Several weeks after getting his second dose of an mRNA vaccine, Aaron Goyang thinks his long bout with COVID-19 has finally come to an end.

Geber86/Getty Images

Mr. Goyang, who is 33 and is a radiology technician in Austin, Tex., thinks he got COVID-19 from some of the coughing, gasping patients he treated last spring.

At the time, testing was scarce, and by the time he was tested – several weeks into his illness – it came back negative. He fought off the initial symptoms but experienced relapse a week later.

Mr. Goyang says that, for the next 8 or 9 months, he was on a roller coaster with extreme shortness of breath and chest tightness that could be so severe it would send him to the emergency department. He had to use an inhaler to get through his workdays.

“Even if I was just sitting around, it would come and take me,” he says. “It almost felt like someone was bear-hugging me constantly, and I just couldn’t get in a good enough breath.”

On his best days, he would walk around his neighborhood, being careful not to overdo it. He tried running once, and it nearly sent him to the hospital.

“Very honestly, I didn’t know if I would ever be able to do it again,” he says.

But Mr. Goyang says that, several weeks after getting the Pfizer vaccine, he was able to run a mile again with no problems. “I was very thankful for that,” he says.

Mr. Goyang is not alone. Some social media groups are dedicated to patients who are living with a condition that’s been known as long COVID and that was recently termed postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). These patients are sometimes referred to as long haulers.

On social media, patients with PASC are eagerly and anxiously quizzing each other about the vaccines and their effects. Some report that they’ve finally seen their symptoms resolve, giving hope that long COVID might not be a lifelong condition.

Survivor Corps, which has a public Facebook group with 159,000 members, recently took a poll to see whether there was any substance to rumors that those with long COVID were feeling better after being vaccinated.

“Out of 400 people, 36% showed an improvement in symptoms, anywhere between a mild improvement to complete resolution of symptoms,” said Diana Berrent, a long-COVID patient who founded the group. Survivor Corps has become active in patient advocacy and is a resource for researchers studying the new condition.

Ms. Berrent has become such a trusted voice during the pandemic. She interviewed Anthony Fauci, MD, head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, last October.

“The implications are huge,” she says.

“Some of this damage is permanent damage. It’s not going to cure the scarring of your heart tissue, it’s not going to cure the irreparable damage to your lungs, but if it’s making people feel better, then that’s an indication there’s viral persistence going on,” says Ms. Berrent.

“I’ve been saying for months and months, we shouldn’t be calling this postacute anything,” she adds.
 

Patients report improvement

Daniel Griffin, MD, PhD, is equally excited. He’s an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University, New York. He says about one in five patients he treated for COVID-19 last year never got better. Many of them, such as Mr. Goyang, were health care workers.

“I don’t know if people actually catch this, but a lot of our coworkers are either permanently disabled or died,” Dr. Griffin says.

Health care workers were also among the first to be vaccinated. Dr. Griffin says many of his patients began reaching out to him about a week or two after being vaccinated “and saying, ‘You know, I actually feel better.’ And some of them were saying, ‘I feel all better,’ after being sick – a lot of them – for a year.”

Then he was getting calls and texts from other doctors, asking, “Hey, are you seeing this?”

The benefits of vaccination for some long-haulers came as a surprise. Dr. Griffin says that, before the vaccines came out, many of his patients were worried that getting vaccinated might overstimulate their immune systems and cause symptoms to get worse.

Indeed, a small percentage of people – about 3%-5%, based on informal polls on social media – report that they do experience worsening of symptoms after getting the shot. It’s not clear why.

Dr. Griffin estimates that between 30% and 50% of patients’ symptoms improve after they receive the mRNA vaccines. “I’m seeing this chunk of people – they tell me their brain fog has improved, their fatigue is gone, the fevers that wouldn’t resolve have now gone,” he says. “I’m seeing that personally, and I’m hearing it from my colleagues.”

Dr. Griffin says the observation has launched several studies and that there are several theories about how the vaccines might be affecting long COVID.
 

An immune system boost?

One possibility is that the virus continues to stimulate the immune system, which continues to fight the virus for months. If that is the case, Dr. Griffin says, the vaccine may be giving the immune system the boost it needs to finally clear the virus away.

Donna Farber, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, has heard the stories, too.

“It is possible that the persisting virus in long COVID-19 may be at a low level – not enough to stimulate a potent immune response to clear the virus, but enough to cause symptoms. Activating the immune response therefore is therapeutic in directing viral clearance,” she says.

Dr. Farber explains that long COVID may be a bit like Lyme disease. Some patients with Lyme disease must take antibiotics for months before their symptoms disappear.

Dr. Griffin says there’s another possibility. Several studies have now shown that people with lingering COVID-19 symptoms develop autoantibodies. There’s a theory that SARS-CoV-2 may create an autoimmune condition that leads to long-term symptoms.

If that is the case, Dr. Griffin says, the vaccine may be helping the body to reset its tolerance to itself, “so maybe now you’re getting a healthy immune response.”

More studies are needed to know for sure.

Either way, the vaccines are a much-needed bit of hope for the long-COVID community, and Dr. Griffin tells his patients who are still worried that, at the very least, they’ll be protected from another SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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

Several weeks after getting his second dose of an mRNA vaccine, Aaron Goyang thinks his long bout with COVID-19 has finally come to an end.

Geber86/Getty Images

Mr. Goyang, who is 33 and is a radiology technician in Austin, Tex., thinks he got COVID-19 from some of the coughing, gasping patients he treated last spring.

At the time, testing was scarce, and by the time he was tested – several weeks into his illness – it came back negative. He fought off the initial symptoms but experienced relapse a week later.

Mr. Goyang says that, for the next 8 or 9 months, he was on a roller coaster with extreme shortness of breath and chest tightness that could be so severe it would send him to the emergency department. He had to use an inhaler to get through his workdays.

“Even if I was just sitting around, it would come and take me,” he says. “It almost felt like someone was bear-hugging me constantly, and I just couldn’t get in a good enough breath.”

On his best days, he would walk around his neighborhood, being careful not to overdo it. He tried running once, and it nearly sent him to the hospital.

“Very honestly, I didn’t know if I would ever be able to do it again,” he says.

But Mr. Goyang says that, several weeks after getting the Pfizer vaccine, he was able to run a mile again with no problems. “I was very thankful for that,” he says.

Mr. Goyang is not alone. Some social media groups are dedicated to patients who are living with a condition that’s been known as long COVID and that was recently termed postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). These patients are sometimes referred to as long haulers.

On social media, patients with PASC are eagerly and anxiously quizzing each other about the vaccines and their effects. Some report that they’ve finally seen their symptoms resolve, giving hope that long COVID might not be a lifelong condition.

Survivor Corps, which has a public Facebook group with 159,000 members, recently took a poll to see whether there was any substance to rumors that those with long COVID were feeling better after being vaccinated.

“Out of 400 people, 36% showed an improvement in symptoms, anywhere between a mild improvement to complete resolution of symptoms,” said Diana Berrent, a long-COVID patient who founded the group. Survivor Corps has become active in patient advocacy and is a resource for researchers studying the new condition.

Ms. Berrent has become such a trusted voice during the pandemic. She interviewed Anthony Fauci, MD, head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, last October.

“The implications are huge,” she says.

“Some of this damage is permanent damage. It’s not going to cure the scarring of your heart tissue, it’s not going to cure the irreparable damage to your lungs, but if it’s making people feel better, then that’s an indication there’s viral persistence going on,” says Ms. Berrent.

“I’ve been saying for months and months, we shouldn’t be calling this postacute anything,” she adds.
 

Patients report improvement

Daniel Griffin, MD, PhD, is equally excited. He’s an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University, New York. He says about one in five patients he treated for COVID-19 last year never got better. Many of them, such as Mr. Goyang, were health care workers.

“I don’t know if people actually catch this, but a lot of our coworkers are either permanently disabled or died,” Dr. Griffin says.

Health care workers were also among the first to be vaccinated. Dr. Griffin says many of his patients began reaching out to him about a week or two after being vaccinated “and saying, ‘You know, I actually feel better.’ And some of them were saying, ‘I feel all better,’ after being sick – a lot of them – for a year.”

Then he was getting calls and texts from other doctors, asking, “Hey, are you seeing this?”

The benefits of vaccination for some long-haulers came as a surprise. Dr. Griffin says that, before the vaccines came out, many of his patients were worried that getting vaccinated might overstimulate their immune systems and cause symptoms to get worse.

Indeed, a small percentage of people – about 3%-5%, based on informal polls on social media – report that they do experience worsening of symptoms after getting the shot. It’s not clear why.

Dr. Griffin estimates that between 30% and 50% of patients’ symptoms improve after they receive the mRNA vaccines. “I’m seeing this chunk of people – they tell me their brain fog has improved, their fatigue is gone, the fevers that wouldn’t resolve have now gone,” he says. “I’m seeing that personally, and I’m hearing it from my colleagues.”

Dr. Griffin says the observation has launched several studies and that there are several theories about how the vaccines might be affecting long COVID.
 

An immune system boost?

One possibility is that the virus continues to stimulate the immune system, which continues to fight the virus for months. If that is the case, Dr. Griffin says, the vaccine may be giving the immune system the boost it needs to finally clear the virus away.

Donna Farber, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, has heard the stories, too.

“It is possible that the persisting virus in long COVID-19 may be at a low level – not enough to stimulate a potent immune response to clear the virus, but enough to cause symptoms. Activating the immune response therefore is therapeutic in directing viral clearance,” she says.

Dr. Farber explains that long COVID may be a bit like Lyme disease. Some patients with Lyme disease must take antibiotics for months before their symptoms disappear.

Dr. Griffin says there’s another possibility. Several studies have now shown that people with lingering COVID-19 symptoms develop autoantibodies. There’s a theory that SARS-CoV-2 may create an autoimmune condition that leads to long-term symptoms.

If that is the case, Dr. Griffin says, the vaccine may be helping the body to reset its tolerance to itself, “so maybe now you’re getting a healthy immune response.”

More studies are needed to know for sure.

Either way, the vaccines are a much-needed bit of hope for the long-COVID community, and Dr. Griffin tells his patients who are still worried that, at the very least, they’ll be protected from another SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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

Several weeks after getting his second dose of an mRNA vaccine, Aaron Goyang thinks his long bout with COVID-19 has finally come to an end.

Geber86/Getty Images

Mr. Goyang, who is 33 and is a radiology technician in Austin, Tex., thinks he got COVID-19 from some of the coughing, gasping patients he treated last spring.

At the time, testing was scarce, and by the time he was tested – several weeks into his illness – it came back negative. He fought off the initial symptoms but experienced relapse a week later.

Mr. Goyang says that, for the next 8 or 9 months, he was on a roller coaster with extreme shortness of breath and chest tightness that could be so severe it would send him to the emergency department. He had to use an inhaler to get through his workdays.

“Even if I was just sitting around, it would come and take me,” he says. “It almost felt like someone was bear-hugging me constantly, and I just couldn’t get in a good enough breath.”

On his best days, he would walk around his neighborhood, being careful not to overdo it. He tried running once, and it nearly sent him to the hospital.

“Very honestly, I didn’t know if I would ever be able to do it again,” he says.

But Mr. Goyang says that, several weeks after getting the Pfizer vaccine, he was able to run a mile again with no problems. “I was very thankful for that,” he says.

Mr. Goyang is not alone. Some social media groups are dedicated to patients who are living with a condition that’s been known as long COVID and that was recently termed postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). These patients are sometimes referred to as long haulers.

On social media, patients with PASC are eagerly and anxiously quizzing each other about the vaccines and their effects. Some report that they’ve finally seen their symptoms resolve, giving hope that long COVID might not be a lifelong condition.

Survivor Corps, which has a public Facebook group with 159,000 members, recently took a poll to see whether there was any substance to rumors that those with long COVID were feeling better after being vaccinated.

“Out of 400 people, 36% showed an improvement in symptoms, anywhere between a mild improvement to complete resolution of symptoms,” said Diana Berrent, a long-COVID patient who founded the group. Survivor Corps has become active in patient advocacy and is a resource for researchers studying the new condition.

Ms. Berrent has become such a trusted voice during the pandemic. She interviewed Anthony Fauci, MD, head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, last October.

“The implications are huge,” she says.

“Some of this damage is permanent damage. It’s not going to cure the scarring of your heart tissue, it’s not going to cure the irreparable damage to your lungs, but if it’s making people feel better, then that’s an indication there’s viral persistence going on,” says Ms. Berrent.

“I’ve been saying for months and months, we shouldn’t be calling this postacute anything,” she adds.
 

Patients report improvement

Daniel Griffin, MD, PhD, is equally excited. He’s an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University, New York. He says about one in five patients he treated for COVID-19 last year never got better. Many of them, such as Mr. Goyang, were health care workers.

“I don’t know if people actually catch this, but a lot of our coworkers are either permanently disabled or died,” Dr. Griffin says.

Health care workers were also among the first to be vaccinated. Dr. Griffin says many of his patients began reaching out to him about a week or two after being vaccinated “and saying, ‘You know, I actually feel better.’ And some of them were saying, ‘I feel all better,’ after being sick – a lot of them – for a year.”

Then he was getting calls and texts from other doctors, asking, “Hey, are you seeing this?”

The benefits of vaccination for some long-haulers came as a surprise. Dr. Griffin says that, before the vaccines came out, many of his patients were worried that getting vaccinated might overstimulate their immune systems and cause symptoms to get worse.

Indeed, a small percentage of people – about 3%-5%, based on informal polls on social media – report that they do experience worsening of symptoms after getting the shot. It’s not clear why.

Dr. Griffin estimates that between 30% and 50% of patients’ symptoms improve after they receive the mRNA vaccines. “I’m seeing this chunk of people – they tell me their brain fog has improved, their fatigue is gone, the fevers that wouldn’t resolve have now gone,” he says. “I’m seeing that personally, and I’m hearing it from my colleagues.”

Dr. Griffin says the observation has launched several studies and that there are several theories about how the vaccines might be affecting long COVID.
 

An immune system boost?

One possibility is that the virus continues to stimulate the immune system, which continues to fight the virus for months. If that is the case, Dr. Griffin says, the vaccine may be giving the immune system the boost it needs to finally clear the virus away.

Donna Farber, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, has heard the stories, too.

“It is possible that the persisting virus in long COVID-19 may be at a low level – not enough to stimulate a potent immune response to clear the virus, but enough to cause symptoms. Activating the immune response therefore is therapeutic in directing viral clearance,” she says.

Dr. Farber explains that long COVID may be a bit like Lyme disease. Some patients with Lyme disease must take antibiotics for months before their symptoms disappear.

Dr. Griffin says there’s another possibility. Several studies have now shown that people with lingering COVID-19 symptoms develop autoantibodies. There’s a theory that SARS-CoV-2 may create an autoimmune condition that leads to long-term symptoms.

If that is the case, Dr. Griffin says, the vaccine may be helping the body to reset its tolerance to itself, “so maybe now you’re getting a healthy immune response.”

More studies are needed to know for sure.

Either way, the vaccines are a much-needed bit of hope for the long-COVID community, and Dr. Griffin tells his patients who are still worried that, at the very least, they’ll be protected from another SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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

Editor’s note: National Hospitalist Day occurs the first Thursday in March annually, and serves to celebrate the fastest growing specialty in modern medicine and hospitalists’ enduring contributions to the evolving health care landscape. On National Hospitalist Day in 2021, SHM convened a virtual roundtable with a diverse group of hospitalists to discuss skill set, wellness, and other key issues for hospitalists. To listen to the entire roundtable discussion, visit this Explore The Space podcast episode.

A hospitalist isn’t just a physician who happens to work in a hospital. They are medical professionals with a robust skill set that they use both inside and outside the hospital setting. But what skill sets do hospitalists need to become successful in their careers? And what skill sets does a “pluripotent” hospitalist need in their armamentarium?

These were the issues discussed by participants of a virtual roundtable discussion on National Hospitalist Day – March 4, 2021 – as part of a joint effort of the Society of Hospital Medicine and the Explore the Space podcast.

Maylyn S. Martinez, MD, clinician-researcher and clinical associate at the University of Chicago, sees her hospitalist and research skill sets as two “buckets” of skills she can sort through, with diagnostic, knowledge-based care coordination, and interpersonal skills as lanes where she can focus and improve. “I’m always trying to work in, and sharpen, and find ways to get better at something in each of those every day,” she said.

For Anika Kumar, MD, FHM, pediatric editor of the Hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, much of her work is focused on problem solving. “I approach that as: ‘How do I come up with my differential diagnosis, and how do I diagnose the patient?’ I think that the lanes are a little bit different, but there is some overlap.”

Adaptability is another important part of the skill set for the hospitalist, Ndidi Unaka, MD, MEd, associate professor in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, said during the discussion. “I think we all really value teamwork, and we take on the role of being the coordinator and making sure things are getting done in a seamless and thoughtful manner. Communicating with families, communicating with our research team, communicating with primary care physicians. I think that is something we’re very used to doing, and I think we do it well. I think we don’t shy away from difficult conversations with consultants. And I think that’s what makes being a hospitalist so amazing.”
 

Achieving wellness as a hospitalist

Another topic discussed during the roundtable was “comprehensive care for the hospitalist” and how they can achieve a sense of wellness for themselves. Gurpreet Dhaliwal, MD, clinician-educator and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said long-term satisfaction in one’s career is less about compensation and more about autonomy, mastery, and purpose.

“Autonomy is shrinking a little bit in health care. But if we connect to our purpose – ‘what are we doing here and how do we connect?’ – it’s either learning about patients and their stories, being with a team of people that you work with, that really builds that purpose,” he said.

Regarding mastery, there’s “tremendous joy if you’re in an environment where people value your mastery, whether it is working in a team or communicating or diagnosing or doing a procedure. If you think of setting up the work environment and those things are in place, I think a lot of wellness can actually happen at work, even though another component, of course, is balancing your life outside of work,” Dr. Dhaliwal said.

This may seem out of reach during COVID-19, but wellness is still achievable during the pandemic, Dr. Martinez said. Her time is spent 75% as a researcher and 25% as a clinician, which is her ideal balance. “I enjoy doing my research, doing my own statistics and writing grants and just learning about this problem that I’ve developed an interest in,” she said. “I just think that’s an important piece for people to focus on as far as health care for the hospitalist, is that there’s no no-one-size-fits-all, that’s for sure.”

Dr. Kumar noted that her clinical time gives her energy for nonclinical work. “I love my clinical time. It’s one of my favorite things that I do,” she said. Although she is tired at the end of the week, “I feel like I am not only giving back to my patients and my team, but I’m also giving back to myself and reminding myself why it is I do what I do every day,” she said.

Wellness for Dr. Unaka meant remembering what drew her to medicine. “It was definitely the opportunity to build strong relationships with patients and families,” she said. While these encounters can sometimes be heavy and stay with a hospitalist, “the fact that we’re in it with them is something that gives a lot of us purpose. I think that when I reflect on all of those things, I’m so happy that I’m in the role that I am.”
 

Unique skills during COVID-19

Mark Shapiro, MD, hospitalist and host of the roundtable and the Explore the Space podcast, also asked the panelists what skills they unexpectedly leveraged during the pandemic. Communication – with colleagues and with the community they serve – was a universal answer among the panelists.

“I learned – really from seeing some of our senior leaders here do it so well – the importance of being visible, particularly at a time when people were not together and more isolated,” Dr. Unaka said. “I think being able to be visible when you can, in order to deliver really complicated or tough news or communicate about uncertainty, for instance. Being here for our residents – many of our interns moved here sight unseen. I think they needed to feel like they had some sense of normalcy and a sense of community. I really learned how important it was to be visible, and available, and how important the little things mattered.”

Dr. Martinez said that worrying about her patients with COVID-19 in the hospital and the uncertainty around the disease kept her up at night. “I think we always have a hard time leaving work at work and getting a good night’s sleep. I just could not let go of worrying about these patients and having terrible insomnia, trying to leave work at work and I couldn’t – even after they were discharged.”

Dr. Shapiro said the skill he most needed to work on during the pandemic was his courage. “I remember the first time I took care of COVID patients. I was scared. I have no problems saying that out loud. That was a scary experience.”

The demeanor of the nurses on his unit, who had already seen patients with COVID-19, helped ground him during those moments and gave him the courage to move forward. “They’d already been doing it and they were the same. Same affect, same jokes, same everything,” he said. “That actually really helped, and I’ve leaned on that every time I’ve been back on our COVID service.”
 

Importance of mental health

The COVID-19 pandemic has also shined a light on the importance of mental health. “I think it is important to acknowledge that as hospitalists who have been out on the bleeding edge for a year, mental health is critically important, and we know that we face shortages in that space for the public at large and also for our profession,” Dr. Shapiro said.

When asked about what mental health and self-care looks like for her, Dr. Kumar referenced the need for exercise, meditation, and yoga. “My mental health was better knowing that the people closest to me – whether they be colleagues or friends or family – their mental health was also in a good place and they were also in a good place. And that helped to build me up,” she said.

Dr. Unaka called attention to the stigma around mental health, particularly among physicians, and the lack of resources to address the issue. “It’s a real problem,” she said. “I think it’s at a point where we as a profession need to advocate on behalf of each other and on behalf of our trainees. And honestly, I think we need to view mental health as just ‘health’ and stop separating it out in order for us to move to a place where people feel like they can access what they need without feeling shame about it.”
 

Editor’s note: National Hospitalist Day occurs the first Thursday in March annually, and serves to celebrate the fastest growing specialty in modern medicine and hospitalists’ enduring contributions to the evolving health care landscape. On National Hospitalist Day in 2021, SHM convened a virtual roundtable with a diverse group of hospitalists to discuss skill set, wellness, and other key issues for hospitalists. To listen to the entire roundtable discussion, visit this Explore The Space podcast episode.

A hospitalist isn’t just a physician who happens to work in a hospital. They are medical professionals with a robust skill set that they use both inside and outside the hospital setting. But what skill sets do hospitalists need to become successful in their careers? And what skill sets does a “pluripotent” hospitalist need in their armamentarium?

These were the issues discussed by participants of a virtual roundtable discussion on National Hospitalist Day – March 4, 2021 – as part of a joint effort of the Society of Hospital Medicine and the Explore the Space podcast.

Maylyn S. Martinez, MD, clinician-researcher and clinical associate at the University of Chicago, sees her hospitalist and research skill sets as two “buckets” of skills she can sort through, with diagnostic, knowledge-based care coordination, and interpersonal skills as lanes where she can focus and improve. “I’m always trying to work in, and sharpen, and find ways to get better at something in each of those every day,” she said.

For Anika Kumar, MD, FHM, pediatric editor of the Hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, much of her work is focused on problem solving. “I approach that as: ‘How do I come up with my differential diagnosis, and how do I diagnose the patient?’ I think that the lanes are a little bit different, but there is some overlap.”

Adaptability is another important part of the skill set for the hospitalist, Ndidi Unaka, MD, MEd, associate professor in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, said during the discussion. “I think we all really value teamwork, and we take on the role of being the coordinator and making sure things are getting done in a seamless and thoughtful manner. Communicating with families, communicating with our research team, communicating with primary care physicians. I think that is something we’re very used to doing, and I think we do it well. I think we don’t shy away from difficult conversations with consultants. And I think that’s what makes being a hospitalist so amazing.”
 

Achieving wellness as a hospitalist

Another topic discussed during the roundtable was “comprehensive care for the hospitalist” and how they can achieve a sense of wellness for themselves. Gurpreet Dhaliwal, MD, clinician-educator and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said long-term satisfaction in one’s career is less about compensation and more about autonomy, mastery, and purpose.

“Autonomy is shrinking a little bit in health care. But if we connect to our purpose – ‘what are we doing here and how do we connect?’ – it’s either learning about patients and their stories, being with a team of people that you work with, that really builds that purpose,” he said.

Regarding mastery, there’s “tremendous joy if you’re in an environment where people value your mastery, whether it is working in a team or communicating or diagnosing or doing a procedure. If you think of setting up the work environment and those things are in place, I think a lot of wellness can actually happen at work, even though another component, of course, is balancing your life outside of work,” Dr. Dhaliwal said.

This may seem out of reach during COVID-19, but wellness is still achievable during the pandemic, Dr. Martinez said. Her time is spent 75% as a researcher and 25% as a clinician, which is her ideal balance. “I enjoy doing my research, doing my own statistics and writing grants and just learning about this problem that I’ve developed an interest in,” she said. “I just think that’s an important piece for people to focus on as far as health care for the hospitalist, is that there’s no no-one-size-fits-all, that’s for sure.”

Dr. Kumar noted that her clinical time gives her energy for nonclinical work. “I love my clinical time. It’s one of my favorite things that I do,” she said. Although she is tired at the end of the week, “I feel like I am not only giving back to my patients and my team, but I’m also giving back to myself and reminding myself why it is I do what I do every day,” she said.

Wellness for Dr. Unaka meant remembering what drew her to medicine. “It was definitely the opportunity to build strong relationships with patients and families,” she said. While these encounters can sometimes be heavy and stay with a hospitalist, “the fact that we’re in it with them is something that gives a lot of us purpose. I think that when I reflect on all of those things, I’m so happy that I’m in the role that I am.”
 

Unique skills during COVID-19

Mark Shapiro, MD, hospitalist and host of the roundtable and the Explore the Space podcast, also asked the panelists what skills they unexpectedly leveraged during the pandemic. Communication – with colleagues and with the community they serve – was a universal answer among the panelists.

“I learned – really from seeing some of our senior leaders here do it so well – the importance of being visible, particularly at a time when people were not together and more isolated,” Dr. Unaka said. “I think being able to be visible when you can, in order to deliver really complicated or tough news or communicate about uncertainty, for instance. Being here for our residents – many of our interns moved here sight unseen. I think they needed to feel like they had some sense of normalcy and a sense of community. I really learned how important it was to be visible, and available, and how important the little things mattered.”

Dr. Martinez said that worrying about her patients with COVID-19 in the hospital and the uncertainty around the disease kept her up at night. “I think we always have a hard time leaving work at work and getting a good night’s sleep. I just could not let go of worrying about these patients and having terrible insomnia, trying to leave work at work and I couldn’t – even after they were discharged.”

Dr. Shapiro said the skill he most needed to work on during the pandemic was his courage. “I remember the first time I took care of COVID patients. I was scared. I have no problems saying that out loud. That was a scary experience.”

The demeanor of the nurses on his unit, who had already seen patients with COVID-19, helped ground him during those moments and gave him the courage to move forward. “They’d already been doing it and they were the same. Same affect, same jokes, same everything,” he said. “That actually really helped, and I’ve leaned on that every time I’ve been back on our COVID service.”
 

Importance of mental health

The COVID-19 pandemic has also shined a light on the importance of mental health. “I think it is important to acknowledge that as hospitalists who have been out on the bleeding edge for a year, mental health is critically important, and we know that we face shortages in that space for the public at large and also for our profession,” Dr. Shapiro said.

When asked about what mental health and self-care looks like for her, Dr. Kumar referenced the need for exercise, meditation, and yoga. “My mental health was better knowing that the people closest to me – whether they be colleagues or friends or family – their mental health was also in a good place and they were also in a good place. And that helped to build me up,” she said.

Dr. Unaka called attention to the stigma around mental health, particularly among physicians, and the lack of resources to address the issue. “It’s a real problem,” she said. “I think it’s at a point where we as a profession need to advocate on behalf of each other and on behalf of our trainees. And honestly, I think we need to view mental health as just ‘health’ and stop separating it out in order for us to move to a place where people feel like they can access what they need without feeling shame about it.”
 

Editor’s note: National Hospitalist Day occurs the first Thursday in March annually, and serves to celebrate the fastest growing specialty in modern medicine and hospitalists’ enduring contributions to the evolving health care landscape. On National Hospitalist Day in 2021, SHM convened a virtual roundtable with a diverse group of hospitalists to discuss skill set, wellness, and other key issues for hospitalists. To listen to the entire roundtable discussion, visit this Explore The Space podcast episode.

A hospitalist isn’t just a physician who happens to work in a hospital. They are medical professionals with a robust skill set that they use both inside and outside the hospital setting. But what skill sets do hospitalists need to become successful in their careers? And what skill sets does a “pluripotent” hospitalist need in their armamentarium?

These were the issues discussed by participants of a virtual roundtable discussion on National Hospitalist Day – March 4, 2021 – as part of a joint effort of the Society of Hospital Medicine and the Explore the Space podcast.

Maylyn S. Martinez, MD, clinician-researcher and clinical associate at the University of Chicago, sees her hospitalist and research skill sets as two “buckets” of skills she can sort through, with diagnostic, knowledge-based care coordination, and interpersonal skills as lanes where she can focus and improve. “I’m always trying to work in, and sharpen, and find ways to get better at something in each of those every day,” she said.

For Anika Kumar, MD, FHM, pediatric editor of the Hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, much of her work is focused on problem solving. “I approach that as: ‘How do I come up with my differential diagnosis, and how do I diagnose the patient?’ I think that the lanes are a little bit different, but there is some overlap.”

Adaptability is another important part of the skill set for the hospitalist, Ndidi Unaka, MD, MEd, associate professor in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, said during the discussion. “I think we all really value teamwork, and we take on the role of being the coordinator and making sure things are getting done in a seamless and thoughtful manner. Communicating with families, communicating with our research team, communicating with primary care physicians. I think that is something we’re very used to doing, and I think we do it well. I think we don’t shy away from difficult conversations with consultants. And I think that’s what makes being a hospitalist so amazing.”
 

Achieving wellness as a hospitalist

Another topic discussed during the roundtable was “comprehensive care for the hospitalist” and how they can achieve a sense of wellness for themselves. Gurpreet Dhaliwal, MD, clinician-educator and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said long-term satisfaction in one’s career is less about compensation and more about autonomy, mastery, and purpose.

“Autonomy is shrinking a little bit in health care. But if we connect to our purpose – ‘what are we doing here and how do we connect?’ – it’s either learning about patients and their stories, being with a team of people that you work with, that really builds that purpose,” he said.

Regarding mastery, there’s “tremendous joy if you’re in an environment where people value your mastery, whether it is working in a team or communicating or diagnosing or doing a procedure. If you think of setting up the work environment and those things are in place, I think a lot of wellness can actually happen at work, even though another component, of course, is balancing your life outside of work,” Dr. Dhaliwal said.

This may seem out of reach during COVID-19, but wellness is still achievable during the pandemic, Dr. Martinez said. Her time is spent 75% as a researcher and 25% as a clinician, which is her ideal balance. “I enjoy doing my research, doing my own statistics and writing grants and just learning about this problem that I’ve developed an interest in,” she said. “I just think that’s an important piece for people to focus on as far as health care for the hospitalist, is that there’s no no-one-size-fits-all, that’s for sure.”

Dr. Kumar noted that her clinical time gives her energy for nonclinical work. “I love my clinical time. It’s one of my favorite things that I do,” she said. Although she is tired at the end of the week, “I feel like I am not only giving back to my patients and my team, but I’m also giving back to myself and reminding myself why it is I do what I do every day,” she said.

Wellness for Dr. Unaka meant remembering what drew her to medicine. “It was definitely the opportunity to build strong relationships with patients and families,” she said. While these encounters can sometimes be heavy and stay with a hospitalist, “the fact that we’re in it with them is something that gives a lot of us purpose. I think that when I reflect on all of those things, I’m so happy that I’m in the role that I am.”
 

Unique skills during COVID-19

Mark Shapiro, MD, hospitalist and host of the roundtable and the Explore the Space podcast, also asked the panelists what skills they unexpectedly leveraged during the pandemic. Communication – with colleagues and with the community they serve – was a universal answer among the panelists.

“I learned – really from seeing some of our senior leaders here do it so well – the importance of being visible, particularly at a time when people were not together and more isolated,” Dr. Unaka said. “I think being able to be visible when you can, in order to deliver really complicated or tough news or communicate about uncertainty, for instance. Being here for our residents – many of our interns moved here sight unseen. I think they needed to feel like they had some sense of normalcy and a sense of community. I really learned how important it was to be visible, and available, and how important the little things mattered.”

Dr. Martinez said that worrying about her patients with COVID-19 in the hospital and the uncertainty around the disease kept her up at night. “I think we always have a hard time leaving work at work and getting a good night’s sleep. I just could not let go of worrying about these patients and having terrible insomnia, trying to leave work at work and I couldn’t – even after they were discharged.”

Dr. Shapiro said the skill he most needed to work on during the pandemic was his courage. “I remember the first time I took care of COVID patients. I was scared. I have no problems saying that out loud. That was a scary experience.”

The demeanor of the nurses on his unit, who had already seen patients with COVID-19, helped ground him during those moments and gave him the courage to move forward. “They’d already been doing it and they were the same. Same affect, same jokes, same everything,” he said. “That actually really helped, and I’ve leaned on that every time I’ve been back on our COVID service.”
 

Importance of mental health

The COVID-19 pandemic has also shined a light on the importance of mental health. “I think it is important to acknowledge that as hospitalists who have been out on the bleeding edge for a year, mental health is critically important, and we know that we face shortages in that space for the public at large and also for our profession,” Dr. Shapiro said.

When asked about what mental health and self-care looks like for her, Dr. Kumar referenced the need for exercise, meditation, and yoga. “My mental health was better knowing that the people closest to me – whether they be colleagues or friends or family – their mental health was also in a good place and they were also in a good place. And that helped to build me up,” she said.

Dr. Unaka called attention to the stigma around mental health, particularly among physicians, and the lack of resources to address the issue. “It’s a real problem,” she said. “I think it’s at a point where we as a profession need to advocate on behalf of each other and on behalf of our trainees. And honestly, I think we need to view mental health as just ‘health’ and stop separating it out in order for us to move to a place where people feel like they can access what they need without feeling shame about it.”
 

Melanoma is a type of skin cancer that arises from melanocytes. According to the American Cancer Society, about 106,110 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States in 2021.The risk for developing melanoma increases with age. There are multiple clinical forms of cutaneous melanoma. The four main types are superficial spreading melanoma, nodular melanoma, melanoma in situ (lentigo maligna), and acral lentiginous melanoma. Rare variants include amelanotic melanoma, nevoid melanoma, spitzoid melanoma, and desmoplastic melanoma (DM). Melanoma can also rarely affect parts of the eye and mucosa.

Desmoplastic melanoma is a rare variant of spindle cell melanoma that is often difficult to diagnose clinically. It accounts for around 4% of all cutaneous melanomas, according to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. It typically presents as a subtle pigmented, pink, red, or skin colored patch, papule or plaque on sun-exposed skin (head and neck most frequently). Chronic UV exposure has been linked to DM. It may be mistaken for a scar or dermatofibroma. DM tends to grow locally and has less risk for nodal metastasis.¹

Histologic diagnosis may be challenging. Two histologic variants in desmoplastic melanoma have been described: pure and mixed, depending on the degree of desmoplasia and cellularity present in the tumor.¹ Pure DM tends to have a less aggressive course. Melanocytes can appear spindled in a fibrotic stroma. Patchy lymphocyte aggregates may be seen. Perineural invasion is more common in desmoplastic melanoma. Histologically, the differential includes spindle cell carcinoma and sarcoma. Immunostaining is helpful in differentiation.

Our patient had no lymphadenopathy on physical examination. Biopsy revealed a desmoplastic melanoma, 3.6 mm in depth, no ulceration, no regression, mitotic rate 1/mm². He was referred to surgical oncology. The patient underwent wide excision. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was deferred.

It is imperative for dermatologists to be cognizant of this challenging subtype of melanoma when evaluating patients.

This case and photo were submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Chen L et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 May;68(5):825-33.

Melanoma is a type of skin cancer that arises from melanocytes. According to the American Cancer Society, about 106,110 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States in 2021.The risk for developing melanoma increases with age. There are multiple clinical forms of cutaneous melanoma. The four main types are superficial spreading melanoma, nodular melanoma, melanoma in situ (lentigo maligna), and acral lentiginous melanoma. Rare variants include amelanotic melanoma, nevoid melanoma, spitzoid melanoma, and desmoplastic melanoma (DM). Melanoma can also rarely affect parts of the eye and mucosa.

Desmoplastic melanoma is a rare variant of spindle cell melanoma that is often difficult to diagnose clinically. It accounts for around 4% of all cutaneous melanomas, according to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. It typically presents as a subtle pigmented, pink, red, or skin colored patch, papule or plaque on sun-exposed skin (head and neck most frequently). Chronic UV exposure has been linked to DM. It may be mistaken for a scar or dermatofibroma. DM tends to grow locally and has less risk for nodal metastasis.¹

Histologic diagnosis may be challenging. Two histologic variants in desmoplastic melanoma have been described: pure and mixed, depending on the degree of desmoplasia and cellularity present in the tumor.¹ Pure DM tends to have a less aggressive course. Melanocytes can appear spindled in a fibrotic stroma. Patchy lymphocyte aggregates may be seen. Perineural invasion is more common in desmoplastic melanoma. Histologically, the differential includes spindle cell carcinoma and sarcoma. Immunostaining is helpful in differentiation.

Our patient had no lymphadenopathy on physical examination. Biopsy revealed a desmoplastic melanoma, 3.6 mm in depth, no ulceration, no regression, mitotic rate 1/mm². He was referred to surgical oncology. The patient underwent wide excision. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was deferred.

It is imperative for dermatologists to be cognizant of this challenging subtype of melanoma when evaluating patients.

This case and photo were submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Chen L et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 May;68(5):825-33.

Melanoma is a type of skin cancer that arises from melanocytes. According to the American Cancer Society, about 106,110 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States in 2021.The risk for developing melanoma increases with age. There are multiple clinical forms of cutaneous melanoma. The four main types are superficial spreading melanoma, nodular melanoma, melanoma in situ (lentigo maligna), and acral lentiginous melanoma. Rare variants include amelanotic melanoma, nevoid melanoma, spitzoid melanoma, and desmoplastic melanoma (DM). Melanoma can also rarely affect parts of the eye and mucosa.

Desmoplastic melanoma is a rare variant of spindle cell melanoma that is often difficult to diagnose clinically. It accounts for around 4% of all cutaneous melanomas, according to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. It typically presents as a subtle pigmented, pink, red, or skin colored patch, papule or plaque on sun-exposed skin (head and neck most frequently). Chronic UV exposure has been linked to DM. It may be mistaken for a scar or dermatofibroma. DM tends to grow locally and has less risk for nodal metastasis.¹

Histologic diagnosis may be challenging. Two histologic variants in desmoplastic melanoma have been described: pure and mixed, depending on the degree of desmoplasia and cellularity present in the tumor.¹ Pure DM tends to have a less aggressive course. Melanocytes can appear spindled in a fibrotic stroma. Patchy lymphocyte aggregates may be seen. Perineural invasion is more common in desmoplastic melanoma. Histologically, the differential includes spindle cell carcinoma and sarcoma. Immunostaining is helpful in differentiation.

Our patient had no lymphadenopathy on physical examination. Biopsy revealed a desmoplastic melanoma, 3.6 mm in depth, no ulceration, no regression, mitotic rate 1/mm². He was referred to surgical oncology. The patient underwent wide excision. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was deferred.

It is imperative for dermatologists to be cognizant of this challenging subtype of melanoma when evaluating patients.

This case and photo were submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Chen L et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 May;68(5):825-33.

In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, a preprocedural dose of colchicine administered immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not reduce the no-reflow phenomenon or improve outcomes.

No-reflow, in which insufficient myocardial perfusion is present even though the coronary artery appears patent, was the primary outcome, and the proportion of patients experiencing this event was exactly the same (14.4%) in the colchicine and placebo groups, reported Yaser Jenab, MD, at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

The hypothesis that colchicine would offer benefit in this setting was largely based on the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). In that study, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo when administered within 30 days after a myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .02).

The benefit in that trial was attributed to an anti-inflammatory effect, according to Dr. Jenab, associate professor of cardiology at Tehran (Iran) Heart Center. In particular as it relates to vascular disease, he cited experimental studies associating colchicine with a reduction in neutrophil activation and adherence to vascular endothelium.

The rationale for a preprocedural approach to colchicine was supplied by a subsequent time-to-treatment COLCOT analysis. In this study, MACE risk reduction for colchicine climbed to 48% (HR 0.52) for those treated within 3 days of the MI but largely disappeared (HR 0.96) if treatment was started at least 8 days post MI.
 

PodCAST-PCI trial

In the preprocedural study, called the PodCAST-PCI trial, 321 acute STEMI patients were randomized. Patients received a 1-mg dose of oral colchicine or placebo at the time PCI was scheduled. Another dose of colchicine (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered 1 hour after the procedure.

Of secondary outcomes, which included MACE at 1 month and 1 year, ST-segment resolution at 1 month, and change in inflammatory markers at 1 month, none were significant. Few even trended for significance.

For MACE, which included cardiac death, stroke, nonfatal MI, new hospitalization due to heart failure, or target vessel revascularization, the rates were lower in the colchicine group at 1 month (4.3% vs. 7.5%) and 1 year (9.3% vs. 11.2%), but neither approached significance.

For ST-segment resolution, the proportions were generally comparable among the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively, for the proportion below 50% (18.6% vs. 23.1%), between 50% and 70% (16.8% vs. 15.6%), and above 70% (64.6% vs. 61.3%).

The average troponin levels were nonsignificantly lower at 6 hours (1,847 vs. 2,883 ng/mL) in the colchicine group but higher at 48 hours (1,197 vs. 1,147 ng/mL). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 48 hours were nonsignificantly lower on colchicine (176.5 vs. 244.5 mg/L).

There were no significant differences in postprocedural perfusion, as measured with TIMI blood flow, or in the rate of stent thrombosis, which occurred in roughly 3% of each group of patients.

The small sample size was one limitation of this study, Dr. Jenab acknowledged. For this and other reasons, he cautioned that these data are not definitive and do not preclude a benefit on clinical outcomes in a study with a larger size, a different design, or different dosing.
 

Timing might be the issue

However, even if colchicine has a potential benefit in this setting, timing might be a major obstacle, according to Binata Shah, MD, associate director of research for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at New York University.

“We have learned from our rheumatology colleagues that peak plasma levels of colchicine are not achieved for at least 1 hour after the full loading dose,” Dr. Shah said. “With us moving so quickly in a primary PCI setting, it is hard to imagine that colchicine would have had time to really kick in and exert its anti-inflammatory effect.”

Indeed, the problem might be worse than reaching the peak plasma level.

“Even though peak plasma levels occur as early as 1 hour after a full loading dose, we see that it takes about 24 hours to really see the effects translate downstream into more systemic inflammatory markers such as CRP and interleukin-6,” she added. If lowering these signals of inflammation is predictive of benefit, than this might be the biggest obstacle to benefit from colchicine in an urgent treatment setting.

Dr. Jenab and Dr. Shah reported no potential conflicts of interest.

In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, a preprocedural dose of colchicine administered immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not reduce the no-reflow phenomenon or improve outcomes.

No-reflow, in which insufficient myocardial perfusion is present even though the coronary artery appears patent, was the primary outcome, and the proportion of patients experiencing this event was exactly the same (14.4%) in the colchicine and placebo groups, reported Yaser Jenab, MD, at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

The hypothesis that colchicine would offer benefit in this setting was largely based on the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). In that study, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo when administered within 30 days after a myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .02).

The benefit in that trial was attributed to an anti-inflammatory effect, according to Dr. Jenab, associate professor of cardiology at Tehran (Iran) Heart Center. In particular as it relates to vascular disease, he cited experimental studies associating colchicine with a reduction in neutrophil activation and adherence to vascular endothelium.

The rationale for a preprocedural approach to colchicine was supplied by a subsequent time-to-treatment COLCOT analysis. In this study, MACE risk reduction for colchicine climbed to 48% (HR 0.52) for those treated within 3 days of the MI but largely disappeared (HR 0.96) if treatment was started at least 8 days post MI.
 

PodCAST-PCI trial

In the preprocedural study, called the PodCAST-PCI trial, 321 acute STEMI patients were randomized. Patients received a 1-mg dose of oral colchicine or placebo at the time PCI was scheduled. Another dose of colchicine (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered 1 hour after the procedure.

Of secondary outcomes, which included MACE at 1 month and 1 year, ST-segment resolution at 1 month, and change in inflammatory markers at 1 month, none were significant. Few even trended for significance.

For MACE, which included cardiac death, stroke, nonfatal MI, new hospitalization due to heart failure, or target vessel revascularization, the rates were lower in the colchicine group at 1 month (4.3% vs. 7.5%) and 1 year (9.3% vs. 11.2%), but neither approached significance.

For ST-segment resolution, the proportions were generally comparable among the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively, for the proportion below 50% (18.6% vs. 23.1%), between 50% and 70% (16.8% vs. 15.6%), and above 70% (64.6% vs. 61.3%).

The average troponin levels were nonsignificantly lower at 6 hours (1,847 vs. 2,883 ng/mL) in the colchicine group but higher at 48 hours (1,197 vs. 1,147 ng/mL). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 48 hours were nonsignificantly lower on colchicine (176.5 vs. 244.5 mg/L).

There were no significant differences in postprocedural perfusion, as measured with TIMI blood flow, or in the rate of stent thrombosis, which occurred in roughly 3% of each group of patients.

The small sample size was one limitation of this study, Dr. Jenab acknowledged. For this and other reasons, he cautioned that these data are not definitive and do not preclude a benefit on clinical outcomes in a study with a larger size, a different design, or different dosing.
 

Timing might be the issue

However, even if colchicine has a potential benefit in this setting, timing might be a major obstacle, according to Binata Shah, MD, associate director of research for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at New York University.

“We have learned from our rheumatology colleagues that peak plasma levels of colchicine are not achieved for at least 1 hour after the full loading dose,” Dr. Shah said. “With us moving so quickly in a primary PCI setting, it is hard to imagine that colchicine would have had time to really kick in and exert its anti-inflammatory effect.”

Indeed, the problem might be worse than reaching the peak plasma level.

“Even though peak plasma levels occur as early as 1 hour after a full loading dose, we see that it takes about 24 hours to really see the effects translate downstream into more systemic inflammatory markers such as CRP and interleukin-6,” she added. If lowering these signals of inflammation is predictive of benefit, than this might be the biggest obstacle to benefit from colchicine in an urgent treatment setting.

Dr. Jenab and Dr. Shah reported no potential conflicts of interest.

In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, a preprocedural dose of colchicine administered immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not reduce the no-reflow phenomenon or improve outcomes.

No-reflow, in which insufficient myocardial perfusion is present even though the coronary artery appears patent, was the primary outcome, and the proportion of patients experiencing this event was exactly the same (14.4%) in the colchicine and placebo groups, reported Yaser Jenab, MD, at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

The hypothesis that colchicine would offer benefit in this setting was largely based on the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). In that study, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo when administered within 30 days after a myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .02).

The benefit in that trial was attributed to an anti-inflammatory effect, according to Dr. Jenab, associate professor of cardiology at Tehran (Iran) Heart Center. In particular as it relates to vascular disease, he cited experimental studies associating colchicine with a reduction in neutrophil activation and adherence to vascular endothelium.

The rationale for a preprocedural approach to colchicine was supplied by a subsequent time-to-treatment COLCOT analysis. In this study, MACE risk reduction for colchicine climbed to 48% (HR 0.52) for those treated within 3 days of the MI but largely disappeared (HR 0.96) if treatment was started at least 8 days post MI.
 

PodCAST-PCI trial

In the preprocedural study, called the PodCAST-PCI trial, 321 acute STEMI patients were randomized. Patients received a 1-mg dose of oral colchicine or placebo at the time PCI was scheduled. Another dose of colchicine (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered 1 hour after the procedure.

Of secondary outcomes, which included MACE at 1 month and 1 year, ST-segment resolution at 1 month, and change in inflammatory markers at 1 month, none were significant. Few even trended for significance.

For MACE, which included cardiac death, stroke, nonfatal MI, new hospitalization due to heart failure, or target vessel revascularization, the rates were lower in the colchicine group at 1 month (4.3% vs. 7.5%) and 1 year (9.3% vs. 11.2%), but neither approached significance.

For ST-segment resolution, the proportions were generally comparable among the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively, for the proportion below 50% (18.6% vs. 23.1%), between 50% and 70% (16.8% vs. 15.6%), and above 70% (64.6% vs. 61.3%).

The average troponin levels were nonsignificantly lower at 6 hours (1,847 vs. 2,883 ng/mL) in the colchicine group but higher at 48 hours (1,197 vs. 1,147 ng/mL). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 48 hours were nonsignificantly lower on colchicine (176.5 vs. 244.5 mg/L).

There were no significant differences in postprocedural perfusion, as measured with TIMI blood flow, or in the rate of stent thrombosis, which occurred in roughly 3% of each group of patients.

The small sample size was one limitation of this study, Dr. Jenab acknowledged. For this and other reasons, he cautioned that these data are not definitive and do not preclude a benefit on clinical outcomes in a study with a larger size, a different design, or different dosing.
 

Timing might be the issue

However, even if colchicine has a potential benefit in this setting, timing might be a major obstacle, according to Binata Shah, MD, associate director of research for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at New York University.

“We have learned from our rheumatology colleagues that peak plasma levels of colchicine are not achieved for at least 1 hour after the full loading dose,” Dr. Shah said. “With us moving so quickly in a primary PCI setting, it is hard to imagine that colchicine would have had time to really kick in and exert its anti-inflammatory effect.”

Indeed, the problem might be worse than reaching the peak plasma level.

“Even though peak plasma levels occur as early as 1 hour after a full loading dose, we see that it takes about 24 hours to really see the effects translate downstream into more systemic inflammatory markers such as CRP and interleukin-6,” she added. If lowering these signals of inflammation is predictive of benefit, than this might be the biggest obstacle to benefit from colchicine in an urgent treatment setting.

Dr. Jenab and Dr. Shah reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Congratulations, you’ve been vaccinated!

It’s been a year like no other, and outpatient psychiatrists turned to Zoom and other telemental health platforms to provide treatment for our patients. Offices sit empty as the dust lands and the plants wilt. Perhaps a few patients are seen in person, masked and carefully distanced, after health screening and temperature checks, with surfaces sanitized between visits, all in accordance with health department regulations. But now the vaccine offers both safety and the promise of a return to a new normal, one that is certain to look different from the normal that was left behind.

Courtesy CDC

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

Congratulations, you’ve been vaccinated!

It’s been a year like no other, and outpatient psychiatrists turned to Zoom and other telemental health platforms to provide treatment for our patients. Offices sit empty as the dust lands and the plants wilt. Perhaps a few patients are seen in person, masked and carefully distanced, after health screening and temperature checks, with surfaces sanitized between visits, all in accordance with health department regulations. But now the vaccine offers both safety and the promise of a return to a new normal, one that is certain to look different from the normal that was left behind.

Courtesy CDC

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

Congratulations, you’ve been vaccinated!

It’s been a year like no other, and outpatient psychiatrists turned to Zoom and other telemental health platforms to provide treatment for our patients. Offices sit empty as the dust lands and the plants wilt. Perhaps a few patients are seen in person, masked and carefully distanced, after health screening and temperature checks, with surfaces sanitized between visits, all in accordance with health department regulations. But now the vaccine offers both safety and the promise of a return to a new normal, one that is certain to look different from the normal that was left behind.

Courtesy CDC

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

After 10 years of follow-up, event-free survival and overall survival were similar between conventional chemotherapy treated patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and those receiving high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), according to a report published online in the Lancet Hematology.

Michael Bonert/WikimediaCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0

The open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT00129090) was conducted across 61 centers in Germany on patients aged 18-60 years who had newly diagnosed, high-risk, aggressive B-cell lymphoma, according to Fabian Frontzek, MD, of the University Hospital Münster (Germany) and colleagues.

Between March 2003 and April 2009, patients were randomly assigned to eight cycles of conventional chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisolone) plus rituximab (R-CHOEP-14) or four cycles of high-dose chemotherapy plus rituximab followed by autologous HSCT (R-MegaCHOEP). The intention-to-treat population comprised 130 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 132 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.
 

Similar outcomes

The 10-year event-free survival was 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 57% in the R-CHOEP-14 group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .23). Similarly, the 10-year progression-free survival was 59% in the

R-MegaCHOEP group and 60% (P = .64). The 10-year overall survival was 66% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 72% in the R-CHOEP-14 group (P = .26). Among the 190 patients who had complete remission or unconfirmed complete remission, relapse occurred in 30 (16%); 17 (17%) of 100 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 13 (14%) of 90 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

In terms of secondary malignancies, 22 were reported in the intention-to-treat population; comprising 12 (9%) of 127 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 10 (8%) of 126 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

Patients who relapsed with aggressive histology and with CNS involvement in particular had worse outcomes and “represent a group with an unmet medical need, for which new molecular and cellular therapies should be studied,” the authors stated.

“This study shows that, in the rituximab era, high-dose therapy and autologous HSCT in first-line treatment does not improve long-term survival of younger high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. The R-CHOEP-14 regimen led to favorable outcomes, supporting its continued use in such patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an accompanying commentary, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues added that the issue of long-term outcomes is critical to evaluating these new regimens.

They applauded the inclusion of secondary malignancies in the long-term follow-up, but regretted the lack of the, admittedly resource-intensive, information on long-term nonneoplastic adverse events. They added that “the burden of late adverse events such as cardiotoxicity, cumulative neuropathy, delayed infections, or lasting cognitive effects, among others that might drive substantial morbidity, does matter to lymphoma survivors.”

They also commented on the importance of considering effects on fertility in these patients, noting that R-MegaCHOEP patients would be unable to conceive naturally, but that the effect of R-CHOEP-14 was less clear.

“We encourage ongoing emphasis on this type of longitudinal follow-up of secondary malignancies and other nonneoplastic late toxicities in phase 3 studies as well as in the real world in hematological malignancies, so that after prioritizing cure in the front-line setting, we do not neglect the life we have helped survivors achieve for years and decades to come,” they concluded.

The study was sponsored by the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group. The authors reported grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Thanarajasingam and her colleagues reported that they had no competing interests.

[email protected]

After 10 years of follow-up, event-free survival and overall survival were similar between conventional chemotherapy treated patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and those receiving high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), according to a report published online in the Lancet Hematology.

Michael Bonert/WikimediaCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0

The open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT00129090) was conducted across 61 centers in Germany on patients aged 18-60 years who had newly diagnosed, high-risk, aggressive B-cell lymphoma, according to Fabian Frontzek, MD, of the University Hospital Münster (Germany) and colleagues.

Between March 2003 and April 2009, patients were randomly assigned to eight cycles of conventional chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisolone) plus rituximab (R-CHOEP-14) or four cycles of high-dose chemotherapy plus rituximab followed by autologous HSCT (R-MegaCHOEP). The intention-to-treat population comprised 130 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 132 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.
 

Similar outcomes

The 10-year event-free survival was 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 57% in the R-CHOEP-14 group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .23). Similarly, the 10-year progression-free survival was 59% in the

R-MegaCHOEP group and 60% (P = .64). The 10-year overall survival was 66% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 72% in the R-CHOEP-14 group (P = .26). Among the 190 patients who had complete remission or unconfirmed complete remission, relapse occurred in 30 (16%); 17 (17%) of 100 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 13 (14%) of 90 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

In terms of secondary malignancies, 22 were reported in the intention-to-treat population; comprising 12 (9%) of 127 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 10 (8%) of 126 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

Patients who relapsed with aggressive histology and with CNS involvement in particular had worse outcomes and “represent a group with an unmet medical need, for which new molecular and cellular therapies should be studied,” the authors stated.

“This study shows that, in the rituximab era, high-dose therapy and autologous HSCT in first-line treatment does not improve long-term survival of younger high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. The R-CHOEP-14 regimen led to favorable outcomes, supporting its continued use in such patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an accompanying commentary, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues added that the issue of long-term outcomes is critical to evaluating these new regimens.

They applauded the inclusion of secondary malignancies in the long-term follow-up, but regretted the lack of the, admittedly resource-intensive, information on long-term nonneoplastic adverse events. They added that “the burden of late adverse events such as cardiotoxicity, cumulative neuropathy, delayed infections, or lasting cognitive effects, among others that might drive substantial morbidity, does matter to lymphoma survivors.”

They also commented on the importance of considering effects on fertility in these patients, noting that R-MegaCHOEP patients would be unable to conceive naturally, but that the effect of R-CHOEP-14 was less clear.

“We encourage ongoing emphasis on this type of longitudinal follow-up of secondary malignancies and other nonneoplastic late toxicities in phase 3 studies as well as in the real world in hematological malignancies, so that after prioritizing cure in the front-line setting, we do not neglect the life we have helped survivors achieve for years and decades to come,” they concluded.

The study was sponsored by the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group. The authors reported grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Thanarajasingam and her colleagues reported that they had no competing interests.

[email protected]

After 10 years of follow-up, event-free survival and overall survival were similar between conventional chemotherapy treated patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and those receiving high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), according to a report published online in the Lancet Hematology.

Michael Bonert/WikimediaCommons/CC BY-SA 3.0

The open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial (NCT00129090) was conducted across 61 centers in Germany on patients aged 18-60 years who had newly diagnosed, high-risk, aggressive B-cell lymphoma, according to Fabian Frontzek, MD, of the University Hospital Münster (Germany) and colleagues.

Between March 2003 and April 2009, patients were randomly assigned to eight cycles of conventional chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisolone) plus rituximab (R-CHOEP-14) or four cycles of high-dose chemotherapy plus rituximab followed by autologous HSCT (R-MegaCHOEP). The intention-to-treat population comprised 130 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 132 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group. The median follow-up was 9.3 years.
 

Similar outcomes

The 10-year event-free survival was 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 57% in the R-CHOEP-14 group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .23). Similarly, the 10-year progression-free survival was 59% in the

R-MegaCHOEP group and 60% (P = .64). The 10-year overall survival was 66% in the R-MegaCHOEP group and 72% in the R-CHOEP-14 group (P = .26). Among the 190 patients who had complete remission or unconfirmed complete remission, relapse occurred in 30 (16%); 17 (17%) of 100 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 13 (14%) of 90 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

In terms of secondary malignancies, 22 were reported in the intention-to-treat population; comprising 12 (9%) of 127 patients in the R-CHOEP-14 group and 10 (8%) of 126 patients in the R-MegaCHOEP group.

Patients who relapsed with aggressive histology and with CNS involvement in particular had worse outcomes and “represent a group with an unmet medical need, for which new molecular and cellular therapies should be studied,” the authors stated.

“This study shows that, in the rituximab era, high-dose therapy and autologous HSCT in first-line treatment does not improve long-term survival of younger high-risk patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. The R-CHOEP-14 regimen led to favorable outcomes, supporting its continued use in such patients,” the researchers concluded.

In an accompanying commentary, Gita Thanarajasingam, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues added that the issue of long-term outcomes is critical to evaluating these new regimens.

They applauded the inclusion of secondary malignancies in the long-term follow-up, but regretted the lack of the, admittedly resource-intensive, information on long-term nonneoplastic adverse events. They added that “the burden of late adverse events such as cardiotoxicity, cumulative neuropathy, delayed infections, or lasting cognitive effects, among others that might drive substantial morbidity, does matter to lymphoma survivors.”

They also commented on the importance of considering effects on fertility in these patients, noting that R-MegaCHOEP patients would be unable to conceive naturally, but that the effect of R-CHOEP-14 was less clear.

“We encourage ongoing emphasis on this type of longitudinal follow-up of secondary malignancies and other nonneoplastic late toxicities in phase 3 studies as well as in the real world in hematological malignancies, so that after prioritizing cure in the front-line setting, we do not neglect the life we have helped survivors achieve for years and decades to come,” they concluded.

The study was sponsored by the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Study Group. The authors reported grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Thanarajasingam and her colleagues reported that they had no competing interests.

[email protected]

To benefit patients and the public health of their communities, children’s hospitals across the United States prepared for and responded to COVID-19 by conserving personal protective equipment, suspending noncritical in-person healthcare encounters (including outpatient visits and elective surgeries), and implementing socially distanced essential care.^1,2 These measures were promptly instituted during a time of both substantial uncertainty about the pandemic’s behavior in children—including its severity and duration—and extreme variation in local and state governments’ responses to the pandemic.

Congruent with other healthcare institutions, children’s hospitals calibrated their clinical operations to the evolving nature of the pandemic, prioritizing the safety of patients and staff while striving to maintain financial viability in the setting of increased costs and decreased revenue. In some cases, children’s hospitals aided adult hospitals and health systems by admitting young and middle-aged adult patients and by centralizing all pediatric patients requiring intensive care within a region. These efforts occurred while many children’s hospitals remained the sole source of specialized pediatric care, including care for rare complex health problems.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, there is a critical need to assess how the initial phase of the pandemic affected healthcare encounters and related finances in children’s hospitals. Understanding these trends will position children’s hospitals to project and prepare for subsequent COVID-19 surges, as well as future related public health crises that necessitate widespread social distancing. Therefore, we compared year-over-year trends in healthcare encounters and hospital charges across US children’s hospitals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the beginning of COVID-19 in the United States, which was defined as February through June 2020.

This is a retrospective analysis of 26 children’s hospitals (22 freestanding, 4 nonfreestanding) from all US regions (12 South, 7 Midwest, 5 West, 2 Northeast) contributing encounter and financial data to the PROSPECT database (Children’s Hospital Association, Lenexa, Kansas) from February 1 to June 30 in both 2019 (before COVID-19) and 2020 (during COVID-19). In response to COVID-19, hospitals participating in PROSPECT increased the efficiency of data centralization and reporting in 2020 during the period February 1 to June 30 to expedite analysis and dissemination of findings.

The main outcome measures were the percentage of change in weekly encounters (inpatient bed-days, emergency department [ED] visits, and surgeries) and inflation-adjusted charges (categorized as inpatient care and outpatient care, such as ambulatory surgery, clinics, and ED visits) before vs during COVID-19. Number of encounters and charges were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The distribution of weekly change in outcome measures from 2019 vs 2020 across hospitals was reported with medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs). The threshold of statistical significance was set at P < .05. All analyses were performed with SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute). This study was considered exempt from human subjects research by the Institutional Review Board of Children’s Mercy Hospital (Kansas City, Missouri).

All 26 children’s hospitals experienced similar trends in healthcare encounters and charges during the study period (Figure and Table). From February 1 to March 10, 2020, the volume of healthcare encounters in the children’s hospitals remained the same as that for the same period in 2019 (P > .1) (Figure).

Charges that accrued from February 1 to June 30 were lower in 2020 by a median 23.6% (IQR, –28.7% to –19.1%) per children’s hospital than they were in 2019, corresponding to a median decrease of $276.3 million (IQR, $404.0-$126.0 million) in charges per hospital (Table). Forty percent of this decrease was attributable to decreased charges resulting from fewer inpatient healthcare encounters.

During the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, children’s hospitals experienced a substantial decrease in healthcare encounters and charges. Greater decreases were observed for ED visits and surgery encounters than for inpatient bed-days. Nonetheless, inpatient bed-days decreased by more than one-third, consistent with the decrease in inpatient resource use reported for adult hospitals.³ Remarkably, these trends were consistent across children’s hospitals, despite variation in the content and installation of and adherence with social distancing policies in their surrounding local areas.

These findings beg the question of how well children’s hospitals are positioned to weather a recurrent surge in COVID-19. Because the severity of illness of COVID-19 has been lower to date in the pediatric vs adult populations, an increase in COVID-19-related visits to EDs and admissions to offset the decreased resource use of other pediatric healthcare problems is not anticipated. Existing hospital financial reserves as well as federal aid from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act that helped mitigate the initial encounter and financial losses during the beginning of COVID-19 may not be readily available over time.^4,5 Certainly, the findings from the current study support continued lobbying for additional state and federal funds allocated through future relief packages to children’s hospitals.

Additional approaches to financial solvency in children’s hospitals during the sustained COVID-19 pandemic include addressing surgical backlogs and sharing best practices for safe and sustained reopening of clinical operations and financial practices across institutions. Although the PROSPECT database does not contain information on the types of surgeries present within this backlog, our experiences suggest that both same-day and inpatient elective surgeries have been affected, especially lengthy procedures (eg, spinal fusion for neuromuscular scoliosis). Spread and scale of feasible and efficient solutions to reengineer and expand patient capacities and throughput for operating rooms, postanesthesia recovery areas, and intensive care and floor units are needed. Enhanced analytics that accurately predict postoperative length of hospital stay, coupled with early recovery after surgery clinical protocols, could help optimize hospital bed management. Effective ways to convert hospital rooms from single to double occupancy, to manage family visitation, and to proactively test asymptomatic patients, family, and hospital staff will mitigate continued COVID-19 penetration through children’s hospitals.

One important limitation of the current study is the measurement of hospitals’ charges. The charge data were not positioned to comprehensively measure each hospital’s financial state during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the decrease in hospital charges reported by the children’s hospitals in the current study is comparable with the financial losses reported for many adult hospitals during the pandemic.^6,7 It is important to recognize that the amount of the charges may not be equivalent to the cost of care or revenue collected by the hospitals. PROSPECT does not contain information on cost, and current cost-to-charge ratios are based on historical (ie, pre-COVID-19) data; therefore, they do not account for increased cost of personal protective equipment and other related costs that occurred during the pandemic, which makes use of these ratios challenging. Nevertheless, it is possible that the relative difference in costs incurred and revenue collected before and during COVID-19 may have been similar to the differences observed in hospital charges.

Children’s hospitals’ ability to serve the nation’s pediatric patients depends on the success of the hospitals’ plans to manage current and future COVID-19 surges and to reopen and recover from the surges that have passed. Additional investigation is needed to identify best operational and financial practices among children’s hospitals that have enabled them to endure the COVID-19 pandemic.

To benefit patients and the public health of their communities, children’s hospitals across the United States prepared for and responded to COVID-19 by conserving personal protective equipment, suspending noncritical in-person healthcare encounters (including outpatient visits and elective surgeries), and implementing socially distanced essential care.^1,2 These measures were promptly instituted during a time of both substantial uncertainty about the pandemic’s behavior in children—including its severity and duration—and extreme variation in local and state governments’ responses to the pandemic.

Congruent with other healthcare institutions, children’s hospitals calibrated their clinical operations to the evolving nature of the pandemic, prioritizing the safety of patients and staff while striving to maintain financial viability in the setting of increased costs and decreased revenue. In some cases, children’s hospitals aided adult hospitals and health systems by admitting young and middle-aged adult patients and by centralizing all pediatric patients requiring intensive care within a region. These efforts occurred while many children’s hospitals remained the sole source of specialized pediatric care, including care for rare complex health problems.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, there is a critical need to assess how the initial phase of the pandemic affected healthcare encounters and related finances in children’s hospitals. Understanding these trends will position children’s hospitals to project and prepare for subsequent COVID-19 surges, as well as future related public health crises that necessitate widespread social distancing. Therefore, we compared year-over-year trends in healthcare encounters and hospital charges across US children’s hospitals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the beginning of COVID-19 in the United States, which was defined as February through June 2020.

This is a retrospective analysis of 26 children’s hospitals (22 freestanding, 4 nonfreestanding) from all US regions (12 South, 7 Midwest, 5 West, 2 Northeast) contributing encounter and financial data to the PROSPECT database (Children’s Hospital Association, Lenexa, Kansas) from February 1 to June 30 in both 2019 (before COVID-19) and 2020 (during COVID-19). In response to COVID-19, hospitals participating in PROSPECT increased the efficiency of data centralization and reporting in 2020 during the period February 1 to June 30 to expedite analysis and dissemination of findings.

The main outcome measures were the percentage of change in weekly encounters (inpatient bed-days, emergency department [ED] visits, and surgeries) and inflation-adjusted charges (categorized as inpatient care and outpatient care, such as ambulatory surgery, clinics, and ED visits) before vs during COVID-19. Number of encounters and charges were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The distribution of weekly change in outcome measures from 2019 vs 2020 across hospitals was reported with medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs). The threshold of statistical significance was set at P < .05. All analyses were performed with SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute). This study was considered exempt from human subjects research by the Institutional Review Board of Children’s Mercy Hospital (Kansas City, Missouri).

All 26 children’s hospitals experienced similar trends in healthcare encounters and charges during the study period (Figure and Table). From February 1 to March 10, 2020, the volume of healthcare encounters in the children’s hospitals remained the same as that for the same period in 2019 (P > .1) (Figure).

Charges that accrued from February 1 to June 30 were lower in 2020 by a median 23.6% (IQR, –28.7% to –19.1%) per children’s hospital than they were in 2019, corresponding to a median decrease of $276.3 million (IQR, $404.0-$126.0 million) in charges per hospital (Table). Forty percent of this decrease was attributable to decreased charges resulting from fewer inpatient healthcare encounters.

During the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, children’s hospitals experienced a substantial decrease in healthcare encounters and charges. Greater decreases were observed for ED visits and surgery encounters than for inpatient bed-days. Nonetheless, inpatient bed-days decreased by more than one-third, consistent with the decrease in inpatient resource use reported for adult hospitals.³ Remarkably, these trends were consistent across children’s hospitals, despite variation in the content and installation of and adherence with social distancing policies in their surrounding local areas.

These findings beg the question of how well children’s hospitals are positioned to weather a recurrent surge in COVID-19. Because the severity of illness of COVID-19 has been lower to date in the pediatric vs adult populations, an increase in COVID-19-related visits to EDs and admissions to offset the decreased resource use of other pediatric healthcare problems is not anticipated. Existing hospital financial reserves as well as federal aid from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act that helped mitigate the initial encounter and financial losses during the beginning of COVID-19 may not be readily available over time.^4,5 Certainly, the findings from the current study support continued lobbying for additional state and federal funds allocated through future relief packages to children’s hospitals.

Additional approaches to financial solvency in children’s hospitals during the sustained COVID-19 pandemic include addressing surgical backlogs and sharing best practices for safe and sustained reopening of clinical operations and financial practices across institutions. Although the PROSPECT database does not contain information on the types of surgeries present within this backlog, our experiences suggest that both same-day and inpatient elective surgeries have been affected, especially lengthy procedures (eg, spinal fusion for neuromuscular scoliosis). Spread and scale of feasible and efficient solutions to reengineer and expand patient capacities and throughput for operating rooms, postanesthesia recovery areas, and intensive care and floor units are needed. Enhanced analytics that accurately predict postoperative length of hospital stay, coupled with early recovery after surgery clinical protocols, could help optimize hospital bed management. Effective ways to convert hospital rooms from single to double occupancy, to manage family visitation, and to proactively test asymptomatic patients, family, and hospital staff will mitigate continued COVID-19 penetration through children’s hospitals.

One important limitation of the current study is the measurement of hospitals’ charges. The charge data were not positioned to comprehensively measure each hospital’s financial state during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the decrease in hospital charges reported by the children’s hospitals in the current study is comparable with the financial losses reported for many adult hospitals during the pandemic.^6,7 It is important to recognize that the amount of the charges may not be equivalent to the cost of care or revenue collected by the hospitals. PROSPECT does not contain information on cost, and current cost-to-charge ratios are based on historical (ie, pre-COVID-19) data; therefore, they do not account for increased cost of personal protective equipment and other related costs that occurred during the pandemic, which makes use of these ratios challenging. Nevertheless, it is possible that the relative difference in costs incurred and revenue collected before and during COVID-19 may have been similar to the differences observed in hospital charges.

Children’s hospitals’ ability to serve the nation’s pediatric patients depends on the success of the hospitals’ plans to manage current and future COVID-19 surges and to reopen and recover from the surges that have passed. Additional investigation is needed to identify best operational and financial practices among children’s hospitals that have enabled them to endure the COVID-19 pandemic.

To benefit patients and the public health of their communities, children’s hospitals across the United States prepared for and responded to COVID-19 by conserving personal protective equipment, suspending noncritical in-person healthcare encounters (including outpatient visits and elective surgeries), and implementing socially distanced essential care.^1,2 These measures were promptly instituted during a time of both substantial uncertainty about the pandemic’s behavior in children—including its severity and duration—and extreme variation in local and state governments’ responses to the pandemic.

Congruent with other healthcare institutions, children’s hospitals calibrated their clinical operations to the evolving nature of the pandemic, prioritizing the safety of patients and staff while striving to maintain financial viability in the setting of increased costs and decreased revenue. In some cases, children’s hospitals aided adult hospitals and health systems by admitting young and middle-aged adult patients and by centralizing all pediatric patients requiring intensive care within a region. These efforts occurred while many children’s hospitals remained the sole source of specialized pediatric care, including care for rare complex health problems.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, there is a critical need to assess how the initial phase of the pandemic affected healthcare encounters and related finances in children’s hospitals. Understanding these trends will position children’s hospitals to project and prepare for subsequent COVID-19 surges, as well as future related public health crises that necessitate widespread social distancing. Therefore, we compared year-over-year trends in healthcare encounters and hospital charges across US children’s hospitals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the beginning of COVID-19 in the United States, which was defined as February through June 2020.

This is a retrospective analysis of 26 children’s hospitals (22 freestanding, 4 nonfreestanding) from all US regions (12 South, 7 Midwest, 5 West, 2 Northeast) contributing encounter and financial data to the PROSPECT database (Children’s Hospital Association, Lenexa, Kansas) from February 1 to June 30 in both 2019 (before COVID-19) and 2020 (during COVID-19). In response to COVID-19, hospitals participating in PROSPECT increased the efficiency of data centralization and reporting in 2020 during the period February 1 to June 30 to expedite analysis and dissemination of findings.

The main outcome measures were the percentage of change in weekly encounters (inpatient bed-days, emergency department [ED] visits, and surgeries) and inflation-adjusted charges (categorized as inpatient care and outpatient care, such as ambulatory surgery, clinics, and ED visits) before vs during COVID-19. Number of encounters and charges were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The distribution of weekly change in outcome measures from 2019 vs 2020 across hospitals was reported with medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs). The threshold of statistical significance was set at P < .05. All analyses were performed with SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute). This study was considered exempt from human subjects research by the Institutional Review Board of Children’s Mercy Hospital (Kansas City, Missouri).

All 26 children’s hospitals experienced similar trends in healthcare encounters and charges during the study period (Figure and Table). From February 1 to March 10, 2020, the volume of healthcare encounters in the children’s hospitals remained the same as that for the same period in 2019 (P > .1) (Figure).

Charges that accrued from February 1 to June 30 were lower in 2020 by a median 23.6% (IQR, –28.7% to –19.1%) per children’s hospital than they were in 2019, corresponding to a median decrease of $276.3 million (IQR, $404.0-$126.0 million) in charges per hospital (Table). Forty percent of this decrease was attributable to decreased charges resulting from fewer inpatient healthcare encounters.

During the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, children’s hospitals experienced a substantial decrease in healthcare encounters and charges. Greater decreases were observed for ED visits and surgery encounters than for inpatient bed-days. Nonetheless, inpatient bed-days decreased by more than one-third, consistent with the decrease in inpatient resource use reported for adult hospitals.³ Remarkably, these trends were consistent across children’s hospitals, despite variation in the content and installation of and adherence with social distancing policies in their surrounding local areas.

These findings beg the question of how well children’s hospitals are positioned to weather a recurrent surge in COVID-19. Because the severity of illness of COVID-19 has been lower to date in the pediatric vs adult populations, an increase in COVID-19-related visits to EDs and admissions to offset the decreased resource use of other pediatric healthcare problems is not anticipated. Existing hospital financial reserves as well as federal aid from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act that helped mitigate the initial encounter and financial losses during the beginning of COVID-19 may not be readily available over time.^4,5 Certainly, the findings from the current study support continued lobbying for additional state and federal funds allocated through future relief packages to children’s hospitals.

Additional approaches to financial solvency in children’s hospitals during the sustained COVID-19 pandemic include addressing surgical backlogs and sharing best practices for safe and sustained reopening of clinical operations and financial practices across institutions. Although the PROSPECT database does not contain information on the types of surgeries present within this backlog, our experiences suggest that both same-day and inpatient elective surgeries have been affected, especially lengthy procedures (eg, spinal fusion for neuromuscular scoliosis). Spread and scale of feasible and efficient solutions to reengineer and expand patient capacities and throughput for operating rooms, postanesthesia recovery areas, and intensive care and floor units are needed. Enhanced analytics that accurately predict postoperative length of hospital stay, coupled with early recovery after surgery clinical protocols, could help optimize hospital bed management. Effective ways to convert hospital rooms from single to double occupancy, to manage family visitation, and to proactively test asymptomatic patients, family, and hospital staff will mitigate continued COVID-19 penetration through children’s hospitals.

One important limitation of the current study is the measurement of hospitals’ charges. The charge data were not positioned to comprehensively measure each hospital’s financial state during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the decrease in hospital charges reported by the children’s hospitals in the current study is comparable with the financial losses reported for many adult hospitals during the pandemic.^6,7 It is important to recognize that the amount of the charges may not be equivalent to the cost of care or revenue collected by the hospitals. PROSPECT does not contain information on cost, and current cost-to-charge ratios are based on historical (ie, pre-COVID-19) data; therefore, they do not account for increased cost of personal protective equipment and other related costs that occurred during the pandemic, which makes use of these ratios challenging. Nevertheless, it is possible that the relative difference in costs incurred and revenue collected before and during COVID-19 may have been similar to the differences observed in hospital charges.

Children’s hospitals’ ability to serve the nation’s pediatric patients depends on the success of the hospitals’ plans to manage current and future COVID-19 surges and to reopen and recover from the surges that have passed. Additional investigation is needed to identify best operational and financial practices among children’s hospitals that have enabled them to endure the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is clear that certain patient-level factors, such as age, sex, and comorbidities, predict outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection.^1,2 Less is known about whether hospital-level factors, including surges of patients with COVID-19, are associated with patient outcomes.

In a multicenter cohort study of 2,215 patients with COVID-19 in 65 intensive care units (ICU) across the United States, mortality rates varied widely (6.6%-80.8%), with improved survival for patients admitted to a hospital with more (>100) rather than fewer (<50) ICU beds.³ A different study found that at the state level, COVID-19 mortality increased with increasing COVID-19 admissions.⁴ Together, these studies suggest that surges in COVID-19 patient volume may be associated with excess mortality. However, the first study was restricted to the ICU population, limiting generalizability, and did not consider admission volume, only ICU bed count. Meanwhile, the second study considered both hospital capacity and patient volume, but it describes a relatively small sample, did not adjust for patient-level predictors of mortality, and does not report outcomes at the hospital level.

Here, we used a large dataset to compare in-hospital mortality rates for patients with COVID-19 across US hospitals, hypothesizing that mortality would be higher in hospitals with the highest burden of COVID-19 admissions. By adjusting for patient-level predictors of mortality and normalizing admission volume for hospital size, we are able to describe residual variability in mortality that may be attributable to differences in COVID-19 patient volume.

We included patients with an International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD)-10 diagnosis of COVID-19 (U07.1) who were admitted to a US hospital that contracts with CarePort Health.⁵ CarePort is a platform for discharge planning and care coordination that contracts with hospitals in all US regions and auto-extracts data using interface feeds.

We restricted the population to patients admitted between April 1 and April 30, 2020, after a new ICD-10 code for confirmed COVID-19 infection became available, and to hospitals that provided real-time ICD-10 data and pertinent demographic information and could be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) data by National Provider Identifier. We assumed that the 145 patients (1.0%) who remained hospitalized at 5 weeks all survived. For the 5.9% of patients with multiple admissions during the study period, we included only the first admission with a diagnosis code for COVID-19.

We adjusted for patient age, sex, and the 31 comorbidities in the Elixhauser index, defined by ICD-10 codes. This set of comorbidities includes those previously associated with COVID-19 survival.^1,2,6 Unfortunately, inconsistent reporting of vital signs and laboratory data precluded adjusting for acute illness severity. For those patients whose residence zip code was known, we report the racial breakdown (White vs non-White) and adjusted gross income (AGI), based on linked information from the 2018 American Community Survey.⁷

We defined COVID-19 burden as the quotient of COVID-19 admissions in April 2020 and each hospital’s certified bed count, as reported to the CMS.⁸ This allowed us to normalize COVID-19 patient volume for variation in hospital size, acknowledging that admitting 10 patients with COVID-19 to a 1,000-bed hospital is different from admitting 10 patients with COVID-19 to a 20-bed hospital. Certified bed count seemed the ideal denominator because it excludes beds not readily deployable to care for patients with COVID-19 (eg, radiology suites, labor and delivery rooms).

We computed hospital-specific adjusted mortality proportions and 95% confidence intervals based on hierarchical multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, and a random effect for each hospital.^9,10 Hypothesizing that there may be a threshold of burden beyond which mortality begins to rise, we compared the in-hospital mortality rate at hospitals in the highest quintile of COVID-19 burden to all other hospitals.

We conducted eight post-hoc sensitivity analyses: (1) restricting the study population to patients aged 75 years and older; (2) restricting study hospitals to those with at least 100 beds and 20 COVID-19 admissions; (3) assuming that all patients who remained hospitalized at 5 weeks had died; (4) using each patient’s last admission during the month of April rather than the first; sequentially incorporating (5) zip code–level information on race (limited to White, non-White) and (6) AGI (treated as a continuous variable) into our model; (7) computing two burdens for each hospital (one for each half of April) and using whichever was higher; and (8) treating COVID-19 burden as a continuous predictor. Analyses were performed using SAS statistical software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc) using the GLIMMIX procedure. This study was deemed exempt by the University of California, San Francisco Institutional Review Board.

The study population included 14,226 patients with COVID-19 (median age, 66 years [range, 0-110 years]; 45.2% women) at 117 US hospitals. Based on patients’ zip code of residence, we estimate that 47.0% of patients were White and 29.1% Black, and that the mean household AGI was $61,956. Most hospitals were nonprofit (56%) or private (39%), with approximately one quarter coming from each US census region (range, 25 hospitals [21%] in Midwest to 33 hospitals [28%] in Northeast). Nine hospitals (8%) had more than 700 beds, 40 (34%) had 300 to 700 beds, and 68 (58%) had fewer than 300 beds. Thirty-six hospitals (30.8%) admitted fewer than 20 patients with COVID-19, while six hospitals (5.1%) admitted more than 500 such patients. COVID burden ranged from 0.004 to 2.03 admissions per bed.

As of June 5, 2020, 78.1% of patients had been discharged alive, 20.9% had died, and 1.0% remained hospitalized. At the hospital level, the observed mortality ranged from 0% to 44.4%, was 17.1% among hospitals in COVID-19 burden quintiles one through four, and was 22.7% in the highest burden quintile (Table).

Results were similar across multiple sensitivity analyses (see Appendix Table), although the relationship between COVID-19 burden and in-hospital mortality was attenuated and not significant when the sample was restricted to hospitals with at least 100 beds and 20 COVID-19 admissions, or in analyses adjusted for race and AGI.

In this study of 14,226 patients with COVID-19 across 117 US hospitals, those patients admitted to the most burdened hospitals had a higher odds of death. This relationship, which persisted after adjusting for age, sex, and comorbid conditions, suggests that a threshold exists at which patient surges may cause excess mortality.

Notably, in sensitivity analyses adjusting for race and AGI, COVID-19 burden was no longer associated with in-hospital mortality and the point estimate was attenuated. This raises the possibility that our primary results are confounded by these factors. However, prior studies of hospitalized patients have not found race to be predictive of mortality, after adjusting for other factors.^11,12

We also note that the relationship between COVID-19 burden and mortality was not significant (P = .07) when the sample was restricted to larger hospitals with more than 20 COVID-19 admissions; again, the point estimate was attenuated. This suggests that larger hospitals may be more resilient in the face of patient surges. Whether this is due to increased availability of staff who can be redeployed to patient care (as with researchers at academic centers), increased experience managing severe respiratory failure, or other factors is uncertain.

Interestingly, in-hospital mortality varied widely across study hospitals, even among the most-burdened hospitals. The reasons for this residual variability—after adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities and stratifying by COVID-19 burden—are uncertain. To the extent that this variability reflects differences in patient management, hospital staffing, or use of investigational or advanced therapies, it will be critical to identify and disseminate any replicable best practices from high-burden hospitals with low mortality rates.

Whereas other reports have often described single-center or regional experiences,^13-15 leaving open the possibility that their results were highly influenced by the local nature of the pandemic in their respective settings, our report from a large sample of hospitals across the United States in high- and low-burden settings provides a more generalizable description of mortality rates for hospitalized patients. Additional study strengths include our adjustment for comorbidities known to be associated with COVID-19 survival, the reporting of definitive outcomes for 99% of patients, and the inclusion of multiple sensitivity analyses to assess the stability of findings.

Our principal limitation is the inability to adjust for severity of acute illness due to inconsistent reporting of laboratory and vital signs data from study hospitals and missing information on interhospital transfers. While our adjusted analyses clearly suggest an association between COVID-19 burden and patient outcomes, our results may still be confounded by differences in illness severity at study hospitals. Thus, our findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and will require confirmation in future studies that include adjustment for acute illness severity.

Other limitations of our study include overrepresentation of large urban hospitals in the Northeast, although this represents the geography of the US pandemic during the study period. Our adjustment for race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status was limited in that we only had zip code-of-residence level information, did not know the zip code of residence for one quarter of study patients, and had to bifurcate the population into White/non-White categories. Finally, our definition of burden does not account for hospital resources, including staffing, ICU capacity, and the availability of advanced or investigational therapies.

In this study of 14,226 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 1 of 117 US hospitals, we found that the odds of in-hospital mortality were higher in hospitals that had the highest burden of COVID-19 admissions. This relationship, which persisted after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbid conditions, suggests that patient surges may be an independent risk factor for in-hospital death among patients with COVID-19.

The authors thank Bocheng Jing, MS, Senior Statistician at the UCSF Pepper Center, for providing code to identify Elixhauser conditions from ICD-10 data; and Scott Kerber, BS, and Scott Magnoni, MS, both of CarePort Health, for assistance with data extraction. They were not compensated for this work beyond their regular salaries.

It is clear that certain patient-level factors, such as age, sex, and comorbidities, predict outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection.^1,2 Less is known about whether hospital-level factors, including surges of patients with COVID-19, are associated with patient outcomes.

In a multicenter cohort study of 2,215 patients with COVID-19 in 65 intensive care units (ICU) across the United States, mortality rates varied widely (6.6%-80.8%), with improved survival for patients admitted to a hospital with more (>100) rather than fewer (<50) ICU beds.³ A different study found that at the state level, COVID-19 mortality increased with increasing COVID-19 admissions.⁴ Together, these studies suggest that surges in COVID-19 patient volume may be associated with excess mortality. However, the first study was restricted to the ICU population, limiting generalizability, and did not consider admission volume, only ICU bed count. Meanwhile, the second study considered both hospital capacity and patient volume, but it describes a relatively small sample, did not adjust for patient-level predictors of mortality, and does not report outcomes at the hospital level.

Here, we used a large dataset to compare in-hospital mortality rates for patients with COVID-19 across US hospitals, hypothesizing that mortality would be higher in hospitals with the highest burden of COVID-19 admissions. By adjusting for patient-level predictors of mortality and normalizing admission volume for hospital size, we are able to describe residual variability in mortality that may be attributable to differences in COVID-19 patient volume.

We included patients with an International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD)-10 diagnosis of COVID-19 (U07.1) who were admitted to a US hospital that contracts with CarePort Health.⁵ CarePort is a platform for discharge planning and care coordination that contracts with hospitals in all US regions and auto-extracts data using interface feeds.

We restricted the population to patients admitted between April 1 and April 30, 2020, after a new ICD-10 code for confirmed COVID-19 infection became available, and to hospitals that provided real-time ICD-10 data and pertinent demographic information and could be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) data by National Provider Identifier. We assumed that the 145 patients (1.0%) who remained hospitalized at 5 weeks all survived. For the 5.9% of patients with multiple admissions during the study period, we included only the first admission with a diagnosis code for COVID-19.

We adjusted for patient age, sex, and the 31 comorbidities in the Elixhauser index, defined by ICD-10 codes. This set of comorbidities includes those previously associated with COVID-19 survival.^1,2,6 Unfortunately, inconsistent reporting of vital signs and laboratory data precluded adjusting for acute illness severity. For those patients whose residence zip code was known, we report the racial breakdown (White vs non-White) and adjusted gross income (AGI), based on linked information from the 2018 American Community Survey.⁷

We defined COVID-19 burden as the quotient of COVID-19 admissions in April 2020 and each hospital’s certified bed count, as reported to the CMS.⁸ This allowed us to normalize COVID-19 patient volume for variation in hospital size, acknowledging that admitting 10 patients with COVID-19 to a 1,000-bed hospital is different from admitting 10 patients with COVID-19 to a 20-bed hospital. Certified bed count seemed the ideal denominator because it excludes beds not readily deployable to care for patients with COVID-19 (eg, radiology suites, labor and delivery rooms).

We computed hospital-specific adjusted mortality proportions and 95% confidence intervals based on hierarchical multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, and a random effect for each hospital.^9,10 Hypothesizing that there may be a threshold of burden beyond which mortality begins to rise, we compared the in-hospital mortality rate at hospitals in the highest quintile of COVID-19 burden to all other hospitals.

We conducted eight post-hoc sensitivity analyses: (1) restricting the study population to patients aged 75 years and older; (2) restricting study hospitals to those with at least 100 beds and 20 COVID-19 admissions; (3) assuming that all patients who remained hospitalized at 5 weeks had died; (4) using each patient’s last admission during the month of April rather than the first; sequentially incorporating (5) zip code–level information on race (limited to White, non-White) and (6) AGI (treated as a continuous variable) into our model; (7) computing two burdens for each hospital (one for each half of April) and using whichever was higher; and (8) treating COVID-19 burden as a continuous predictor. Analyses were performed using SAS statistical software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc) using the GLIMMIX procedure. This study was deemed exempt by the University of California, San Francisco Institutional Review Board.

The study population included 14,226 patients with COVID-19 (median age, 66 years [range, 0-110 years]; 45.2% women) at 117 US hospitals. Based on patients’ zip code of residence, we estimate that 47.0% of patients were White and 29.1% Black, and that the mean household AGI was $61,956. Most hospitals were nonprofit (56%) or private (39%), with approximately one quarter coming from each US census region (range, 25 hospitals [21%] in Midwest to 33 hospitals [28%] in Northeast). Nine hospitals (8%) had more than 700 beds, 40 (34%) had 300 to 700 beds, and 68 (58%) had fewer than 300 beds. Thirty-six hospitals (30.8%) admitted fewer than 20 patients with COVID-19, while six hospitals (5.1%) admitted more than 500 such patients. COVID burden ranged from 0.004 to 2.03 admissions per bed.

As of June 5, 2020, 78.1% of patients had been discharged alive, 20.9% had died, and 1.0% remained hospitalized. At the hospital level, the observed mortality ranged from 0% to 44.4%, was 17.1% among hospitals in COVID-19 burden quintiles one through four, and was 22.7% in the highest burden quintile (Table).

Results were similar across multiple sensitivity analyses (see Appendix Table), although the relationship between COVID-19 burden and in-hospital mortality was attenuated and not significant when the sample was restricted to hospitals with at least 100 beds and 20 COVID-19 admissions, or in analyses adjusted for race and AGI.

In this study of 14,226 patients with COVID-19 across 117 US hospitals, those patients admitted to the most burdened hospitals had a higher odds of death. This relationship, which persisted after adjusting for age, sex, and comorbid conditions, suggests that a threshold exists at which patient surges may cause excess mortality.

Notably, in sensitivity analyses adjusting for race and AGI, COVID-19 burden was no longer associated with in-hospital mortality and the point estimate was attenuated. This raises the possibility that our primary results are confounded by these factors. However, prior studies of hospitalized patients have not found race to be predictive of mortality, after adjusting for other factors.^11,12

We also note that the relationship between COVID-19 burden and mortality was not significant (P = .07) when the sample was restricted to larger hospitals with more than 20 COVID-19 admissions; again, the point estimate was attenuated. This suggests that larger hospitals may be more resilient in the face of patient surges. Whether this is due to increased availability of staff who can be redeployed to patient care (as with researchers at academic centers), increased experience managing severe respiratory failure, or other factors is uncertain.

Interestingly, in-hospital mortality varied widely across study hospitals, even among the most-burdened hospitals. The reasons for this residual variability—after adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities and stratifying by COVID-19 burden—are uncertain. To the extent that this variability reflects differences in patient management, hospital staffing, or use of investigational or advanced therapies, it will be critical to identify and disseminate any replicable best practices from high-burden hospitals with low mortality rates.

Whereas other reports have often described single-center or regional experiences,^13-15 leaving open the possibility that their results were highly influenced by the local nature of the pandemic in their respective settings, our report from a large sample of hospitals across the United States in high- and low-burden settings provides a more generalizable description of mortality rates for hospitalized patients. Additional study strengths include our adjustment for comorbidities known to be associated with COVID-19 survival, the reporting of definitive outcomes for 99% of patients, and the inclusion of multiple sensitivity analyses to assess the stability of findings.

Our principal limitation is the inability to adjust for severity of acute illness due to inconsistent reporting of laboratory and vital signs data from study hospitals and missing information on interhospital transfers. While our adjusted analyses clearly suggest an association between COVID-19 burden and patient outcomes, our results may still be confounded by differences in illness severity at study hospitals. Thus, our findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and will require confirmation in future studies that include adjustment for acute illness severity.

Other limitations of our study include overrepresentation of large urban hospitals in the Northeast, although this represents the geography of the US pandemic during the study period. Our adjustment for race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status was limited in that we only had zip code-of-residence level information, did not know the zip code of residence for one quarter of study patients, and had to bifurcate the population into White/non-White categories. Finally, our definition of burden does not account for hospital resources, including staffing, ICU capacity, and the availability of advanced or investigational therapies.

In this study of 14,226 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 1 of 117 US hospitals, we found that the odds of in-hospital mortality were higher in hospitals that had the highest burden of COVID-19 admissions. This relationship, which persisted after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbid conditions, suggests that patient surges may be an independent risk factor for in-hospital death among patients with COVID-19.

The authors thank Bocheng Jing, MS, Senior Statistician at the UCSF Pepper Center, for providing code to identify Elixhauser conditions from ICD-10 data; and Scott Kerber, BS, and Scott Magnoni, MS, both of CarePort Health, for assistance with data extraction. They were not compensated for this work beyond their regular salaries.

It is clear that certain patient-level factors, such as age, sex, and comorbidities, predict outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection.^1,2 Less is known about whether hospital-level factors, including surges of patients with COVID-19, are associated with patient outcomes.

In a multicenter cohort study of 2,215 patients with COVID-19 in 65 intensive care units (ICU) across the United States, mortality rates varied widely (6.6%-80.8%), with improved survival for patients admitted to a hospital with more (>100) rather than fewer (<50) ICU beds.³ A different study found that at the state level, COVID-19 mortality increased with increasing COVID-19 admissions.⁴ Together, these studies suggest that surges in COVID-19 patient volume may be associated with excess mortality. However, the first study was restricted to the ICU population, limiting generalizability, and did not consider admission volume, only ICU bed count. Meanwhile, the second study considered both hospital capacity and patient volume, but it describes a relatively small sample, did not adjust for patient-level predictors of mortality, and does not report outcomes at the hospital level.

Here, we used a large dataset to compare in-hospital mortality rates for patients with COVID-19 across US hospitals, hypothesizing that mortality would be higher in hospitals with the highest burden of COVID-19 admissions. By adjusting for patient-level predictors of mortality and normalizing admission volume for hospital size, we are able to describe residual variability in mortality that may be attributable to differences in COVID-19 patient volume.

We included patients with an International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD)-10 diagnosis of COVID-19 (U07.1) who were admitted to a US hospital that contracts with CarePort Health.⁵ CarePort is a platform for discharge planning and care coordination that contracts with hospitals in all US regions and auto-extracts data using interface feeds.

We restricted the population to patients admitted between April 1 and April 30, 2020, after a new ICD-10 code for confirmed COVID-19 infection became available, and to hospitals that provided real-time ICD-10 data and pertinent demographic information and could be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) data by National Provider Identifier. We assumed that the 145 patients (1.0%) who remained hospitalized at 5 weeks all survived. For the 5.9% of patients with multiple admissions during the study period, we included only the first admission with a diagnosis code for COVID-19.

We adjusted for patient age, sex, and the 31 comorbidities in the Elixhauser index, defined by ICD-10 codes. This set of comorbidities includes those previously associated with COVID-19 survival.^1,2,6 Unfortunately, inconsistent reporting of vital signs and laboratory data precluded adjusting for acute illness severity. For those patients whose residence zip code was known, we report the racial breakdown (White vs non-White) and adjusted gross income (AGI), based on linked information from the 2018 American Community Survey.⁷

We defined COVID-19 burden as the quotient of COVID-19 admissions in April 2020 and each hospital’s certified bed count, as reported to the CMS.⁸ This allowed us to normalize COVID-19 patient volume for variation in hospital size, acknowledging that admitting 10 patients with COVID-19 to a 1,000-bed hospital is different from admitting 10 patients with COVID-19 to a 20-bed hospital. Certified bed count seemed the ideal denominator because it excludes beds not readily deployable to care for patients with COVID-19 (eg, radiology suites, labor and delivery rooms).

We computed hospital-specific adjusted mortality proportions and 95% confidence intervals based on hierarchical multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, and a random effect for each hospital.^9,10 Hypothesizing that there may be a threshold of burden beyond which mortality begins to rise, we compared the in-hospital mortality rate at hospitals in the highest quintile of COVID-19 burden to all other hospitals.

We conducted eight post-hoc sensitivity analyses: (1) restricting the study population to patients aged 75 years and older; (2) restricting study hospitals to those with at least 100 beds and 20 COVID-19 admissions; (3) assuming that all patients who remained hospitalized at 5 weeks had died; (4) using each patient’s last admission during the month of April rather than the first; sequentially incorporating (5) zip code–level information on race (limited to White, non-White) and (6) AGI (treated as a continuous variable) into our model; (7) computing two burdens for each hospital (one for each half of April) and using whichever was higher; and (8) treating COVID-19 burden as a continuous predictor. Analyses were performed using SAS statistical software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc) using the GLIMMIX procedure. This study was deemed exempt by the University of California, San Francisco Institutional Review Board.

The study population included 14,226 patients with COVID-19 (median age, 66 years [range, 0-110 years]; 45.2% women) at 117 US hospitals. Based on patients’ zip code of residence, we estimate that 47.0% of patients were White and 29.1% Black, and that the mean household AGI was $61,956. Most hospitals were nonprofit (56%) or private (39%), with approximately one quarter coming from each US census region (range, 25 hospitals [21%] in Midwest to 33 hospitals [28%] in Northeast). Nine hospitals (8%) had more than 700 beds, 40 (34%) had 300 to 700 beds, and 68 (58%) had fewer than 300 beds. Thirty-six hospitals (30.8%) admitted fewer than 20 patients with COVID-19, while six hospitals (5.1%) admitted more than 500 such patients. COVID burden ranged from 0.004 to 2.03 admissions per bed.

As of June 5, 2020, 78.1% of patients had been discharged alive, 20.9% had died, and 1.0% remained hospitalized. At the hospital level, the observed mortality ranged from 0% to 44.4%, was 17.1% among hospitals in COVID-19 burden quintiles one through four, and was 22.7% in the highest burden quintile (Table).

Results were similar across multiple sensitivity analyses (see Appendix Table), although the relationship between COVID-19 burden and in-hospital mortality was attenuated and not significant when the sample was restricted to hospitals with at least 100 beds and 20 COVID-19 admissions, or in analyses adjusted for race and AGI.

In this study of 14,226 patients with COVID-19 across 117 US hospitals, those patients admitted to the most burdened hospitals had a higher odds of death. This relationship, which persisted after adjusting for age, sex, and comorbid conditions, suggests that a threshold exists at which patient surges may cause excess mortality.

Notably, in sensitivity analyses adjusting for race and AGI, COVID-19 burden was no longer associated with in-hospital mortality and the point estimate was attenuated. This raises the possibility that our primary results are confounded by these factors. However, prior studies of hospitalized patients have not found race to be predictive of mortality, after adjusting for other factors.^11,12

We also note that the relationship between COVID-19 burden and mortality was not significant (P = .07) when the sample was restricted to larger hospitals with more than 20 COVID-19 admissions; again, the point estimate was attenuated. This suggests that larger hospitals may be more resilient in the face of patient surges. Whether this is due to increased availability of staff who can be redeployed to patient care (as with researchers at academic centers), increased experience managing severe respiratory failure, or other factors is uncertain.

Interestingly, in-hospital mortality varied widely across study hospitals, even among the most-burdened hospitals. The reasons for this residual variability—after adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities and stratifying by COVID-19 burden—are uncertain. To the extent that this variability reflects differences in patient management, hospital staffing, or use of investigational or advanced therapies, it will be critical to identify and disseminate any replicable best practices from high-burden hospitals with low mortality rates.

Whereas other reports have often described single-center or regional experiences,^13-15 leaving open the possibility that their results were highly influenced by the local nature of the pandemic in their respective settings, our report from a large sample of hospitals across the United States in high- and low-burden settings provides a more generalizable description of mortality rates for hospitalized patients. Additional study strengths include our adjustment for comorbidities known to be associated with COVID-19 survival, the reporting of definitive outcomes for 99% of patients, and the inclusion of multiple sensitivity analyses to assess the stability of findings.

Our principal limitation is the inability to adjust for severity of acute illness due to inconsistent reporting of laboratory and vital signs data from study hospitals and missing information on interhospital transfers. While our adjusted analyses clearly suggest an association between COVID-19 burden and patient outcomes, our results may still be confounded by differences in illness severity at study hospitals. Thus, our findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and will require confirmation in future studies that include adjustment for acute illness severity.

Other limitations of our study include overrepresentation of large urban hospitals in the Northeast, although this represents the geography of the US pandemic during the study period. Our adjustment for race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status was limited in that we only had zip code-of-residence level information, did not know the zip code of residence for one quarter of study patients, and had to bifurcate the population into White/non-White categories. Finally, our definition of burden does not account for hospital resources, including staffing, ICU capacity, and the availability of advanced or investigational therapies.

In this study of 14,226 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 1 of 117 US hospitals, we found that the odds of in-hospital mortality were higher in hospitals that had the highest burden of COVID-19 admissions. This relationship, which persisted after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbid conditions, suggests that patient surges may be an independent risk factor for in-hospital death among patients with COVID-19.

The authors thank Bocheng Jing, MS, Senior Statistician at the UCSF Pepper Center, for providing code to identify Elixhauser conditions from ICD-10 data; and Scott Kerber, BS, and Scott Magnoni, MS, both of CarePort Health, for assistance with data extraction. They were not compensated for this work beyond their regular salaries.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines anemia as a hemoglobin value less than 12 g/dL in women and less than 13 g/dL in men.¹ Hospital-acquired anemia is loosely defined as normal hemoglobin levels on admission that, at their nadir during hospitalization or on discharge, are less than WHO sex-defined cutoffs. Hospital-acquired anemia or significant decreases in hemoglobin are often identified during hospitalization.^2-6 Potential causes include blood loss from phlebotomy, occult gastrointestinal bleeding, hemolysis, anemia of inflammation, and hemodilution due to fluid resuscitation. Of these causes, some are dangerous to patients, some are iatrogenic, and some are due to laboratory error.⁷ Physicians often evaluate decreases in hemoglobin, which could otherwise be explained by laboratory error, hemodilution, or expected decrease in hemoglobin due to hospitalization, to identify causes that may lead to potential harm.

Jacob et al⁸ demonstrated the effect of posture on hemoglobin concentrations in healthy volunteers, showing an average 11% relative increase in hemoglobin when going from lying to standing. This increase was attributed to shifts in plasma volume to the vascular space with recumbence. They hypothesized that the initial hemoglobin on admission is measured when patients are upright or recently upright, whereas after admission, patients are more likely to be supine, resulting in lower hemoglobin concentrations. Others have also demonstrated similar effects of patient posture on hemoglobin concentration.^9-13 However, these prior results are not readily generalizable to hospitalized patients. These prior studies enrolled healthy volunteers, and most examined postural changes from the supine and standing positions; blood is rarely obtained from hospitalized patients when they are standing.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether postural changes in hemoglobin can be demonstrated in positions that patients routinely encountered during in-hospital phlebotomy: upright in a chair or recumbent in a bed. Patient position, which is not standardized during blood draws, may contribute to lower measured hemoglobin concentrations in some patients, especially sicker individuals who are recumbent more frequently. We hypothesized that going from supine to upright in a chair would result in a relative increase in hemoglobin concentration of 5% to 6%, approximately half the value of going from supine to standing.⁸ To investigate this, we conducted a quasi-experimental study exploring the effect of position (supine or sitting in chair) on hemoglobin concentrations in medical inpatients.

Participants

Patients were enrolled in this single-center study between October 2017 and August 2018. Patients aged 18 years or older who were hospitalized on the general internal medicine wards were screened to determine if they met the following inclusion criteria: hospitalized for <5 days, had blood work scheduled as part of routine care (in order to decrease phlebotomy required by this study), had baseline hemoglobin >8 g/dL, and were able to remain supine without interruption overnight and able to sit in a chair for at least 1 hour the following morning. Patients were excluded from the study if they had a hematologic malignancy, were at risk of >100 mL of blood loss (eg, admitted for gastrointestinal bleeding, planned surgery), had a transfusion requirement, or received intravascular modifiers such as fluid (>100 cc/h) or intravenous diuretics. The Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board approved this study, and all patients provided written informed consent.

Study Design

Patients enrolled in this quasi-experimental study were asked to remain supine for at least 6 hours overnight. Adherence to the recumbent position was tracked by patient self-report and by corroboration with the patient’s nurse overnight. Any interruptions to supine positioning resulted in exclusion from the study. The following morning, a member of the study team performed phlebotomy while the patient remained supine. Patients were then asked to sit comfortably in a chair for at least 1 hour with their feet on the ground; the blood draw was then repeated. All blood samples were acquired by venipuncture. Prior to each blood draw, a tourniquet was placed over the upper arm below the axilla. An antecubital vein on either arm was visualized under ultrasound guidance, and a 23-G × 3/4” butterfly needle was used for venipuncture. The vials of blood were immediately inverted after blood collection. Hemoglobin assays were processed and analyzed using Sysmex XN-10 analyzer (Sysmex Corporation). The reference range for hemoglobin in our facility was 12.0 to 15.0 g/dL for women and 13.9 to 16.3 g/dL for men. Laboratory technicians were blinded to and uninvolved in the study.

We determined, a priori, that 33 enrolled patients would provide 80% power (alpha 0.05) to detect an average hemoglobin change of 4.1%, assuming that the standard deviation of the hemoglobin change was twice the mean (ie, SD = 8.2%). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test the significance of postural hemoglobin changes. Analyses were conducted using JMP Pro 13.0 (SAS) and GraphPad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software). Significance was defined at P < .05 for all analyses.

Thirty-nine patients were consented and enrolled in the study; four patients were excluded prior to blood draw (two patients because of interruption of supine time, two patients because of refusal in the morning). Of the 35 patients who completed the study, 13 were women (37%); median age was 49 years (range, 25-83 years). Median supine hemoglobin concentration in our sample was 11.7 g/dL (range, 9.3-18.1 g/dL), and median baseline creatinine level was 0.70 mg/dL (range, 0.5-2.5 mg/dL). Median supine hemoglobin levels were 11.7 g/dL (range, 9.6-13.2 g/dL) in women and 11.8 g/dL (range, 9.3-18.1 g/dL) in men. In aggregate, patients had a median increase in hemoglobin concentration of 0.60 g/dL (range, –0.6 to 1.4 g/dL) with sitting, a 5.2% (range, –4.5% to 15.1%) relative change (P < .001) (Figure 1).

International blood collection guidelines acknowledge postural changes in laboratory values and recommend standardization of patient position to either sitting in a chair or lying flat in a bed, without changes in position for 15 minutes prior to blood draw.¹⁴ When these positional accommodations cannot be met, documenting positional disruptions is recommended so that laboratory values can be interpreted accordingly. To the best of our knowledge, no hospital in the United States has standardized patient position as part of phlebotomy procedure such that patient position is documented and can be made available to interpreting providers.

Relative increases in hemoglobin or hematocrit range from 7% to 12% when patients go from supine to standing.^8,9,11 The reverse relationship has also been shown, where upright-to-supine position results in decreases in hemoglobin concentrations.^10,13 We found that going from supine to a seated position resulted in significant increases in hemoglobin of 0.6 g/dL and in a more than 1 g/dL increase in 29% of the patients. Although four of the 35 patients experienced either no change or a slight decrease in their hemoglobin concentration when going from supine to upright and not all patients saw a uniform effect, providers should be aware that the patient’s position can contribute to changes in hemoglobin concentration in the hospitalized setting. Providers may be able to use this information to avoid an extensive diagnostic workup when anemia is identified in hospitalized patients, although more research is needed to identify patient subsets who are at higher risk for this effect.

Until hospitals implement protocols that require phlebotomists to report patient position during phlebotomy in a standardized fashion, providers should be alert to the fact that supine positioning may result in a hemoglobin level that is significantly lower than that when drawn in a sitting position, and in almost one-third of patients, this difference may be 1.0 g/dL or greater.

Given our study criteria requiring supine positions of at least 6 hours and a baseline hemoglobin concentration >8 g/dL, our sample of patients may have been younger and healthier than the average hospitalized patient on general internal medicine wards. Since greater relative changes in plasma volume shifts and hemoglobin might be seen in patients with lower baseline hemoglobin and lower baseline plasma protein, this selection bias may underestimate the effects of position on hemoglobin changes for the average inpatient population. Additionally, we intentionally sought to obtain sitting hemoglobin levels after the supine samples to avoid the possibility of incorrectly attributing dropping hemoglobin levels to progressive hospital-acquired anemia from phlebotomy or illness. Any concomitant trend of falling hemoglobin levels in our patients would be expected to lead to a systematic underestimation of the positional change in hemoglobin we observed. We did not objectively observe adherence to supine and upright position and instead relied on patient self-reporting, which is one possible contributor to the variable effects of position on hemoglobin concentration, with some patients having no change or decreases in hemoglobin concentrations.

Posture can significantly influence hemoglobin levels in hospitalized patients on general medicine wards. Further research can determine whether it would be cost and time effective to standardize patient positions prior to phlebotomy, or at least to report patient positioning with the laboratory testing results.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines anemia as a hemoglobin value less than 12 g/dL in women and less than 13 g/dL in men.¹ Hospital-acquired anemia is loosely defined as normal hemoglobin levels on admission that, at their nadir during hospitalization or on discharge, are less than WHO sex-defined cutoffs. Hospital-acquired anemia or significant decreases in hemoglobin are often identified during hospitalization.^2-6 Potential causes include blood loss from phlebotomy, occult gastrointestinal bleeding, hemolysis, anemia of inflammation, and hemodilution due to fluid resuscitation. Of these causes, some are dangerous to patients, some are iatrogenic, and some are due to laboratory error.⁷ Physicians often evaluate decreases in hemoglobin, which could otherwise be explained by laboratory error, hemodilution, or expected decrease in hemoglobin due to hospitalization, to identify causes that may lead to potential harm.

Jacob et al⁸ demonstrated the effect of posture on hemoglobin concentrations in healthy volunteers, showing an average 11% relative increase in hemoglobin when going from lying to standing. This increase was attributed to shifts in plasma volume to the vascular space with recumbence. They hypothesized that the initial hemoglobin on admission is measured when patients are upright or recently upright, whereas after admission, patients are more likely to be supine, resulting in lower hemoglobin concentrations. Others have also demonstrated similar effects of patient posture on hemoglobin concentration.^9-13 However, these prior results are not readily generalizable to hospitalized patients. These prior studies enrolled healthy volunteers, and most examined postural changes from the supine and standing positions; blood is rarely obtained from hospitalized patients when they are standing.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether postural changes in hemoglobin can be demonstrated in positions that patients routinely encountered during in-hospital phlebotomy: upright in a chair or recumbent in a bed. Patient position, which is not standardized during blood draws, may contribute to lower measured hemoglobin concentrations in some patients, especially sicker individuals who are recumbent more frequently. We hypothesized that going from supine to upright in a chair would result in a relative increase in hemoglobin concentration of 5% to 6%, approximately half the value of going from supine to standing.⁸ To investigate this, we conducted a quasi-experimental study exploring the effect of position (supine or sitting in chair) on hemoglobin concentrations in medical inpatients.

Participants

Patients were enrolled in this single-center study between October 2017 and August 2018. Patients aged 18 years or older who were hospitalized on the general internal medicine wards were screened to determine if they met the following inclusion criteria: hospitalized for <5 days, had blood work scheduled as part of routine care (in order to decrease phlebotomy required by this study), had baseline hemoglobin >8 g/dL, and were able to remain supine without interruption overnight and able to sit in a chair for at least 1 hour the following morning. Patients were excluded from the study if they had a hematologic malignancy, were at risk of >100 mL of blood loss (eg, admitted for gastrointestinal bleeding, planned surgery), had a transfusion requirement, or received intravascular modifiers such as fluid (>100 cc/h) or intravenous diuretics. The Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board approved this study, and all patients provided written informed consent.

Study Design

Patients enrolled in this quasi-experimental study were asked to remain supine for at least 6 hours overnight. Adherence to the recumbent position was tracked by patient self-report and by corroboration with the patient’s nurse overnight. Any interruptions to supine positioning resulted in exclusion from the study. The following morning, a member of the study team performed phlebotomy while the patient remained supine. Patients were then asked to sit comfortably in a chair for at least 1 hour with their feet on the ground; the blood draw was then repeated. All blood samples were acquired by venipuncture. Prior to each blood draw, a tourniquet was placed over the upper arm below the axilla. An antecubital vein on either arm was visualized under ultrasound guidance, and a 23-G × 3/4” butterfly needle was used for venipuncture. The vials of blood were immediately inverted after blood collection. Hemoglobin assays were processed and analyzed using Sysmex XN-10 analyzer (Sysmex Corporation). The reference range for hemoglobin in our facility was 12.0 to 15.0 g/dL for women and 13.9 to 16.3 g/dL for men. Laboratory technicians were blinded to and uninvolved in the study.

We determined, a priori, that 33 enrolled patients would provide 80% power (alpha 0.05) to detect an average hemoglobin change of 4.1%, assuming that the standard deviation of the hemoglobin change was twice the mean (ie, SD = 8.2%). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test the significance of postural hemoglobin changes. Analyses were conducted using JMP Pro 13.0 (SAS) and GraphPad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software). Significance was defined at P < .05 for all analyses.

Thirty-nine patients were consented and enrolled in the study; four patients were excluded prior to blood draw (two patients because of interruption of supine time, two patients because of refusal in the morning). Of the 35 patients who completed the study, 13 were women (37%); median age was 49 years (range, 25-83 years). Median supine hemoglobin concentration in our sample was 11.7 g/dL (range, 9.3-18.1 g/dL), and median baseline creatinine level was 0.70 mg/dL (range, 0.5-2.5 mg/dL). Median supine hemoglobin levels were 11.7 g/dL (range, 9.6-13.2 g/dL) in women and 11.8 g/dL (range, 9.3-18.1 g/dL) in men. In aggregate, patients had a median increase in hemoglobin concentration of 0.60 g/dL (range, –0.6 to 1.4 g/dL) with sitting, a 5.2% (range, –4.5% to 15.1%) relative change (P < .001) (Figure 1).

International blood collection guidelines acknowledge postural changes in laboratory values and recommend standardization of patient position to either sitting in a chair or lying flat in a bed, without changes in position for 15 minutes prior to blood draw.¹⁴ When these positional accommodations cannot be met, documenting positional disruptions is recommended so that laboratory values can be interpreted accordingly. To the best of our knowledge, no hospital in the United States has standardized patient position as part of phlebotomy procedure such that patient position is documented and can be made available to interpreting providers.

Relative increases in hemoglobin or hematocrit range from 7% to 12% when patients go from supine to standing.^8,9,11 The reverse relationship has also been shown, where upright-to-supine position results in decreases in hemoglobin concentrations.^10,13 We found that going from supine to a seated position resulted in significant increases in hemoglobin of 0.6 g/dL and in a more than 1 g/dL increase in 29% of the patients. Although four of the 35 patients experienced either no change or a slight decrease in their hemoglobin concentration when going from supine to upright and not all patients saw a uniform effect, providers should be aware that the patient’s position can contribute to changes in hemoglobin concentration in the hospitalized setting. Providers may be able to use this information to avoid an extensive diagnostic workup when anemia is identified in hospitalized patients, although more research is needed to identify patient subsets who are at higher risk for this effect.

Until hospitals implement protocols that require phlebotomists to report patient position during phlebotomy in a standardized fashion, providers should be alert to the fact that supine positioning may result in a hemoglobin level that is significantly lower than that when drawn in a sitting position, and in almost one-third of patients, this difference may be 1.0 g/dL or greater.

Given our study criteria requiring supine positions of at least 6 hours and a baseline hemoglobin concentration >8 g/dL, our sample of patients may have been younger and healthier than the average hospitalized patient on general internal medicine wards. Since greater relative changes in plasma volume shifts and hemoglobin might be seen in patients with lower baseline hemoglobin and lower baseline plasma protein, this selection bias may underestimate the effects of position on hemoglobin changes for the average inpatient population. Additionally, we intentionally sought to obtain sitting hemoglobin levels after the supine samples to avoid the possibility of incorrectly attributing dropping hemoglobin levels to progressive hospital-acquired anemia from phlebotomy or illness. Any concomitant trend of falling hemoglobin levels in our patients would be expected to lead to a systematic underestimation of the positional change in hemoglobin we observed. We did not objectively observe adherence to supine and upright position and instead relied on patient self-reporting, which is one possible contributor to the variable effects of position on hemoglobin concentration, with some patients having no change or decreases in hemoglobin concentrations.

Posture can significantly influence hemoglobin levels in hospitalized patients on general medicine wards. Further research can determine whether it would be cost and time effective to standardize patient positions prior to phlebotomy, or at least to report patient positioning with the laboratory testing results.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines anemia as a hemoglobin value less than 12 g/dL in women and less than 13 g/dL in men.¹ Hospital-acquired anemia is loosely defined as normal hemoglobin levels on admission that, at their nadir during hospitalization or on discharge, are less than WHO sex-defined cutoffs. Hospital-acquired anemia or significant decreases in hemoglobin are often identified during hospitalization.^2-6 Potential causes include blood loss from phlebotomy, occult gastrointestinal bleeding, hemolysis, anemia of inflammation, and hemodilution due to fluid resuscitation. Of these causes, some are dangerous to patients, some are iatrogenic, and some are due to laboratory error.⁷ Physicians often evaluate decreases in hemoglobin, which could otherwise be explained by laboratory error, hemodilution, or expected decrease in hemoglobin due to hospitalization, to identify causes that may lead to potential harm.

Jacob et al⁸ demonstrated the effect of posture on hemoglobin concentrations in healthy volunteers, showing an average 11% relative increase in hemoglobin when going from lying to standing. This increase was attributed to shifts in plasma volume to the vascular space with recumbence. They hypothesized that the initial hemoglobin on admission is measured when patients are upright or recently upright, whereas after admission, patients are more likely to be supine, resulting in lower hemoglobin concentrations. Others have also demonstrated similar effects of patient posture on hemoglobin concentration.^9-13 However, these prior results are not readily generalizable to hospitalized patients. These prior studies enrolled healthy volunteers, and most examined postural changes from the supine and standing positions; blood is rarely obtained from hospitalized patients when they are standing.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether postural changes in hemoglobin can be demonstrated in positions that patients routinely encountered during in-hospital phlebotomy: upright in a chair or recumbent in a bed. Patient position, which is not standardized during blood draws, may contribute to lower measured hemoglobin concentrations in some patients, especially sicker individuals who are recumbent more frequently. We hypothesized that going from supine to upright in a chair would result in a relative increase in hemoglobin concentration of 5% to 6%, approximately half the value of going from supine to standing.⁸ To investigate this, we conducted a quasi-experimental study exploring the effect of position (supine or sitting in chair) on hemoglobin concentrations in medical inpatients.

Participants

Patients were enrolled in this single-center study between October 2017 and August 2018. Patients aged 18 years or older who were hospitalized on the general internal medicine wards were screened to determine if they met the following inclusion criteria: hospitalized for <5 days, had blood work scheduled as part of routine care (in order to decrease phlebotomy required by this study), had baseline hemoglobin >8 g/dL, and were able to remain supine without interruption overnight and able to sit in a chair for at least 1 hour the following morning. Patients were excluded from the study if they had a hematologic malignancy, were at risk of >100 mL of blood loss (eg, admitted for gastrointestinal bleeding, planned surgery), had a transfusion requirement, or received intravascular modifiers such as fluid (>100 cc/h) or intravenous diuretics. The Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board approved this study, and all patients provided written informed consent.

Study Design

Patients enrolled in this quasi-experimental study were asked to remain supine for at least 6 hours overnight. Adherence to the recumbent position was tracked by patient self-report and by corroboration with the patient’s nurse overnight. Any interruptions to supine positioning resulted in exclusion from the study. The following morning, a member of the study team performed phlebotomy while the patient remained supine. Patients were then asked to sit comfortably in a chair for at least 1 hour with their feet on the ground; the blood draw was then repeated. All blood samples were acquired by venipuncture. Prior to each blood draw, a tourniquet was placed over the upper arm below the axilla. An antecubital vein on either arm was visualized under ultrasound guidance, and a 23-G × 3/4” butterfly needle was used for venipuncture. The vials of blood were immediately inverted after blood collection. Hemoglobin assays were processed and analyzed using Sysmex XN-10 analyzer (Sysmex Corporation). The reference range for hemoglobin in our facility was 12.0 to 15.0 g/dL for women and 13.9 to 16.3 g/dL for men. Laboratory technicians were blinded to and uninvolved in the study.

We determined, a priori, that 33 enrolled patients would provide 80% power (alpha 0.05) to detect an average hemoglobin change of 4.1%, assuming that the standard deviation of the hemoglobin change was twice the mean (ie, SD = 8.2%). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test the significance of postural hemoglobin changes. Analyses were conducted using JMP Pro 13.0 (SAS) and GraphPad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software). Significance was defined at P < .05 for all analyses.

Thirty-nine patients were consented and enrolled in the study; four patients were excluded prior to blood draw (two patients because of interruption of supine time, two patients because of refusal in the morning). Of the 35 patients who completed the study, 13 were women (37%); median age was 49 years (range, 25-83 years). Median supine hemoglobin concentration in our sample was 11.7 g/dL (range, 9.3-18.1 g/dL), and median baseline creatinine level was 0.70 mg/dL (range, 0.5-2.5 mg/dL). Median supine hemoglobin levels were 11.7 g/dL (range, 9.6-13.2 g/dL) in women and 11.8 g/dL (range, 9.3-18.1 g/dL) in men. In aggregate, patients had a median increase in hemoglobin concentration of 0.60 g/dL (range, –0.6 to 1.4 g/dL) with sitting, a 5.2% (range, –4.5% to 15.1%) relative change (P < .001) (Figure 1).

International blood collection guidelines acknowledge postural changes in laboratory values and recommend standardization of patient position to either sitting in a chair or lying flat in a bed, without changes in position for 15 minutes prior to blood draw.¹⁴ When these positional accommodations cannot be met, documenting positional disruptions is recommended so that laboratory values can be interpreted accordingly. To the best of our knowledge, no hospital in the United States has standardized patient position as part of phlebotomy procedure such that patient position is documented and can be made available to interpreting providers.

Relative increases in hemoglobin or hematocrit range from 7% to 12% when patients go from supine to standing.^8,9,11 The reverse relationship has also been shown, where upright-to-supine position results in decreases in hemoglobin concentrations.^10,13 We found that going from supine to a seated position resulted in significant increases in hemoglobin of 0.6 g/dL and in a more than 1 g/dL increase in 29% of the patients. Although four of the 35 patients experienced either no change or a slight decrease in their hemoglobin concentration when going from supine to upright and not all patients saw a uniform effect, providers should be aware that the patient’s position can contribute to changes in hemoglobin concentration in the hospitalized setting. Providers may be able to use this information to avoid an extensive diagnostic workup when anemia is identified in hospitalized patients, although more research is needed to identify patient subsets who are at higher risk for this effect.

Until hospitals implement protocols that require phlebotomists to report patient position during phlebotomy in a standardized fashion, providers should be alert to the fact that supine positioning may result in a hemoglobin level that is significantly lower than that when drawn in a sitting position, and in almost one-third of patients, this difference may be 1.0 g/dL or greater.

Given our study criteria requiring supine positions of at least 6 hours and a baseline hemoglobin concentration >8 g/dL, our sample of patients may have been younger and healthier than the average hospitalized patient on general internal medicine wards. Since greater relative changes in plasma volume shifts and hemoglobin might be seen in patients with lower baseline hemoglobin and lower baseline plasma protein, this selection bias may underestimate the effects of position on hemoglobin changes for the average inpatient population. Additionally, we intentionally sought to obtain sitting hemoglobin levels after the supine samples to avoid the possibility of incorrectly attributing dropping hemoglobin levels to progressive hospital-acquired anemia from phlebotomy or illness. Any concomitant trend of falling hemoglobin levels in our patients would be expected to lead to a systematic underestimation of the positional change in hemoglobin we observed. We did not objectively observe adherence to supine and upright position and instead relied on patient self-reporting, which is one possible contributor to the variable effects of position on hemoglobin concentration, with some patients having no change or decreases in hemoglobin concentrations.

Posture can significantly influence hemoglobin levels in hospitalized patients on general medicine wards. Further research can determine whether it would be cost and time effective to standardize patient positions prior to phlebotomy, or at least to report patient positioning with the laboratory testing results.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) affects an estimated 100,000 people in the United States.¹ Pain is the most common complication of SCD and the primary reason patients with SCD seek medical attention.² In 2016, three-fourths of the approximately 130,000 SCD-related hospitalizations in the United States involved pain crises.³ When managing patients with SCD and chronic pain, an individualized and interdisciplinary approach is crucial. In 2020, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) developed guidelines reflecting the latest evidence in managing acute and chronic pain in adult and pediatric patients with SCD. The ASH guidelines provide 18 recommendations; here, we highlight the 8 recommendations most pertinent to the hospitalist.

Acute Pain

Acute pain in the guideline is defined as pain that results in an unplanned visit to an acute care center for treatment.

Recommendation 1. For adult and pediatric patients presenting to an acute care setting with SCD-related acute pain, the ASH guideline panel recommends rapid (ie, within 1 hour of arrival at the emergency department [ED]) assessment and administration of analgesia, with reassessments every 30-60 minutes to optimize pain control (Strong recommendation; low certainty in the evidence about effects).

Although the perceived benefits are unclear due to insufficient evidence, the panel agrees that delaying pain management results in undeniable harm to patients. Hence, this recommendation was deemed both acceptable and ethical. Rapid evaluation also allows for earlier identification and treatment of other potential SCD-related complications.

Recommendation 2. For adult and pediatric patients presenting to an acute care setting with SCD-associated pain for whom opioid therapy is indicated, the ASH guideline panel suggests tailored opioid dosing based on consideration of baseline opioid therapy and prior effective therapy. (For adults: conditional recommendation; moderate certainty in the evidence about effects. For children: conditional recommendation; low certainty in the evidence about effects).

One randomized controlled trial examined patient-specific opioid dosing (based on current chronic opioid therapy [COT] and previously known effective acute pain management) vs weight-based dosing in the ED and found that participants randomized into the patient-specific protocol had a greater reduction in pain and decreased rate of hospital admission.⁴

The panel acknowledges that intravenous patient-controlled opioid analgesia is generally the standard of care at most institutions. However, no clear data address whether continuous opioid infusion in addition to on-demand dosing is beneficial.

Recommendation 3. For adult and pediatric patients with acute pain related to SCD, the ASH guideline panel suggests a short course (5 to 7 days) of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in addition to opioids (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects).

The use of NSAIDs for managing pain in hospitalized patients with SCD has been associated with a reduction in the use of opioids in the inpatient setting and decreased lengths of stay.⁵ The potential harms of NSAIDs, including renal and gastrointestinal toxicity, however, should be factored into the decision-making as the risks may outweigh the potential benefits.

Recommendation 4. For adult and pediatric patients with SCD hospitalized for acute pain, the ASH guideline panel suggests a subanesthetic (analgesic) infusion of ketamine as adjunctive treatment of pain refractory or not effectively treated with opioids alone (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects). The guideline panel also suggests regional anesthesia for localized pain refractory or not effectively treated with opioids alone (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects).

Studies have demonstrated reduced pain and opioid utilization in individuals who received adjuvant ketamine infusions⁶ or regional anesthesia (ie, epidural).⁷ Feasibility, however, is limited to centers that have the appropriate experience and expertise with these interventions.

Recommendation 5. For adult and pediatric patients who have recurrent acute pain associated with SCD, the ASH guideline panel suggests against chronic monthly transfusion therapy as a first-line strategy to prevent or reduce recurrent acute pain episodes (Conditional recommendation; low certainty in the evidence about effects). The evidence for monthly transfusions in preventing recurrent pain is limited. There is, however, a moderate risk of harm, including iron overload and transfusion reactions, in addition to substantial burden and costs.

Chronic Pain

Chronic pain in the guideline is defined as ongoing pain present on most days over the past 6 months.

Recommendation 6. For adult patients with SCD who have chronic pain from the SCD-related identifiable cause avascular necrosis (AVN) of the bone, the ASH guideline panel suggests the use of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) or NSAIDs in the context of a comprehensive disease and pain management plan (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects). For patients with no identifiable cause beyond SCD, the guideline panel suggests SNRIs, tricyclic antidepressants, or gabapentinoids for pain management (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects). Given the lack of direct evidence, indirect evidence was used to formulate these recommendations. For pain associated with AVN, data were extrapolated from literature on osteoarthritis, a form of degenerative arthropathy. For pain without an identifiable cause, evidence was taken from studies on fibromyalgia, a condition the panel felt most closely aligned with chronic pain related to SCD.

No recommendations were made for pediatric patients as the indirect evidence base only addressed adult patients.

Recommendation 7. For adult and pediatric patients with SCD and emerging and/or recently developed chronic pain, the ASH guideline panel does not recommend initiating COT unless pain is refractory to multiple other treatment modalities (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects). For patients receiving COT who are functioning well and have perceived benefit, the ASH guideline panel suggests shared decision-making for continuation of COT (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects).

High-quality data on the benefit of long-term COT in individuals with chronic noncancer pain are lacking. The panel maintains that the decision to initiate or continue COT should be individualized after weighing appropriate risks and benefits.

Recommendation 8. For adult and pediatric patients with chronic pain related to SCD, the panel suggests cognitive and behavioral pain management strategies in the context of a comprehensive disease and pain management plan (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects). Cognitive behavioral therapy may decrease overall pain intensity and improve coping skills.⁸ The panel agrees that medications alone may not be effective in reducing the burden of chronic pain in adult and pediatric patients with SCD.

The guidelines were created by a multidisciplinary panel that included physicians from hematology, pain medicine, psychiatry, and emergency medicine, a doctoral nurse practitioner, and two patient representatives. The Mayo Evidence-Based Practice Research Program supported the guideline-development process. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.

High-quality data in treating acute and chronic pain in both adult and pediatric patients with SCD are limited. As such, the majority of recommendations in these guidelines are conditional. The panel included studies that were indirectly related to SCD based on consensus (eg, inferred data from disease processes thought to be similar to SCD). One panelist disclosed receiving direct payments from a company that could be affected by these guidelines; however, it was deemed that the conflict was unlikely to have influenced any recommendations.

The panel acknowledges that further investigation is needed for both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic modalities in treating acute and chronic pain related to SCD. Examples include evaluating the comparative-effectiveness of COT vs nonopioid pharmacotherapy, the benefits and harms of continuous opioid infusions in acute pain crises, and the impact of chronic transfusions on acute and chronic pain.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) affects an estimated 100,000 people in the United States.¹ Pain is the most common complication of SCD and the primary reason patients with SCD seek medical attention.² In 2016, three-fourths of the approximately 130,000 SCD-related hospitalizations in the United States involved pain crises.³ When managing patients with SCD and chronic pain, an individualized and interdisciplinary approach is crucial. In 2020, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) developed guidelines reflecting the latest evidence in managing acute and chronic pain in adult and pediatric patients with SCD. The ASH guidelines provide 18 recommendations; here, we highlight the 8 recommendations most pertinent to the hospitalist.

Acute Pain

Acute pain in the guideline is defined as pain that results in an unplanned visit to an acute care center for treatment.

Recommendation 1. For adult and pediatric patients presenting to an acute care setting with SCD-related acute pain, the ASH guideline panel recommends rapid (ie, within 1 hour of arrival at the emergency department [ED]) assessment and administration of analgesia, with reassessments every 30-60 minutes to optimize pain control (Strong recommendation; low certainty in the evidence about effects).

Although the perceived benefits are unclear due to insufficient evidence, the panel agrees that delaying pain management results in undeniable harm to patients. Hence, this recommendation was deemed both acceptable and ethical. Rapid evaluation also allows for earlier identification and treatment of other potential SCD-related complications.

Recommendation 2. For adult and pediatric patients presenting to an acute care setting with SCD-associated pain for whom opioid therapy is indicated, the ASH guideline panel suggests tailored opioid dosing based on consideration of baseline opioid therapy and prior effective therapy. (For adults: conditional recommendation; moderate certainty in the evidence about effects. For children: conditional recommendation; low certainty in the evidence about effects).

One randomized controlled trial examined patient-specific opioid dosing (based on current chronic opioid therapy [COT] and previously known effective acute pain management) vs weight-based dosing in the ED and found that participants randomized into the patient-specific protocol had a greater reduction in pain and decreased rate of hospital admission.⁴

The panel acknowledges that intravenous patient-controlled opioid analgesia is generally the standard of care at most institutions. However, no clear data address whether continuous opioid infusion in addition to on-demand dosing is beneficial.

Recommendation 3. For adult and pediatric patients with acute pain related to SCD, the ASH guideline panel suggests a short course (5 to 7 days) of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in addition to opioids (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects).

The use of NSAIDs for managing pain in hospitalized patients with SCD has been associated with a reduction in the use of opioids in the inpatient setting and decreased lengths of stay.⁵ The potential harms of NSAIDs, including renal and gastrointestinal toxicity, however, should be factored into the decision-making as the risks may outweigh the potential benefits.

Recommendation 4. For adult and pediatric patients with SCD hospitalized for acute pain, the ASH guideline panel suggests a subanesthetic (analgesic) infusion of ketamine as adjunctive treatment of pain refractory or not effectively treated with opioids alone (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects). The guideline panel also suggests regional anesthesia for localized pain refractory or not effectively treated with opioids alone (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects).

Studies have demonstrated reduced pain and opioid utilization in individuals who received adjuvant ketamine infusions⁶ or regional anesthesia (ie, epidural).⁷ Feasibility, however, is limited to centers that have the appropriate experience and expertise with these interventions.

Recommendation 5. For adult and pediatric patients who have recurrent acute pain associated with SCD, the ASH guideline panel suggests against chronic monthly transfusion therapy as a first-line strategy to prevent or reduce recurrent acute pain episodes (Conditional recommendation; low certainty in the evidence about effects). The evidence for monthly transfusions in preventing recurrent pain is limited. There is, however, a moderate risk of harm, including iron overload and transfusion reactions, in addition to substantial burden and costs.

Chronic Pain

Chronic pain in the guideline is defined as ongoing pain present on most days over the past 6 months.

Recommendation 6. For adult patients with SCD who have chronic pain from the SCD-related identifiable cause avascular necrosis (AVN) of the bone, the ASH guideline panel suggests the use of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) or NSAIDs in the context of a comprehensive disease and pain management plan (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects). For patients with no identifiable cause beyond SCD, the guideline panel suggests SNRIs, tricyclic antidepressants, or gabapentinoids for pain management (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects). Given the lack of direct evidence, indirect evidence was used to formulate these recommendations. For pain associated with AVN, data were extrapolated from literature on osteoarthritis, a form of degenerative arthropathy. For pain without an identifiable cause, evidence was taken from studies on fibromyalgia, a condition the panel felt most closely aligned with chronic pain related to SCD.

No recommendations were made for pediatric patients as the indirect evidence base only addressed adult patients.

Recommendation 7. For adult and pediatric patients with SCD and emerging and/or recently developed chronic pain, the ASH guideline panel does not recommend initiating COT unless pain is refractory to multiple other treatment modalities (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects). For patients receiving COT who are functioning well and have perceived benefit, the ASH guideline panel suggests shared decision-making for continuation of COT (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects).

High-quality data on the benefit of long-term COT in individuals with chronic noncancer pain are lacking. The panel maintains that the decision to initiate or continue COT should be individualized after weighing appropriate risks and benefits.

Recommendation 8. For adult and pediatric patients with chronic pain related to SCD, the panel suggests cognitive and behavioral pain management strategies in the context of a comprehensive disease and pain management plan (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects). Cognitive behavioral therapy may decrease overall pain intensity and improve coping skills.⁸ The panel agrees that medications alone may not be effective in reducing the burden of chronic pain in adult and pediatric patients with SCD.

The guidelines were created by a multidisciplinary panel that included physicians from hematology, pain medicine, psychiatry, and emergency medicine, a doctoral nurse practitioner, and two patient representatives. The Mayo Evidence-Based Practice Research Program supported the guideline-development process. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.

High-quality data in treating acute and chronic pain in both adult and pediatric patients with SCD are limited. As such, the majority of recommendations in these guidelines are conditional. The panel included studies that were indirectly related to SCD based on consensus (eg, inferred data from disease processes thought to be similar to SCD). One panelist disclosed receiving direct payments from a company that could be affected by these guidelines; however, it was deemed that the conflict was unlikely to have influenced any recommendations.

The panel acknowledges that further investigation is needed for both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic modalities in treating acute and chronic pain related to SCD. Examples include evaluating the comparative-effectiveness of COT vs nonopioid pharmacotherapy, the benefits and harms of continuous opioid infusions in acute pain crises, and the impact of chronic transfusions on acute and chronic pain.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) affects an estimated 100,000 people in the United States.¹ Pain is the most common complication of SCD and the primary reason patients with SCD seek medical attention.² In 2016, three-fourths of the approximately 130,000 SCD-related hospitalizations in the United States involved pain crises.³ When managing patients with SCD and chronic pain, an individualized and interdisciplinary approach is crucial. In 2020, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) developed guidelines reflecting the latest evidence in managing acute and chronic pain in adult and pediatric patients with SCD. The ASH guidelines provide 18 recommendations; here, we highlight the 8 recommendations most pertinent to the hospitalist.

Acute Pain

Acute pain in the guideline is defined as pain that results in an unplanned visit to an acute care center for treatment.

Recommendation 1. For adult and pediatric patients presenting to an acute care setting with SCD-related acute pain, the ASH guideline panel recommends rapid (ie, within 1 hour of arrival at the emergency department [ED]) assessment and administration of analgesia, with reassessments every 30-60 minutes to optimize pain control (Strong recommendation; low certainty in the evidence about effects).

Although the perceived benefits are unclear due to insufficient evidence, the panel agrees that delaying pain management results in undeniable harm to patients. Hence, this recommendation was deemed both acceptable and ethical. Rapid evaluation also allows for earlier identification and treatment of other potential SCD-related complications.

Recommendation 2. For adult and pediatric patients presenting to an acute care setting with SCD-associated pain for whom opioid therapy is indicated, the ASH guideline panel suggests tailored opioid dosing based on consideration of baseline opioid therapy and prior effective therapy. (For adults: conditional recommendation; moderate certainty in the evidence about effects. For children: conditional recommendation; low certainty in the evidence about effects).

One randomized controlled trial examined patient-specific opioid dosing (based on current chronic opioid therapy [COT] and previously known effective acute pain management) vs weight-based dosing in the ED and found that participants randomized into the patient-specific protocol had a greater reduction in pain and decreased rate of hospital admission.⁴

The panel acknowledges that intravenous patient-controlled opioid analgesia is generally the standard of care at most institutions. However, no clear data address whether continuous opioid infusion in addition to on-demand dosing is beneficial.

Recommendation 3. For adult and pediatric patients with acute pain related to SCD, the ASH guideline panel suggests a short course (5 to 7 days) of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in addition to opioids (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects).

The use of NSAIDs for managing pain in hospitalized patients with SCD has been associated with a reduction in the use of opioids in the inpatient setting and decreased lengths of stay.⁵ The potential harms of NSAIDs, including renal and gastrointestinal toxicity, however, should be factored into the decision-making as the risks may outweigh the potential benefits.

Recommendation 4. For adult and pediatric patients with SCD hospitalized for acute pain, the ASH guideline panel suggests a subanesthetic (analgesic) infusion of ketamine as adjunctive treatment of pain refractory or not effectively treated with opioids alone (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects). The guideline panel also suggests regional anesthesia for localized pain refractory or not effectively treated with opioids alone (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects).

Studies have demonstrated reduced pain and opioid utilization in individuals who received adjuvant ketamine infusions⁶ or regional anesthesia (ie, epidural).⁷ Feasibility, however, is limited to centers that have the appropriate experience and expertise with these interventions.

Recommendation 5. For adult and pediatric patients who have recurrent acute pain associated with SCD, the ASH guideline panel suggests against chronic monthly transfusion therapy as a first-line strategy to prevent or reduce recurrent acute pain episodes (Conditional recommendation; low certainty in the evidence about effects). The evidence for monthly transfusions in preventing recurrent pain is limited. There is, however, a moderate risk of harm, including iron overload and transfusion reactions, in addition to substantial burden and costs.

Chronic Pain

Chronic pain in the guideline is defined as ongoing pain present on most days over the past 6 months.

Recommendation 6. For adult patients with SCD who have chronic pain from the SCD-related identifiable cause avascular necrosis (AVN) of the bone, the ASH guideline panel suggests the use of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) or NSAIDs in the context of a comprehensive disease and pain management plan (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects). For patients with no identifiable cause beyond SCD, the guideline panel suggests SNRIs, tricyclic antidepressants, or gabapentinoids for pain management (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects). Given the lack of direct evidence, indirect evidence was used to formulate these recommendations. For pain associated with AVN, data were extrapolated from literature on osteoarthritis, a form of degenerative arthropathy. For pain without an identifiable cause, evidence was taken from studies on fibromyalgia, a condition the panel felt most closely aligned with chronic pain related to SCD.

No recommendations were made for pediatric patients as the indirect evidence base only addressed adult patients.

Recommendation 7. For adult and pediatric patients with SCD and emerging and/or recently developed chronic pain, the ASH guideline panel does not recommend initiating COT unless pain is refractory to multiple other treatment modalities (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects). For patients receiving COT who are functioning well and have perceived benefit, the ASH guideline panel suggests shared decision-making for continuation of COT (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects).

High-quality data on the benefit of long-term COT in individuals with chronic noncancer pain are lacking. The panel maintains that the decision to initiate or continue COT should be individualized after weighing appropriate risks and benefits.

Recommendation 8. For adult and pediatric patients with chronic pain related to SCD, the panel suggests cognitive and behavioral pain management strategies in the context of a comprehensive disease and pain management plan (Conditional recommendation; very low certainty in the evidence about effects). Cognitive behavioral therapy may decrease overall pain intensity and improve coping skills.⁸ The panel agrees that medications alone may not be effective in reducing the burden of chronic pain in adult and pediatric patients with SCD.

The guidelines were created by a multidisciplinary panel that included physicians from hematology, pain medicine, psychiatry, and emergency medicine, a doctoral nurse practitioner, and two patient representatives. The Mayo Evidence-Based Practice Research Program supported the guideline-development process. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.

High-quality data in treating acute and chronic pain in both adult and pediatric patients with SCD are limited. As such, the majority of recommendations in these guidelines are conditional. The panel included studies that were indirectly related to SCD based on consensus (eg, inferred data from disease processes thought to be similar to SCD). One panelist disclosed receiving direct payments from a company that could be affected by these guidelines; however, it was deemed that the conflict was unlikely to have influenced any recommendations.

The panel acknowledges that further investigation is needed for both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic modalities in treating acute and chronic pain related to SCD. Examples include evaluating the comparative-effectiveness of COT vs nonopioid pharmacotherapy, the benefits and harms of continuous opioid infusions in acute pain crises, and the impact of chronic transfusions on acute and chronic pain.