One in five COVID-19 patients are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as anxiety or depression within 3 months of testing positive for the virus, new research suggests.

“People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of psychiatric disorders, and our findings in a large and detailed study show this to be true,” principal investigator Paul Harrison, BM, DM, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, said in a statement.

Health services “need to be ready to provide care, especially since our results are likely to be underestimates of the actual number of cases,” said Harrison.

The study also showed that having a psychiatric disorder independently increases the risk of getting COVID-19 – a finding that’s in line with research published earlier this month.

“Having a psychiatric illness should be added to the list of risk factors for COVID-19,” study coauthor Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford, said in the release.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Double the risk

The investigators took advantage of the TriNetX analytics network, which captured deidentified data from electronic health records of a total of 69.8 million patients from 54 healthcare organizations in the United States.

Of those patients, 62,354 adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan. 20 and Aug. 1, 2020.

To assess the psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, the investigators created propensity score–matched cohorts of patients who had received a diagnosis of other conditions that represented a range of common acute presentations.

In 14 to 90 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19, 5.8% of patients received a first recorded diagnosis of psychiatric illness. Among patients with health problems other than COVID, 2.5% to 3.4% of patients received a psychiatric diagnosis, the authors report. The risk was greatest for anxiety disorders, depression, and insomnia.

Older COVID-19 patients had a two- to threefold increased risk for a first dementia diagnosis, a finding that supports an earlier UK study.

Some of this excess risk could reflect misdiagnosed cases of delirium or transient cognitive impairment due to reversible cerebral events, the authors noted.

The study also revealed a bidirectional relationship between mental illness and COVID-19. Individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis were about 65% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 in comparison with their counterparts who did not have mental illness, independently of known physical health risk factors for COVID-19.

“We did not anticipate that psychiatric history would be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. This finding appears robust, being observed in all age strata and in both sexes, and was substantial,” the authors write.

At present, “we don’t understand what the explanation is for the associations between COVID and mental illness. We are looking into this in more detail to try and understand better what subgroups are particularly vulnerable in this regard,” Harrison told Medscape Medical News.
 

“Ambitious” research

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Roy H. Perlis, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said this is “an ambitious effort to understand the short-term consequences of COVID in terms of brain diseases.”

Perlis said he’s not particularly surprised by the increase in psychiatric diagnoses among COVID-19 patients.

“After COVID infection, people are more likely to get close medical follow-up than usual. They’re more likely to be accessing the healthcare system; after all, they’ve already had COVID, so they’re probably less fearful of seeing their doctor. But, that probably also means they’re more likely to get a new diagnosis of something like depression,” he said.

Dementia may be the clearest illustration of this, Perlis said. “It seems less likely that dementia develops a month after COVID; more likely, something that happens during the illness leads someone to be more likely to diagnose dementia later on,” he noted.

Perlis cautioned against being “unnecessarily alarmed” by the findings in this study.

“We know that rates of depression in the UK and the US, as in much of the world, are substantially elevated right now. Much of this is likely a consequence of the stress and disruption that accompanies the pandemic,” said Perlis.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Harrison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author is an employee of TriNetX. Perlis has received consulting fees for service on scientific advisory boards of Belle Artificial Intelligence, Burrage Capital, Genomind, Psy Therapeutics, Outermost Therapeutics, RID Ventures, and Takeda. He holds equity in Psy Therapeutics and Outermost Therapeutics.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One in five COVID-19 patients are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as anxiety or depression within 3 months of testing positive for the virus, new research suggests.

“People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of psychiatric disorders, and our findings in a large and detailed study show this to be true,” principal investigator Paul Harrison, BM, DM, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, said in a statement.

Health services “need to be ready to provide care, especially since our results are likely to be underestimates of the actual number of cases,” said Harrison.

The study also showed that having a psychiatric disorder independently increases the risk of getting COVID-19 – a finding that’s in line with research published earlier this month.

“Having a psychiatric illness should be added to the list of risk factors for COVID-19,” study coauthor Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford, said in the release.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Double the risk

The investigators took advantage of the TriNetX analytics network, which captured deidentified data from electronic health records of a total of 69.8 million patients from 54 healthcare organizations in the United States.

Of those patients, 62,354 adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan. 20 and Aug. 1, 2020.

To assess the psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, the investigators created propensity score–matched cohorts of patients who had received a diagnosis of other conditions that represented a range of common acute presentations.

In 14 to 90 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19, 5.8% of patients received a first recorded diagnosis of psychiatric illness. Among patients with health problems other than COVID, 2.5% to 3.4% of patients received a psychiatric diagnosis, the authors report. The risk was greatest for anxiety disorders, depression, and insomnia.

Older COVID-19 patients had a two- to threefold increased risk for a first dementia diagnosis, a finding that supports an earlier UK study.

Some of this excess risk could reflect misdiagnosed cases of delirium or transient cognitive impairment due to reversible cerebral events, the authors noted.

The study also revealed a bidirectional relationship between mental illness and COVID-19. Individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis were about 65% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 in comparison with their counterparts who did not have mental illness, independently of known physical health risk factors for COVID-19.

“We did not anticipate that psychiatric history would be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. This finding appears robust, being observed in all age strata and in both sexes, and was substantial,” the authors write.

At present, “we don’t understand what the explanation is for the associations between COVID and mental illness. We are looking into this in more detail to try and understand better what subgroups are particularly vulnerable in this regard,” Harrison told Medscape Medical News.
 

“Ambitious” research

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Roy H. Perlis, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said this is “an ambitious effort to understand the short-term consequences of COVID in terms of brain diseases.”

Perlis said he’s not particularly surprised by the increase in psychiatric diagnoses among COVID-19 patients.

“After COVID infection, people are more likely to get close medical follow-up than usual. They’re more likely to be accessing the healthcare system; after all, they’ve already had COVID, so they’re probably less fearful of seeing their doctor. But, that probably also means they’re more likely to get a new diagnosis of something like depression,” he said.

Dementia may be the clearest illustration of this, Perlis said. “It seems less likely that dementia develops a month after COVID; more likely, something that happens during the illness leads someone to be more likely to diagnose dementia later on,” he noted.

Perlis cautioned against being “unnecessarily alarmed” by the findings in this study.

“We know that rates of depression in the UK and the US, as in much of the world, are substantially elevated right now. Much of this is likely a consequence of the stress and disruption that accompanies the pandemic,” said Perlis.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Harrison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author is an employee of TriNetX. Perlis has received consulting fees for service on scientific advisory boards of Belle Artificial Intelligence, Burrage Capital, Genomind, Psy Therapeutics, Outermost Therapeutics, RID Ventures, and Takeda. He holds equity in Psy Therapeutics and Outermost Therapeutics.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One in five COVID-19 patients are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as anxiety or depression within 3 months of testing positive for the virus, new research suggests.

“People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of psychiatric disorders, and our findings in a large and detailed study show this to be true,” principal investigator Paul Harrison, BM, DM, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, said in a statement.

Health services “need to be ready to provide care, especially since our results are likely to be underestimates of the actual number of cases,” said Harrison.

The study also showed that having a psychiatric disorder independently increases the risk of getting COVID-19 – a finding that’s in line with research published earlier this month.

“Having a psychiatric illness should be added to the list of risk factors for COVID-19,” study coauthor Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford, said in the release.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Double the risk

The investigators took advantage of the TriNetX analytics network, which captured deidentified data from electronic health records of a total of 69.8 million patients from 54 healthcare organizations in the United States.

Of those patients, 62,354 adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan. 20 and Aug. 1, 2020.

To assess the psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, the investigators created propensity score–matched cohorts of patients who had received a diagnosis of other conditions that represented a range of common acute presentations.

In 14 to 90 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19, 5.8% of patients received a first recorded diagnosis of psychiatric illness. Among patients with health problems other than COVID, 2.5% to 3.4% of patients received a psychiatric diagnosis, the authors report. The risk was greatest for anxiety disorders, depression, and insomnia.

Older COVID-19 patients had a two- to threefold increased risk for a first dementia diagnosis, a finding that supports an earlier UK study.

Some of this excess risk could reflect misdiagnosed cases of delirium or transient cognitive impairment due to reversible cerebral events, the authors noted.

The study also revealed a bidirectional relationship between mental illness and COVID-19. Individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis were about 65% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 in comparison with their counterparts who did not have mental illness, independently of known physical health risk factors for COVID-19.

“We did not anticipate that psychiatric history would be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. This finding appears robust, being observed in all age strata and in both sexes, and was substantial,” the authors write.

At present, “we don’t understand what the explanation is for the associations between COVID and mental illness. We are looking into this in more detail to try and understand better what subgroups are particularly vulnerable in this regard,” Harrison told Medscape Medical News.
 

“Ambitious” research

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Roy H. Perlis, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said this is “an ambitious effort to understand the short-term consequences of COVID in terms of brain diseases.”

Perlis said he’s not particularly surprised by the increase in psychiatric diagnoses among COVID-19 patients.

“After COVID infection, people are more likely to get close medical follow-up than usual. They’re more likely to be accessing the healthcare system; after all, they’ve already had COVID, so they’re probably less fearful of seeing their doctor. But, that probably also means they’re more likely to get a new diagnosis of something like depression,” he said.

Dementia may be the clearest illustration of this, Perlis said. “It seems less likely that dementia develops a month after COVID; more likely, something that happens during the illness leads someone to be more likely to diagnose dementia later on,” he noted.

Perlis cautioned against being “unnecessarily alarmed” by the findings in this study.

“We know that rates of depression in the UK and the US, as in much of the world, are substantially elevated right now. Much of this is likely a consequence of the stress and disruption that accompanies the pandemic,” said Perlis.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Harrison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author is an employee of TriNetX. Perlis has received consulting fees for service on scientific advisory boards of Belle Artificial Intelligence, Burrage Capital, Genomind, Psy Therapeutics, Outermost Therapeutics, RID Ventures, and Takeda. He holds equity in Psy Therapeutics and Outermost Therapeutics.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Increasingly, clinicians are being called upon to advise athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 on when it is safe for them to return to play.

Now, they have two reports that offer more insights into the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 on the athletic heart.

In the first report, researchers report a high prevalence of pericardial involvement in college-student athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 and give their practical advice on how to let these athletes return to play safely.

In the second report, an expert panel of sports cardiologists provides a comprehensive guide to the appropriate imaging of athletes who may have cardiovascular complications from COVID-19.

Both are published in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“We were asked by the editors of JACC to submit this paper, and the impetus for it was the fact that there are so many athletes returning after being infected with COVID-19, we need to try and give guidance to cardiologists as to how best to evaluate these athletes,” Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., and lead author of the consensus statement, said in an interview.

The consensus statement acknowledges that information about the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 continues to evolve. Meanwhile, pathologies such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and right ventricular dysfunction, in the absence of significant clinical symptoms, in athletes who have been affected by COVID-19 remain of considerable concern.

It also emphasizes the unique challenges the average cardiologist faces in distinguishing between what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is true pathology after COVID-19 infection; details how different imaging modalities can help in screening, evaluating, and monitoring athletes with suspected cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 infection; and discusses the strengths and limitations of these modalities.

Finally, the consensus statement provides some well-needed guidance on return-to-play decision-making, for both the athlete and the clinician.
 

Athletic remodeling or covid-19 damage?

Athletes can develop certain cardiovascular characteristics because of their athletic activity, and sometimes, this can cloud the diagnostic picture.

“Is this change due to the effects of COVID-19, or is it just because this is an athlete’s heart? This was an international expert consensus, made up of sports cardiologists from all over the world who have a lot of experience in dealing with athletes,” Dr. Phelan said. “We were trying to relay the important information to the cardiologist who is not used to dealing with athletes on a day-to-day basis, as to what they might expect to find in that athlete, and what is not an expected finding and should be tested further.”

Phelan, a sports cardiologist, is familiar with what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is pathology.

“We know that athletes, particularly long-term endurance athletes, develop changes in the heart that can affect not only the electrics but the structure of the heart, and sometimes, that overlaps with abnormalities with pathology. This can be a challenge for the nonsports cardiologist to differentiate,” he said.

Phelan and his group have written two other consensus documents on the management of cardiovascular problems that develop in some athletes who have been infected with COVID-19.

The first was published in May in JAMA Cardiology, and the second, which revised some of the original recommendations made in the first document, was published online Oct. 26 in JAMA Cardiology.

The first set of recommendations called for imaging studies to be done in all athletes, but the second set states that athletes who recover and are asymptomatic do not need extensive (and expensive) imaging tests.

“These two papers work hand in hand,” Dr. Phelan said. “In May, we had very little experience with COVID, and there was a lot of concern about hospitalized patients having a very high incidence of heart disease. We published those recommendations, but we recognized at the time that we had very little data and that we would reconsider once we had more experience with data.

“This current set of recommendations that we have put forth here are for those athletes who do need to get further testing, so it’s a step beyond,” Dr. Phelan added. “So the second iteration states that young athletes who had mild or no symptoms didn’t need to go through all of that cardiac testing, but others do need it.”

To do widespread cardiovascular imaging for many individuals would be very costly. Realistically, there are not that many centers in the United States that have all the sophisticated equipment required to do such testing, Dr. Phelan noted.

“One of our major points is difficulty obtaining the test, but also the cost; these are very expensive tests. There are limitations. They are useful when used in the correct context,” he said.
 

To play or not to play, that is the question

Partho P. Sengupta, MD, DM, had to answer that question for more than 50 young athletes who were returning to college at West Virginia University, anxious to be back with their teams and on the playing field. They had been infected with COVID-19 and needed to know when they could return to play.

Dr. Sengupta, who is also an author for the Phelan et al consensus statement on imaging, said there was a lot of pressure – from all the various stakeholders, and from anxious parents, worried college athletes, their teammates, and the university – to determine if the youngsters could return to play.

The fear was that COVID-19 infection left the young athlete’s heart vulnerable to myocarditis and, thus, sudden death on the playing field after strenuous activity.

“At the time we were doing this imaging, there was a lot of concern in the media, and papers were coming out reporting a lot of cardiac involvement or myocarditis associated with COVID-19. Nobody really knew what to do,” he explained.

“There were all kinds of questions, concerns. The parents were putting pressure on us, the athletes wanted to know, the teams, the university. So we put together a team and completed all of the examinations, including testing of blood markers, within a 2-week period. These young athletes, they’re scared, they’re worried and anxious, they don’t know what’s going to happen with their scholarship, so there was some urgency to this work,” Dr. Sengupta said.

“We had to screen all comers within a very short period. We had 54 consecutive patients, gave them full screening, full battery of tests, blood tests, all in a 2-week period,” he said.

Speed was of the essence, and Dr. Sengupta and his team rolled up their sleeves and got to work “We had to know who was safe to clear to return to play and who might need extra follow-up.”
 

Screening echocardiograms

They performed screening echocardiograms on 54 consecutive college athletes who had tested positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction nasal swab testing or who showed that they had IgG antibodies against COVID-19. The screening echocardiograms were done after the athletes had quarantined for at least 14 days and were no longer infectious.

Most (85%) were male, and the mean age was 19 years. A total of 16 (30%) athletes were asymptomatic, 36 (66%) reported mild COVID-19 related symptoms, and two (4%) reported moderate symptoms.

Of the 54 athletes who were initially screened with echocardiography, 48 (11 asymptomatic, 37 symptomatic), went on to have cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Results showed that more than half the athletes (27; 56.3%), showed some cardiac abnormality. The most common was pericardial late enhancement with associated pericardial effusion, affecting 19 (39.5%) athletes.

Of these, six (12.5%) had reduced global longitudinal strain (GLS) or an increased native T1.

One patient showed myocardial enhancement.

Additionally, seven athletes (14.6%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or reduced GLS with or without increased native T1. Native T2 levels were normal in all subjects and no specific imaging features of myocardial inflammation were identified.

Participants were brought back to receive the results of their tests and to get an individualized plan about their safe return to play 3 to 5 weeks after they had ceased to be infectious with COVID-19.

“We saw pericardial inflammation that was resolving. We did not see any blood biomarkers to suggest that there was active inflammation going on,” he said. “We also did not see any muscle inflammation, but we did see pockets of fluid in over a third of our athletes.”

Fortunately, most were deemed able to get back to playing safely, despite having evidence of pericardial inflammation.

This was on strict condition that they be monitored very closely for any adverse events that might occur as they began to exercise again.

“Once they go back to the field to start exercising and practicing, it is under great supervision. We instructed all of our sports physicians and other team managers that these people need to be observed very carefully. So as long as they were asymptomatic, even though the signs of pericardial inflammation were there, if there were no signs of inflammation in the blood, we let them go back to play, closely monitored,” Dr. Sengupta said.

A small number remained very symptomatic at the end of the 5 weeks and were referred to cardiac rehabilitation, Dr. Sengupta said. “They were tired, fatigued, short of breath, even 5 weeks after they got over COVID, so we sent them for cardiac rehab to help them get conditioned again.”

The researchers plan to reevaluate and reimage all of the athletes in another 3 months to monitor their cardiac health.

Dr. Sengupta acknowledged the limitations of this single-center, nonrandomized, controlled report, but insists reports such as this add a bit more to what we are learning about COVID-19 every day.

“These kids were coming to us and asking questions. You have to use the best science you have available to you at that point in time. Some people ask why we did not have a control group, but how do you design a control population in the midst of a pandemic? The science may or may not be perfect, I agree, but the information we obtained is important,” he said.

“Right now, I don’t think we have enough science, and we are still learning. It is very difficult to predict who will develop the heart muscle disease or the pericardial disease,” Dr. Sengupta said. “We had to do our work quickly to give answers to the young athletes, their parents, their teammates, their university, as soon as possible, and we were doing this under pandemic conditions.”

The work was supported by the National Science Foundation National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Phelan reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sengupta reported that he is a consultant for HeartSciences, Kencor Health, and Ultromics.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Increasingly, clinicians are being called upon to advise athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 on when it is safe for them to return to play.

Now, they have two reports that offer more insights into the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 on the athletic heart.

In the first report, researchers report a high prevalence of pericardial involvement in college-student athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 and give their practical advice on how to let these athletes return to play safely.

In the second report, an expert panel of sports cardiologists provides a comprehensive guide to the appropriate imaging of athletes who may have cardiovascular complications from COVID-19.

Both are published in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“We were asked by the editors of JACC to submit this paper, and the impetus for it was the fact that there are so many athletes returning after being infected with COVID-19, we need to try and give guidance to cardiologists as to how best to evaluate these athletes,” Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., and lead author of the consensus statement, said in an interview.

The consensus statement acknowledges that information about the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 continues to evolve. Meanwhile, pathologies such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and right ventricular dysfunction, in the absence of significant clinical symptoms, in athletes who have been affected by COVID-19 remain of considerable concern.

It also emphasizes the unique challenges the average cardiologist faces in distinguishing between what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is true pathology after COVID-19 infection; details how different imaging modalities can help in screening, evaluating, and monitoring athletes with suspected cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 infection; and discusses the strengths and limitations of these modalities.

Finally, the consensus statement provides some well-needed guidance on return-to-play decision-making, for both the athlete and the clinician.
 

Athletic remodeling or covid-19 damage?

Athletes can develop certain cardiovascular characteristics because of their athletic activity, and sometimes, this can cloud the diagnostic picture.

“Is this change due to the effects of COVID-19, or is it just because this is an athlete’s heart? This was an international expert consensus, made up of sports cardiologists from all over the world who have a lot of experience in dealing with athletes,” Dr. Phelan said. “We were trying to relay the important information to the cardiologist who is not used to dealing with athletes on a day-to-day basis, as to what they might expect to find in that athlete, and what is not an expected finding and should be tested further.”

Phelan, a sports cardiologist, is familiar with what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is pathology.

“We know that athletes, particularly long-term endurance athletes, develop changes in the heart that can affect not only the electrics but the structure of the heart, and sometimes, that overlaps with abnormalities with pathology. This can be a challenge for the nonsports cardiologist to differentiate,” he said.

Phelan and his group have written two other consensus documents on the management of cardiovascular problems that develop in some athletes who have been infected with COVID-19.

The first was published in May in JAMA Cardiology, and the second, which revised some of the original recommendations made in the first document, was published online Oct. 26 in JAMA Cardiology.

The first set of recommendations called for imaging studies to be done in all athletes, but the second set states that athletes who recover and are asymptomatic do not need extensive (and expensive) imaging tests.

“These two papers work hand in hand,” Dr. Phelan said. “In May, we had very little experience with COVID, and there was a lot of concern about hospitalized patients having a very high incidence of heart disease. We published those recommendations, but we recognized at the time that we had very little data and that we would reconsider once we had more experience with data.

“This current set of recommendations that we have put forth here are for those athletes who do need to get further testing, so it’s a step beyond,” Dr. Phelan added. “So the second iteration states that young athletes who had mild or no symptoms didn’t need to go through all of that cardiac testing, but others do need it.”

To do widespread cardiovascular imaging for many individuals would be very costly. Realistically, there are not that many centers in the United States that have all the sophisticated equipment required to do such testing, Dr. Phelan noted.

“One of our major points is difficulty obtaining the test, but also the cost; these are very expensive tests. There are limitations. They are useful when used in the correct context,” he said.
 

To play or not to play, that is the question

Partho P. Sengupta, MD, DM, had to answer that question for more than 50 young athletes who were returning to college at West Virginia University, anxious to be back with their teams and on the playing field. They had been infected with COVID-19 and needed to know when they could return to play.

Dr. Sengupta, who is also an author for the Phelan et al consensus statement on imaging, said there was a lot of pressure – from all the various stakeholders, and from anxious parents, worried college athletes, their teammates, and the university – to determine if the youngsters could return to play.

The fear was that COVID-19 infection left the young athlete’s heart vulnerable to myocarditis and, thus, sudden death on the playing field after strenuous activity.

“At the time we were doing this imaging, there was a lot of concern in the media, and papers were coming out reporting a lot of cardiac involvement or myocarditis associated with COVID-19. Nobody really knew what to do,” he explained.

“There were all kinds of questions, concerns. The parents were putting pressure on us, the athletes wanted to know, the teams, the university. So we put together a team and completed all of the examinations, including testing of blood markers, within a 2-week period. These young athletes, they’re scared, they’re worried and anxious, they don’t know what’s going to happen with their scholarship, so there was some urgency to this work,” Dr. Sengupta said.

“We had to screen all comers within a very short period. We had 54 consecutive patients, gave them full screening, full battery of tests, blood tests, all in a 2-week period,” he said.

Speed was of the essence, and Dr. Sengupta and his team rolled up their sleeves and got to work “We had to know who was safe to clear to return to play and who might need extra follow-up.”
 

Screening echocardiograms

They performed screening echocardiograms on 54 consecutive college athletes who had tested positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction nasal swab testing or who showed that they had IgG antibodies against COVID-19. The screening echocardiograms were done after the athletes had quarantined for at least 14 days and were no longer infectious.

Most (85%) were male, and the mean age was 19 years. A total of 16 (30%) athletes were asymptomatic, 36 (66%) reported mild COVID-19 related symptoms, and two (4%) reported moderate symptoms.

Of the 54 athletes who were initially screened with echocardiography, 48 (11 asymptomatic, 37 symptomatic), went on to have cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Results showed that more than half the athletes (27; 56.3%), showed some cardiac abnormality. The most common was pericardial late enhancement with associated pericardial effusion, affecting 19 (39.5%) athletes.

Of these, six (12.5%) had reduced global longitudinal strain (GLS) or an increased native T1.

One patient showed myocardial enhancement.

Additionally, seven athletes (14.6%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or reduced GLS with or without increased native T1. Native T2 levels were normal in all subjects and no specific imaging features of myocardial inflammation were identified.

Participants were brought back to receive the results of their tests and to get an individualized plan about their safe return to play 3 to 5 weeks after they had ceased to be infectious with COVID-19.

“We saw pericardial inflammation that was resolving. We did not see any blood biomarkers to suggest that there was active inflammation going on,” he said. “We also did not see any muscle inflammation, but we did see pockets of fluid in over a third of our athletes.”

Fortunately, most were deemed able to get back to playing safely, despite having evidence of pericardial inflammation.

This was on strict condition that they be monitored very closely for any adverse events that might occur as they began to exercise again.

“Once they go back to the field to start exercising and practicing, it is under great supervision. We instructed all of our sports physicians and other team managers that these people need to be observed very carefully. So as long as they were asymptomatic, even though the signs of pericardial inflammation were there, if there were no signs of inflammation in the blood, we let them go back to play, closely monitored,” Dr. Sengupta said.

A small number remained very symptomatic at the end of the 5 weeks and were referred to cardiac rehabilitation, Dr. Sengupta said. “They were tired, fatigued, short of breath, even 5 weeks after they got over COVID, so we sent them for cardiac rehab to help them get conditioned again.”

The researchers plan to reevaluate and reimage all of the athletes in another 3 months to monitor their cardiac health.

Dr. Sengupta acknowledged the limitations of this single-center, nonrandomized, controlled report, but insists reports such as this add a bit more to what we are learning about COVID-19 every day.

“These kids were coming to us and asking questions. You have to use the best science you have available to you at that point in time. Some people ask why we did not have a control group, but how do you design a control population in the midst of a pandemic? The science may or may not be perfect, I agree, but the information we obtained is important,” he said.

“Right now, I don’t think we have enough science, and we are still learning. It is very difficult to predict who will develop the heart muscle disease or the pericardial disease,” Dr. Sengupta said. “We had to do our work quickly to give answers to the young athletes, their parents, their teammates, their university, as soon as possible, and we were doing this under pandemic conditions.”

The work was supported by the National Science Foundation National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Phelan reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sengupta reported that he is a consultant for HeartSciences, Kencor Health, and Ultromics.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Increasingly, clinicians are being called upon to advise athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 on when it is safe for them to return to play.

Now, they have two reports that offer more insights into the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 on the athletic heart.

In the first report, researchers report a high prevalence of pericardial involvement in college-student athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 and give their practical advice on how to let these athletes return to play safely.

In the second report, an expert panel of sports cardiologists provides a comprehensive guide to the appropriate imaging of athletes who may have cardiovascular complications from COVID-19.

Both are published in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“We were asked by the editors of JACC to submit this paper, and the impetus for it was the fact that there are so many athletes returning after being infected with COVID-19, we need to try and give guidance to cardiologists as to how best to evaluate these athletes,” Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., and lead author of the consensus statement, said in an interview.

The consensus statement acknowledges that information about the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 continues to evolve. Meanwhile, pathologies such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and right ventricular dysfunction, in the absence of significant clinical symptoms, in athletes who have been affected by COVID-19 remain of considerable concern.

It also emphasizes the unique challenges the average cardiologist faces in distinguishing between what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is true pathology after COVID-19 infection; details how different imaging modalities can help in screening, evaluating, and monitoring athletes with suspected cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 infection; and discusses the strengths and limitations of these modalities.

Finally, the consensus statement provides some well-needed guidance on return-to-play decision-making, for both the athlete and the clinician.
 

Athletic remodeling or covid-19 damage?

Athletes can develop certain cardiovascular characteristics because of their athletic activity, and sometimes, this can cloud the diagnostic picture.

“Is this change due to the effects of COVID-19, or is it just because this is an athlete’s heart? This was an international expert consensus, made up of sports cardiologists from all over the world who have a lot of experience in dealing with athletes,” Dr. Phelan said. “We were trying to relay the important information to the cardiologist who is not used to dealing with athletes on a day-to-day basis, as to what they might expect to find in that athlete, and what is not an expected finding and should be tested further.”

Phelan, a sports cardiologist, is familiar with what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is pathology.

“We know that athletes, particularly long-term endurance athletes, develop changes in the heart that can affect not only the electrics but the structure of the heart, and sometimes, that overlaps with abnormalities with pathology. This can be a challenge for the nonsports cardiologist to differentiate,” he said.

Phelan and his group have written two other consensus documents on the management of cardiovascular problems that develop in some athletes who have been infected with COVID-19.

The first was published in May in JAMA Cardiology, and the second, which revised some of the original recommendations made in the first document, was published online Oct. 26 in JAMA Cardiology.

The first set of recommendations called for imaging studies to be done in all athletes, but the second set states that athletes who recover and are asymptomatic do not need extensive (and expensive) imaging tests.

“These two papers work hand in hand,” Dr. Phelan said. “In May, we had very little experience with COVID, and there was a lot of concern about hospitalized patients having a very high incidence of heart disease. We published those recommendations, but we recognized at the time that we had very little data and that we would reconsider once we had more experience with data.

“This current set of recommendations that we have put forth here are for those athletes who do need to get further testing, so it’s a step beyond,” Dr. Phelan added. “So the second iteration states that young athletes who had mild or no symptoms didn’t need to go through all of that cardiac testing, but others do need it.”

To do widespread cardiovascular imaging for many individuals would be very costly. Realistically, there are not that many centers in the United States that have all the sophisticated equipment required to do such testing, Dr. Phelan noted.

“One of our major points is difficulty obtaining the test, but also the cost; these are very expensive tests. There are limitations. They are useful when used in the correct context,” he said.
 

To play or not to play, that is the question

Partho P. Sengupta, MD, DM, had to answer that question for more than 50 young athletes who were returning to college at West Virginia University, anxious to be back with their teams and on the playing field. They had been infected with COVID-19 and needed to know when they could return to play.

Dr. Sengupta, who is also an author for the Phelan et al consensus statement on imaging, said there was a lot of pressure – from all the various stakeholders, and from anxious parents, worried college athletes, their teammates, and the university – to determine if the youngsters could return to play.

The fear was that COVID-19 infection left the young athlete’s heart vulnerable to myocarditis and, thus, sudden death on the playing field after strenuous activity.

“At the time we were doing this imaging, there was a lot of concern in the media, and papers were coming out reporting a lot of cardiac involvement or myocarditis associated with COVID-19. Nobody really knew what to do,” he explained.

“There were all kinds of questions, concerns. The parents were putting pressure on us, the athletes wanted to know, the teams, the university. So we put together a team and completed all of the examinations, including testing of blood markers, within a 2-week period. These young athletes, they’re scared, they’re worried and anxious, they don’t know what’s going to happen with their scholarship, so there was some urgency to this work,” Dr. Sengupta said.

“We had to screen all comers within a very short period. We had 54 consecutive patients, gave them full screening, full battery of tests, blood tests, all in a 2-week period,” he said.

Speed was of the essence, and Dr. Sengupta and his team rolled up their sleeves and got to work “We had to know who was safe to clear to return to play and who might need extra follow-up.”
 

Screening echocardiograms

They performed screening echocardiograms on 54 consecutive college athletes who had tested positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction nasal swab testing or who showed that they had IgG antibodies against COVID-19. The screening echocardiograms were done after the athletes had quarantined for at least 14 days and were no longer infectious.

Most (85%) were male, and the mean age was 19 years. A total of 16 (30%) athletes were asymptomatic, 36 (66%) reported mild COVID-19 related symptoms, and two (4%) reported moderate symptoms.

Of the 54 athletes who were initially screened with echocardiography, 48 (11 asymptomatic, 37 symptomatic), went on to have cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Results showed that more than half the athletes (27; 56.3%), showed some cardiac abnormality. The most common was pericardial late enhancement with associated pericardial effusion, affecting 19 (39.5%) athletes.

Of these, six (12.5%) had reduced global longitudinal strain (GLS) or an increased native T1.

One patient showed myocardial enhancement.

Additionally, seven athletes (14.6%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or reduced GLS with or without increased native T1. Native T2 levels were normal in all subjects and no specific imaging features of myocardial inflammation were identified.

Participants were brought back to receive the results of their tests and to get an individualized plan about their safe return to play 3 to 5 weeks after they had ceased to be infectious with COVID-19.

“We saw pericardial inflammation that was resolving. We did not see any blood biomarkers to suggest that there was active inflammation going on,” he said. “We also did not see any muscle inflammation, but we did see pockets of fluid in over a third of our athletes.”

Fortunately, most were deemed able to get back to playing safely, despite having evidence of pericardial inflammation.

This was on strict condition that they be monitored very closely for any adverse events that might occur as they began to exercise again.

“Once they go back to the field to start exercising and practicing, it is under great supervision. We instructed all of our sports physicians and other team managers that these people need to be observed very carefully. So as long as they were asymptomatic, even though the signs of pericardial inflammation were there, if there were no signs of inflammation in the blood, we let them go back to play, closely monitored,” Dr. Sengupta said.

A small number remained very symptomatic at the end of the 5 weeks and were referred to cardiac rehabilitation, Dr. Sengupta said. “They were tired, fatigued, short of breath, even 5 weeks after they got over COVID, so we sent them for cardiac rehab to help them get conditioned again.”

The researchers plan to reevaluate and reimage all of the athletes in another 3 months to monitor their cardiac health.

Dr. Sengupta acknowledged the limitations of this single-center, nonrandomized, controlled report, but insists reports such as this add a bit more to what we are learning about COVID-19 every day.

“These kids were coming to us and asking questions. You have to use the best science you have available to you at that point in time. Some people ask why we did not have a control group, but how do you design a control population in the midst of a pandemic? The science may or may not be perfect, I agree, but the information we obtained is important,” he said.

“Right now, I don’t think we have enough science, and we are still learning. It is very difficult to predict who will develop the heart muscle disease or the pericardial disease,” Dr. Sengupta said. “We had to do our work quickly to give answers to the young athletes, their parents, their teammates, their university, as soon as possible, and we were doing this under pandemic conditions.”

The work was supported by the National Science Foundation National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Phelan reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sengupta reported that he is a consultant for HeartSciences, Kencor Health, and Ultromics.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Prognoses remain extremely poor after hypomethylating agents (HMAs) fail in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). But a hematologist-oncologist told colleagues that novel therapies are in the works, and some show promise.

Still, “the clinical development for drugs in this setting has been quite challenging, and we have had a lot of drugs that have died in this space over the years,” cautioned Amer Zeidan, MBBS, MHS, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. For now, “the best way to manage HMA failure in MDS patients is by preventing HMA failure.”

Dr. Zeidan highlighted a 2016 study – which he led – that found the median overall survival from diagnosis was just a median of 17.0 months (95% confidence interval, 15.8-18.4) in 632 patients with HR-MDS. Another 2016 study, which he also led, reported median overall survival of 11 months (95% CI, 10-14) and 12 months (95% CI, 11-16; P = .26) for patients aged 66 or older who had HR-MDS and took azacitidine and decitabine, respectively. Median survival is even shorter after HMA failure, he said.

The most important obstacle to effective therapy is “the biologic and molecular heterogeneity of the disease,” he said. “Only a certain number of genes are altered in a significant number of patients. And then you have a very long tail, with so many alterations, but most of them are rare. That makes targeting all patients with the same mechanism quite challenging. Also, we poorly understand how hypomethylating agents work and the mechanism of primary and secondary failure. And many MDS patients are older with multiple conditions, multiple comorbidities. By the time of failure, they are generally beaten up and very difficult to enroll in clinical trials.”

Even so, he said, “the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MDS is starting to open the door for new drug development opportunities. What’s been changing over the last 5 years is an increased understanding of targeting some of the alterations that are specific to the patient – individualized targeting or precision medicine.”
 

Novel therapies

Dr. Zeidan said the novel therapies for HR-MDS after HMA failure fall into these categories: molecularly targeted agents, genetically agnostic small-molecule inhibitors, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy/epigenetic agents.

Multiple trials, for example, are examining a chemotherapy treatment CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine-daunorubicin) in HR-MDS, and a 2018 study showed improvement in median survival in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. “However, this remains an investigational treatment,” Dr. Zeidan cautioned.

Venetoclax is also being studied. Animal and cell culture data suggest there may be helpful synergistic activity between venetoclax and azacitidine in both the frontline and relapse settings. Dr. Zeidan highlighted his own 2019 report on a phase 1b study of venetoclax versus venetoclax and azacitidine in the HMA failure/HR-MDS setting. The results are “quite exciting,” he said.

The report noted that, “although the study is still ongoing, the 6-month OS [overall survival] estimate of 57% in monotherapy [patients] compares favorably to historical controls.”

Glasdegib is “another drug of interest,” although it’s mostly been studied in the frontline setting, he said, and “we don’t have much data with this drug in the refractory setting for MDS patients.” APR-246 is also intriguing, he said, but again lacks data in the refractory setting.

Dr. Zeidan noted research into other treatments – rigosertib (recent findings have been disappointing), ivosidenib for IDH1-mutated MDS, AG221-001 and enasidenib (targeting IDH2 mutations), trametinib (targeting RAS pathway mutations), and others. For now, “clinical trial participation should be the best way to manage these patients.”

Dr. Zeidan disclosed multiple disclosures, including relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, among others.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Prognoses remain extremely poor after hypomethylating agents (HMAs) fail in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). But a hematologist-oncologist told colleagues that novel therapies are in the works, and some show promise.

Still, “the clinical development for drugs in this setting has been quite challenging, and we have had a lot of drugs that have died in this space over the years,” cautioned Amer Zeidan, MBBS, MHS, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. For now, “the best way to manage HMA failure in MDS patients is by preventing HMA failure.”

Dr. Zeidan highlighted a 2016 study – which he led – that found the median overall survival from diagnosis was just a median of 17.0 months (95% confidence interval, 15.8-18.4) in 632 patients with HR-MDS. Another 2016 study, which he also led, reported median overall survival of 11 months (95% CI, 10-14) and 12 months (95% CI, 11-16; P = .26) for patients aged 66 or older who had HR-MDS and took azacitidine and decitabine, respectively. Median survival is even shorter after HMA failure, he said.

The most important obstacle to effective therapy is “the biologic and molecular heterogeneity of the disease,” he said. “Only a certain number of genes are altered in a significant number of patients. And then you have a very long tail, with so many alterations, but most of them are rare. That makes targeting all patients with the same mechanism quite challenging. Also, we poorly understand how hypomethylating agents work and the mechanism of primary and secondary failure. And many MDS patients are older with multiple conditions, multiple comorbidities. By the time of failure, they are generally beaten up and very difficult to enroll in clinical trials.”

Even so, he said, “the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MDS is starting to open the door for new drug development opportunities. What’s been changing over the last 5 years is an increased understanding of targeting some of the alterations that are specific to the patient – individualized targeting or precision medicine.”
 

Novel therapies

Dr. Zeidan said the novel therapies for HR-MDS after HMA failure fall into these categories: molecularly targeted agents, genetically agnostic small-molecule inhibitors, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy/epigenetic agents.

Multiple trials, for example, are examining a chemotherapy treatment CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine-daunorubicin) in HR-MDS, and a 2018 study showed improvement in median survival in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. “However, this remains an investigational treatment,” Dr. Zeidan cautioned.

Venetoclax is also being studied. Animal and cell culture data suggest there may be helpful synergistic activity between venetoclax and azacitidine in both the frontline and relapse settings. Dr. Zeidan highlighted his own 2019 report on a phase 1b study of venetoclax versus venetoclax and azacitidine in the HMA failure/HR-MDS setting. The results are “quite exciting,” he said.

The report noted that, “although the study is still ongoing, the 6-month OS [overall survival] estimate of 57% in monotherapy [patients] compares favorably to historical controls.”

Glasdegib is “another drug of interest,” although it’s mostly been studied in the frontline setting, he said, and “we don’t have much data with this drug in the refractory setting for MDS patients.” APR-246 is also intriguing, he said, but again lacks data in the refractory setting.

Dr. Zeidan noted research into other treatments – rigosertib (recent findings have been disappointing), ivosidenib for IDH1-mutated MDS, AG221-001 and enasidenib (targeting IDH2 mutations), trametinib (targeting RAS pathway mutations), and others. For now, “clinical trial participation should be the best way to manage these patients.”

Dr. Zeidan disclosed multiple disclosures, including relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, among others.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Prognoses remain extremely poor after hypomethylating agents (HMAs) fail in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). But a hematologist-oncologist told colleagues that novel therapies are in the works, and some show promise.

Still, “the clinical development for drugs in this setting has been quite challenging, and we have had a lot of drugs that have died in this space over the years,” cautioned Amer Zeidan, MBBS, MHS, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. For now, “the best way to manage HMA failure in MDS patients is by preventing HMA failure.”

Dr. Zeidan highlighted a 2016 study – which he led – that found the median overall survival from diagnosis was just a median of 17.0 months (95% confidence interval, 15.8-18.4) in 632 patients with HR-MDS. Another 2016 study, which he also led, reported median overall survival of 11 months (95% CI, 10-14) and 12 months (95% CI, 11-16; P = .26) for patients aged 66 or older who had HR-MDS and took azacitidine and decitabine, respectively. Median survival is even shorter after HMA failure, he said.

The most important obstacle to effective therapy is “the biologic and molecular heterogeneity of the disease,” he said. “Only a certain number of genes are altered in a significant number of patients. And then you have a very long tail, with so many alterations, but most of them are rare. That makes targeting all patients with the same mechanism quite challenging. Also, we poorly understand how hypomethylating agents work and the mechanism of primary and secondary failure. And many MDS patients are older with multiple conditions, multiple comorbidities. By the time of failure, they are generally beaten up and very difficult to enroll in clinical trials.”

Even so, he said, “the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MDS is starting to open the door for new drug development opportunities. What’s been changing over the last 5 years is an increased understanding of targeting some of the alterations that are specific to the patient – individualized targeting or precision medicine.”
 

Novel therapies

Dr. Zeidan said the novel therapies for HR-MDS after HMA failure fall into these categories: molecularly targeted agents, genetically agnostic small-molecule inhibitors, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy/epigenetic agents.

Multiple trials, for example, are examining a chemotherapy treatment CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine-daunorubicin) in HR-MDS, and a 2018 study showed improvement in median survival in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. “However, this remains an investigational treatment,” Dr. Zeidan cautioned.

Venetoclax is also being studied. Animal and cell culture data suggest there may be helpful synergistic activity between venetoclax and azacitidine in both the frontline and relapse settings. Dr. Zeidan highlighted his own 2019 report on a phase 1b study of venetoclax versus venetoclax and azacitidine in the HMA failure/HR-MDS setting. The results are “quite exciting,” he said.

The report noted that, “although the study is still ongoing, the 6-month OS [overall survival] estimate of 57% in monotherapy [patients] compares favorably to historical controls.”

Glasdegib is “another drug of interest,” although it’s mostly been studied in the frontline setting, he said, and “we don’t have much data with this drug in the refractory setting for MDS patients.” APR-246 is also intriguing, he said, but again lacks data in the refractory setting.

Dr. Zeidan noted research into other treatments – rigosertib (recent findings have been disappointing), ivosidenib for IDH1-mutated MDS, AG221-001 and enasidenib (targeting IDH2 mutations), trametinib (targeting RAS pathway mutations), and others. For now, “clinical trial participation should be the best way to manage these patients.”

Dr. Zeidan disclosed multiple disclosures, including relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, among others.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

The largest U.S. physician organization on Tuesday took a step to prepare for future payments for administration of two leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates, publishing new billing codes tailored to track each use of these medications.

The American Medical Association updated its CPT code set to reflect the expected future availability of COVID-19 vaccines. The new codes apply to the experimental vaccine being developed by Pfizer, in collaboration with a smaller German firm BioNTech, and to the similar product expected from Moderna, according to an AMA press release.

Positive news has emerged this week about both of these vaccines, which were developed using a newer – and as yet unproven – approach. They seek to use messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a target protein for SARS-CoV-2.

New York–based Pfizer on Monday announced interim phase 3 data that was widely viewed as promising. Pfizer said the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus.

In a press release, Pfizer said it plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration to consider a special clearance, known as an emergency-use authorization, “soon after” a safety milestone is achieved in its vaccine trial. That milestone could be reached this month.

Moderna said it was on track to report early data from a late-stage trial of its experimental coronavirus vaccine later this month, and could file with the FDA for an emergency-use authorization in early December, according to a Reuters report.

The severity of the global pandemic has put the FDA under pressure to move quickly on approval of COVID-19 vaccines, based on limited data, while also working to make sure these products are safe. The creation of CPT codes for each of two coronavirus vaccines, as well as accompanying administration codes, will set up a way to keep tabs on each dose of each of these shots, the AMA said.

American Medical Association

“Correlating each coronavirus vaccine with its own unique CPT code provides analytical advantages to help track, allocate and optimize resources as an immunization program ramps up in the United States,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in the release.

AMA plans to introduce more vaccine-specific CPT codes as more vaccine candidates approach FDA review. These vaccine-specific CPT codes can go into effect only after the FDA grants a clearance.

The newly created Category I CPT codes and long descriptors for the vaccine products are:
 

• 91300; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3mL dosage, diluent reconstituted, for intramuscular use (Pfizer/BioNTech)
• 91301; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5mL dosage, for intramuscular use (Moderna)

These two administrative codes would apply to the Pfizer-BioNTech shot:

• 0001A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; first dose.
• 0002A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; second dose.

And these two administrative codes would apply to the Moderna shot:

• 0011A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; first dose.
• 0012A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; second dose.

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

The largest U.S. physician organization on Tuesday took a step to prepare for future payments for administration of two leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates, publishing new billing codes tailored to track each use of these medications.

The American Medical Association updated its CPT code set to reflect the expected future availability of COVID-19 vaccines. The new codes apply to the experimental vaccine being developed by Pfizer, in collaboration with a smaller German firm BioNTech, and to the similar product expected from Moderna, according to an AMA press release.

Positive news has emerged this week about both of these vaccines, which were developed using a newer – and as yet unproven – approach. They seek to use messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a target protein for SARS-CoV-2.

New York–based Pfizer on Monday announced interim phase 3 data that was widely viewed as promising. Pfizer said the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus.

In a press release, Pfizer said it plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration to consider a special clearance, known as an emergency-use authorization, “soon after” a safety milestone is achieved in its vaccine trial. That milestone could be reached this month.

Moderna said it was on track to report early data from a late-stage trial of its experimental coronavirus vaccine later this month, and could file with the FDA for an emergency-use authorization in early December, according to a Reuters report.

The severity of the global pandemic has put the FDA under pressure to move quickly on approval of COVID-19 vaccines, based on limited data, while also working to make sure these products are safe. The creation of CPT codes for each of two coronavirus vaccines, as well as accompanying administration codes, will set up a way to keep tabs on each dose of each of these shots, the AMA said.

American Medical Association

“Correlating each coronavirus vaccine with its own unique CPT code provides analytical advantages to help track, allocate and optimize resources as an immunization program ramps up in the United States,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in the release.

AMA plans to introduce more vaccine-specific CPT codes as more vaccine candidates approach FDA review. These vaccine-specific CPT codes can go into effect only after the FDA grants a clearance.

The newly created Category I CPT codes and long descriptors for the vaccine products are:
 

• 91300; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3mL dosage, diluent reconstituted, for intramuscular use (Pfizer/BioNTech)
• 91301; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5mL dosage, for intramuscular use (Moderna)

These two administrative codes would apply to the Pfizer-BioNTech shot:

• 0001A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; first dose.
• 0002A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; second dose.

And these two administrative codes would apply to the Moderna shot:

• 0011A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; first dose.
• 0012A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; second dose.

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

The largest U.S. physician organization on Tuesday took a step to prepare for future payments for administration of two leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates, publishing new billing codes tailored to track each use of these medications.

The American Medical Association updated its CPT code set to reflect the expected future availability of COVID-19 vaccines. The new codes apply to the experimental vaccine being developed by Pfizer, in collaboration with a smaller German firm BioNTech, and to the similar product expected from Moderna, according to an AMA press release.

Positive news has emerged this week about both of these vaccines, which were developed using a newer – and as yet unproven – approach. They seek to use messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a target protein for SARS-CoV-2.

New York–based Pfizer on Monday announced interim phase 3 data that was widely viewed as promising. Pfizer said the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus.

In a press release, Pfizer said it plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration to consider a special clearance, known as an emergency-use authorization, “soon after” a safety milestone is achieved in its vaccine trial. That milestone could be reached this month.

Moderna said it was on track to report early data from a late-stage trial of its experimental coronavirus vaccine later this month, and could file with the FDA for an emergency-use authorization in early December, according to a Reuters report.

The severity of the global pandemic has put the FDA under pressure to move quickly on approval of COVID-19 vaccines, based on limited data, while also working to make sure these products are safe. The creation of CPT codes for each of two coronavirus vaccines, as well as accompanying administration codes, will set up a way to keep tabs on each dose of each of these shots, the AMA said.

American Medical Association

“Correlating each coronavirus vaccine with its own unique CPT code provides analytical advantages to help track, allocate and optimize resources as an immunization program ramps up in the United States,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in the release.

AMA plans to introduce more vaccine-specific CPT codes as more vaccine candidates approach FDA review. These vaccine-specific CPT codes can go into effect only after the FDA grants a clearance.

The newly created Category I CPT codes and long descriptors for the vaccine products are:
 

• 91300; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3mL dosage, diluent reconstituted, for intramuscular use (Pfizer/BioNTech)
• 91301; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5mL dosage, for intramuscular use (Moderna)

These two administrative codes would apply to the Pfizer-BioNTech shot:

• 0001A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; first dose.
• 0002A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; second dose.

And these two administrative codes would apply to the Moderna shot:

• 0011A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; first dose.
• 0012A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; second dose.

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

An electronic alert may help doctors identify older adults with hearing loss sooner and increase referrals to an audiologist, according to a study published online Nov. 9 in the Annals of Family Medicine.

“Our findings demonstrate that using an electronic alert to prompt primary care clinicians to ask the single question, ‘Do you have difficulty with your hearing?’ to identify and refer appropriate at-risk patients for hearing testing is feasible and improves outcomes,” wrote Philip Zazove, MD, professor and chair, department of family medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

Although hearing loss is known to be associated with an increased risk for a variety of health conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, dementia, and depression, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has concluded that there are insufficient data to evaluate the value of widespread screening.

To address that gap, Dr. Zazove and colleagues designed the Early Auditory Referral–Primary Care study. As part of the study, researchers added a hearing loss alert to the EMR systems of 10 family medicine clinics within two large health care systems, the University of Michigan (UM) and Beaumont Health (BH). Clinicians were educated on how to perform hearing loss screenings and the alerts were triggered to appear when clinicians evaluated patients 55 years or older who were being seen for non–hearing-related issues.

Between July 2016 and February 2019, 14,877 patients were enrolled in the study resulting in 36,701 encounters.

The researchers found that clinicians addressed the alert for 10,567 patients, resulting in an increase in referral rates from 3.2% at baseline to 14.4% in the UM system and from 0.7% to 4.7% in the BH system. For 26.2% of patients, the alert was not addressed at any encounter with the family clinician.

At the time of enrollment, patients were asked to complete a Hearing Handicap Index for the Elderly (HHI) questionnaire that was used to identify patients at risk for hearing loss. These results were blinded to clinicians. From the HHI data, available from 5,893 patients, the researchers found that 25.2% of patients had scores suggestive of hearing loss and that these patients had greater overall referral rates during the study period, compared with patients with lower scores (28% vs. 9.2%, respectively; P < .001).

Addressing hearing loss/communication challenges can improve health care utilization and improve quality of life for older patients, noted coauthor Michael McKee, MD, MPH, in an interview.

“This includes their relationships with significant others, better adherence to treatment plans, and possibly reducing their risk for cognitive decline,” Dr. McKee said.

While acknowledging that this type of alert should be relatively easy to implement in most EMR systems, “the issue of electronic medical record alert fatigue must be considered,” said Angela Shoup, PhD, FAAA, FNAP, president of the American Academy of Audiology and executive director of the University of Texas Callier Center for Communication Disorders in Dallas.

“Health care providers and information technology advisers are increasingly sensitive to the need to carefully curate alerts to ensure providers do not become so inundated that they miss important clinical decision support tools,” Dr. Shoup said in an interview.

“Tailoring the alert to specifically trigger only for the specified population, as noted in this article, is one technique recommended to help reduce EMR alert fatigue,” she noted.

The addition of this prompt for family clinicians “should increase the chances that hearing loss patients, who suffer substantial morbidity when untreated, will get better and earlier hearing healthcare with potentially fewer hospitalizations and improved quality of life,” Dr. Zazove and colleagues conclude.

Funding for this study was provided through a grant from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD). The authors and Dr. Shoup have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

An electronic alert may help doctors identify older adults with hearing loss sooner and increase referrals to an audiologist, according to a study published online Nov. 9 in the Annals of Family Medicine.

“Our findings demonstrate that using an electronic alert to prompt primary care clinicians to ask the single question, ‘Do you have difficulty with your hearing?’ to identify and refer appropriate at-risk patients for hearing testing is feasible and improves outcomes,” wrote Philip Zazove, MD, professor and chair, department of family medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

Although hearing loss is known to be associated with an increased risk for a variety of health conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, dementia, and depression, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has concluded that there are insufficient data to evaluate the value of widespread screening.

To address that gap, Dr. Zazove and colleagues designed the Early Auditory Referral–Primary Care study. As part of the study, researchers added a hearing loss alert to the EMR systems of 10 family medicine clinics within two large health care systems, the University of Michigan (UM) and Beaumont Health (BH). Clinicians were educated on how to perform hearing loss screenings and the alerts were triggered to appear when clinicians evaluated patients 55 years or older who were being seen for non–hearing-related issues.

Between July 2016 and February 2019, 14,877 patients were enrolled in the study resulting in 36,701 encounters.

The researchers found that clinicians addressed the alert for 10,567 patients, resulting in an increase in referral rates from 3.2% at baseline to 14.4% in the UM system and from 0.7% to 4.7% in the BH system. For 26.2% of patients, the alert was not addressed at any encounter with the family clinician.

At the time of enrollment, patients were asked to complete a Hearing Handicap Index for the Elderly (HHI) questionnaire that was used to identify patients at risk for hearing loss. These results were blinded to clinicians. From the HHI data, available from 5,893 patients, the researchers found that 25.2% of patients had scores suggestive of hearing loss and that these patients had greater overall referral rates during the study period, compared with patients with lower scores (28% vs. 9.2%, respectively; P < .001).

Addressing hearing loss/communication challenges can improve health care utilization and improve quality of life for older patients, noted coauthor Michael McKee, MD, MPH, in an interview.

“This includes their relationships with significant others, better adherence to treatment plans, and possibly reducing their risk for cognitive decline,” Dr. McKee said.

While acknowledging that this type of alert should be relatively easy to implement in most EMR systems, “the issue of electronic medical record alert fatigue must be considered,” said Angela Shoup, PhD, FAAA, FNAP, president of the American Academy of Audiology and executive director of the University of Texas Callier Center for Communication Disorders in Dallas.

“Health care providers and information technology advisers are increasingly sensitive to the need to carefully curate alerts to ensure providers do not become so inundated that they miss important clinical decision support tools,” Dr. Shoup said in an interview.

“Tailoring the alert to specifically trigger only for the specified population, as noted in this article, is one technique recommended to help reduce EMR alert fatigue,” she noted.

The addition of this prompt for family clinicians “should increase the chances that hearing loss patients, who suffer substantial morbidity when untreated, will get better and earlier hearing healthcare with potentially fewer hospitalizations and improved quality of life,” Dr. Zazove and colleagues conclude.

Funding for this study was provided through a grant from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD). The authors and Dr. Shoup have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

An electronic alert may help doctors identify older adults with hearing loss sooner and increase referrals to an audiologist, according to a study published online Nov. 9 in the Annals of Family Medicine.

“Our findings demonstrate that using an electronic alert to prompt primary care clinicians to ask the single question, ‘Do you have difficulty with your hearing?’ to identify and refer appropriate at-risk patients for hearing testing is feasible and improves outcomes,” wrote Philip Zazove, MD, professor and chair, department of family medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

Although hearing loss is known to be associated with an increased risk for a variety of health conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, dementia, and depression, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has concluded that there are insufficient data to evaluate the value of widespread screening.

To address that gap, Dr. Zazove and colleagues designed the Early Auditory Referral–Primary Care study. As part of the study, researchers added a hearing loss alert to the EMR systems of 10 family medicine clinics within two large health care systems, the University of Michigan (UM) and Beaumont Health (BH). Clinicians were educated on how to perform hearing loss screenings and the alerts were triggered to appear when clinicians evaluated patients 55 years or older who were being seen for non–hearing-related issues.

Between July 2016 and February 2019, 14,877 patients were enrolled in the study resulting in 36,701 encounters.

The researchers found that clinicians addressed the alert for 10,567 patients, resulting in an increase in referral rates from 3.2% at baseline to 14.4% in the UM system and from 0.7% to 4.7% in the BH system. For 26.2% of patients, the alert was not addressed at any encounter with the family clinician.

At the time of enrollment, patients were asked to complete a Hearing Handicap Index for the Elderly (HHI) questionnaire that was used to identify patients at risk for hearing loss. These results were blinded to clinicians. From the HHI data, available from 5,893 patients, the researchers found that 25.2% of patients had scores suggestive of hearing loss and that these patients had greater overall referral rates during the study period, compared with patients with lower scores (28% vs. 9.2%, respectively; P < .001).

Addressing hearing loss/communication challenges can improve health care utilization and improve quality of life for older patients, noted coauthor Michael McKee, MD, MPH, in an interview.

“This includes their relationships with significant others, better adherence to treatment plans, and possibly reducing their risk for cognitive decline,” Dr. McKee said.

While acknowledging that this type of alert should be relatively easy to implement in most EMR systems, “the issue of electronic medical record alert fatigue must be considered,” said Angela Shoup, PhD, FAAA, FNAP, president of the American Academy of Audiology and executive director of the University of Texas Callier Center for Communication Disorders in Dallas.

“Health care providers and information technology advisers are increasingly sensitive to the need to carefully curate alerts to ensure providers do not become so inundated that they miss important clinical decision support tools,” Dr. Shoup said in an interview.

“Tailoring the alert to specifically trigger only for the specified population, as noted in this article, is one technique recommended to help reduce EMR alert fatigue,” she noted.

The addition of this prompt for family clinicians “should increase the chances that hearing loss patients, who suffer substantial morbidity when untreated, will get better and earlier hearing healthcare with potentially fewer hospitalizations and improved quality of life,” Dr. Zazove and colleagues conclude.

Funding for this study was provided through a grant from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD). The authors and Dr. Shoup have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health & Human Services aim to release new dietary guidelines by the end of 2020. For the first time, the guidelines are mandated to include dietary recommendations from birth to 24 months and for women who are pregnant or lactating.

Bonnie Becker/MDedge News

An advisory committee submitted to the agencies a scientific report that examines relationships between diet and health at various life stages. Four chapters focus on dietary considerations for infants and toddlers, and two chapters focus on diet during pregnancy and lactation.

The report may inform the development of the new guidelines. The advisory committee’s recommendations include introducing infants to foods that are rich in zinc and iron at about age 6 months and having women who are lactating eat sources of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, such as fish, to improve the fatty acid status of infants.

Ahead of the release of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Joan Younger Meek, MD, discussed parts of the scientific report at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year.

While the 2015-2020 guidelines use ChooseMyPlate to help people implement the recommendations, it is not known how the new guidelines will be presented to the public, she said. “Many of you will remember the pyramids earlier and different food groups before that.”
 

Promote healthy dietary patterns

The advisory committee’s report notes that diet in the first years of life contributes to long-term health and shapes taste preferences, said Dr. Meek, professor of clinical sciences at Florida State University, Orlando. Human milk or infant formula are primary sources of nutrition until approximately 6 months, when families may introduce complementary foods and beverages. Between 6 months and 24 months, children transition to the typical family diet.

Dr. Meek highlighted some of the advisory committee’s findings and recommendations.

• Infants who are ever breastfed have a reduced risk of overweight or obesity, type 1 diabetes, and asthma. Likewise, longer duration of breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes and asthma, and exclusive breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes.
• Complementary foods and beverages should not be introduced before age 4 months. Limited evidence indicates that their introduction before 4 months may be associated with increased odds of overweight or obesity. Introducing complementary foods or beverages at 4 or 5 months, compared with 6 months, is not associated with long-term advantages or disadvantages.
• Introducing peanut and egg after age 4 months may reduce the risk of food allergies.
• From age 12 months to 24 months, children should consume a variety of nutrient-rich protein sources from animals – including meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, and dairy – plus nuts, seeds, fruits, vegetables, and grains.
• The report prioritizes oils over solid fats, and whole grains over refined grains. It also discourages added sugars, particularly from sugar-sweetened beverages. Other sources of added sugars include sweets, baked goods, and sweetened dairy products.

The report acknowledges that dietary guidelines should accommodate cultural preferences and cost considerations.
 

Recommendations during pregnancy

Healthy dietary patterns before or during pregnancy may modestly reduce the odds of gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and preterm birth, according to the report.

The report recommends that during pregnancy women consume 8-12 ounces per week of seafood with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and low levels of methylmercury, consistent with existing recommendations.

Egg and milk consumption during pregnancy does not influence the risk of food allergy, asthma, or atopic disease in the child, according to the report.

The advisory committee recommended universal folic acid supplementation during pregnancy.
 

Addressing a gap

The Agricultural Act of 2014 required that infants and toddlers and women who are pregnant or lactating be included in the 2020-2025 guidelines. Covering these populations in the scientific report was a substantial undertaking, said Kathryn Dewey, PhD, of the Institute for Global Nutrition at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Dewey chaired the subcommittee on birth to 24 months for the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

“Given that this age group had not been covered before, we could not rely on previous dietary guidelines’ reports,” Dr. Dewey said in an interview.

Outlining food patterns for infants and toddlers proved challenging. The committee explored models that considered various scenarios including children who consumed human milk, children who consumed formula, and those with vegetarian diets. Future research should clarify dietary reference intakes for these age groups, Dr. Dewey said.

Dr. Dewey sees the committee’s report on dietary guidance for birth to 24 months as a starting point and not necessarily an exhaustive look at the subject.

For one, the committee focused more on what to feed infants and toddlers rather than on how to feed them. Information about how to feed children is considered more in depth in a 2020 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. That report summarizes existing guidance from various organizations on feeding infants and children from birth to 24 months. Dr. Dewey chaired the committee that created the National Academies report.

Sharing the new USDA and HHS guidelines after they are released could be the next important step. “The public does not necessarily know about the guidelines or they do not necessarily seek them out unless there is a very well-constructed strategy for dissemination and implementation,” Dr. Dewey said.

To that end, health care providers can play a role, Dr. Meek said. “Be aware of changes in guidance, adopt those new recommendations, and then advocate those with our patients as well as with the public at large.”

Dr. Meek and Dr. Dewey had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health & Human Services aim to release new dietary guidelines by the end of 2020. For the first time, the guidelines are mandated to include dietary recommendations from birth to 24 months and for women who are pregnant or lactating.

Bonnie Becker/MDedge News

An advisory committee submitted to the agencies a scientific report that examines relationships between diet and health at various life stages. Four chapters focus on dietary considerations for infants and toddlers, and two chapters focus on diet during pregnancy and lactation.

The report may inform the development of the new guidelines. The advisory committee’s recommendations include introducing infants to foods that are rich in zinc and iron at about age 6 months and having women who are lactating eat sources of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, such as fish, to improve the fatty acid status of infants.

Ahead of the release of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Joan Younger Meek, MD, discussed parts of the scientific report at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year.

While the 2015-2020 guidelines use ChooseMyPlate to help people implement the recommendations, it is not known how the new guidelines will be presented to the public, she said. “Many of you will remember the pyramids earlier and different food groups before that.”
 

Promote healthy dietary patterns

The advisory committee’s report notes that diet in the first years of life contributes to long-term health and shapes taste preferences, said Dr. Meek, professor of clinical sciences at Florida State University, Orlando. Human milk or infant formula are primary sources of nutrition until approximately 6 months, when families may introduce complementary foods and beverages. Between 6 months and 24 months, children transition to the typical family diet.

Dr. Meek highlighted some of the advisory committee’s findings and recommendations.

• Infants who are ever breastfed have a reduced risk of overweight or obesity, type 1 diabetes, and asthma. Likewise, longer duration of breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes and asthma, and exclusive breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes.
• Complementary foods and beverages should not be introduced before age 4 months. Limited evidence indicates that their introduction before 4 months may be associated with increased odds of overweight or obesity. Introducing complementary foods or beverages at 4 or 5 months, compared with 6 months, is not associated with long-term advantages or disadvantages.
• Introducing peanut and egg after age 4 months may reduce the risk of food allergies.
• From age 12 months to 24 months, children should consume a variety of nutrient-rich protein sources from animals – including meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, and dairy – plus nuts, seeds, fruits, vegetables, and grains.
• The report prioritizes oils over solid fats, and whole grains over refined grains. It also discourages added sugars, particularly from sugar-sweetened beverages. Other sources of added sugars include sweets, baked goods, and sweetened dairy products.

The report acknowledges that dietary guidelines should accommodate cultural preferences and cost considerations.
 

Recommendations during pregnancy

Healthy dietary patterns before or during pregnancy may modestly reduce the odds of gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and preterm birth, according to the report.

The report recommends that during pregnancy women consume 8-12 ounces per week of seafood with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and low levels of methylmercury, consistent with existing recommendations.

Egg and milk consumption during pregnancy does not influence the risk of food allergy, asthma, or atopic disease in the child, according to the report.

The advisory committee recommended universal folic acid supplementation during pregnancy.
 

Addressing a gap

The Agricultural Act of 2014 required that infants and toddlers and women who are pregnant or lactating be included in the 2020-2025 guidelines. Covering these populations in the scientific report was a substantial undertaking, said Kathryn Dewey, PhD, of the Institute for Global Nutrition at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Dewey chaired the subcommittee on birth to 24 months for the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

“Given that this age group had not been covered before, we could not rely on previous dietary guidelines’ reports,” Dr. Dewey said in an interview.

Outlining food patterns for infants and toddlers proved challenging. The committee explored models that considered various scenarios including children who consumed human milk, children who consumed formula, and those with vegetarian diets. Future research should clarify dietary reference intakes for these age groups, Dr. Dewey said.

Dr. Dewey sees the committee’s report on dietary guidance for birth to 24 months as a starting point and not necessarily an exhaustive look at the subject.

For one, the committee focused more on what to feed infants and toddlers rather than on how to feed them. Information about how to feed children is considered more in depth in a 2020 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. That report summarizes existing guidance from various organizations on feeding infants and children from birth to 24 months. Dr. Dewey chaired the committee that created the National Academies report.

Sharing the new USDA and HHS guidelines after they are released could be the next important step. “The public does not necessarily know about the guidelines or they do not necessarily seek them out unless there is a very well-constructed strategy for dissemination and implementation,” Dr. Dewey said.

To that end, health care providers can play a role, Dr. Meek said. “Be aware of changes in guidance, adopt those new recommendations, and then advocate those with our patients as well as with the public at large.”

Dr. Meek and Dr. Dewey had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health & Human Services aim to release new dietary guidelines by the end of 2020. For the first time, the guidelines are mandated to include dietary recommendations from birth to 24 months and for women who are pregnant or lactating.

Bonnie Becker/MDedge News

An advisory committee submitted to the agencies a scientific report that examines relationships between diet and health at various life stages. Four chapters focus on dietary considerations for infants and toddlers, and two chapters focus on diet during pregnancy and lactation.

The report may inform the development of the new guidelines. The advisory committee’s recommendations include introducing infants to foods that are rich in zinc and iron at about age 6 months and having women who are lactating eat sources of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, such as fish, to improve the fatty acid status of infants.

Ahead of the release of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Joan Younger Meek, MD, discussed parts of the scientific report at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year.

While the 2015-2020 guidelines use ChooseMyPlate to help people implement the recommendations, it is not known how the new guidelines will be presented to the public, she said. “Many of you will remember the pyramids earlier and different food groups before that.”
 

Promote healthy dietary patterns

The advisory committee’s report notes that diet in the first years of life contributes to long-term health and shapes taste preferences, said Dr. Meek, professor of clinical sciences at Florida State University, Orlando. Human milk or infant formula are primary sources of nutrition until approximately 6 months, when families may introduce complementary foods and beverages. Between 6 months and 24 months, children transition to the typical family diet.

Dr. Meek highlighted some of the advisory committee’s findings and recommendations.

• Infants who are ever breastfed have a reduced risk of overweight or obesity, type 1 diabetes, and asthma. Likewise, longer duration of breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes and asthma, and exclusive breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes.
• Complementary foods and beverages should not be introduced before age 4 months. Limited evidence indicates that their introduction before 4 months may be associated with increased odds of overweight or obesity. Introducing complementary foods or beverages at 4 or 5 months, compared with 6 months, is not associated with long-term advantages or disadvantages.
• Introducing peanut and egg after age 4 months may reduce the risk of food allergies.
• From age 12 months to 24 months, children should consume a variety of nutrient-rich protein sources from animals – including meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, and dairy – plus nuts, seeds, fruits, vegetables, and grains.
• The report prioritizes oils over solid fats, and whole grains over refined grains. It also discourages added sugars, particularly from sugar-sweetened beverages. Other sources of added sugars include sweets, baked goods, and sweetened dairy products.

The report acknowledges that dietary guidelines should accommodate cultural preferences and cost considerations.
 

Recommendations during pregnancy

Healthy dietary patterns before or during pregnancy may modestly reduce the odds of gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and preterm birth, according to the report.

The report recommends that during pregnancy women consume 8-12 ounces per week of seafood with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and low levels of methylmercury, consistent with existing recommendations.

Egg and milk consumption during pregnancy does not influence the risk of food allergy, asthma, or atopic disease in the child, according to the report.

The advisory committee recommended universal folic acid supplementation during pregnancy.
 

Addressing a gap

The Agricultural Act of 2014 required that infants and toddlers and women who are pregnant or lactating be included in the 2020-2025 guidelines. Covering these populations in the scientific report was a substantial undertaking, said Kathryn Dewey, PhD, of the Institute for Global Nutrition at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Dewey chaired the subcommittee on birth to 24 months for the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

“Given that this age group had not been covered before, we could not rely on previous dietary guidelines’ reports,” Dr. Dewey said in an interview.

Outlining food patterns for infants and toddlers proved challenging. The committee explored models that considered various scenarios including children who consumed human milk, children who consumed formula, and those with vegetarian diets. Future research should clarify dietary reference intakes for these age groups, Dr. Dewey said.

Dr. Dewey sees the committee’s report on dietary guidance for birth to 24 months as a starting point and not necessarily an exhaustive look at the subject.

For one, the committee focused more on what to feed infants and toddlers rather than on how to feed them. Information about how to feed children is considered more in depth in a 2020 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. That report summarizes existing guidance from various organizations on feeding infants and children from birth to 24 months. Dr. Dewey chaired the committee that created the National Academies report.

Sharing the new USDA and HHS guidelines after they are released could be the next important step. “The public does not necessarily know about the guidelines or they do not necessarily seek them out unless there is a very well-constructed strategy for dissemination and implementation,” Dr. Dewey said.

To that end, health care providers can play a role, Dr. Meek said. “Be aware of changes in guidance, adopt those new recommendations, and then advocate those with our patients as well as with the public at large.”

Dr. Meek and Dr. Dewey had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

How do we discuss race and lung health issues that impact our most deserving, underserved communities? Continuously and uncomfortably. As the Executive Director of the CHEST Foundation and as a young Black man, I am hopeful that we, as CHEST, can lead these uncomfortable conversations to better our communities. Our ability to listen and deliver support to our most-deserving communities is critical in how we fulfill our mission. CHEST continues to be a leader in lung health because we choose to give a voice and a platform in support of better lung health – especially to those who are disproportionately affected by lung disease, specifically addressing the quality of care they receive and bringing to light the fact that too often these patients are forgotten by the rest of society.

How do we discuss race and lung health issues that impact our most deserving, underserved communities? Continuously and uncomfortably. As the Executive Director of the CHEST Foundation and as a young Black man, I am hopeful that we, as CHEST, can lead these uncomfortable conversations to better our communities. Our ability to listen and deliver support to our most-deserving communities is critical in how we fulfill our mission. CHEST continues to be a leader in lung health because we choose to give a voice and a platform in support of better lung health – especially to those who are disproportionately affected by lung disease, specifically addressing the quality of care they receive and bringing to light the fact that too often these patients are forgotten by the rest of society.

How do we discuss race and lung health issues that impact our most deserving, underserved communities? Continuously and uncomfortably. As the Executive Director of the CHEST Foundation and as a young Black man, I am hopeful that we, as CHEST, can lead these uncomfortable conversations to better our communities. Our ability to listen and deliver support to our most-deserving communities is critical in how we fulfill our mission. CHEST continues to be a leader in lung health because we choose to give a voice and a platform in support of better lung health – especially to those who are disproportionately affected by lung disease, specifically addressing the quality of care they receive and bringing to light the fact that too often these patients are forgotten by the rest of society.

International perspective on the new 2019 IDSA/ATS CAP guideline: A critical appraisal by a global expert panel. By Dr. Mathias Pletz, et al.



Development of an accurate bedside swallowing evaluation decision tree algorithm for detecting aspiration in acute respiratory failure survivors. By Dr. Marc Moss, et al.



How I Do It: Managing fatigue in patients with interstitial lung disease. By Dr. Marlies Wijsenbeek, et al.



Life-threatening and non-life-threatening complications associated with coughing: A scoping review. By Dr. Richard S. Irwin, MD, Master FCCP, et al.



Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Professional Transport Operations: Safety, Regulatory, and Economic Impact. By Dr. Indira Gurubhagavatula, et al.

International perspective on the new 2019 IDSA/ATS CAP guideline: A critical appraisal by a global expert panel. By Dr. Mathias Pletz, et al.



Development of an accurate bedside swallowing evaluation decision tree algorithm for detecting aspiration in acute respiratory failure survivors. By Dr. Marc Moss, et al.



How I Do It: Managing fatigue in patients with interstitial lung disease. By Dr. Marlies Wijsenbeek, et al.



Life-threatening and non-life-threatening complications associated with coughing: A scoping review. By Dr. Richard S. Irwin, MD, Master FCCP, et al.



Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Professional Transport Operations: Safety, Regulatory, and Economic Impact. By Dr. Indira Gurubhagavatula, et al.

International perspective on the new 2019 IDSA/ATS CAP guideline: A critical appraisal by a global expert panel. By Dr. Mathias Pletz, et al.



Development of an accurate bedside swallowing evaluation decision tree algorithm for detecting aspiration in acute respiratory failure survivors. By Dr. Marc Moss, et al.



How I Do It: Managing fatigue in patients with interstitial lung disease. By Dr. Marlies Wijsenbeek, et al.



Life-threatening and non-life-threatening complications associated with coughing: A scoping review. By Dr. Richard S. Irwin, MD, Master FCCP, et al.



Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Professional Transport Operations: Safety, Regulatory, and Economic Impact. By Dr. Indira Gurubhagavatula, et al.

CHEST and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) submitted joint comments regarding the proposed Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for 2021 to CMS Administrator Seema Verma on topics of direct interest to members. The letter focuses on:

Medicare payment for critical care services: Further to the joint letter from CHEST, ATS, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Azar (see article in September 2020 Washington Watchline), the concerns related to the proposed 8% reduction in reimbursement for critical care services are explained, particularly relating to the role of critical care providers during the pandemic. They call for waiving budget neutrality or utilizing the public health emergency declaration to ensure appropriate patient care.

E/M payment changes: ATS and CHEST voice support for the proposed changes to evaluation and management (E/M) office visits and the increased reimbursement for the cognitive component of E/M medicine. They urge CMS to use its authority to waive the budget neutrality requirements while implementing the E/M changes.

Adoption of RUC-recommended values for pulmonary services: They urge CMS to finalize values for specific pulmonary services while acknowledging thanks for the adoption of the Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC)-recommended physician work values for a range of Current Procedural Terminology codes.

Telehealth services: While commending CMS for actions related to telehealth to provide care during the pandemic, they suggest it is now appropriate to sunset the telehealth listing for critical care services as providers have acquired additional experience in treating COVID-19.

GPC1X descriptors and utilization projections: They urge CMS to clarify the descriptors and seek additional comments on primary and ongoing health-care services.

Watch for reports of ongoing efforts from CHEST as the fee schedule process continues. Details of other activities in support of CHEST members appear in the November issue of Washington Watchline.

Reprinted from the November 2020 issue of Washington Watchline.

CHEST and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) submitted joint comments regarding the proposed Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for 2021 to CMS Administrator Seema Verma on topics of direct interest to members. The letter focuses on:

Medicare payment for critical care services: Further to the joint letter from CHEST, ATS, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Azar (see article in September 2020 Washington Watchline), the concerns related to the proposed 8% reduction in reimbursement for critical care services are explained, particularly relating to the role of critical care providers during the pandemic. They call for waiving budget neutrality or utilizing the public health emergency declaration to ensure appropriate patient care.

E/M payment changes: ATS and CHEST voice support for the proposed changes to evaluation and management (E/M) office visits and the increased reimbursement for the cognitive component of E/M medicine. They urge CMS to use its authority to waive the budget neutrality requirements while implementing the E/M changes.

Adoption of RUC-recommended values for pulmonary services: They urge CMS to finalize values for specific pulmonary services while acknowledging thanks for the adoption of the Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC)-recommended physician work values for a range of Current Procedural Terminology codes.

Telehealth services: While commending CMS for actions related to telehealth to provide care during the pandemic, they suggest it is now appropriate to sunset the telehealth listing for critical care services as providers have acquired additional experience in treating COVID-19.

GPC1X descriptors and utilization projections: They urge CMS to clarify the descriptors and seek additional comments on primary and ongoing health-care services.

Watch for reports of ongoing efforts from CHEST as the fee schedule process continues. Details of other activities in support of CHEST members appear in the November issue of Washington Watchline.

Reprinted from the November 2020 issue of Washington Watchline.

CHEST and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) submitted joint comments regarding the proposed Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for 2021 to CMS Administrator Seema Verma on topics of direct interest to members. The letter focuses on:

Medicare payment for critical care services: Further to the joint letter from CHEST, ATS, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Azar (see article in September 2020 Washington Watchline), the concerns related to the proposed 8% reduction in reimbursement for critical care services are explained, particularly relating to the role of critical care providers during the pandemic. They call for waiving budget neutrality or utilizing the public health emergency declaration to ensure appropriate patient care.

E/M payment changes: ATS and CHEST voice support for the proposed changes to evaluation and management (E/M) office visits and the increased reimbursement for the cognitive component of E/M medicine. They urge CMS to use its authority to waive the budget neutrality requirements while implementing the E/M changes.

Adoption of RUC-recommended values for pulmonary services: They urge CMS to finalize values for specific pulmonary services while acknowledging thanks for the adoption of the Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC)-recommended physician work values for a range of Current Procedural Terminology codes.

Telehealth services: While commending CMS for actions related to telehealth to provide care during the pandemic, they suggest it is now appropriate to sunset the telehealth listing for critical care services as providers have acquired additional experience in treating COVID-19.

GPC1X descriptors and utilization projections: They urge CMS to clarify the descriptors and seek additional comments on primary and ongoing health-care services.

Watch for reports of ongoing efforts from CHEST as the fee schedule process continues. Details of other activities in support of CHEST members appear in the November issue of Washington Watchline.

Reprinted from the November 2020 issue of Washington Watchline.

The rate of injuries with needles and other sharp instruments among hospital staff jumped sharply in July, which suggests the need for safety instruction early in the academic year, researchers say.

Brandy Sites/Thinkstock.com

“The reason this is important is it gives us an idea of when the best time to intervene might be,” said Jonathan Zampella, MD, an assistant professor of dermatology at New York University.

The findings were published online Nov. 4 in a research letter in JAMA Surgery.

Hundreds of thousands of health care workers incur injuries with needles and other sharp instruments every year, which places them at risk for blood-borne infections.

“Especially amongst dermatologists, it’s not a question of if you get stuck, it’s a question of when,” Dr. Zampella said in an interview. “Most have been stuck at some point in their lives.”

Until now, studies of these injuries have mostly depended on surveys, he said. By contrast, for the current study, Dr. Zampella and colleagues used a dataset of injuries reported to NYU Langone Health’s Occupational Health Services.

They identified 5,395 such injuries that occurred between January 2000 and February 2020. The total number was similar among surgical and nonsurgical specialists, but the mean incident rate was 4.7 for every 10 people among the nonsurgical staff versus 9.4 for every 10 people in the surgical staff.

Dr. Zampella and colleagues further found that the highest rate of injury, at 16.0 incidents for every 10 people, occurred among urology house staff, followed by orthopedic surgery staff, with 14.1, and general surgery staff, with 14.0. The lowest staff rates were among psychiatrists (0.3), radiation oncologists (1.1), and neurologists (2.4).

But even some nonsurgical specialties had high rates. For example, the rate was 11.5 for pathology house staff and 11.3 for dermatology house staff.

Dr. Zampella said his first reaction to the data was, “What the heck? What are pathologists doing that they are getting needlestick injuries?

“But it makes sense,” he said. “Sometimes they do biopsies, and they do fine-needle aspirations – these kinds of things that we might not be paying as much attention to as we should.”

The finding suggests that nonsurgical specialists should receive more training in injury prevention, he said.

The training should be in person, and it should not just be for first-year residents. “Everybody needs to have refreshers on preventing needlesticks,” he said. “And we have to make sure everyone in the hospital is playing for the same team. Residents are learning, and if they see poor technique by one of their attendings, that’s something they may imitate.”

The study’s primary conclusion regards the importance of seasonality in needlestick and other injuries from sharp instruments.

Among house staff, 9.4% of the injuries occurred in July. The proportion then gradually rose to 10.5% in October before gradually going back down to a low of 6.2% in June.

The difference from one quarter to the next was statistically significant (P = .02).

July is when internships and residencies start, Dr. Zampella pointed out. Among the nonhouse staff, the rate was consistent throughout the year.

This suggests that the beginning of the academic year for trainees was the key factor driving the uptick in injuries, he said.

He said that residents are receiving instruction in injury prevention, but perhaps not at the right time of year. For example, dermatology residents at NYU are given a lecture in needlestick injury prevention in February.

Dr. Zampella has received personal fees from X4 pharmaceuticals. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The rate of injuries with needles and other sharp instruments among hospital staff jumped sharply in July, which suggests the need for safety instruction early in the academic year, researchers say.

Brandy Sites/Thinkstock.com

“The reason this is important is it gives us an idea of when the best time to intervene might be,” said Jonathan Zampella, MD, an assistant professor of dermatology at New York University.

The findings were published online Nov. 4 in a research letter in JAMA Surgery.

Hundreds of thousands of health care workers incur injuries with needles and other sharp instruments every year, which places them at risk for blood-borne infections.

“Especially amongst dermatologists, it’s not a question of if you get stuck, it’s a question of when,” Dr. Zampella said in an interview. “Most have been stuck at some point in their lives.”

Until now, studies of these injuries have mostly depended on surveys, he said. By contrast, for the current study, Dr. Zampella and colleagues used a dataset of injuries reported to NYU Langone Health’s Occupational Health Services.

They identified 5,395 such injuries that occurred between January 2000 and February 2020. The total number was similar among surgical and nonsurgical specialists, but the mean incident rate was 4.7 for every 10 people among the nonsurgical staff versus 9.4 for every 10 people in the surgical staff.

Dr. Zampella and colleagues further found that the highest rate of injury, at 16.0 incidents for every 10 people, occurred among urology house staff, followed by orthopedic surgery staff, with 14.1, and general surgery staff, with 14.0. The lowest staff rates were among psychiatrists (0.3), radiation oncologists (1.1), and neurologists (2.4).

But even some nonsurgical specialties had high rates. For example, the rate was 11.5 for pathology house staff and 11.3 for dermatology house staff.

Dr. Zampella said his first reaction to the data was, “What the heck? What are pathologists doing that they are getting needlestick injuries?

“But it makes sense,” he said. “Sometimes they do biopsies, and they do fine-needle aspirations – these kinds of things that we might not be paying as much attention to as we should.”

The finding suggests that nonsurgical specialists should receive more training in injury prevention, he said.

The training should be in person, and it should not just be for first-year residents. “Everybody needs to have refreshers on preventing needlesticks,” he said. “And we have to make sure everyone in the hospital is playing for the same team. Residents are learning, and if they see poor technique by one of their attendings, that’s something they may imitate.”

The study’s primary conclusion regards the importance of seasonality in needlestick and other injuries from sharp instruments.

Among house staff, 9.4% of the injuries occurred in July. The proportion then gradually rose to 10.5% in October before gradually going back down to a low of 6.2% in June.

The difference from one quarter to the next was statistically significant (P = .02).

July is when internships and residencies start, Dr. Zampella pointed out. Among the nonhouse staff, the rate was consistent throughout the year.

This suggests that the beginning of the academic year for trainees was the key factor driving the uptick in injuries, he said.

He said that residents are receiving instruction in injury prevention, but perhaps not at the right time of year. For example, dermatology residents at NYU are given a lecture in needlestick injury prevention in February.

Dr. Zampella has received personal fees from X4 pharmaceuticals. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The rate of injuries with needles and other sharp instruments among hospital staff jumped sharply in July, which suggests the need for safety instruction early in the academic year, researchers say.

Brandy Sites/Thinkstock.com

“The reason this is important is it gives us an idea of when the best time to intervene might be,” said Jonathan Zampella, MD, an assistant professor of dermatology at New York University.

The findings were published online Nov. 4 in a research letter in JAMA Surgery.

Hundreds of thousands of health care workers incur injuries with needles and other sharp instruments every year, which places them at risk for blood-borne infections.

“Especially amongst dermatologists, it’s not a question of if you get stuck, it’s a question of when,” Dr. Zampella said in an interview. “Most have been stuck at some point in their lives.”

Until now, studies of these injuries have mostly depended on surveys, he said. By contrast, for the current study, Dr. Zampella and colleagues used a dataset of injuries reported to NYU Langone Health’s Occupational Health Services.

They identified 5,395 such injuries that occurred between January 2000 and February 2020. The total number was similar among surgical and nonsurgical specialists, but the mean incident rate was 4.7 for every 10 people among the nonsurgical staff versus 9.4 for every 10 people in the surgical staff.

Dr. Zampella and colleagues further found that the highest rate of injury, at 16.0 incidents for every 10 people, occurred among urology house staff, followed by orthopedic surgery staff, with 14.1, and general surgery staff, with 14.0. The lowest staff rates were among psychiatrists (0.3), radiation oncologists (1.1), and neurologists (2.4).

But even some nonsurgical specialties had high rates. For example, the rate was 11.5 for pathology house staff and 11.3 for dermatology house staff.

Dr. Zampella said his first reaction to the data was, “What the heck? What are pathologists doing that they are getting needlestick injuries?

“But it makes sense,” he said. “Sometimes they do biopsies, and they do fine-needle aspirations – these kinds of things that we might not be paying as much attention to as we should.”

The finding suggests that nonsurgical specialists should receive more training in injury prevention, he said.

The training should be in person, and it should not just be for first-year residents. “Everybody needs to have refreshers on preventing needlesticks,” he said. “And we have to make sure everyone in the hospital is playing for the same team. Residents are learning, and if they see poor technique by one of their attendings, that’s something they may imitate.”

The study’s primary conclusion regards the importance of seasonality in needlestick and other injuries from sharp instruments.

Among house staff, 9.4% of the injuries occurred in July. The proportion then gradually rose to 10.5% in October before gradually going back down to a low of 6.2% in June.

The difference from one quarter to the next was statistically significant (P = .02).

July is when internships and residencies start, Dr. Zampella pointed out. Among the nonhouse staff, the rate was consistent throughout the year.

This suggests that the beginning of the academic year for trainees was the key factor driving the uptick in injuries, he said.

He said that residents are receiving instruction in injury prevention, but perhaps not at the right time of year. For example, dermatology residents at NYU are given a lecture in needlestick injury prevention in February.

Dr. Zampella has received personal fees from X4 pharmaceuticals. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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