Ob.Gyn. News

Medicine, as often said, is a business.

That’s often forgotten in a crisis, such as COVID-19, and with good reason. Our training in medicine is needed to care for the sick and find ways to prevent disease. Things like money are in the background when it comes to the emergencies of saving lives and helping the sick.

But that doesn’t mean finances don’t matter. They’re always in the background for medical practices of all sizes – just like any business.

Some practices have closed for patient and staff safety. I haven’t gone that far, as some people still need me. I am, after all, a doctor.

So I’m alone in my office, my staff working from home. That helps cut some lines of transmission there.

Like everyone else, I’m also doing telemedicine, and even a few phone appointments. These keep all involved safe, but also have a lot of limitations. They’re fine for checking up on stable, established patients, or following up on test results. But certainly not for new patients or established ones with new problems.

After all, you can’t evaluate a foot drop, extrapyramidal rigidity, or do an EMG/NCV over the video-phone connection.

In-person appointments are spaced out to minimize the number of people in my waiting room. Patients are told not to come in if they’re sick, and I insist we both be wearing masks (of pretty much any kind at this point). Common-use pens, such as those out in the waiting room, are wiped down with alcohol between uses.

People need to be seen, in both good and bad times. That’s the nature of medicine. But the business of medicine is always there, too. So, as the coronavirus emergency plays out, I have to watch my bank accounts closely.

With only two staff members, there really isn’t anyone extraneous to cut. I’ve stopped taking a paycheck so I can keep paying them, my rent, and the other miscellaneous costs of running an office.

I’ve always taken a bonus only at the end of the year, after all the other accounts have been paid, and take only a modest regular salary. In this case, that’s worked to my advantage, as I had more cash on hand when the emergency started. While not a huge amount, it’s enough to buy me some time, maybe several weeks, to see how this plays out. After that I’d have to tap into a line of credit, which obviously no one wants to do.

Telemedicine and the few office patients I’m seeing are a trickle of revenue. It’s better than nothing, but certainly isn’t enough to keep the door open and lights on.

That said, I’m not ungrateful. I’m well aware how fortunate my practice and family are compared to many others during this time. I haven’t had to ask for a pass on a mortgage or rent payment – yet. My staff and I have been together since 2004. I’m not going to break up a great team now.

I have no idea when things will turn around and people will start to come in. Your guess is as good as mine. I suspect the trickle will slowly increase at some point, then suddenly there will be a surge of calls for appointments from people who’ve been putting off coming in. Even then, though, I’ll likely space appointments apart and keep using a mask until it appears things are stable. There are going to be further waves of infections, and we don’t know how bad they’ll be.

Like everyone else, I can only hope for the best.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz. He has no relevant disclosures.

Medicine, as often said, is a business.

That’s often forgotten in a crisis, such as COVID-19, and with good reason. Our training in medicine is needed to care for the sick and find ways to prevent disease. Things like money are in the background when it comes to the emergencies of saving lives and helping the sick.

But that doesn’t mean finances don’t matter. They’re always in the background for medical practices of all sizes – just like any business.

Some practices have closed for patient and staff safety. I haven’t gone that far, as some people still need me. I am, after all, a doctor.

So I’m alone in my office, my staff working from home. That helps cut some lines of transmission there.

Like everyone else, I’m also doing telemedicine, and even a few phone appointments. These keep all involved safe, but also have a lot of limitations. They’re fine for checking up on stable, established patients, or following up on test results. But certainly not for new patients or established ones with new problems.

After all, you can’t evaluate a foot drop, extrapyramidal rigidity, or do an EMG/NCV over the video-phone connection.

In-person appointments are spaced out to minimize the number of people in my waiting room. Patients are told not to come in if they’re sick, and I insist we both be wearing masks (of pretty much any kind at this point). Common-use pens, such as those out in the waiting room, are wiped down with alcohol between uses.

People need to be seen, in both good and bad times. That’s the nature of medicine. But the business of medicine is always there, too. So, as the coronavirus emergency plays out, I have to watch my bank accounts closely.

With only two staff members, there really isn’t anyone extraneous to cut. I’ve stopped taking a paycheck so I can keep paying them, my rent, and the other miscellaneous costs of running an office.

I’ve always taken a bonus only at the end of the year, after all the other accounts have been paid, and take only a modest regular salary. In this case, that’s worked to my advantage, as I had more cash on hand when the emergency started. While not a huge amount, it’s enough to buy me some time, maybe several weeks, to see how this plays out. After that I’d have to tap into a line of credit, which obviously no one wants to do.

Telemedicine and the few office patients I’m seeing are a trickle of revenue. It’s better than nothing, but certainly isn’t enough to keep the door open and lights on.

That said, I’m not ungrateful. I’m well aware how fortunate my practice and family are compared to many others during this time. I haven’t had to ask for a pass on a mortgage or rent payment – yet. My staff and I have been together since 2004. I’m not going to break up a great team now.

I have no idea when things will turn around and people will start to come in. Your guess is as good as mine. I suspect the trickle will slowly increase at some point, then suddenly there will be a surge of calls for appointments from people who’ve been putting off coming in. Even then, though, I’ll likely space appointments apart and keep using a mask until it appears things are stable. There are going to be further waves of infections, and we don’t know how bad they’ll be.

Like everyone else, I can only hope for the best.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz. He has no relevant disclosures.

Medicine, as often said, is a business.

That’s often forgotten in a crisis, such as COVID-19, and with good reason. Our training in medicine is needed to care for the sick and find ways to prevent disease. Things like money are in the background when it comes to the emergencies of saving lives and helping the sick.

But that doesn’t mean finances don’t matter. They’re always in the background for medical practices of all sizes – just like any business.

Some practices have closed for patient and staff safety. I haven’t gone that far, as some people still need me. I am, after all, a doctor.

So I’m alone in my office, my staff working from home. That helps cut some lines of transmission there.

Like everyone else, I’m also doing telemedicine, and even a few phone appointments. These keep all involved safe, but also have a lot of limitations. They’re fine for checking up on stable, established patients, or following up on test results. But certainly not for new patients or established ones with new problems.

After all, you can’t evaluate a foot drop, extrapyramidal rigidity, or do an EMG/NCV over the video-phone connection.

In-person appointments are spaced out to minimize the number of people in my waiting room. Patients are told not to come in if they’re sick, and I insist we both be wearing masks (of pretty much any kind at this point). Common-use pens, such as those out in the waiting room, are wiped down with alcohol between uses.

People need to be seen, in both good and bad times. That’s the nature of medicine. But the business of medicine is always there, too. So, as the coronavirus emergency plays out, I have to watch my bank accounts closely.

With only two staff members, there really isn’t anyone extraneous to cut. I’ve stopped taking a paycheck so I can keep paying them, my rent, and the other miscellaneous costs of running an office.

I’ve always taken a bonus only at the end of the year, after all the other accounts have been paid, and take only a modest regular salary. In this case, that’s worked to my advantage, as I had more cash on hand when the emergency started. While not a huge amount, it’s enough to buy me some time, maybe several weeks, to see how this plays out. After that I’d have to tap into a line of credit, which obviously no one wants to do.

Telemedicine and the few office patients I’m seeing are a trickle of revenue. It’s better than nothing, but certainly isn’t enough to keep the door open and lights on.

That said, I’m not ungrateful. I’m well aware how fortunate my practice and family are compared to many others during this time. I haven’t had to ask for a pass on a mortgage or rent payment – yet. My staff and I have been together since 2004. I’m not going to break up a great team now.

I have no idea when things will turn around and people will start to come in. Your guess is as good as mine. I suspect the trickle will slowly increase at some point, then suddenly there will be a surge of calls for appointments from people who’ve been putting off coming in. Even then, though, I’ll likely space appointments apart and keep using a mask until it appears things are stable. There are going to be further waves of infections, and we don’t know how bad they’ll be.

Like everyone else, I can only hope for the best.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz. He has no relevant disclosures.

These are tough times for families, children, and practices. In this case, the entire world is going through it at the same time, leaving no escape. There are so many new things each of us needs to do, and for some of the challenges, we are completely thwarted by safety restrictions from doing anything. Adults and children alike are trying to work or learn at home in new ways. This also means that old daily routines have been broken. The sense of disorientation is pervasive. Although it is only one part of what is needed, reestablishing routines can go a long way toward restoring a sense of control and meaning that you can institute for yourself and recommend to your patients.

Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

Routines are important for both physical and mental health at every age and time, but especially when a major change is occurring. Examples of such change include natural disasters such as COVID-19, deaths, or separations from loved ones, but also moving, job loss, or new financial instability. Many families and many doctors and staff are experiencing several of these at once these days.

Evidence from studies of times of major disruption such as divorce, a death, war, and natural disasters show that parenting tends to shift to being less organized, with less overall discipline or more arbitrary punishment, and, in some cases, less parent-child connection. Children, on their part, also tend to act differently under these conditions. They are more irritable, upset, anxious, clingy, and aggressive, and also tend to regress in recent developmental achievements such as maintaining toileting and sleep patterns. Parents often do not see the connection to the stress and react to these behaviors in ways that may make things worse by scolding or punishing.

I was really surprised to hear Daniel Kahneman, PhD, Nobel laureate in economics, talk about how even he has trouble judging risk based on mathematical probability. Instead, he recognizes that adults decide about risk based on the behavior of the people around them – when others act worried or agitated, the person does too. Children, even more than adults, must decide if they are safe based on the behavior of the adults around them. When parents maintain routines as closely as possible after a major disruption, children feel reassured that they can expect continuity of their relationship – their most important lifeboat. If their parents keep doing the things they are used to, children basically feel safe.

Simple aspects of sameness important to children are very familiar to pediatricians: always wanting the same spoon, the sandwich cut the same way, only chicken nuggets from a certain store. This tends to be true in typically developing toddlers, preschool, and some school-aged children. The desire to have the same story read to them multiple times – until parents are ready to scream! – is another sign of the importance of predictable routines to children. All of these are best accommodated during times of stress rather than trying to “avoid making a bad habit.” All disruptions of routine are even more disorienting for children with intellectual disabilities or those on the autism spectrum who are generally less able to understand or control their world. Children and adults with preexisting anxiety disorders also are more likely to have more severe reactions to major disruptions and need extra understanding.

Routines for eating at least something at regular times – even if the food is not as interesting as prior fare – provide a sense of security, as well as stabilizing blood sugar and bowel patterns. Keeping patterns of washing hands, sitting together as a family, and interacting in conversation, rather than watching TV news, allow an oasis of respite from ongoing stresses. Family meals are also known to promote learning, vocabulary growth, and better behavior.

Setting a schedule for schooling, play, hygiene, and exercise may seem silly when parents and children are home all day, but it instills a sense of meaning to the day. Making a visual schedule for younger children or a written or online one for older children can be a shared activity in itself. I remember hearing about how important changing clothes and cleaning teeth were to prisoners of war during World War II in maintaining a sense of normalcy in that time of chaos.

Exercise is particularly important to set as a routine as it directly reduces stress – even if it may need to take new forms. While there are lots of online exercise programs for adults, it is better for everyone to go outside if they can manage adequate personal spacing. There they can experience the orderly changing of the seasons and the weather, as well as soak up some sunshine. Interactive parent-child play serves multiple purposes of stress relief, seeing each other more relaxed, interacting, and having fun!

Routines for sleep are especially important. To fall asleep under normal circumstances requires a sense of safety, perhaps for evolutionary reasons because of the vulnerability of the paralysis that is part of REM sleep stages. Fear at bedtime is common in young children, as is disorientation in the elderly. Both respond to reassuring bedtime routines done the same way every night, such as brushing teeth, changing clothes, washing up, reading or being read to, and praying – if these were the previous habit. When there has been a major disruption, these routines take on added importance, even if some modifications need to be made in sleep location, privacy, etc. Keeping schedules for naps, bedtime, and wake time as stable as possible makes sleep onset easier and sleep maintenance more likely. It also increases the chances of adequate sleep duration. Getting enough sleep stabilizes mood, reduces irritability, and improves daytime concentration and problem-solving skills. These all are especially needed by adults as well as children when there are major disruptions.

Maintaining chores at times of disruption can be extra difficult, plus this may seem to parents like an added stress for their already-stressed child. But in fact, children are reassured by adults’ continuing these requirements. Not only is an expectation that chores be done a signal that life can be expected to proceed normally, but having children do things to help – such as cleaning up, restocking soap and towels, or emptying trash – gives them an active role and hence some sense of control.

Discipline is, in essence, also a routine. Maintaining standards for kindness to others and following rules can be especially difficult when life has been disrupted because emotional lability is more likely in both adults and children when severely stressed. It is important for parents to consider the source of the misbehavior as possibly stress related and to interrupt it in a gentle and understanding way. A parent might say: “I know you are upset by all the changes. It is even more important now than ever to be kind to your brother.” Under stressful conditions, it is especially important to ask how the child was feeling when acting up, but also to “speak for them” about possible stress-related reasons for their behavior. While parents may correctly say that their child will “take advantage of this excuse,” it is still a teaching opportunity. Children have little insight into these connections to their feelings and actions, but they can learn.

Times when old patterns are disrupted also are times for making new habits. The main new habit I recommend for stress relief and overall mental health are the practices of mindfulness or meditation. Mindfulness may be easier to teach children as it involves paying close attention to one’s thoughts, feelings, and sensations, but doing this without judgment. Children often are naturally better at this than adults, who have layered on more experiences to their thoughts. We pediatricians, as well as the parents we serve, can benefit – especially in stressful times – from sharing in the simple ways children experience the world.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at [email protected].

These are tough times for families, children, and practices. In this case, the entire world is going through it at the same time, leaving no escape. There are so many new things each of us needs to do, and for some of the challenges, we are completely thwarted by safety restrictions from doing anything. Adults and children alike are trying to work or learn at home in new ways. This also means that old daily routines have been broken. The sense of disorientation is pervasive. Although it is only one part of what is needed, reestablishing routines can go a long way toward restoring a sense of control and meaning that you can institute for yourself and recommend to your patients.

Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

Routines are important for both physical and mental health at every age and time, but especially when a major change is occurring. Examples of such change include natural disasters such as COVID-19, deaths, or separations from loved ones, but also moving, job loss, or new financial instability. Many families and many doctors and staff are experiencing several of these at once these days.

Evidence from studies of times of major disruption such as divorce, a death, war, and natural disasters show that parenting tends to shift to being less organized, with less overall discipline or more arbitrary punishment, and, in some cases, less parent-child connection. Children, on their part, also tend to act differently under these conditions. They are more irritable, upset, anxious, clingy, and aggressive, and also tend to regress in recent developmental achievements such as maintaining toileting and sleep patterns. Parents often do not see the connection to the stress and react to these behaviors in ways that may make things worse by scolding or punishing.

I was really surprised to hear Daniel Kahneman, PhD, Nobel laureate in economics, talk about how even he has trouble judging risk based on mathematical probability. Instead, he recognizes that adults decide about risk based on the behavior of the people around them – when others act worried or agitated, the person does too. Children, even more than adults, must decide if they are safe based on the behavior of the adults around them. When parents maintain routines as closely as possible after a major disruption, children feel reassured that they can expect continuity of their relationship – their most important lifeboat. If their parents keep doing the things they are used to, children basically feel safe.

Simple aspects of sameness important to children are very familiar to pediatricians: always wanting the same spoon, the sandwich cut the same way, only chicken nuggets from a certain store. This tends to be true in typically developing toddlers, preschool, and some school-aged children. The desire to have the same story read to them multiple times – until parents are ready to scream! – is another sign of the importance of predictable routines to children. All of these are best accommodated during times of stress rather than trying to “avoid making a bad habit.” All disruptions of routine are even more disorienting for children with intellectual disabilities or those on the autism spectrum who are generally less able to understand or control their world. Children and adults with preexisting anxiety disorders also are more likely to have more severe reactions to major disruptions and need extra understanding.

Routines for eating at least something at regular times – even if the food is not as interesting as prior fare – provide a sense of security, as well as stabilizing blood sugar and bowel patterns. Keeping patterns of washing hands, sitting together as a family, and interacting in conversation, rather than watching TV news, allow an oasis of respite from ongoing stresses. Family meals are also known to promote learning, vocabulary growth, and better behavior.

Setting a schedule for schooling, play, hygiene, and exercise may seem silly when parents and children are home all day, but it instills a sense of meaning to the day. Making a visual schedule for younger children or a written or online one for older children can be a shared activity in itself. I remember hearing about how important changing clothes and cleaning teeth were to prisoners of war during World War II in maintaining a sense of normalcy in that time of chaos.

Exercise is particularly important to set as a routine as it directly reduces stress – even if it may need to take new forms. While there are lots of online exercise programs for adults, it is better for everyone to go outside if they can manage adequate personal spacing. There they can experience the orderly changing of the seasons and the weather, as well as soak up some sunshine. Interactive parent-child play serves multiple purposes of stress relief, seeing each other more relaxed, interacting, and having fun!

Routines for sleep are especially important. To fall asleep under normal circumstances requires a sense of safety, perhaps for evolutionary reasons because of the vulnerability of the paralysis that is part of REM sleep stages. Fear at bedtime is common in young children, as is disorientation in the elderly. Both respond to reassuring bedtime routines done the same way every night, such as brushing teeth, changing clothes, washing up, reading or being read to, and praying – if these were the previous habit. When there has been a major disruption, these routines take on added importance, even if some modifications need to be made in sleep location, privacy, etc. Keeping schedules for naps, bedtime, and wake time as stable as possible makes sleep onset easier and sleep maintenance more likely. It also increases the chances of adequate sleep duration. Getting enough sleep stabilizes mood, reduces irritability, and improves daytime concentration and problem-solving skills. These all are especially needed by adults as well as children when there are major disruptions.

Maintaining chores at times of disruption can be extra difficult, plus this may seem to parents like an added stress for their already-stressed child. But in fact, children are reassured by adults’ continuing these requirements. Not only is an expectation that chores be done a signal that life can be expected to proceed normally, but having children do things to help – such as cleaning up, restocking soap and towels, or emptying trash – gives them an active role and hence some sense of control.

Discipline is, in essence, also a routine. Maintaining standards for kindness to others and following rules can be especially difficult when life has been disrupted because emotional lability is more likely in both adults and children when severely stressed. It is important for parents to consider the source of the misbehavior as possibly stress related and to interrupt it in a gentle and understanding way. A parent might say: “I know you are upset by all the changes. It is even more important now than ever to be kind to your brother.” Under stressful conditions, it is especially important to ask how the child was feeling when acting up, but also to “speak for them” about possible stress-related reasons for their behavior. While parents may correctly say that their child will “take advantage of this excuse,” it is still a teaching opportunity. Children have little insight into these connections to their feelings and actions, but they can learn.

Times when old patterns are disrupted also are times for making new habits. The main new habit I recommend for stress relief and overall mental health are the practices of mindfulness or meditation. Mindfulness may be easier to teach children as it involves paying close attention to one’s thoughts, feelings, and sensations, but doing this without judgment. Children often are naturally better at this than adults, who have layered on more experiences to their thoughts. We pediatricians, as well as the parents we serve, can benefit – especially in stressful times – from sharing in the simple ways children experience the world.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at [email protected].

These are tough times for families, children, and practices. In this case, the entire world is going through it at the same time, leaving no escape. There are so many new things each of us needs to do, and for some of the challenges, we are completely thwarted by safety restrictions from doing anything. Adults and children alike are trying to work or learn at home in new ways. This also means that old daily routines have been broken. The sense of disorientation is pervasive. Although it is only one part of what is needed, reestablishing routines can go a long way toward restoring a sense of control and meaning that you can institute for yourself and recommend to your patients.

Wavebreakmedia/Thinkstock

Routines are important for both physical and mental health at every age and time, but especially when a major change is occurring. Examples of such change include natural disasters such as COVID-19, deaths, or separations from loved ones, but also moving, job loss, or new financial instability. Many families and many doctors and staff are experiencing several of these at once these days.

Evidence from studies of times of major disruption such as divorce, a death, war, and natural disasters show that parenting tends to shift to being less organized, with less overall discipline or more arbitrary punishment, and, in some cases, less parent-child connection. Children, on their part, also tend to act differently under these conditions. They are more irritable, upset, anxious, clingy, and aggressive, and also tend to regress in recent developmental achievements such as maintaining toileting and sleep patterns. Parents often do not see the connection to the stress and react to these behaviors in ways that may make things worse by scolding or punishing.

I was really surprised to hear Daniel Kahneman, PhD, Nobel laureate in economics, talk about how even he has trouble judging risk based on mathematical probability. Instead, he recognizes that adults decide about risk based on the behavior of the people around them – when others act worried or agitated, the person does too. Children, even more than adults, must decide if they are safe based on the behavior of the adults around them. When parents maintain routines as closely as possible after a major disruption, children feel reassured that they can expect continuity of their relationship – their most important lifeboat. If their parents keep doing the things they are used to, children basically feel safe.

Simple aspects of sameness important to children are very familiar to pediatricians: always wanting the same spoon, the sandwich cut the same way, only chicken nuggets from a certain store. This tends to be true in typically developing toddlers, preschool, and some school-aged children. The desire to have the same story read to them multiple times – until parents are ready to scream! – is another sign of the importance of predictable routines to children. All of these are best accommodated during times of stress rather than trying to “avoid making a bad habit.” All disruptions of routine are even more disorienting for children with intellectual disabilities or those on the autism spectrum who are generally less able to understand or control their world. Children and adults with preexisting anxiety disorders also are more likely to have more severe reactions to major disruptions and need extra understanding.

Routines for eating at least something at regular times – even if the food is not as interesting as prior fare – provide a sense of security, as well as stabilizing blood sugar and bowel patterns. Keeping patterns of washing hands, sitting together as a family, and interacting in conversation, rather than watching TV news, allow an oasis of respite from ongoing stresses. Family meals are also known to promote learning, vocabulary growth, and better behavior.

Setting a schedule for schooling, play, hygiene, and exercise may seem silly when parents and children are home all day, but it instills a sense of meaning to the day. Making a visual schedule for younger children or a written or online one for older children can be a shared activity in itself. I remember hearing about how important changing clothes and cleaning teeth were to prisoners of war during World War II in maintaining a sense of normalcy in that time of chaos.

Exercise is particularly important to set as a routine as it directly reduces stress – even if it may need to take new forms. While there are lots of online exercise programs for adults, it is better for everyone to go outside if they can manage adequate personal spacing. There they can experience the orderly changing of the seasons and the weather, as well as soak up some sunshine. Interactive parent-child play serves multiple purposes of stress relief, seeing each other more relaxed, interacting, and having fun!

Routines for sleep are especially important. To fall asleep under normal circumstances requires a sense of safety, perhaps for evolutionary reasons because of the vulnerability of the paralysis that is part of REM sleep stages. Fear at bedtime is common in young children, as is disorientation in the elderly. Both respond to reassuring bedtime routines done the same way every night, such as brushing teeth, changing clothes, washing up, reading or being read to, and praying – if these were the previous habit. When there has been a major disruption, these routines take on added importance, even if some modifications need to be made in sleep location, privacy, etc. Keeping schedules for naps, bedtime, and wake time as stable as possible makes sleep onset easier and sleep maintenance more likely. It also increases the chances of adequate sleep duration. Getting enough sleep stabilizes mood, reduces irritability, and improves daytime concentration and problem-solving skills. These all are especially needed by adults as well as children when there are major disruptions.

Maintaining chores at times of disruption can be extra difficult, plus this may seem to parents like an added stress for their already-stressed child. But in fact, children are reassured by adults’ continuing these requirements. Not only is an expectation that chores be done a signal that life can be expected to proceed normally, but having children do things to help – such as cleaning up, restocking soap and towels, or emptying trash – gives them an active role and hence some sense of control.

Discipline is, in essence, also a routine. Maintaining standards for kindness to others and following rules can be especially difficult when life has been disrupted because emotional lability is more likely in both adults and children when severely stressed. It is important for parents to consider the source of the misbehavior as possibly stress related and to interrupt it in a gentle and understanding way. A parent might say: “I know you are upset by all the changes. It is even more important now than ever to be kind to your brother.” Under stressful conditions, it is especially important to ask how the child was feeling when acting up, but also to “speak for them” about possible stress-related reasons for their behavior. While parents may correctly say that their child will “take advantage of this excuse,” it is still a teaching opportunity. Children have little insight into these connections to their feelings and actions, but they can learn.

Times when old patterns are disrupted also are times for making new habits. The main new habit I recommend for stress relief and overall mental health are the practices of mindfulness or meditation. Mindfulness may be easier to teach children as it involves paying close attention to one’s thoughts, feelings, and sensations, but doing this without judgment. Children often are naturally better at this than adults, who have layered on more experiences to their thoughts. We pediatricians, as well as the parents we serve, can benefit – especially in stressful times – from sharing in the simple ways children experience the world.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at [email protected].

It’s okay to consider breast-conserving therapy in breast cancer patients with high-risk hereditary genetic mutations, according to guidelines published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The presence of a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation shouldn’t preclude breast-conserving therapy as long as the patient is otherwise eligible for the procedure, according to the guidelines, which were developed by an expert panel convened by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society for Surgical Oncology.

Nadine M. Tung, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and the rest of the expert panel reviewed evidence from 58 published articles to create the guidelines.

In addition to supporting use of breast-conserving therapy, the guidelines suggest that radiation shouldn’t be withheld because of mutation status, except in patients with TP53 mutations. Furthermore, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with metastatic HER2-negative disease can receive the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib as an “alternative to chemotherapy” for first-, second-, or third-line therapy.

However, it’s the “license to consider breast-conserving therapy” for high-risk individuals that is one of the most noteworthy points in the guidelines, and the one that may surprise some readers, according to William J. Gradishar, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, who was not involved in developing the guidelines.

“We don’t have to be as dogmatic with these patients with respect to local therapies as we were in the past,” Dr. Gradishar said in an interview. “That’s a good thing for patients, but you also have to understand the nuances that go into recommending [breast-conserving surgery] to a patient. Other variables, like the age at which the patient develops breast cancer, family history, etc., all go into it.”

Weighing options for surgery

The guidelines emphasize that, for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations, health care providers need to discuss treatment options for the breast cancer at hand. However, patients should also be made aware of their increased risk of contralateral and new ipsilateral breast cancer as compared with noncarriers.

When weighing breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy in light of contralateral breast cancer risk, the guidelines recommend considering not only age at diagnosis – the strongest predictor of a later contralateral breast cancer – but also family history, comorbidities, life expectancy, ability to undergo MRI, and prognosis from breast or other cancers, such as ovarian cancer.

If a bilateral mastectomy isn’t performed in a BRCA1/2 mutation carrier, an annual mammogram and MRI are warranted thereafter for screening of the remaining breast tissue, according to the guidelines.

The guidelines say breast-conserving therapy should be offered to patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes, including PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM. However, there’s not much data regarding the risk of ipsilateral breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy in these patients.

Likewise, there’s limited evidence on contralateral breast cancer risk for patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes aside from CHEK2. The guidelines say the risk should be discussed with patients “in the context of shared decision making.”

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is “reasonable” to consider in certain newly diagnosed patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, as well as in newly diagnosed patients with moderate-risk mutations, the guidelines state.

Women with breast cancer and a deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation who are undergoing unilateral mastectomy should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy. Likewise, women with moderate-risk mutations should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy, but not solely based on mutation status, according to the guidelines. Data are limited on contralateral breast cancer risk related to those mutations.

Considerations for radiation

Radiation therapy in the context of breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy should not be withheld because of hereditary mutations, except in the case of TP53 mutations, according to the guidelines.

There’s no evidence that radiotherapy increases toxicity or contralateral breast cancer risk for most BRCA1/2 or moderate-penetrance gene mutations. However, the intact breast shouldn’t be irradiated in germline TP53 mutation carriers, the guidelines say, because of the important role that TP53 plays in the ability to repair DNA damage after cellular stress.

“Carriers of a TP53 mutation would be expected to be unable to repair tissue damage from DNA damaging radiotherapy and be at risk for significant [radiotherapy]-associated sequelae,” the guidelines state.

Chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors

For women with metastatic breast cancer harboring germline BRCA1/2 mutations, the guidelines say platinum chemotherapy should be preferred over taxanes for platinum-naive patients.

Provided the breast cancer is HER2 negative, the PARP inhibitors olaparib or talazoparib “should be offered as an alternative to chemotherapy in the first- to third-line settings,” the guidelines state.

The guidelines confirm that PARP inhibitors are a “valid starting point” for treatment of BCRA1/2–associated metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Gradishar said.

“When a patient progresses on a PARP inhibitor, assuming they’re not going on some other investigational drug or clinical trial, they’re going to get chemotherapy,” he said. “So the argument is that, if you have something that’s at least as good or maybe a little bit better and has fewer side effects, why not start with that and then move on to other things?”

By contrast, there’s not enough evidence to recommend PARP inhibitors for germline BRCA mutation carriers with nonmetastatic breast cancers, according to the guidelines, and there’s “no robust data” for using PARP inhibitors in patients with breast cancers with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes.

The guideline authors disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Gradishar has relationships with AstraZeneca, Celltrion, Genentech, MacroGenics, Merck, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Tung NM et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 3;JCO2000299. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00299.

It’s okay to consider breast-conserving therapy in breast cancer patients with high-risk hereditary genetic mutations, according to guidelines published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The presence of a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation shouldn’t preclude breast-conserving therapy as long as the patient is otherwise eligible for the procedure, according to the guidelines, which were developed by an expert panel convened by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society for Surgical Oncology.

Nadine M. Tung, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and the rest of the expert panel reviewed evidence from 58 published articles to create the guidelines.

In addition to supporting use of breast-conserving therapy, the guidelines suggest that radiation shouldn’t be withheld because of mutation status, except in patients with TP53 mutations. Furthermore, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with metastatic HER2-negative disease can receive the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib as an “alternative to chemotherapy” for first-, second-, or third-line therapy.

However, it’s the “license to consider breast-conserving therapy” for high-risk individuals that is one of the most noteworthy points in the guidelines, and the one that may surprise some readers, according to William J. Gradishar, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, who was not involved in developing the guidelines.

“We don’t have to be as dogmatic with these patients with respect to local therapies as we were in the past,” Dr. Gradishar said in an interview. “That’s a good thing for patients, but you also have to understand the nuances that go into recommending [breast-conserving surgery] to a patient. Other variables, like the age at which the patient develops breast cancer, family history, etc., all go into it.”

Weighing options for surgery

The guidelines emphasize that, for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations, health care providers need to discuss treatment options for the breast cancer at hand. However, patients should also be made aware of their increased risk of contralateral and new ipsilateral breast cancer as compared with noncarriers.

When weighing breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy in light of contralateral breast cancer risk, the guidelines recommend considering not only age at diagnosis – the strongest predictor of a later contralateral breast cancer – but also family history, comorbidities, life expectancy, ability to undergo MRI, and prognosis from breast or other cancers, such as ovarian cancer.

If a bilateral mastectomy isn’t performed in a BRCA1/2 mutation carrier, an annual mammogram and MRI are warranted thereafter for screening of the remaining breast tissue, according to the guidelines.

The guidelines say breast-conserving therapy should be offered to patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes, including PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM. However, there’s not much data regarding the risk of ipsilateral breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy in these patients.

Likewise, there’s limited evidence on contralateral breast cancer risk for patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes aside from CHEK2. The guidelines say the risk should be discussed with patients “in the context of shared decision making.”

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is “reasonable” to consider in certain newly diagnosed patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, as well as in newly diagnosed patients with moderate-risk mutations, the guidelines state.

Women with breast cancer and a deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation who are undergoing unilateral mastectomy should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy. Likewise, women with moderate-risk mutations should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy, but not solely based on mutation status, according to the guidelines. Data are limited on contralateral breast cancer risk related to those mutations.

Considerations for radiation

Radiation therapy in the context of breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy should not be withheld because of hereditary mutations, except in the case of TP53 mutations, according to the guidelines.

There’s no evidence that radiotherapy increases toxicity or contralateral breast cancer risk for most BRCA1/2 or moderate-penetrance gene mutations. However, the intact breast shouldn’t be irradiated in germline TP53 mutation carriers, the guidelines say, because of the important role that TP53 plays in the ability to repair DNA damage after cellular stress.

“Carriers of a TP53 mutation would be expected to be unable to repair tissue damage from DNA damaging radiotherapy and be at risk for significant [radiotherapy]-associated sequelae,” the guidelines state.

Chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors

For women with metastatic breast cancer harboring germline BRCA1/2 mutations, the guidelines say platinum chemotherapy should be preferred over taxanes for platinum-naive patients.

Provided the breast cancer is HER2 negative, the PARP inhibitors olaparib or talazoparib “should be offered as an alternative to chemotherapy in the first- to third-line settings,” the guidelines state.

The guidelines confirm that PARP inhibitors are a “valid starting point” for treatment of BCRA1/2–associated metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Gradishar said.

“When a patient progresses on a PARP inhibitor, assuming they’re not going on some other investigational drug or clinical trial, they’re going to get chemotherapy,” he said. “So the argument is that, if you have something that’s at least as good or maybe a little bit better and has fewer side effects, why not start with that and then move on to other things?”

By contrast, there’s not enough evidence to recommend PARP inhibitors for germline BRCA mutation carriers with nonmetastatic breast cancers, according to the guidelines, and there’s “no robust data” for using PARP inhibitors in patients with breast cancers with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes.

The guideline authors disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Gradishar has relationships with AstraZeneca, Celltrion, Genentech, MacroGenics, Merck, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Tung NM et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 3;JCO2000299. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00299.

It’s okay to consider breast-conserving therapy in breast cancer patients with high-risk hereditary genetic mutations, according to guidelines published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The presence of a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation shouldn’t preclude breast-conserving therapy as long as the patient is otherwise eligible for the procedure, according to the guidelines, which were developed by an expert panel convened by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society for Surgical Oncology.

Nadine M. Tung, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and the rest of the expert panel reviewed evidence from 58 published articles to create the guidelines.

In addition to supporting use of breast-conserving therapy, the guidelines suggest that radiation shouldn’t be withheld because of mutation status, except in patients with TP53 mutations. Furthermore, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with metastatic HER2-negative disease can receive the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib as an “alternative to chemotherapy” for first-, second-, or third-line therapy.

However, it’s the “license to consider breast-conserving therapy” for high-risk individuals that is one of the most noteworthy points in the guidelines, and the one that may surprise some readers, according to William J. Gradishar, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, who was not involved in developing the guidelines.

“We don’t have to be as dogmatic with these patients with respect to local therapies as we were in the past,” Dr. Gradishar said in an interview. “That’s a good thing for patients, but you also have to understand the nuances that go into recommending [breast-conserving surgery] to a patient. Other variables, like the age at which the patient develops breast cancer, family history, etc., all go into it.”

Weighing options for surgery

The guidelines emphasize that, for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations, health care providers need to discuss treatment options for the breast cancer at hand. However, patients should also be made aware of their increased risk of contralateral and new ipsilateral breast cancer as compared with noncarriers.

When weighing breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy in light of contralateral breast cancer risk, the guidelines recommend considering not only age at diagnosis – the strongest predictor of a later contralateral breast cancer – but also family history, comorbidities, life expectancy, ability to undergo MRI, and prognosis from breast or other cancers, such as ovarian cancer.

If a bilateral mastectomy isn’t performed in a BRCA1/2 mutation carrier, an annual mammogram and MRI are warranted thereafter for screening of the remaining breast tissue, according to the guidelines.

The guidelines say breast-conserving therapy should be offered to patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes, including PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM. However, there’s not much data regarding the risk of ipsilateral breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy in these patients.

Likewise, there’s limited evidence on contralateral breast cancer risk for patients with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes aside from CHEK2. The guidelines say the risk should be discussed with patients “in the context of shared decision making.”

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is “reasonable” to consider in certain newly diagnosed patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, as well as in newly diagnosed patients with moderate-risk mutations, the guidelines state.

Women with breast cancer and a deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation who are undergoing unilateral mastectomy should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy. Likewise, women with moderate-risk mutations should be offered contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy, but not solely based on mutation status, according to the guidelines. Data are limited on contralateral breast cancer risk related to those mutations.

Considerations for radiation

Radiation therapy in the context of breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy should not be withheld because of hereditary mutations, except in the case of TP53 mutations, according to the guidelines.

There’s no evidence that radiotherapy increases toxicity or contralateral breast cancer risk for most BRCA1/2 or moderate-penetrance gene mutations. However, the intact breast shouldn’t be irradiated in germline TP53 mutation carriers, the guidelines say, because of the important role that TP53 plays in the ability to repair DNA damage after cellular stress.

“Carriers of a TP53 mutation would be expected to be unable to repair tissue damage from DNA damaging radiotherapy and be at risk for significant [radiotherapy]-associated sequelae,” the guidelines state.

Chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors

For women with metastatic breast cancer harboring germline BRCA1/2 mutations, the guidelines say platinum chemotherapy should be preferred over taxanes for platinum-naive patients.

Provided the breast cancer is HER2 negative, the PARP inhibitors olaparib or talazoparib “should be offered as an alternative to chemotherapy in the first- to third-line settings,” the guidelines state.

The guidelines confirm that PARP inhibitors are a “valid starting point” for treatment of BCRA1/2–associated metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Gradishar said.

“When a patient progresses on a PARP inhibitor, assuming they’re not going on some other investigational drug or clinical trial, they’re going to get chemotherapy,” he said. “So the argument is that, if you have something that’s at least as good or maybe a little bit better and has fewer side effects, why not start with that and then move on to other things?”

By contrast, there’s not enough evidence to recommend PARP inhibitors for germline BRCA mutation carriers with nonmetastatic breast cancers, according to the guidelines, and there’s “no robust data” for using PARP inhibitors in patients with breast cancers with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes.

The guideline authors disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Lilly, and other companies. Dr. Gradishar has relationships with AstraZeneca, Celltrion, Genentech, MacroGenics, Merck, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Tung NM et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr 3;JCO2000299. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00299.

A meta-analysis of four applicable studies found that the hemoglobin value was significantly lower in COVID-19 patients with severe disease, compared with those with milder forms, according to a letter to the editor of Hematology Transfusion and Cell Therapy by Giuseppe Lippi, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy) and colleague.

The four studies comprised 1,210 COVID-19 patients (224 with severe disease; 18.5%). The primary endpoint was defined as a composite of admission to the ICU, need of mechanical ventilation or death. The heterogeneity among the studies was high.

Overall, the hemoglobin value was found to be significantly lower in COVID-19 patients with severe disease than in those with milder forms, yielding a weighted mean difference of −7.1 g/L, with a 95% confidence interval of −8.3 g/L to −5.9 g/L.

“Initial assessment and longitudinal monitoring of hemoglobin values seems advisable in patients with the SARS-CoV-2 infection, whereby a progressive decrease in the hemoglobin concentration may reflect a worse clinical progression,” the authors stated. They also suggested that studies should be “urgently planned to assess whether transfusion support (e.g., with administration of blood or packed red blood cells) may be helpful in this clinical setting to prevent evolution into severe disease and death.”

The authors declared the had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lippi G et al. Hematol Transfus Cell Ther. 2020 Apr 11; doi:10.1016/j.htct.2020.03.001.

A meta-analysis of four applicable studies found that the hemoglobin value was significantly lower in COVID-19 patients with severe disease, compared with those with milder forms, according to a letter to the editor of Hematology Transfusion and Cell Therapy by Giuseppe Lippi, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy) and colleague.

The four studies comprised 1,210 COVID-19 patients (224 with severe disease; 18.5%). The primary endpoint was defined as a composite of admission to the ICU, need of mechanical ventilation or death. The heterogeneity among the studies was high.

Overall, the hemoglobin value was found to be significantly lower in COVID-19 patients with severe disease than in those with milder forms, yielding a weighted mean difference of −7.1 g/L, with a 95% confidence interval of −8.3 g/L to −5.9 g/L.

“Initial assessment and longitudinal monitoring of hemoglobin values seems advisable in patients with the SARS-CoV-2 infection, whereby a progressive decrease in the hemoglobin concentration may reflect a worse clinical progression,” the authors stated. They also suggested that studies should be “urgently planned to assess whether transfusion support (e.g., with administration of blood or packed red blood cells) may be helpful in this clinical setting to prevent evolution into severe disease and death.”

The authors declared the had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lippi G et al. Hematol Transfus Cell Ther. 2020 Apr 11; doi:10.1016/j.htct.2020.03.001.

A meta-analysis of four applicable studies found that the hemoglobin value was significantly lower in COVID-19 patients with severe disease, compared with those with milder forms, according to a letter to the editor of Hematology Transfusion and Cell Therapy by Giuseppe Lippi, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy) and colleague.

The four studies comprised 1,210 COVID-19 patients (224 with severe disease; 18.5%). The primary endpoint was defined as a composite of admission to the ICU, need of mechanical ventilation or death. The heterogeneity among the studies was high.

Overall, the hemoglobin value was found to be significantly lower in COVID-19 patients with severe disease than in those with milder forms, yielding a weighted mean difference of −7.1 g/L, with a 95% confidence interval of −8.3 g/L to −5.9 g/L.

“Initial assessment and longitudinal monitoring of hemoglobin values seems advisable in patients with the SARS-CoV-2 infection, whereby a progressive decrease in the hemoglobin concentration may reflect a worse clinical progression,” the authors stated. They also suggested that studies should be “urgently planned to assess whether transfusion support (e.g., with administration of blood or packed red blood cells) may be helpful in this clinical setting to prevent evolution into severe disease and death.”

The authors declared the had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lippi G et al. Hematol Transfus Cell Ther. 2020 Apr 11; doi:10.1016/j.htct.2020.03.001.

A significant compensation discrepancy exists between male and female gynecologic oncologists, a recent survey suggests.

Dr. Katherine M. Croft

After controlling for differences between the genders, the male gynecologic oncologists surveyed were 1.28 times more likely than their female counterparts to earn a salary above the median, according to Katherine M. Croft, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Dr. Croft and colleagues reported findings from the survey in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Of 263 members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology who responded to the anonymous survey, 41% were women and 59% were men. The median annual salaries were $380,000 and $500,000 respectively.

“Comparing compensation by gender, there was a $120,000 difference in median salary when you compare them on a surface level,” Dr. Croft said. “Combing through the data further, we found that there were few other differences by gender.”

There were no differences between genders with respect to group size, percentage of protected research time, frequency of call, or geographic location. However, men were more likely to be compensated for extra call and were more likely to respond to obstetrical emergencies, and those differences were statistically significant.

Further, female gynecologic oncologists were younger and had been in practice for fewer years. They also were more likely to work in an academic setting and to work with residents.

“For men, the odds of making above the median salary was 1.28 times that of female providers when controlling for these differences” Dr. Croft said.

Significant compensation differences were noted based on practice setting. When these were substratified by gender, only academic or teaching hospitals and teaching hospital/community hybrids had significant pay differences by gender.

Academic or teaching hospitals comprised the largest subgroup, allowing for further analysis.

“Age and years post fellowship were the only significant differences by gender in this group,” Dr. Croft said. “Again, female providers earned less than their male counterparts, with mean compensation of $349,717, compared with $461,054.”

In fact, less than 25% of women in academic practice in this survey made above the median reported salary, Dr. Croft noted. Controlling not only for differences between male and female providers in this group but also for other known factors affecting compensation, the odds of a male provider making greater than the median salary were 1.77 times that of female providers.

Women represent nearly a third of all practicing physicians, but their salaries continue to lag behind those of men, Dr. Croft noted. She added that “this is the first study that has been presented with regards to gynecologic oncology gender salary discrepancies.”

The findings are limited by survey response bias and a potential lack of data that could explain some of the discrepancies. The study was originally designed to look at on-call compensation, so respondents were not queried about academic ranking or specific work responsibilities. Still, Dr. Croft said the findings point to a need for policy reform to ensure equitable compensation.

“My hope is that these data open a dialogue to further explore discrepancies by gender in our field,” she said.

Dr. Croft reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Croft K et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 15.

A significant compensation discrepancy exists between male and female gynecologic oncologists, a recent survey suggests.

Dr. Katherine M. Croft

After controlling for differences between the genders, the male gynecologic oncologists surveyed were 1.28 times more likely than their female counterparts to earn a salary above the median, according to Katherine M. Croft, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Dr. Croft and colleagues reported findings from the survey in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Of 263 members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology who responded to the anonymous survey, 41% were women and 59% were men. The median annual salaries were $380,000 and $500,000 respectively.

“Comparing compensation by gender, there was a $120,000 difference in median salary when you compare them on a surface level,” Dr. Croft said. “Combing through the data further, we found that there were few other differences by gender.”

There were no differences between genders with respect to group size, percentage of protected research time, frequency of call, or geographic location. However, men were more likely to be compensated for extra call and were more likely to respond to obstetrical emergencies, and those differences were statistically significant.

Further, female gynecologic oncologists were younger and had been in practice for fewer years. They also were more likely to work in an academic setting and to work with residents.

“For men, the odds of making above the median salary was 1.28 times that of female providers when controlling for these differences” Dr. Croft said.

Significant compensation differences were noted based on practice setting. When these were substratified by gender, only academic or teaching hospitals and teaching hospital/community hybrids had significant pay differences by gender.

Academic or teaching hospitals comprised the largest subgroup, allowing for further analysis.

“Age and years post fellowship were the only significant differences by gender in this group,” Dr. Croft said. “Again, female providers earned less than their male counterparts, with mean compensation of $349,717, compared with $461,054.”

In fact, less than 25% of women in academic practice in this survey made above the median reported salary, Dr. Croft noted. Controlling not only for differences between male and female providers in this group but also for other known factors affecting compensation, the odds of a male provider making greater than the median salary were 1.77 times that of female providers.

Women represent nearly a third of all practicing physicians, but their salaries continue to lag behind those of men, Dr. Croft noted. She added that “this is the first study that has been presented with regards to gynecologic oncology gender salary discrepancies.”

The findings are limited by survey response bias and a potential lack of data that could explain some of the discrepancies. The study was originally designed to look at on-call compensation, so respondents were not queried about academic ranking or specific work responsibilities. Still, Dr. Croft said the findings point to a need for policy reform to ensure equitable compensation.

“My hope is that these data open a dialogue to further explore discrepancies by gender in our field,” she said.

Dr. Croft reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Croft K et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 15.

A significant compensation discrepancy exists between male and female gynecologic oncologists, a recent survey suggests.

Dr. Katherine M. Croft

After controlling for differences between the genders, the male gynecologic oncologists surveyed were 1.28 times more likely than their female counterparts to earn a salary above the median, according to Katherine M. Croft, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Dr. Croft and colleagues reported findings from the survey in an abstract that was slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Of 263 members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology who responded to the anonymous survey, 41% were women and 59% were men. The median annual salaries were $380,000 and $500,000 respectively.

“Comparing compensation by gender, there was a $120,000 difference in median salary when you compare them on a surface level,” Dr. Croft said. “Combing through the data further, we found that there were few other differences by gender.”

There were no differences between genders with respect to group size, percentage of protected research time, frequency of call, or geographic location. However, men were more likely to be compensated for extra call and were more likely to respond to obstetrical emergencies, and those differences were statistically significant.

Further, female gynecologic oncologists were younger and had been in practice for fewer years. They also were more likely to work in an academic setting and to work with residents.

“For men, the odds of making above the median salary was 1.28 times that of female providers when controlling for these differences” Dr. Croft said.

Significant compensation differences were noted based on practice setting. When these were substratified by gender, only academic or teaching hospitals and teaching hospital/community hybrids had significant pay differences by gender.

Academic or teaching hospitals comprised the largest subgroup, allowing for further analysis.

“Age and years post fellowship were the only significant differences by gender in this group,” Dr. Croft said. “Again, female providers earned less than their male counterparts, with mean compensation of $349,717, compared with $461,054.”

In fact, less than 25% of women in academic practice in this survey made above the median reported salary, Dr. Croft noted. Controlling not only for differences between male and female providers in this group but also for other known factors affecting compensation, the odds of a male provider making greater than the median salary were 1.77 times that of female providers.

Women represent nearly a third of all practicing physicians, but their salaries continue to lag behind those of men, Dr. Croft noted. She added that “this is the first study that has been presented with regards to gynecologic oncology gender salary discrepancies.”

The findings are limited by survey response bias and a potential lack of data that could explain some of the discrepancies. The study was originally designed to look at on-call compensation, so respondents were not queried about academic ranking or specific work responsibilities. Still, Dr. Croft said the findings point to a need for policy reform to ensure equitable compensation.

“My hope is that these data open a dialogue to further explore discrepancies by gender in our field,” she said.

Dr. Croft reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Croft K et al. SGO 2020, Abstract 15.

As of April 9, at least 27 health care personnel had died from COVID-19 infection in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That number, however, is probably an underestimation because health care personnel (HCP) status was available for just over 49,000 of the 315,000 COVID-19 cases reported to the CDC as of April 9. Of the cases with known HCP status, 9,282 (19%) were health care personnel, Matthew J. Stuckey, PhD, and the CDC’s COVID-19 Response Team said.

“The number of cases in HCP reported here must be considered a lower bound because additional cases likely have gone unidentified or unreported,” they said.

The median age of the nearly 9,300 HCP with COVID-19 was 42 years, and the majority (55%) were aged 16-44 years; another 21% were 45-54, 18% were 55-64, and 6% were age 65 and over. The oldest group, however, represented 10 of the 27 known HCP deaths, the investigators reported in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The majority of infected HCP (55%) reported exposure to a COVID-19 patient in the health care setting, but “there were also known exposures in households and in the community, highlighting the potential for exposure in multiple settings, especially as community transmission increases,” the response team said.

Since “contact tracing after recognized occupational exposures likely will fail to identify many HCP at risk for developing COVID-19,” other measures will probably be needed to “reduce the risk for infected HCP transmitting the virus to colleagues and patients,” they added.

HCP with COVID-19 were less likely to be hospitalized (8%-10%) than the overall population (21%-31%), which “might reflect the younger median age … of HCP patients, compared with that of reported COVID-19 patients overall, as well as prioritization of HCP for testing, which might identify less-severe illness,” the investigators suggested.

The prevalence of underlying conditions in HCP patients, 38%, was the same as all patients with COVID-19, and 92% of the HCP patients presented with fever, cough, or shortness of breath. Two-thirds of all HCP reported muscle aches, and 65% reported headache, the CDC response team noted.

“It is critical to make every effort to ensure the health and safety of this essential national workforce of approximately 18 million HCP, both at work and in the community,” they wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stuckey MJ et al. MMWR. Apr 14;69(early release):1-5.

As of April 9, at least 27 health care personnel had died from COVID-19 infection in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That number, however, is probably an underestimation because health care personnel (HCP) status was available for just over 49,000 of the 315,000 COVID-19 cases reported to the CDC as of April 9. Of the cases with known HCP status, 9,282 (19%) were health care personnel, Matthew J. Stuckey, PhD, and the CDC’s COVID-19 Response Team said.

“The number of cases in HCP reported here must be considered a lower bound because additional cases likely have gone unidentified or unreported,” they said.

The median age of the nearly 9,300 HCP with COVID-19 was 42 years, and the majority (55%) were aged 16-44 years; another 21% were 45-54, 18% were 55-64, and 6% were age 65 and over. The oldest group, however, represented 10 of the 27 known HCP deaths, the investigators reported in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The majority of infected HCP (55%) reported exposure to a COVID-19 patient in the health care setting, but “there were also known exposures in households and in the community, highlighting the potential for exposure in multiple settings, especially as community transmission increases,” the response team said.

Since “contact tracing after recognized occupational exposures likely will fail to identify many HCP at risk for developing COVID-19,” other measures will probably be needed to “reduce the risk for infected HCP transmitting the virus to colleagues and patients,” they added.

HCP with COVID-19 were less likely to be hospitalized (8%-10%) than the overall population (21%-31%), which “might reflect the younger median age … of HCP patients, compared with that of reported COVID-19 patients overall, as well as prioritization of HCP for testing, which might identify less-severe illness,” the investigators suggested.

The prevalence of underlying conditions in HCP patients, 38%, was the same as all patients with COVID-19, and 92% of the HCP patients presented with fever, cough, or shortness of breath. Two-thirds of all HCP reported muscle aches, and 65% reported headache, the CDC response team noted.

“It is critical to make every effort to ensure the health and safety of this essential national workforce of approximately 18 million HCP, both at work and in the community,” they wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stuckey MJ et al. MMWR. Apr 14;69(early release):1-5.

As of April 9, at least 27 health care personnel had died from COVID-19 infection in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That number, however, is probably an underestimation because health care personnel (HCP) status was available for just over 49,000 of the 315,000 COVID-19 cases reported to the CDC as of April 9. Of the cases with known HCP status, 9,282 (19%) were health care personnel, Matthew J. Stuckey, PhD, and the CDC’s COVID-19 Response Team said.

“The number of cases in HCP reported here must be considered a lower bound because additional cases likely have gone unidentified or unreported,” they said.

The median age of the nearly 9,300 HCP with COVID-19 was 42 years, and the majority (55%) were aged 16-44 years; another 21% were 45-54, 18% were 55-64, and 6% were age 65 and over. The oldest group, however, represented 10 of the 27 known HCP deaths, the investigators reported in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The majority of infected HCP (55%) reported exposure to a COVID-19 patient in the health care setting, but “there were also known exposures in households and in the community, highlighting the potential for exposure in multiple settings, especially as community transmission increases,” the response team said.

Since “contact tracing after recognized occupational exposures likely will fail to identify many HCP at risk for developing COVID-19,” other measures will probably be needed to “reduce the risk for infected HCP transmitting the virus to colleagues and patients,” they added.

HCP with COVID-19 were less likely to be hospitalized (8%-10%) than the overall population (21%-31%), which “might reflect the younger median age … of HCP patients, compared with that of reported COVID-19 patients overall, as well as prioritization of HCP for testing, which might identify less-severe illness,” the investigators suggested.

The prevalence of underlying conditions in HCP patients, 38%, was the same as all patients with COVID-19, and 92% of the HCP patients presented with fever, cough, or shortness of breath. Two-thirds of all HCP reported muscle aches, and 65% reported headache, the CDC response team noted.

“It is critical to make every effort to ensure the health and safety of this essential national workforce of approximately 18 million HCP, both at work and in the community,” they wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stuckey MJ et al. MMWR. Apr 14;69(early release):1-5.

“Uncertainty creates weakness. Uncertainty makes one tentative, if not fearful, and tentative steps, even when in the right direction, may not overcome significant obstacles.”¹

Recently, I spent my vacation time quarantined reading “The Great Influenza,” which recounts the history of the 1918 pandemic. Despite over a century of scientific and medical progress, the parallels to our current situation are indisputable. Just as in 1918, we are limiting social gatherings, quarantining, wearing face masks, and living with the fear and anxiety of keeping ourselves and our families safe. In 1918, use of aspirin, quinine, and digitalis therapies in a desperate search for relief despite limited evidence mirror the current use of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and lopinavir/ritonavir. While there are many similarities between the two situations, in this pandemic our channels for dissemination of scientific literature are better developed, and online networks are enabling physicians across the globe to communicate their experience and findings in near real time.

During this time of uncertainty, our understanding of COVID-19 evolves daily. Without the advantage of robust randomized, controlled trials and large-scale studies to guide us, we are forced to rely on pattern recognition for surveillance and anecdotal or limited case-based accounts to guide clinical care. Fortunately, free open-access medical education (FOAM) and social networks offer a significant advantage in our ability to collect and disseminate information.
 

Free open access medical education

The concept of FOAM started in 2012 with the intent of creating a collaborative and constantly evolving community to provide open-access medical education. It encompasses multiple platforms – blogs, podcasts, videos, and social media – and features content experts from across the globe. Since its inception, FOAM has grown in popularity and use, especially within emergency medicine and critical care communities, as an adjunct for asynchronous learning.^2,3

In a time where knowledge of COVID-19 is dynamically changing, traditional sources like textbooks, journals, and organizational guidelines often lag behind real-time clinical experience and needs. Additionally, many clinicians are now being tasked with taking care of patient populations and a new critical illness profile with which they are not comfortable. It is challenging to find a well-curated and updated repository of information to answer questions surrounding pathophysiology, critical care, ventilator management, caring for adult patients, and personal protective equipment (PPE). During this rapidly evolving reality, FOAM is becoming the ideal modality for timely and efficient sharing of reviews of current literature, expert discussions, and clinical practice guidelines.

A few self-directed hours on EMCrit’s Internet Book of Critical Care’s COVID-19 chapter reveals a bastion of content regarding diagnosis, pathophysiology, transmission, therapies, and ventilator strategies.⁴ It includes references to major journals and recommendations from international societies. Websites like EMCrit and REBEL EM are updated daily with podcasts, videos, and blog posts surrounding the latest highly debated topics in COVID-19 management.⁵ Podcasts like EM:RAP and Peds RAP have made COVID segments discussing important topics like pharmacotherapy, telemedicine, and pregnancy available for free.^6,7 Many networks, institutions, and individual physicians have created and posted videos online on critical care topics and refreshers.
 

Social networks

Online social networks composed of international physicians within Facebook and LinkedIn serve as miniature publishing houses. First-hand accounts of patient presentations and patient care act as case reports. As similar accounts accumulate, they become case series. Patterns emerge and new hypotheses are generated, debated, and critiqued through this informal peer review. Personal accounts of frustration with lack of PPE, fear of exposing loved ones, distress at being separated from family, and grief of witnessing multiple patients die alone are opinion and perspective articles.

These networks offer the space for sharing. Those who have had the experience of caring for the surge of COVID-19 patients offer advice and words of caution to those who have yet to experience it. Protocols from a multitude of institutions on triage, surge, disposition, and end-of-life care are disseminated, serving as templates for those that have not yet developed their own. There is an impressive variety of innovative, do-it-yourself projects surrounding PPE, intubation boxes, and three-dimensionally printed ventilator parts.

Finally, these networks provide emotional support. There are offers to ship additional PPE, videos of cities cheering as clinicians go to work, stories of triumph and recovery, pictures depicting ongoing wellness activities, and the occasional much-needed humorous anecdote or illustration. These networks reinforce the message that our lives continue despite this upheaval, and we are not alone in this struggle.

The end of the passage in The Great Influenza concludes with: “Ultimately a scientist has nothing to believe in but the process of inquiry. To move forcefully and aggressively even while uncertain requires a confidence and strength deeper than physical courage.”

FOAM and social networks are crucial channels for collecting and conveying up-to-date information during disasters. They represent a highly adaptable, evolving, and collaborative global community’s determination to persevere through time of uncertainty together.

Dr. Ren is a pediatric emergency medicine fellow at Children’s National Hospital, Washington. Dr. Simpson is a pediatric emergency medicine attending and medical director of emergency preparedness at the hospital. They reported that they do not have any disclosures or conflicts of interest. Email Dr. Ren and Dr. Simpson at [email protected].

References

1. “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History.” (New York: Penguin Books, 2005, pp. 261-62).

2. Emerg Med J. 2014 Oct;31(e1):e76-7.

3. Acad Med. 2014 Apr;89(4):598-601.

4. “The Internet Book of Critical Care: COVID-19.” EMCrit Project.

5. “Covid-19.” REBEL EM-Emergency Medicine Blog.

6. “EM:RAP COVID-19 Resources.” EM RAP: Emergency Medicine Reviews and Perspectives.

7. “Episodes.” Peds RAP, Hippo Education.

“Uncertainty creates weakness. Uncertainty makes one tentative, if not fearful, and tentative steps, even when in the right direction, may not overcome significant obstacles.”¹

Recently, I spent my vacation time quarantined reading “The Great Influenza,” which recounts the history of the 1918 pandemic. Despite over a century of scientific and medical progress, the parallels to our current situation are indisputable. Just as in 1918, we are limiting social gatherings, quarantining, wearing face masks, and living with the fear and anxiety of keeping ourselves and our families safe. In 1918, use of aspirin, quinine, and digitalis therapies in a desperate search for relief despite limited evidence mirror the current use of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and lopinavir/ritonavir. While there are many similarities between the two situations, in this pandemic our channels for dissemination of scientific literature are better developed, and online networks are enabling physicians across the globe to communicate their experience and findings in near real time.

During this time of uncertainty, our understanding of COVID-19 evolves daily. Without the advantage of robust randomized, controlled trials and large-scale studies to guide us, we are forced to rely on pattern recognition for surveillance and anecdotal or limited case-based accounts to guide clinical care. Fortunately, free open-access medical education (FOAM) and social networks offer a significant advantage in our ability to collect and disseminate information.
 

Free open access medical education

The concept of FOAM started in 2012 with the intent of creating a collaborative and constantly evolving community to provide open-access medical education. It encompasses multiple platforms – blogs, podcasts, videos, and social media – and features content experts from across the globe. Since its inception, FOAM has grown in popularity and use, especially within emergency medicine and critical care communities, as an adjunct for asynchronous learning.^2,3

In a time where knowledge of COVID-19 is dynamically changing, traditional sources like textbooks, journals, and organizational guidelines often lag behind real-time clinical experience and needs. Additionally, many clinicians are now being tasked with taking care of patient populations and a new critical illness profile with which they are not comfortable. It is challenging to find a well-curated and updated repository of information to answer questions surrounding pathophysiology, critical care, ventilator management, caring for adult patients, and personal protective equipment (PPE). During this rapidly evolving reality, FOAM is becoming the ideal modality for timely and efficient sharing of reviews of current literature, expert discussions, and clinical practice guidelines.

A few self-directed hours on EMCrit’s Internet Book of Critical Care’s COVID-19 chapter reveals a bastion of content regarding diagnosis, pathophysiology, transmission, therapies, and ventilator strategies.⁴ It includes references to major journals and recommendations from international societies. Websites like EMCrit and REBEL EM are updated daily with podcasts, videos, and blog posts surrounding the latest highly debated topics in COVID-19 management.⁵ Podcasts like EM:RAP and Peds RAP have made COVID segments discussing important topics like pharmacotherapy, telemedicine, and pregnancy available for free.^6,7 Many networks, institutions, and individual physicians have created and posted videos online on critical care topics and refreshers.
 

Social networks

Online social networks composed of international physicians within Facebook and LinkedIn serve as miniature publishing houses. First-hand accounts of patient presentations and patient care act as case reports. As similar accounts accumulate, they become case series. Patterns emerge and new hypotheses are generated, debated, and critiqued through this informal peer review. Personal accounts of frustration with lack of PPE, fear of exposing loved ones, distress at being separated from family, and grief of witnessing multiple patients die alone are opinion and perspective articles.

These networks offer the space for sharing. Those who have had the experience of caring for the surge of COVID-19 patients offer advice and words of caution to those who have yet to experience it. Protocols from a multitude of institutions on triage, surge, disposition, and end-of-life care are disseminated, serving as templates for those that have not yet developed their own. There is an impressive variety of innovative, do-it-yourself projects surrounding PPE, intubation boxes, and three-dimensionally printed ventilator parts.

Finally, these networks provide emotional support. There are offers to ship additional PPE, videos of cities cheering as clinicians go to work, stories of triumph and recovery, pictures depicting ongoing wellness activities, and the occasional much-needed humorous anecdote or illustration. These networks reinforce the message that our lives continue despite this upheaval, and we are not alone in this struggle.

The end of the passage in The Great Influenza concludes with: “Ultimately a scientist has nothing to believe in but the process of inquiry. To move forcefully and aggressively even while uncertain requires a confidence and strength deeper than physical courage.”

FOAM and social networks are crucial channels for collecting and conveying up-to-date information during disasters. They represent a highly adaptable, evolving, and collaborative global community’s determination to persevere through time of uncertainty together.

Dr. Ren is a pediatric emergency medicine fellow at Children’s National Hospital, Washington. Dr. Simpson is a pediatric emergency medicine attending and medical director of emergency preparedness at the hospital. They reported that they do not have any disclosures or conflicts of interest. Email Dr. Ren and Dr. Simpson at [email protected].

References

1. “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History.” (New York: Penguin Books, 2005, pp. 261-62).

2. Emerg Med J. 2014 Oct;31(e1):e76-7.

3. Acad Med. 2014 Apr;89(4):598-601.

4. “The Internet Book of Critical Care: COVID-19.” EMCrit Project.

5. “Covid-19.” REBEL EM-Emergency Medicine Blog.

6. “EM:RAP COVID-19 Resources.” EM RAP: Emergency Medicine Reviews and Perspectives.

7. “Episodes.” Peds RAP, Hippo Education.

“Uncertainty creates weakness. Uncertainty makes one tentative, if not fearful, and tentative steps, even when in the right direction, may not overcome significant obstacles.”¹

Recently, I spent my vacation time quarantined reading “The Great Influenza,” which recounts the history of the 1918 pandemic. Despite over a century of scientific and medical progress, the parallels to our current situation are indisputable. Just as in 1918, we are limiting social gatherings, quarantining, wearing face masks, and living with the fear and anxiety of keeping ourselves and our families safe. In 1918, use of aspirin, quinine, and digitalis therapies in a desperate search for relief despite limited evidence mirror the current use of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and lopinavir/ritonavir. While there are many similarities between the two situations, in this pandemic our channels for dissemination of scientific literature are better developed, and online networks are enabling physicians across the globe to communicate their experience and findings in near real time.

During this time of uncertainty, our understanding of COVID-19 evolves daily. Without the advantage of robust randomized, controlled trials and large-scale studies to guide us, we are forced to rely on pattern recognition for surveillance and anecdotal or limited case-based accounts to guide clinical care. Fortunately, free open-access medical education (FOAM) and social networks offer a significant advantage in our ability to collect and disseminate information.
 

Free open access medical education

The concept of FOAM started in 2012 with the intent of creating a collaborative and constantly evolving community to provide open-access medical education. It encompasses multiple platforms – blogs, podcasts, videos, and social media – and features content experts from across the globe. Since its inception, FOAM has grown in popularity and use, especially within emergency medicine and critical care communities, as an adjunct for asynchronous learning.^2,3

In a time where knowledge of COVID-19 is dynamically changing, traditional sources like textbooks, journals, and organizational guidelines often lag behind real-time clinical experience and needs. Additionally, many clinicians are now being tasked with taking care of patient populations and a new critical illness profile with which they are not comfortable. It is challenging to find a well-curated and updated repository of information to answer questions surrounding pathophysiology, critical care, ventilator management, caring for adult patients, and personal protective equipment (PPE). During this rapidly evolving reality, FOAM is becoming the ideal modality for timely and efficient sharing of reviews of current literature, expert discussions, and clinical practice guidelines.

A few self-directed hours on EMCrit’s Internet Book of Critical Care’s COVID-19 chapter reveals a bastion of content regarding diagnosis, pathophysiology, transmission, therapies, and ventilator strategies.⁴ It includes references to major journals and recommendations from international societies. Websites like EMCrit and REBEL EM are updated daily with podcasts, videos, and blog posts surrounding the latest highly debated topics in COVID-19 management.⁵ Podcasts like EM:RAP and Peds RAP have made COVID segments discussing important topics like pharmacotherapy, telemedicine, and pregnancy available for free.^6,7 Many networks, institutions, and individual physicians have created and posted videos online on critical care topics and refreshers.
 

Social networks

Online social networks composed of international physicians within Facebook and LinkedIn serve as miniature publishing houses. First-hand accounts of patient presentations and patient care act as case reports. As similar accounts accumulate, they become case series. Patterns emerge and new hypotheses are generated, debated, and critiqued through this informal peer review. Personal accounts of frustration with lack of PPE, fear of exposing loved ones, distress at being separated from family, and grief of witnessing multiple patients die alone are opinion and perspective articles.

These networks offer the space for sharing. Those who have had the experience of caring for the surge of COVID-19 patients offer advice and words of caution to those who have yet to experience it. Protocols from a multitude of institutions on triage, surge, disposition, and end-of-life care are disseminated, serving as templates for those that have not yet developed their own. There is an impressive variety of innovative, do-it-yourself projects surrounding PPE, intubation boxes, and three-dimensionally printed ventilator parts.

Finally, these networks provide emotional support. There are offers to ship additional PPE, videos of cities cheering as clinicians go to work, stories of triumph and recovery, pictures depicting ongoing wellness activities, and the occasional much-needed humorous anecdote or illustration. These networks reinforce the message that our lives continue despite this upheaval, and we are not alone in this struggle.

The end of the passage in The Great Influenza concludes with: “Ultimately a scientist has nothing to believe in but the process of inquiry. To move forcefully and aggressively even while uncertain requires a confidence and strength deeper than physical courage.”

FOAM and social networks are crucial channels for collecting and conveying up-to-date information during disasters. They represent a highly adaptable, evolving, and collaborative global community’s determination to persevere through time of uncertainty together.

Dr. Ren is a pediatric emergency medicine fellow at Children’s National Hospital, Washington. Dr. Simpson is a pediatric emergency medicine attending and medical director of emergency preparedness at the hospital. They reported that they do not have any disclosures or conflicts of interest. Email Dr. Ren and Dr. Simpson at [email protected].

References

1. “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History.” (New York: Penguin Books, 2005, pp. 261-62).

2. Emerg Med J. 2014 Oct;31(e1):e76-7.

3. Acad Med. 2014 Apr;89(4):598-601.

4. “The Internet Book of Critical Care: COVID-19.” EMCrit Project.

5. “Covid-19.” REBEL EM-Emergency Medicine Blog.

6. “EM:RAP COVID-19 Resources.” EM RAP: Emergency Medicine Reviews and Perspectives.

7. “Episodes.” Peds RAP, Hippo Education.

As the race to develop rapid testing for COVID-19 expands, the Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency approval for an approach that uses saliva as the primary test biomaterial.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

According to a document provided to the FDA, the Rutgers Clinical Genomics Laboratory TaqPath SARS-CoV-2 Assay is intended for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid from SARS-CoV-2 in oropharyngeal (throat) swab, nasopharyngeal swab, anterior nasal swab, mid-turbinate nasal swab from individuals suspected of COVID-19 by their health care clinicians. To expand on this assay, Rutgers University–based RUCDR Infinite Biologics developed a saliva collection method in partnership with Spectrum Solutions and Accurate Diagnostic Labs.

The document states that collection of saliva specimens is limited to patients with symptoms of COVID-19 and should be performed in a health care setting under the supervision of a trained health care clinician. Samples are transported for RNA extraction and are tested within 48 hours of collection. In saliva samples obtained from 60 patients evaluated by the researchers, all were in agreement with the presence of COVID-19.

“If shown to be as accurate as nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal samples, saliva as a biomatrix offers the advantage of not generating aerosols or creating as many respiratory droplets during specimen procurement, therefore decreasing the risk of transmission to the health care worker doing the testing,” said Matthew P. Cheng, MDCM, of the division of infectious diseases at McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, who was not involved in development of the test but who has written about diagnostic testing for the virus.

“Also, it may be easy enough for patients to do saliva self-collection at home. However, it is important to note that SARS-CoV-2 tests on saliva have not yet undergone the more rigorous evaluation of full FDA authorization, and saliva is not a preferred specimen type of the FDA nor the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] for respiratory virus testing.”

In a prepared statement, Andrew I. Brooks, PhD, chief operating officer at RUCDR Infinite Biologics, said the saliva collection method enables clinicians to preserve personal protective equipment for use in patient care instead of testing. “We can significantly increase the number of people tested each and every day as self-collection of saliva is quicker and more scalable than swab collections,” he said. “All of this combined will have a tremendous impact on testing in New Jersey and across the United States.”

The tests are currently available to the RWJBarnabas Health network, based in West Orange, N.J., which has partnered with Rutgers University.

[email protected]

As the race to develop rapid testing for COVID-19 expands, the Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency approval for an approach that uses saliva as the primary test biomaterial.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

According to a document provided to the FDA, the Rutgers Clinical Genomics Laboratory TaqPath SARS-CoV-2 Assay is intended for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid from SARS-CoV-2 in oropharyngeal (throat) swab, nasopharyngeal swab, anterior nasal swab, mid-turbinate nasal swab from individuals suspected of COVID-19 by their health care clinicians. To expand on this assay, Rutgers University–based RUCDR Infinite Biologics developed a saliva collection method in partnership with Spectrum Solutions and Accurate Diagnostic Labs.

The document states that collection of saliva specimens is limited to patients with symptoms of COVID-19 and should be performed in a health care setting under the supervision of a trained health care clinician. Samples are transported for RNA extraction and are tested within 48 hours of collection. In saliva samples obtained from 60 patients evaluated by the researchers, all were in agreement with the presence of COVID-19.

“If shown to be as accurate as nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal samples, saliva as a biomatrix offers the advantage of not generating aerosols or creating as many respiratory droplets during specimen procurement, therefore decreasing the risk of transmission to the health care worker doing the testing,” said Matthew P. Cheng, MDCM, of the division of infectious diseases at McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, who was not involved in development of the test but who has written about diagnostic testing for the virus.

“Also, it may be easy enough for patients to do saliva self-collection at home. However, it is important to note that SARS-CoV-2 tests on saliva have not yet undergone the more rigorous evaluation of full FDA authorization, and saliva is not a preferred specimen type of the FDA nor the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] for respiratory virus testing.”

In a prepared statement, Andrew I. Brooks, PhD, chief operating officer at RUCDR Infinite Biologics, said the saliva collection method enables clinicians to preserve personal protective equipment for use in patient care instead of testing. “We can significantly increase the number of people tested each and every day as self-collection of saliva is quicker and more scalable than swab collections,” he said. “All of this combined will have a tremendous impact on testing in New Jersey and across the United States.”

The tests are currently available to the RWJBarnabas Health network, based in West Orange, N.J., which has partnered with Rutgers University.

[email protected]

As the race to develop rapid testing for COVID-19 expands, the Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency approval for an approach that uses saliva as the primary test biomaterial.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

According to a document provided to the FDA, the Rutgers Clinical Genomics Laboratory TaqPath SARS-CoV-2 Assay is intended for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid from SARS-CoV-2 in oropharyngeal (throat) swab, nasopharyngeal swab, anterior nasal swab, mid-turbinate nasal swab from individuals suspected of COVID-19 by their health care clinicians. To expand on this assay, Rutgers University–based RUCDR Infinite Biologics developed a saliva collection method in partnership with Spectrum Solutions and Accurate Diagnostic Labs.

The document states that collection of saliva specimens is limited to patients with symptoms of COVID-19 and should be performed in a health care setting under the supervision of a trained health care clinician. Samples are transported for RNA extraction and are tested within 48 hours of collection. In saliva samples obtained from 60 patients evaluated by the researchers, all were in agreement with the presence of COVID-19.

“If shown to be as accurate as nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal samples, saliva as a biomatrix offers the advantage of not generating aerosols or creating as many respiratory droplets during specimen procurement, therefore decreasing the risk of transmission to the health care worker doing the testing,” said Matthew P. Cheng, MDCM, of the division of infectious diseases at McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, who was not involved in development of the test but who has written about diagnostic testing for the virus.

“Also, it may be easy enough for patients to do saliva self-collection at home. However, it is important to note that SARS-CoV-2 tests on saliva have not yet undergone the more rigorous evaluation of full FDA authorization, and saliva is not a preferred specimen type of the FDA nor the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] for respiratory virus testing.”

In a prepared statement, Andrew I. Brooks, PhD, chief operating officer at RUCDR Infinite Biologics, said the saliva collection method enables clinicians to preserve personal protective equipment for use in patient care instead of testing. “We can significantly increase the number of people tested each and every day as self-collection of saliva is quicker and more scalable than swab collections,” he said. “All of this combined will have a tremendous impact on testing in New Jersey and across the United States.”

The tests are currently available to the RWJBarnabas Health network, based in West Orange, N.J., which has partnered with Rutgers University.

[email protected]