patient with a chronic inflammatory condition such as rheumatoid arthritis may benefit substantially from short-term steroids to treat a disease flare. In that specific case, the benefits of short-term steroids may outweigh the risks, Dr. Wallace said.
But not everyone thinks a new strategy is needed. For Whitney A. High, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, the overprescribing of short-term corticosteroids is not a problem, and dermatologists are already exercising caution.
“I only prescribe these drugs short term to, at a guess, about 1 in 40 patients and only when a patient is miserable and quality of life is being seriously affected,” he said in an interview. “And that’s something that can’t be measured in a database study like the one from Taiwan but only in a risk-benefit analysis,” he said.
Furthermore, dermatologists have other drugs and technologies in their armamentarium, including topical steroids with occlusion or with wet wraps, phototherapy, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcipotriene, methotrexate and other immunosuppressive agents, and biologics. “In fact, many of these agents are specifically referred to as steroid-sparing,” Dr. High said.
Nor does he experience much pressure from patients to prescribe these drugs. “While occasionally I may encounter a patient who places pressure on me for oral steroids, it’s probably not nearly as frequently as providers in other fields are pressured to prescribe antibiotics or narcotics,” he said.
According to the Taiwanese researchers, the next step is to conduct more studies, including clinical trials, to determine optimal use of corticosteroids by monitoring adverse events. In the meantime, for practitioners such as Dr. Wallace and Dr. High, there is ample evidence from several recent studies of the harms of short-term corticosteroids, whereas the benefits for patients with self-limiting conditions remain uncertain. “This and other studies like it quite appropriately remind providers to avoid oral steroids when they’re not necessary and to seek alternatives where possible,” Dr. High said.
The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Chang Gung Medical Foundation, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Yao has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wu has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. The editorialists and Dr. High have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace received an NIH grant during the writing of the editorial.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Combination nicotine replacement therapy better than single form
Background: NRT use after smoking cessation helps smokers transition to abstinence by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. It is uncertain which forms of NRTs are more likely to result in long-term smoking cessation.
Study design: Meta-analysis.
Setting: Cochrane review of randomized trials.
Synopsis: In this Cochrane Review, the authors identified 63 randomized trials with 41,509 participants comparing one type of NRT with another.
Combination NRT (for example, the patch & a fast-acting form such as gum or lozenge) increases long-term quit rates versus single-form NRT (risk ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.36). Researchers compared 4 mg to 2 mg nicotine gum and found a benefit of the higher dose (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), although possibly only among heavy users.
Bottom line: Prescribe combination patch and short-acting NRTs to smokers motivated to quit.
Citation: Lindson N et al. Different doses, durations, and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 18;4:CD013308. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013308.
Dr. Miller is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
Background: NRT use after smoking cessation helps smokers transition to abstinence by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. It is uncertain which forms of NRTs are more likely to result in long-term smoking cessation.
Study design: Meta-analysis.
Setting: Cochrane review of randomized trials.
Synopsis: In this Cochrane Review, the authors identified 63 randomized trials with 41,509 participants comparing one type of NRT with another.
Combination NRT (for example, the patch & a fast-acting form such as gum or lozenge) increases long-term quit rates versus single-form NRT (risk ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.36). Researchers compared 4 mg to 2 mg nicotine gum and found a benefit of the higher dose (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), although possibly only among heavy users.
Bottom line: Prescribe combination patch and short-acting NRTs to smokers motivated to quit.
Citation: Lindson N et al. Different doses, durations, and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 18;4:CD013308. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013308.
Dr. Miller is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
Background: NRT use after smoking cessation helps smokers transition to abstinence by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. It is uncertain which forms of NRTs are more likely to result in long-term smoking cessation.
Study design: Meta-analysis.
Setting: Cochrane review of randomized trials.
Synopsis: In this Cochrane Review, the authors identified 63 randomized trials with 41,509 participants comparing one type of NRT with another.
Combination NRT (for example, the patch & a fast-acting form such as gum or lozenge) increases long-term quit rates versus single-form NRT (risk ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.36). Researchers compared 4 mg to 2 mg nicotine gum and found a benefit of the higher dose (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), although possibly only among heavy users.
Bottom line: Prescribe combination patch and short-acting NRTs to smokers motivated to quit.
Citation: Lindson N et al. Different doses, durations, and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 18;4:CD013308. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013308.
Dr. Miller is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
‘Doc, can I get a mask exemption?’
As more jurisdictions mandate facial coverings in public, questions have arisen about whether it’s safe for everyone – including those with lung disease – to wear masks.
To address these issues, Medscape spoke with the chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, Dr. Albert Rizzo.
The CDC recommendations on mask wearing say, “Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.” Does this language suggest that there indeed is a subset of the adult population with lung disease who shouldn’t wear masks?
It makes sense to say that if it makes you uncomfortable to wear a mask because it affects your breathing, you should think twice about getting in a situation where you would have to wear a mask.
I’ve told many of my high-risk patients, “The best way to avoid getting COVID-19 is to stay home and stay away from sick people, especially if you feel that you are not going to be able to wear a mask or facial covering of some sort.”
The reason that some people have trouble with a mask is that they haven’t tried the right style of mask – by that I mean how tightly it fits and the material it’s made out of. Sometimes it really is just that people with lung disease don’t like to have anything covering their faces. Many of these patients feel better where there is air blowing across their faces – they will have a fan blowing even in the middle of winter because they feel more comfortable.
I won’t say it’s all in their heads, but sometimes it’s a matter of desensitizing themselves to wearing a mask. I liken it to people who have sleep apnea. We often have to desensitize them to wearing a mask for sleeping. We tell them to put it on while they are watching TV — don’t hook it up to anything yet, just get used to having something on your face.
I’ve told my patients the same thing about masks for COVID-19. Put on the mask, see how it feels. If you become uncomfortable breathing with it on, take it off, but maybe you can handle it for a half hour or 45 minutes. Find out how much time you have for a trip to the grocery store based on how comfortable you are wearing it at home.
It’s a matter of training the patient, giving them options of how to get comfortable with it, and then making them realize that they have to weigh the benefits and risks of wearing the mask and feeling out of breath versus going out in public and being potentially exposed to coronavirus. And the bottom line is, anybody who is wearing a mask and starts to feel uncomfortable, they can take the mask off.
You mentioned different types of masks. Is there a type of mask that is typically more breathable that clinicians can recommend to patients with lung disease?
First, I remind patients who think they will have trouble breathing with a mask on that they are choosing a mask not so much to protect themselves – that would take an N95 mask to filter out the virus. The mask is worn so that when they cough or drink or speak, they aren’t sending respiratory droplets out into the environment. Even when we speak, respiratory droplets can easily go out as far as 6 feet, or further with coughing or sneezing. With facial coverings, we try to keep those respiratory droplets from getting out and infecting others.
So when choosing a mask, you don’t have to worry as much about a tight-fitting mask. I recommend a loose-fitting mask that covers the nose and mouth and isn’t going to fall off but isn’t so tight around the ears and neck to make them feel uncomfortable. Even though it doesn’t really protect the wearer, it is cutting down on the ability to breathe in droplets – maybe not microscopic particles, but it’s better than nothing.
Is a face shield a reasonable alternative for someone who feels they can’t breathe with a mask on?
Yes. I’m surprised that face shields don’t get more attention. I’ve tried them out, and they are actually more comfortable than masks. They do impede the spilling out of droplets into the public, but they are not as close fitting to the face as a mask. If you want to protect others, the face shield should be adequate. It is not as good at preventing you from breathing in viral particles.
Some people have claimed that wearing a mask makes them hyperventilate and feel like they are going to pass out, or the mask causes them to become hypoxic. Are these valid concerns?
We get two questions about masks from patients who feel that they are short of breath or are worried about wearing a mask. One is whether their oxygen level is dropping. It’s usually not that. It’s usually because they feel that the mask is an impediment to getting air in. Their oxygen levels are stable.
The other question is whether the mask causes CO2 retention. For the mask to trap enough exhaled CO2 and for us to breathe enough of that CO2 back in to raise our CO2 level, it has to be a pretty tight-fitting mask. With the type of masks we are suggesting that people wear, that’s very unlikely to occur.
What can clinicians do to reassure patients with some type of lung disease that they can safely wear masks?
There are a few things they can do right in the office. Have them put the mask on for a few minutes and make sure they feel comfortable with it. With an oximeter, patients can see that their oxygen levels don’t change when they are breathing through the mask for a period of time.
You can’t really measure CO2 retention that easily, but most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis don’t have an elevated CO2 at baseline. A little more education is helpful in those situations. In most cases, they aren’t going to retain enough CO2 to have problems wearing a mask.
Only a small percentage of patients with lung disease are CO2 retainers, and many of those patients are being seen by pulmonary specialists. Those are the patients you might want to be more cautious with, to make sure they aren’t wearing anything that is tight fitting or that makes them work harder to breathe. It’s not that the mask is causing CO2 retention, but the increased work of breathing may make it harder to exhale the CO2.
Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?
Supplemental oxygen is typically supplied through a nasal cannula, so 100% oxygen is still getting to the nasal passages and entrained down into the airway, so it shouldn’t be a problem.
Some of the resistance to wearing masks has come from people with asthma. Is it safe for patients with asthma to wear masks, or should these patients be exempt from wearing masks?
In general, the breathing of people with mild asthma, both young and old, should not be impeded by the wearing of facial coverings. The concerns about oxygen and carbon dioxide among patients with more severe lung disease should not play a role in asthma.
Since younger adults with COVID-19 seem to have fewer or no symptoms and may actually be carrying the virus unknowingly, this should be the main population who should wear masks to prevent transmission to others.
Exemptions for mask wearing for mild asthma should be discouraged and dealt with on a case-by-case basis if there is a particular concern for that individual.
How do you respond if a patient asks you for a formal medical exemption to wearing a mask?
We’ve been asked to do a lot of letter writing for patients around going back to work, as well as the issue of wearing masks. The discussion usually revolves around trying to avoid going somewhere where you would have to wear a mask if it makes you feel uncomfortable.
I do not recommend automatically exempting individuals from wearing masks, even many of my pulmonary patients. There needs to be an understanding by the patient regarding the purpose of the mask and the overall advice to stay out of situations where social distancing is not being practiced. If you can take the time to discuss options as mentioned above – mask styles, desensitization, etc – the patient usually understands and will try wearing a mask.
On a case-by-case basis, some individuals may need to be exempted, but I feel this is a small number. I prefer my high-risk (older, chronic disease, etc) patients do everything they can to avoid infection – handwashing, mask wearing, and socially distancing.
They should also realize that even with a note, it is not going to help if they are in the middle of the grocery store and someone confronts them about not wearing a mask. It may help as they enter a store that says “masks required” and they can show it to someone monitoring the door. But I’m not really sure in what situations having that note is going to be helpful if confrontations occur.
Patients are also asking how safe is it for them to go back to work and be out in public. I tell them, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Until we have an effective vaccine, we are all going to have to weigh the potential risks of going to an area where social distancing isn’t maintained, people aren’t wearing face masks, and you can’t wash your hands as much as you’d like to. That’s going to be a struggle for all of us to get back out into situations where people interact socially.
Albert A. Rizzo, MD, is chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, chief of the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Delaware, and a member of Christiana Care Pulmonary Associates. He is board certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and sleep medicine and is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Philadelphia.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As more jurisdictions mandate facial coverings in public, questions have arisen about whether it’s safe for everyone – including those with lung disease – to wear masks.
To address these issues, Medscape spoke with the chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, Dr. Albert Rizzo.
The CDC recommendations on mask wearing say, “Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.” Does this language suggest that there indeed is a subset of the adult population with lung disease who shouldn’t wear masks?
It makes sense to say that if it makes you uncomfortable to wear a mask because it affects your breathing, you should think twice about getting in a situation where you would have to wear a mask.
I’ve told many of my high-risk patients, “The best way to avoid getting COVID-19 is to stay home and stay away from sick people, especially if you feel that you are not going to be able to wear a mask or facial covering of some sort.”
The reason that some people have trouble with a mask is that they haven’t tried the right style of mask – by that I mean how tightly it fits and the material it’s made out of. Sometimes it really is just that people with lung disease don’t like to have anything covering their faces. Many of these patients feel better where there is air blowing across their faces – they will have a fan blowing even in the middle of winter because they feel more comfortable.
I won’t say it’s all in their heads, but sometimes it’s a matter of desensitizing themselves to wearing a mask. I liken it to people who have sleep apnea. We often have to desensitize them to wearing a mask for sleeping. We tell them to put it on while they are watching TV — don’t hook it up to anything yet, just get used to having something on your face.
I’ve told my patients the same thing about masks for COVID-19. Put on the mask, see how it feels. If you become uncomfortable breathing with it on, take it off, but maybe you can handle it for a half hour or 45 minutes. Find out how much time you have for a trip to the grocery store based on how comfortable you are wearing it at home.
It’s a matter of training the patient, giving them options of how to get comfortable with it, and then making them realize that they have to weigh the benefits and risks of wearing the mask and feeling out of breath versus going out in public and being potentially exposed to coronavirus. And the bottom line is, anybody who is wearing a mask and starts to feel uncomfortable, they can take the mask off.
You mentioned different types of masks. Is there a type of mask that is typically more breathable that clinicians can recommend to patients with lung disease?
First, I remind patients who think they will have trouble breathing with a mask on that they are choosing a mask not so much to protect themselves – that would take an N95 mask to filter out the virus. The mask is worn so that when they cough or drink or speak, they aren’t sending respiratory droplets out into the environment. Even when we speak, respiratory droplets can easily go out as far as 6 feet, or further with coughing or sneezing. With facial coverings, we try to keep those respiratory droplets from getting out and infecting others.
So when choosing a mask, you don’t have to worry as much about a tight-fitting mask. I recommend a loose-fitting mask that covers the nose and mouth and isn’t going to fall off but isn’t so tight around the ears and neck to make them feel uncomfortable. Even though it doesn’t really protect the wearer, it is cutting down on the ability to breathe in droplets – maybe not microscopic particles, but it’s better than nothing.
Is a face shield a reasonable alternative for someone who feels they can’t breathe with a mask on?
Yes. I’m surprised that face shields don’t get more attention. I’ve tried them out, and they are actually more comfortable than masks. They do impede the spilling out of droplets into the public, but they are not as close fitting to the face as a mask. If you want to protect others, the face shield should be adequate. It is not as good at preventing you from breathing in viral particles.
Some people have claimed that wearing a mask makes them hyperventilate and feel like they are going to pass out, or the mask causes them to become hypoxic. Are these valid concerns?
We get two questions about masks from patients who feel that they are short of breath or are worried about wearing a mask. One is whether their oxygen level is dropping. It’s usually not that. It’s usually because they feel that the mask is an impediment to getting air in. Their oxygen levels are stable.
The other question is whether the mask causes CO2 retention. For the mask to trap enough exhaled CO2 and for us to breathe enough of that CO2 back in to raise our CO2 level, it has to be a pretty tight-fitting mask. With the type of masks we are suggesting that people wear, that’s very unlikely to occur.
What can clinicians do to reassure patients with some type of lung disease that they can safely wear masks?
There are a few things they can do right in the office. Have them put the mask on for a few minutes and make sure they feel comfortable with it. With an oximeter, patients can see that their oxygen levels don’t change when they are breathing through the mask for a period of time.
You can’t really measure CO2 retention that easily, but most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis don’t have an elevated CO2 at baseline. A little more education is helpful in those situations. In most cases, they aren’t going to retain enough CO2 to have problems wearing a mask.
Only a small percentage of patients with lung disease are CO2 retainers, and many of those patients are being seen by pulmonary specialists. Those are the patients you might want to be more cautious with, to make sure they aren’t wearing anything that is tight fitting or that makes them work harder to breathe. It’s not that the mask is causing CO2 retention, but the increased work of breathing may make it harder to exhale the CO2.
Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?
Supplemental oxygen is typically supplied through a nasal cannula, so 100% oxygen is still getting to the nasal passages and entrained down into the airway, so it shouldn’t be a problem.
Some of the resistance to wearing masks has come from people with asthma. Is it safe for patients with asthma to wear masks, or should these patients be exempt from wearing masks?
In general, the breathing of people with mild asthma, both young and old, should not be impeded by the wearing of facial coverings. The concerns about oxygen and carbon dioxide among patients with more severe lung disease should not play a role in asthma.
Since younger adults with COVID-19 seem to have fewer or no symptoms and may actually be carrying the virus unknowingly, this should be the main population who should wear masks to prevent transmission to others.
Exemptions for mask wearing for mild asthma should be discouraged and dealt with on a case-by-case basis if there is a particular concern for that individual.
How do you respond if a patient asks you for a formal medical exemption to wearing a mask?
We’ve been asked to do a lot of letter writing for patients around going back to work, as well as the issue of wearing masks. The discussion usually revolves around trying to avoid going somewhere where you would have to wear a mask if it makes you feel uncomfortable.
I do not recommend automatically exempting individuals from wearing masks, even many of my pulmonary patients. There needs to be an understanding by the patient regarding the purpose of the mask and the overall advice to stay out of situations where social distancing is not being practiced. If you can take the time to discuss options as mentioned above – mask styles, desensitization, etc – the patient usually understands and will try wearing a mask.
On a case-by-case basis, some individuals may need to be exempted, but I feel this is a small number. I prefer my high-risk (older, chronic disease, etc) patients do everything they can to avoid infection – handwashing, mask wearing, and socially distancing.
They should also realize that even with a note, it is not going to help if they are in the middle of the grocery store and someone confronts them about not wearing a mask. It may help as they enter a store that says “masks required” and they can show it to someone monitoring the door. But I’m not really sure in what situations having that note is going to be helpful if confrontations occur.
Patients are also asking how safe is it for them to go back to work and be out in public. I tell them, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Until we have an effective vaccine, we are all going to have to weigh the potential risks of going to an area where social distancing isn’t maintained, people aren’t wearing face masks, and you can’t wash your hands as much as you’d like to. That’s going to be a struggle for all of us to get back out into situations where people interact socially.
Albert A. Rizzo, MD, is chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, chief of the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Delaware, and a member of Christiana Care Pulmonary Associates. He is board certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and sleep medicine and is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Philadelphia.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As more jurisdictions mandate facial coverings in public, questions have arisen about whether it’s safe for everyone – including those with lung disease – to wear masks.
To address these issues, Medscape spoke with the chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, Dr. Albert Rizzo.
The CDC recommendations on mask wearing say, “Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.” Does this language suggest that there indeed is a subset of the adult population with lung disease who shouldn’t wear masks?
It makes sense to say that if it makes you uncomfortable to wear a mask because it affects your breathing, you should think twice about getting in a situation where you would have to wear a mask.
I’ve told many of my high-risk patients, “The best way to avoid getting COVID-19 is to stay home and stay away from sick people, especially if you feel that you are not going to be able to wear a mask or facial covering of some sort.”
The reason that some people have trouble with a mask is that they haven’t tried the right style of mask – by that I mean how tightly it fits and the material it’s made out of. Sometimes it really is just that people with lung disease don’t like to have anything covering their faces. Many of these patients feel better where there is air blowing across their faces – they will have a fan blowing even in the middle of winter because they feel more comfortable.
I won’t say it’s all in their heads, but sometimes it’s a matter of desensitizing themselves to wearing a mask. I liken it to people who have sleep apnea. We often have to desensitize them to wearing a mask for sleeping. We tell them to put it on while they are watching TV — don’t hook it up to anything yet, just get used to having something on your face.
I’ve told my patients the same thing about masks for COVID-19. Put on the mask, see how it feels. If you become uncomfortable breathing with it on, take it off, but maybe you can handle it for a half hour or 45 minutes. Find out how much time you have for a trip to the grocery store based on how comfortable you are wearing it at home.
It’s a matter of training the patient, giving them options of how to get comfortable with it, and then making them realize that they have to weigh the benefits and risks of wearing the mask and feeling out of breath versus going out in public and being potentially exposed to coronavirus. And the bottom line is, anybody who is wearing a mask and starts to feel uncomfortable, they can take the mask off.
You mentioned different types of masks. Is there a type of mask that is typically more breathable that clinicians can recommend to patients with lung disease?
First, I remind patients who think they will have trouble breathing with a mask on that they are choosing a mask not so much to protect themselves – that would take an N95 mask to filter out the virus. The mask is worn so that when they cough or drink or speak, they aren’t sending respiratory droplets out into the environment. Even when we speak, respiratory droplets can easily go out as far as 6 feet, or further with coughing or sneezing. With facial coverings, we try to keep those respiratory droplets from getting out and infecting others.
So when choosing a mask, you don’t have to worry as much about a tight-fitting mask. I recommend a loose-fitting mask that covers the nose and mouth and isn’t going to fall off but isn’t so tight around the ears and neck to make them feel uncomfortable. Even though it doesn’t really protect the wearer, it is cutting down on the ability to breathe in droplets – maybe not microscopic particles, but it’s better than nothing.
Is a face shield a reasonable alternative for someone who feels they can’t breathe with a mask on?
Yes. I’m surprised that face shields don’t get more attention. I’ve tried them out, and they are actually more comfortable than masks. They do impede the spilling out of droplets into the public, but they are not as close fitting to the face as a mask. If you want to protect others, the face shield should be adequate. It is not as good at preventing you from breathing in viral particles.
Some people have claimed that wearing a mask makes them hyperventilate and feel like they are going to pass out, or the mask causes them to become hypoxic. Are these valid concerns?
We get two questions about masks from patients who feel that they are short of breath or are worried about wearing a mask. One is whether their oxygen level is dropping. It’s usually not that. It’s usually because they feel that the mask is an impediment to getting air in. Their oxygen levels are stable.
The other question is whether the mask causes CO2 retention. For the mask to trap enough exhaled CO2 and for us to breathe enough of that CO2 back in to raise our CO2 level, it has to be a pretty tight-fitting mask. With the type of masks we are suggesting that people wear, that’s very unlikely to occur.
What can clinicians do to reassure patients with some type of lung disease that they can safely wear masks?
There are a few things they can do right in the office. Have them put the mask on for a few minutes and make sure they feel comfortable with it. With an oximeter, patients can see that their oxygen levels don’t change when they are breathing through the mask for a period of time.
You can’t really measure CO2 retention that easily, but most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis don’t have an elevated CO2 at baseline. A little more education is helpful in those situations. In most cases, they aren’t going to retain enough CO2 to have problems wearing a mask.
Only a small percentage of patients with lung disease are CO2 retainers, and many of those patients are being seen by pulmonary specialists. Those are the patients you might want to be more cautious with, to make sure they aren’t wearing anything that is tight fitting or that makes them work harder to breathe. It’s not that the mask is causing CO2 retention, but the increased work of breathing may make it harder to exhale the CO2.
Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?
Supplemental oxygen is typically supplied through a nasal cannula, so 100% oxygen is still getting to the nasal passages and entrained down into the airway, so it shouldn’t be a problem.
Some of the resistance to wearing masks has come from people with asthma. Is it safe for patients with asthma to wear masks, or should these patients be exempt from wearing masks?
In general, the breathing of people with mild asthma, both young and old, should not be impeded by the wearing of facial coverings. The concerns about oxygen and carbon dioxide among patients with more severe lung disease should not play a role in asthma.
Since younger adults with COVID-19 seem to have fewer or no symptoms and may actually be carrying the virus unknowingly, this should be the main population who should wear masks to prevent transmission to others.
Exemptions for mask wearing for mild asthma should be discouraged and dealt with on a case-by-case basis if there is a particular concern for that individual.
How do you respond if a patient asks you for a formal medical exemption to wearing a mask?
We’ve been asked to do a lot of letter writing for patients around going back to work, as well as the issue of wearing masks. The discussion usually revolves around trying to avoid going somewhere where you would have to wear a mask if it makes you feel uncomfortable.
I do not recommend automatically exempting individuals from wearing masks, even many of my pulmonary patients. There needs to be an understanding by the patient regarding the purpose of the mask and the overall advice to stay out of situations where social distancing is not being practiced. If you can take the time to discuss options as mentioned above – mask styles, desensitization, etc – the patient usually understands and will try wearing a mask.
On a case-by-case basis, some individuals may need to be exempted, but I feel this is a small number. I prefer my high-risk (older, chronic disease, etc) patients do everything they can to avoid infection – handwashing, mask wearing, and socially distancing.
They should also realize that even with a note, it is not going to help if they are in the middle of the grocery store and someone confronts them about not wearing a mask. It may help as they enter a store that says “masks required” and they can show it to someone monitoring the door. But I’m not really sure in what situations having that note is going to be helpful if confrontations occur.
Patients are also asking how safe is it for them to go back to work and be out in public. I tell them, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Until we have an effective vaccine, we are all going to have to weigh the potential risks of going to an area where social distancing isn’t maintained, people aren’t wearing face masks, and you can’t wash your hands as much as you’d like to. That’s going to be a struggle for all of us to get back out into situations where people interact socially.
Albert A. Rizzo, MD, is chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, chief of the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Delaware, and a member of Christiana Care Pulmonary Associates. He is board certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and sleep medicine and is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Philadelphia.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
