MDedge Psychiatry

Researchers and several medical groups on Oct. 23 pressed for changes to the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current plans for deciding how to eventually clear vaccines for COVID-19, arguing tougher standards would help bolster confidence in these critical medicines.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee met for a wide-ranging discussion beginning around 10 am. The FDA did not ask the panel to weigh in on any particular vaccine. Instead, the FDA asked for the panel’s feedback on a series of questions, including considerations for continuing phase 3 trials if a product were to get an interim clearance known as an emergency use authorization (EUA).

Speakers at the hearing made a variety of requests, including asking for data showing COVID-19 vaccines can prevent serious illness and urging transparency about the agency’s deliberations for each product to be considered.

FDA staff are closely tracking the crop of experimental vaccines that have made it into advanced stages of testing, including products from Pfizer Inc, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Moderna.
 

‘Time for a reset’

Among the speakers at the public hearing was Peter Lurie, MD, who served as an FDA associate commissioner from 2014 to 2017. Now the president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Lurie was among the speakers who asked the agency to make its independence clear.

President Donald Trump has for months been making predictions about COVID-19 vaccine approvals that have been overly optimistic. In one example, the president, who is seeking re-election on November 3, last month spoke about being able to begin distributing a vaccine in October.

“Until now the process of developing candidate vaccines has been inappropriately politicized with an eye on the election calendar, rather than the deliberate timeframe science requires,” Lurie told the FDA advisory panel. “Now is the time for a reset. This committee has a unique opportunity to set a new tone for vaccine deliberations going forward.”

Lurie asked the panel to press the FDA to commit to hold an advisory committee meeting on requests by drugmakers for EUAs. He also asked the panel to demand that informed consent forms and minutes from institutional review board (IRB) discussions of COVID-19 vaccines trials be made public.

Also among the speakers at the public hearing was Peter Doshi, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, who argued that the current trials won’t answer the right questions about the COVID-19 vaccines.

“We could end up with approved vaccines that reduce the risk of mild infection, but do not decrease the risk of hospitalization, ICU use, or death — either at all or by a clinically relevant amount,” Doshi told the panel.

In his presentation, he reiterated points he had made previously, including in an October 21 article in the BMJ, for which he is an associate editor. Doshi also raised these concerns in a September opinion article in The New York Times, co-authored with Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape.
 

Risks of a ‘rushed vaccine’

Other complaints about the FDA’s approach included criticism of a 2-month follow-up time after vaccination, which was seen as too short. ECRI, a nonprofit organization that seeks to improve the safety, quality, and cost-effectiveness of medicines, has argued that approving a weak COVID-19 vaccine might worsen the pandemic.

In an October 21 statement, ECRI noted the risk of a partially effective vaccine, which could be welcomed as a means of slowing transmission of the virus. But public response and attitudes over the past 9 months in the United States suggest that people would relax their precautions as soon as a vaccine is available.

“Resulting infections may offset the vaccine’s impact and end up increasing the mortality and morbidity burden,” ECRI said in the brief.

“The risks and consequences of a rushed vaccine could be very severe if the review is anything shy of thorough,” ECRI Chief Executive Officer Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, said in a statement prepared for the hearing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers and several medical groups on Oct. 23 pressed for changes to the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current plans for deciding how to eventually clear vaccines for COVID-19, arguing tougher standards would help bolster confidence in these critical medicines.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee met for a wide-ranging discussion beginning around 10 am. The FDA did not ask the panel to weigh in on any particular vaccine. Instead, the FDA asked for the panel’s feedback on a series of questions, including considerations for continuing phase 3 trials if a product were to get an interim clearance known as an emergency use authorization (EUA).

Speakers at the hearing made a variety of requests, including asking for data showing COVID-19 vaccines can prevent serious illness and urging transparency about the agency’s deliberations for each product to be considered.

FDA staff are closely tracking the crop of experimental vaccines that have made it into advanced stages of testing, including products from Pfizer Inc, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Moderna.
 

‘Time for a reset’

Among the speakers at the public hearing was Peter Lurie, MD, who served as an FDA associate commissioner from 2014 to 2017. Now the president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Lurie was among the speakers who asked the agency to make its independence clear.

President Donald Trump has for months been making predictions about COVID-19 vaccine approvals that have been overly optimistic. In one example, the president, who is seeking re-election on November 3, last month spoke about being able to begin distributing a vaccine in October.

“Until now the process of developing candidate vaccines has been inappropriately politicized with an eye on the election calendar, rather than the deliberate timeframe science requires,” Lurie told the FDA advisory panel. “Now is the time for a reset. This committee has a unique opportunity to set a new tone for vaccine deliberations going forward.”

Lurie asked the panel to press the FDA to commit to hold an advisory committee meeting on requests by drugmakers for EUAs. He also asked the panel to demand that informed consent forms and minutes from institutional review board (IRB) discussions of COVID-19 vaccines trials be made public.

Also among the speakers at the public hearing was Peter Doshi, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, who argued that the current trials won’t answer the right questions about the COVID-19 vaccines.

“We could end up with approved vaccines that reduce the risk of mild infection, but do not decrease the risk of hospitalization, ICU use, or death — either at all or by a clinically relevant amount,” Doshi told the panel.

In his presentation, he reiterated points he had made previously, including in an October 21 article in the BMJ, for which he is an associate editor. Doshi also raised these concerns in a September opinion article in The New York Times, co-authored with Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape.
 

Risks of a ‘rushed vaccine’

Other complaints about the FDA’s approach included criticism of a 2-month follow-up time after vaccination, which was seen as too short. ECRI, a nonprofit organization that seeks to improve the safety, quality, and cost-effectiveness of medicines, has argued that approving a weak COVID-19 vaccine might worsen the pandemic.

In an October 21 statement, ECRI noted the risk of a partially effective vaccine, which could be welcomed as a means of slowing transmission of the virus. But public response and attitudes over the past 9 months in the United States suggest that people would relax their precautions as soon as a vaccine is available.

“Resulting infections may offset the vaccine’s impact and end up increasing the mortality and morbidity burden,” ECRI said in the brief.

“The risks and consequences of a rushed vaccine could be very severe if the review is anything shy of thorough,” ECRI Chief Executive Officer Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, said in a statement prepared for the hearing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers and several medical groups on Oct. 23 pressed for changes to the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current plans for deciding how to eventually clear vaccines for COVID-19, arguing tougher standards would help bolster confidence in these critical medicines.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee met for a wide-ranging discussion beginning around 10 am. The FDA did not ask the panel to weigh in on any particular vaccine. Instead, the FDA asked for the panel’s feedback on a series of questions, including considerations for continuing phase 3 trials if a product were to get an interim clearance known as an emergency use authorization (EUA).

Speakers at the hearing made a variety of requests, including asking for data showing COVID-19 vaccines can prevent serious illness and urging transparency about the agency’s deliberations for each product to be considered.

FDA staff are closely tracking the crop of experimental vaccines that have made it into advanced stages of testing, including products from Pfizer Inc, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Moderna.
 

‘Time for a reset’

Among the speakers at the public hearing was Peter Lurie, MD, who served as an FDA associate commissioner from 2014 to 2017. Now the president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Lurie was among the speakers who asked the agency to make its independence clear.

President Donald Trump has for months been making predictions about COVID-19 vaccine approvals that have been overly optimistic. In one example, the president, who is seeking re-election on November 3, last month spoke about being able to begin distributing a vaccine in October.

“Until now the process of developing candidate vaccines has been inappropriately politicized with an eye on the election calendar, rather than the deliberate timeframe science requires,” Lurie told the FDA advisory panel. “Now is the time for a reset. This committee has a unique opportunity to set a new tone for vaccine deliberations going forward.”

Lurie asked the panel to press the FDA to commit to hold an advisory committee meeting on requests by drugmakers for EUAs. He also asked the panel to demand that informed consent forms and minutes from institutional review board (IRB) discussions of COVID-19 vaccines trials be made public.

Also among the speakers at the public hearing was Peter Doshi, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, who argued that the current trials won’t answer the right questions about the COVID-19 vaccines.

“We could end up with approved vaccines that reduce the risk of mild infection, but do not decrease the risk of hospitalization, ICU use, or death — either at all or by a clinically relevant amount,” Doshi told the panel.

In his presentation, he reiterated points he had made previously, including in an October 21 article in the BMJ, for which he is an associate editor. Doshi also raised these concerns in a September opinion article in The New York Times, co-authored with Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape.
 

Risks of a ‘rushed vaccine’

Other complaints about the FDA’s approach included criticism of a 2-month follow-up time after vaccination, which was seen as too short. ECRI, a nonprofit organization that seeks to improve the safety, quality, and cost-effectiveness of medicines, has argued that approving a weak COVID-19 vaccine might worsen the pandemic.

In an October 21 statement, ECRI noted the risk of a partially effective vaccine, which could be welcomed as a means of slowing transmission of the virus. But public response and attitudes over the past 9 months in the United States suggest that people would relax their precautions as soon as a vaccine is available.

“Resulting infections may offset the vaccine’s impact and end up increasing the mortality and morbidity burden,” ECRI said in the brief.

“The risks and consequences of a rushed vaccine could be very severe if the review is anything shy of thorough,” ECRI Chief Executive Officer Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, said in a statement prepared for the hearing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The available data suggest that the risks posed by COVID-19 infection to patients with psoriasis, including those on therapies that affect immune function, are modest at most, according to a summary of published studies and expert opinions summarized at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.

For patients with psoriasis concerned about their outcome if infected with COVID-19, “there is no evidence to support stopping biologics or systemic agents, so I am asking my patients to continue,” Kristina C. Duffin, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said at the meeting.

The National Psoriasis Foundation, which created a COVID-19 task force and maintains a COVID-19 Resource Center on its website, has provided similar advice. Many statements are phrased cautiously and clinicians are encouraged to practice shared decision-making, but the NPF guidance supports continuing effective therapy – or, in newly diagnosed patients, starting effective therapy – among those who are not infected with SARS-CoV2.

Patients with a new diagnosis of psoriasis “should be aware that untreated psoriatic disease is associated with serious impact on physical and emotional health, and in the case of psoriatic arthritis, can lead to permanent joint damage and disability,” according to the NPF guidance.

Overall, the “existing data generally suggest” that most treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis “do not meaningfully alter the risks of contracting SARS-CoV2 or having a worse course of COVID-19 illness,” the current guidance states. Yet, because of limited data this “is not known with certainty.”

Chronic systemic steroids are an exception. In a review of recently published studies evaluating whether psoriasis or its therapies increase risk of adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infection, Dr. Duffin pointed to several that associated systemic steroids with hospitalization or other markers of severe disease.

The NPF guidance also recommends avoiding chronic systemic steroids in patients with psoriasis during the current COVID-19 era “if possible.” In patients with psoriatic arthritis who require systemic steroids, the guidance recommends “the lowest dose necessary to achieve the desired therapeutic effect.”

This is not necessarily true in patients with psoriasis and COVID-19 infection. Based on the potential for systemic steroids to improve outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen, steroids “should not be withheld” even when the justification is concern about the potential risk of flares with withdrawal, according to the NPF guidance statement.

The NPF guidance specifically cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for prevention or treatment of COVID-19. In addition to an uncertain benefit, these antimalarial drugs have been associated previously with flares of psoriasis.

Dr. Duffin agreed and went on to warn that COVID-19 infection itself is a potential trigger for flares. She cited two published case reports of flares associated with psoriasis. Although one patient had also been exposed to hydroxychloroquine, she said the risk of psoriasis-induced flare “makes sense” based on previous associations made between flares and other viral infections and stress.

In patients with psoriasis who contract COVID-19 infection, Dr. Duffin concurred with the NPF guidance that management decisions should be made on a “case-by-case basis.” Although the NPF guidance states that “most patients can restart psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis treatments after complete resolution of COVID-19 symptoms,” no specific advice was offered on the decision to stop treatments.

For protecting psoriasis patients from infection and managing COVID-19 in those who become infected, much of the NPF advice is consistent with that offered to patients without psoriasis. This involves practicing infection control that reduces risk of transmission. Both the NPF guidance and Dr. Duffin suggested telemedicine is appropriate for limiting in-patient visits under pandemic conditions.

Although patients with psoriasis are more likely than the general population to have the comorbidities associated with bad COVID-19 infection outcomes, according to the NPF guidance, Dr. Duffin called the overall data evaluating susceptibility among psoriasis patients “reassuring.” She cautioned that the data are still limited, but the evidence so far suggests that neither psoriasis nor biologics are independent risk factors for acquiring COVID-19 or having a worse outcome if infected.

Yet, more definitive data are needed, and Dr. Duffin advised clinicians and patients to consult the NPF website for updates. “More up-to-date information will certainly be added as we go forward,” she said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education.

This NPF task force on COVID-19 is meeting every 2 weeks, according to Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and cochair of the task force. Dr. Gelfand reported that updates are based on a discussion of the available data.

“We will be releasing additional recommendations as necessary based on the developments,” he said in an interview. Updates are not necessarily required at this frequency but can be if appropriate. The goal is to keep recommendations current and evidence-based.

Dr. Duffin reported financial relationships with Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Siena, and UCB. Dr. Gelfand reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
 

The available data suggest that the risks posed by COVID-19 infection to patients with psoriasis, including those on therapies that affect immune function, are modest at most, according to a summary of published studies and expert opinions summarized at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.

For patients with psoriasis concerned about their outcome if infected with COVID-19, “there is no evidence to support stopping biologics or systemic agents, so I am asking my patients to continue,” Kristina C. Duffin, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said at the meeting.

The National Psoriasis Foundation, which created a COVID-19 task force and maintains a COVID-19 Resource Center on its website, has provided similar advice. Many statements are phrased cautiously and clinicians are encouraged to practice shared decision-making, but the NPF guidance supports continuing effective therapy – or, in newly diagnosed patients, starting effective therapy – among those who are not infected with SARS-CoV2.

Patients with a new diagnosis of psoriasis “should be aware that untreated psoriatic disease is associated with serious impact on physical and emotional health, and in the case of psoriatic arthritis, can lead to permanent joint damage and disability,” according to the NPF guidance.

Overall, the “existing data generally suggest” that most treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis “do not meaningfully alter the risks of contracting SARS-CoV2 or having a worse course of COVID-19 illness,” the current guidance states. Yet, because of limited data this “is not known with certainty.”

Chronic systemic steroids are an exception. In a review of recently published studies evaluating whether psoriasis or its therapies increase risk of adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infection, Dr. Duffin pointed to several that associated systemic steroids with hospitalization or other markers of severe disease.

The NPF guidance also recommends avoiding chronic systemic steroids in patients with psoriasis during the current COVID-19 era “if possible.” In patients with psoriatic arthritis who require systemic steroids, the guidance recommends “the lowest dose necessary to achieve the desired therapeutic effect.”

This is not necessarily true in patients with psoriasis and COVID-19 infection. Based on the potential for systemic steroids to improve outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen, steroids “should not be withheld” even when the justification is concern about the potential risk of flares with withdrawal, according to the NPF guidance statement.

The NPF guidance specifically cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for prevention or treatment of COVID-19. In addition to an uncertain benefit, these antimalarial drugs have been associated previously with flares of psoriasis.

Dr. Duffin agreed and went on to warn that COVID-19 infection itself is a potential trigger for flares. She cited two published case reports of flares associated with psoriasis. Although one patient had also been exposed to hydroxychloroquine, she said the risk of psoriasis-induced flare “makes sense” based on previous associations made between flares and other viral infections and stress.

In patients with psoriasis who contract COVID-19 infection, Dr. Duffin concurred with the NPF guidance that management decisions should be made on a “case-by-case basis.” Although the NPF guidance states that “most patients can restart psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis treatments after complete resolution of COVID-19 symptoms,” no specific advice was offered on the decision to stop treatments.

For protecting psoriasis patients from infection and managing COVID-19 in those who become infected, much of the NPF advice is consistent with that offered to patients without psoriasis. This involves practicing infection control that reduces risk of transmission. Both the NPF guidance and Dr. Duffin suggested telemedicine is appropriate for limiting in-patient visits under pandemic conditions.

Although patients with psoriasis are more likely than the general population to have the comorbidities associated with bad COVID-19 infection outcomes, according to the NPF guidance, Dr. Duffin called the overall data evaluating susceptibility among psoriasis patients “reassuring.” She cautioned that the data are still limited, but the evidence so far suggests that neither psoriasis nor biologics are independent risk factors for acquiring COVID-19 or having a worse outcome if infected.

Yet, more definitive data are needed, and Dr. Duffin advised clinicians and patients to consult the NPF website for updates. “More up-to-date information will certainly be added as we go forward,” she said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education.

This NPF task force on COVID-19 is meeting every 2 weeks, according to Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and cochair of the task force. Dr. Gelfand reported that updates are based on a discussion of the available data.

“We will be releasing additional recommendations as necessary based on the developments,” he said in an interview. Updates are not necessarily required at this frequency but can be if appropriate. The goal is to keep recommendations current and evidence-based.

Dr. Duffin reported financial relationships with Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Siena, and UCB. Dr. Gelfand reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
 

The available data suggest that the risks posed by COVID-19 infection to patients with psoriasis, including those on therapies that affect immune function, are modest at most, according to a summary of published studies and expert opinions summarized at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.

For patients with psoriasis concerned about their outcome if infected with COVID-19, “there is no evidence to support stopping biologics or systemic agents, so I am asking my patients to continue,” Kristina C. Duffin, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said at the meeting.

The National Psoriasis Foundation, which created a COVID-19 task force and maintains a COVID-19 Resource Center on its website, has provided similar advice. Many statements are phrased cautiously and clinicians are encouraged to practice shared decision-making, but the NPF guidance supports continuing effective therapy – or, in newly diagnosed patients, starting effective therapy – among those who are not infected with SARS-CoV2.

Patients with a new diagnosis of psoriasis “should be aware that untreated psoriatic disease is associated with serious impact on physical and emotional health, and in the case of psoriatic arthritis, can lead to permanent joint damage and disability,” according to the NPF guidance.

Overall, the “existing data generally suggest” that most treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis “do not meaningfully alter the risks of contracting SARS-CoV2 or having a worse course of COVID-19 illness,” the current guidance states. Yet, because of limited data this “is not known with certainty.”

Chronic systemic steroids are an exception. In a review of recently published studies evaluating whether psoriasis or its therapies increase risk of adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infection, Dr. Duffin pointed to several that associated systemic steroids with hospitalization or other markers of severe disease.

The NPF guidance also recommends avoiding chronic systemic steroids in patients with psoriasis during the current COVID-19 era “if possible.” In patients with psoriatic arthritis who require systemic steroids, the guidance recommends “the lowest dose necessary to achieve the desired therapeutic effect.”

This is not necessarily true in patients with psoriasis and COVID-19 infection. Based on the potential for systemic steroids to improve outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen, steroids “should not be withheld” even when the justification is concern about the potential risk of flares with withdrawal, according to the NPF guidance statement.

The NPF guidance specifically cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for prevention or treatment of COVID-19. In addition to an uncertain benefit, these antimalarial drugs have been associated previously with flares of psoriasis.

Dr. Duffin agreed and went on to warn that COVID-19 infection itself is a potential trigger for flares. She cited two published case reports of flares associated with psoriasis. Although one patient had also been exposed to hydroxychloroquine, she said the risk of psoriasis-induced flare “makes sense” based on previous associations made between flares and other viral infections and stress.

In patients with psoriasis who contract COVID-19 infection, Dr. Duffin concurred with the NPF guidance that management decisions should be made on a “case-by-case basis.” Although the NPF guidance states that “most patients can restart psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis treatments after complete resolution of COVID-19 symptoms,” no specific advice was offered on the decision to stop treatments.

For protecting psoriasis patients from infection and managing COVID-19 in those who become infected, much of the NPF advice is consistent with that offered to patients without psoriasis. This involves practicing infection control that reduces risk of transmission. Both the NPF guidance and Dr. Duffin suggested telemedicine is appropriate for limiting in-patient visits under pandemic conditions.

Although patients with psoriasis are more likely than the general population to have the comorbidities associated with bad COVID-19 infection outcomes, according to the NPF guidance, Dr. Duffin called the overall data evaluating susceptibility among psoriasis patients “reassuring.” She cautioned that the data are still limited, but the evidence so far suggests that neither psoriasis nor biologics are independent risk factors for acquiring COVID-19 or having a worse outcome if infected.

Yet, more definitive data are needed, and Dr. Duffin advised clinicians and patients to consult the NPF website for updates. “More up-to-date information will certainly be added as we go forward,” she said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education.

This NPF task force on COVID-19 is meeting every 2 weeks, according to Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and cochair of the task force. Dr. Gelfand reported that updates are based on a discussion of the available data.

“We will be releasing additional recommendations as necessary based on the developments,” he said in an interview. Updates are not necessarily required at this frequency but can be if appropriate. The goal is to keep recommendations current and evidence-based.

Dr. Duffin reported financial relationships with Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Siena, and UCB. Dr. Gelfand reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
 

Clinical Psychiatry News is pleased to announce that Anique K. Forrester, MD, has joined its editorial advisory board.

Dr. Forrester, who is board certified in the subspecialty of psychosomatic medicine (consultation-liaison psychiatry), holds numerous leadership positions at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She is director of the consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship at the university and serves as director of education for the C-L psychiatry PGY-2 rotation. Dr. Forrester, an assistant professor, also serves as chair of the department of psychiatry’s diversity committee and is the coordinator of the cultural psychiatry resident course.

Dr. Forrester completed her psychiatry residency training as well as psychosomatic medicine fellowship training at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia. She is a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. In addition, Dr. Forrester is a member of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry. She is a graduate of Howard University, Washington.

Her research interests include perinatal psychiatry, psycho-oncology, and cultural competence in medicine.

Welcome aboard, Dr. Forrester!

Clinical Psychiatry News is pleased to announce that Anique K. Forrester, MD, has joined its editorial advisory board.

Dr. Forrester, who is board certified in the subspecialty of psychosomatic medicine (consultation-liaison psychiatry), holds numerous leadership positions at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She is director of the consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship at the university and serves as director of education for the C-L psychiatry PGY-2 rotation. Dr. Forrester, an assistant professor, also serves as chair of the department of psychiatry’s diversity committee and is the coordinator of the cultural psychiatry resident course.

Dr. Forrester completed her psychiatry residency training as well as psychosomatic medicine fellowship training at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia. She is a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. In addition, Dr. Forrester is a member of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry. She is a graduate of Howard University, Washington.

Her research interests include perinatal psychiatry, psycho-oncology, and cultural competence in medicine.

Welcome aboard, Dr. Forrester!

Clinical Psychiatry News is pleased to announce that Anique K. Forrester, MD, has joined its editorial advisory board.

Dr. Forrester, who is board certified in the subspecialty of psychosomatic medicine (consultation-liaison psychiatry), holds numerous leadership positions at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She is director of the consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship at the university and serves as director of education for the C-L psychiatry PGY-2 rotation. Dr. Forrester, an assistant professor, also serves as chair of the department of psychiatry’s diversity committee and is the coordinator of the cultural psychiatry resident course.

Dr. Forrester completed her psychiatry residency training as well as psychosomatic medicine fellowship training at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia. She is a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. In addition, Dr. Forrester is a member of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry. She is a graduate of Howard University, Washington.

Her research interests include perinatal psychiatry, psycho-oncology, and cultural competence in medicine.

Welcome aboard, Dr. Forrester!

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its recommendations for likely person-to-person spread of SARS-CoV-2 to warn about the risk of multiple, brief, “close contact” encounters with others who are positive for COVID-19.

New data suggest each close encounter – coming within 6 feet of an infected person – can increase the risk for transmission, CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, said during a media briefing.

“As we get more data and understand the science of COVID, we’re going to continue to incorporate that in our recommendations,” Dr. Redfield said in response to a reporter’s question about a recent study.

Previously, the CDC cautioned against spending 15 minutes or longer in close proximity to an infected person, particularly in enclosed indoor spaces.

In a new report published online Oct. 21 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, however, investigators “determined that an individual who had a series of shorter contacts that over time added up to more than 15 minutes became infected.”
 

Beware of brief encounters?

On July 28, a 20-year-old male correctional officer in Vermont had multiple brief encounters with six transferred incarcerated or detained people while their SARS-CoV-2 test results were pending. The six were asymptomatic at the time and were housed in a quarantine unit, reported CDC researcher Julia Pringle, PhD, and colleagues.

The following day, all six inmates tested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive for COVID-19. The correctional officer did not spend 15 minutes or more within 6 feet of any of the inmates, according to video surveillance footage, and he continued to work.

On Aug. 4, however, he developed symptoms that included loss of smell and taste, myalgia, runny nose, cough, shortness of breath, headache, loss of appetite, and gastrointestinal symptoms. He stayed home starting the next day and tested PCR positive for COVID-19 on Aug. 11.

Further review of the surveillance video showed that the officer had numerous brief encounters of approximately 1 minute each that cumulatively exceeded 15 minutes over a 24-hour period, the researchers reported.

During all the interactions with inmates, the correctional officer wore a cloth mask, gown, and eye protection. The inmates wore masks while in their cells but did not have them on during brief cell doorway interactions or in the recreation room, according to the report.
 

No interaction is 100% safe

“We know that every activity that involves interacting with others has some degree of risk right now,” said Jay Butler, MD, CDC deputy director for infectious diseases.

“Unfortunately, we’re seeing a distressing trend here in the United States with COVID-19 cases increasing in nearly 75% of the country,” he said. “We’ve confirmed 8.1 million cases and, sadly, over 220,000 deaths since January.

“I know these are numbers, but these are also people,” Dr. Butler added.

“The pandemic is not over,” Dr. Redfield said. “Earlier this week, COVID virus cases reached over 40 million globally. Here in the United States we are approaching a critical phase.”

Four factors associated with higher risk for transmission are the proximity of each encounter, its duration, whether an interaction takes place indoors or outdoors, and the number of people encountered, Dr. Butler said.

Dr. Butler acknowledged widespread fatigue with adherence to personal protection measures, but added that social distancing, mask-wearing, and other measures are more important now than ever. He noted that more Americans will be spending time indoors with the onset of cooler weather and the upcoming holidays.
 

A note of optimism

Dr. Redfield remains optimistic about the limited availability of a vaccine or vaccines by year’s end but added that “it’s important for all of us to remain diligent in our efforts to defeat this virus.”

“There is hope on the way, in the form of safe and effective vaccines in a matter of weeks or months. To bridge to that next phase, we have to take steps to keep ourselves, our families, and our communities safe,” said Alex Azar, secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services.

“I know it’s been a difficult year for Americans, but we are going to come through this on the other side,” Dr. Redfield said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its recommendations for likely person-to-person spread of SARS-CoV-2 to warn about the risk of multiple, brief, “close contact” encounters with others who are positive for COVID-19.

New data suggest each close encounter – coming within 6 feet of an infected person – can increase the risk for transmission, CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, said during a media briefing.

“As we get more data and understand the science of COVID, we’re going to continue to incorporate that in our recommendations,” Dr. Redfield said in response to a reporter’s question about a recent study.

Previously, the CDC cautioned against spending 15 minutes or longer in close proximity to an infected person, particularly in enclosed indoor spaces.

In a new report published online Oct. 21 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, however, investigators “determined that an individual who had a series of shorter contacts that over time added up to more than 15 minutes became infected.”
 

Beware of brief encounters?

On July 28, a 20-year-old male correctional officer in Vermont had multiple brief encounters with six transferred incarcerated or detained people while their SARS-CoV-2 test results were pending. The six were asymptomatic at the time and were housed in a quarantine unit, reported CDC researcher Julia Pringle, PhD, and colleagues.

The following day, all six inmates tested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive for COVID-19. The correctional officer did not spend 15 minutes or more within 6 feet of any of the inmates, according to video surveillance footage, and he continued to work.

On Aug. 4, however, he developed symptoms that included loss of smell and taste, myalgia, runny nose, cough, shortness of breath, headache, loss of appetite, and gastrointestinal symptoms. He stayed home starting the next day and tested PCR positive for COVID-19 on Aug. 11.

Further review of the surveillance video showed that the officer had numerous brief encounters of approximately 1 minute each that cumulatively exceeded 15 minutes over a 24-hour period, the researchers reported.

During all the interactions with inmates, the correctional officer wore a cloth mask, gown, and eye protection. The inmates wore masks while in their cells but did not have them on during brief cell doorway interactions or in the recreation room, according to the report.
 

No interaction is 100% safe

“We know that every activity that involves interacting with others has some degree of risk right now,” said Jay Butler, MD, CDC deputy director for infectious diseases.

“Unfortunately, we’re seeing a distressing trend here in the United States with COVID-19 cases increasing in nearly 75% of the country,” he said. “We’ve confirmed 8.1 million cases and, sadly, over 220,000 deaths since January.

“I know these are numbers, but these are also people,” Dr. Butler added.

“The pandemic is not over,” Dr. Redfield said. “Earlier this week, COVID virus cases reached over 40 million globally. Here in the United States we are approaching a critical phase.”

Four factors associated with higher risk for transmission are the proximity of each encounter, its duration, whether an interaction takes place indoors or outdoors, and the number of people encountered, Dr. Butler said.

Dr. Butler acknowledged widespread fatigue with adherence to personal protection measures, but added that social distancing, mask-wearing, and other measures are more important now than ever. He noted that more Americans will be spending time indoors with the onset of cooler weather and the upcoming holidays.
 

A note of optimism

Dr. Redfield remains optimistic about the limited availability of a vaccine or vaccines by year’s end but added that “it’s important for all of us to remain diligent in our efforts to defeat this virus.”

“There is hope on the way, in the form of safe and effective vaccines in a matter of weeks or months. To bridge to that next phase, we have to take steps to keep ourselves, our families, and our communities safe,” said Alex Azar, secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services.

“I know it’s been a difficult year for Americans, but we are going to come through this on the other side,” Dr. Redfield said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its recommendations for likely person-to-person spread of SARS-CoV-2 to warn about the risk of multiple, brief, “close contact” encounters with others who are positive for COVID-19.

New data suggest each close encounter – coming within 6 feet of an infected person – can increase the risk for transmission, CDC director Robert Redfield, MD, said during a media briefing.

“As we get more data and understand the science of COVID, we’re going to continue to incorporate that in our recommendations,” Dr. Redfield said in response to a reporter’s question about a recent study.

Previously, the CDC cautioned against spending 15 minutes or longer in close proximity to an infected person, particularly in enclosed indoor spaces.

In a new report published online Oct. 21 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, however, investigators “determined that an individual who had a series of shorter contacts that over time added up to more than 15 minutes became infected.”
 

Beware of brief encounters?

On July 28, a 20-year-old male correctional officer in Vermont had multiple brief encounters with six transferred incarcerated or detained people while their SARS-CoV-2 test results were pending. The six were asymptomatic at the time and were housed in a quarantine unit, reported CDC researcher Julia Pringle, PhD, and colleagues.

The following day, all six inmates tested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive for COVID-19. The correctional officer did not spend 15 minutes or more within 6 feet of any of the inmates, according to video surveillance footage, and he continued to work.

On Aug. 4, however, he developed symptoms that included loss of smell and taste, myalgia, runny nose, cough, shortness of breath, headache, loss of appetite, and gastrointestinal symptoms. He stayed home starting the next day and tested PCR positive for COVID-19 on Aug. 11.

Further review of the surveillance video showed that the officer had numerous brief encounters of approximately 1 minute each that cumulatively exceeded 15 minutes over a 24-hour period, the researchers reported.

During all the interactions with inmates, the correctional officer wore a cloth mask, gown, and eye protection. The inmates wore masks while in their cells but did not have them on during brief cell doorway interactions or in the recreation room, according to the report.
 

No interaction is 100% safe

“We know that every activity that involves interacting with others has some degree of risk right now,” said Jay Butler, MD, CDC deputy director for infectious diseases.

“Unfortunately, we’re seeing a distressing trend here in the United States with COVID-19 cases increasing in nearly 75% of the country,” he said. “We’ve confirmed 8.1 million cases and, sadly, over 220,000 deaths since January.

“I know these are numbers, but these are also people,” Dr. Butler added.

“The pandemic is not over,” Dr. Redfield said. “Earlier this week, COVID virus cases reached over 40 million globally. Here in the United States we are approaching a critical phase.”

Four factors associated with higher risk for transmission are the proximity of each encounter, its duration, whether an interaction takes place indoors or outdoors, and the number of people encountered, Dr. Butler said.

Dr. Butler acknowledged widespread fatigue with adherence to personal protection measures, but added that social distancing, mask-wearing, and other measures are more important now than ever. He noted that more Americans will be spending time indoors with the onset of cooler weather and the upcoming holidays.
 

A note of optimism

Dr. Redfield remains optimistic about the limited availability of a vaccine or vaccines by year’s end but added that “it’s important for all of us to remain diligent in our efforts to defeat this virus.”

“There is hope on the way, in the form of safe and effective vaccines in a matter of weeks or months. To bridge to that next phase, we have to take steps to keep ourselves, our families, and our communities safe,” said Alex Azar, secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services.

“I know it’s been a difficult year for Americans, but we are going to come through this on the other side,” Dr. Redfield said.

Convalescent plasma may not prevent progression to severe disease or reduce mortality risk in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19, based on a phase 2 trial involving more than 400 patients in India.

The PLACID trial offers real-world data with “high generalizability,” according to lead author Anup Agarwal, MD, of the Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, and colleagues.

“Evidence suggests that convalescent plasma collected from survivors of COVID-19 contains receptor binding domain specific antibodies with potent antiviral activity,” the investigators wrote in the BMJ. “However, effective titers of antiviral neutralizing antibodies, optimal timing for convalescent plasma treatment, optimal timing for plasma donation, and the severity class of patients who are likely to benefit from convalescent plasma remain unclear.”

According to Dr. Agarwal and colleagues, case series and observational studies have suggested that convalescent plasma may reduce viral load, hospital stay, and mortality, but randomized controlled trials to date have ended prematurely because of issues with enrollment and design, making PLACID the first randomized controlled trial of its kind to reach completion.

The open-label, multicenter study involved 464 hospitalized adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Enrollment also required a respiratory rate of more than 24 breaths/min with an oxygen saturation (SpO₂) of 93% or less on room air, or a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂ /FiO₂ ) ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg.

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either best standard of care (control), or best standard of care plus convalescent plasma, which was given in two doses of 200 mL, 24 hours apart. Patients were assessed via clinical examination, chest imaging, and serial laboratory testing, the latter of which included neutralizing antibody titers on days 0, 3, and 7.

The primary outcome was a 28-day composite of progression to severe disease (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio < 100 mm Hg) and all-cause mortality. An array of secondary outcomes were also reported, including symptom resolution, total duration of respiratory support, change in oxygen requirement, and others.

In the convalescent plasma group, 19% of patients progressed to severe disease or died within 28 days, compared with 18% of those in the control group (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.54), suggesting no statistically significant benefit from the intervention. This lack of benefit was also found in a subgroup analysis of patients with detectable titers of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, and when progression to severe disease and all-cause mortality were analyzed independently across all patients.

Still, at day 7, patients treated with convalescent plasma were significantly more likely to have resolution of fatigue (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42) and shortness of breath (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32). And at the same time point, patients treated with convalescent plasma were 20% more likely to test negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.04-1.5).

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth B. Pathak, PhD, of the Women’s Institute for Independent Social Enquiry, Olney, Md., suggested that the reported symptom improvements need to be viewed with skepticism.

“These results should be interpreted with caution, because the trial was not blinded, so knowledge of treatment status could have influenced the reporting of subjective symptoms by patients who survived to day 7,” Dr. Pathak wrote.

Dr. Pathak noted that convalescent plasma did appear to have an antiviral effect, based on the higher rate of negative RNA test results at day 7. She hypothesized that the lack of major corresponding clinical benefit could be explained by detrimental thrombotic processes.

“The net effect of plasma is prothrombotic,” Dr. Pathak wrote, which should raise safety concerns, since “COVID-19 is a life-threatening thrombotic disorder.”

According to Dr. Pathak, large-scale datasets may be giving a false sense of security. She cited a recent safety analysis of 20,000 U.S. patients who received convalescent plasma, in which the investigators excluded 88.2% of cardiac events and 66.3% of thrombotic events, as these were deemed unrelated to transfusion; but this decision was made by the treating physician, without independent review or a defined protocol.

Michael J. Joyner, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., was the lead author of the above safety study, and is leading the Food and Drug Administration expanded access program for convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19. He suggested that the study by Dr. Agarwal and colleagues was admirable, but flaws in the treatment protocol cast doubt upon the efficacy findings.

“It is very impressive that these investigators performed a large trial of convalescent plasma in the midst of a pandemic,” Dr. Joyner said. “Unfortunately it is unclear how generalizable the findings are because many of the units of plasma had either very low or no antibody titers and because the plasma was given late in the course of the disease. It has been known since at least the 1930s that antibody therapy works best when enough product is given either prophylactically or early in the course of disease.”

Dr. Joyner had a more positive interpretation of the reported symptom improvements.

“It is also interesting to note that while there was no mortality benefit, that – even with the limitations of the study – there was some evidence of improved patient physiology at 7 days,” he said. “So, at one level, [this is] a negative study, but at least [there are] some hints of efficacy given the suboptimal use case in the patients studied.”

The study was funded by the Indian Council of Medical Research, which employs several of the authors and PLACID Trial Collaborators. Dr. Pathak and Dr. Joyner reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Agarwal A et al. BMJ. 2020 Oct 23. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3939 .

Convalescent plasma may not prevent progression to severe disease or reduce mortality risk in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19, based on a phase 2 trial involving more than 400 patients in India.

The PLACID trial offers real-world data with “high generalizability,” according to lead author Anup Agarwal, MD, of the Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, and colleagues.

“Evidence suggests that convalescent plasma collected from survivors of COVID-19 contains receptor binding domain specific antibodies with potent antiviral activity,” the investigators wrote in the BMJ. “However, effective titers of antiviral neutralizing antibodies, optimal timing for convalescent plasma treatment, optimal timing for plasma donation, and the severity class of patients who are likely to benefit from convalescent plasma remain unclear.”

According to Dr. Agarwal and colleagues, case series and observational studies have suggested that convalescent plasma may reduce viral load, hospital stay, and mortality, but randomized controlled trials to date have ended prematurely because of issues with enrollment and design, making PLACID the first randomized controlled trial of its kind to reach completion.

The open-label, multicenter study involved 464 hospitalized adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Enrollment also required a respiratory rate of more than 24 breaths/min with an oxygen saturation (SpO₂) of 93% or less on room air, or a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂ /FiO₂ ) ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg.

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either best standard of care (control), or best standard of care plus convalescent plasma, which was given in two doses of 200 mL, 24 hours apart. Patients were assessed via clinical examination, chest imaging, and serial laboratory testing, the latter of which included neutralizing antibody titers on days 0, 3, and 7.

The primary outcome was a 28-day composite of progression to severe disease (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio < 100 mm Hg) and all-cause mortality. An array of secondary outcomes were also reported, including symptom resolution, total duration of respiratory support, change in oxygen requirement, and others.

In the convalescent plasma group, 19% of patients progressed to severe disease or died within 28 days, compared with 18% of those in the control group (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.54), suggesting no statistically significant benefit from the intervention. This lack of benefit was also found in a subgroup analysis of patients with detectable titers of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, and when progression to severe disease and all-cause mortality were analyzed independently across all patients.

Still, at day 7, patients treated with convalescent plasma were significantly more likely to have resolution of fatigue (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42) and shortness of breath (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32). And at the same time point, patients treated with convalescent plasma were 20% more likely to test negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.04-1.5).

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth B. Pathak, PhD, of the Women’s Institute for Independent Social Enquiry, Olney, Md., suggested that the reported symptom improvements need to be viewed with skepticism.

“These results should be interpreted with caution, because the trial was not blinded, so knowledge of treatment status could have influenced the reporting of subjective symptoms by patients who survived to day 7,” Dr. Pathak wrote.

Dr. Pathak noted that convalescent plasma did appear to have an antiviral effect, based on the higher rate of negative RNA test results at day 7. She hypothesized that the lack of major corresponding clinical benefit could be explained by detrimental thrombotic processes.

“The net effect of plasma is prothrombotic,” Dr. Pathak wrote, which should raise safety concerns, since “COVID-19 is a life-threatening thrombotic disorder.”

According to Dr. Pathak, large-scale datasets may be giving a false sense of security. She cited a recent safety analysis of 20,000 U.S. patients who received convalescent plasma, in which the investigators excluded 88.2% of cardiac events and 66.3% of thrombotic events, as these were deemed unrelated to transfusion; but this decision was made by the treating physician, without independent review or a defined protocol.

Michael J. Joyner, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., was the lead author of the above safety study, and is leading the Food and Drug Administration expanded access program for convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19. He suggested that the study by Dr. Agarwal and colleagues was admirable, but flaws in the treatment protocol cast doubt upon the efficacy findings.

“It is very impressive that these investigators performed a large trial of convalescent plasma in the midst of a pandemic,” Dr. Joyner said. “Unfortunately it is unclear how generalizable the findings are because many of the units of plasma had either very low or no antibody titers and because the plasma was given late in the course of the disease. It has been known since at least the 1930s that antibody therapy works best when enough product is given either prophylactically or early in the course of disease.”

Dr. Joyner had a more positive interpretation of the reported symptom improvements.

“It is also interesting to note that while there was no mortality benefit, that – even with the limitations of the study – there was some evidence of improved patient physiology at 7 days,” he said. “So, at one level, [this is] a negative study, but at least [there are] some hints of efficacy given the suboptimal use case in the patients studied.”

The study was funded by the Indian Council of Medical Research, which employs several of the authors and PLACID Trial Collaborators. Dr. Pathak and Dr. Joyner reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Agarwal A et al. BMJ. 2020 Oct 23. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3939 .

Convalescent plasma may not prevent progression to severe disease or reduce mortality risk in hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19, based on a phase 2 trial involving more than 400 patients in India.

The PLACID trial offers real-world data with “high generalizability,” according to lead author Anup Agarwal, MD, of the Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, and colleagues.

“Evidence suggests that convalescent plasma collected from survivors of COVID-19 contains receptor binding domain specific antibodies with potent antiviral activity,” the investigators wrote in the BMJ. “However, effective titers of antiviral neutralizing antibodies, optimal timing for convalescent plasma treatment, optimal timing for plasma donation, and the severity class of patients who are likely to benefit from convalescent plasma remain unclear.”

According to Dr. Agarwal and colleagues, case series and observational studies have suggested that convalescent plasma may reduce viral load, hospital stay, and mortality, but randomized controlled trials to date have ended prematurely because of issues with enrollment and design, making PLACID the first randomized controlled trial of its kind to reach completion.

The open-label, multicenter study involved 464 hospitalized adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Enrollment also required a respiratory rate of more than 24 breaths/min with an oxygen saturation (SpO₂) of 93% or less on room air, or a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂ /FiO₂ ) ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg.

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either best standard of care (control), or best standard of care plus convalescent plasma, which was given in two doses of 200 mL, 24 hours apart. Patients were assessed via clinical examination, chest imaging, and serial laboratory testing, the latter of which included neutralizing antibody titers on days 0, 3, and 7.

The primary outcome was a 28-day composite of progression to severe disease (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio < 100 mm Hg) and all-cause mortality. An array of secondary outcomes were also reported, including symptom resolution, total duration of respiratory support, change in oxygen requirement, and others.

In the convalescent plasma group, 19% of patients progressed to severe disease or died within 28 days, compared with 18% of those in the control group (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.54), suggesting no statistically significant benefit from the intervention. This lack of benefit was also found in a subgroup analysis of patients with detectable titers of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, and when progression to severe disease and all-cause mortality were analyzed independently across all patients.

Still, at day 7, patients treated with convalescent plasma were significantly more likely to have resolution of fatigue (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42) and shortness of breath (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32). And at the same time point, patients treated with convalescent plasma were 20% more likely to test negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.04-1.5).

In an accompanying editorial, Elizabeth B. Pathak, PhD, of the Women’s Institute for Independent Social Enquiry, Olney, Md., suggested that the reported symptom improvements need to be viewed with skepticism.

“These results should be interpreted with caution, because the trial was not blinded, so knowledge of treatment status could have influenced the reporting of subjective symptoms by patients who survived to day 7,” Dr. Pathak wrote.

Dr. Pathak noted that convalescent plasma did appear to have an antiviral effect, based on the higher rate of negative RNA test results at day 7. She hypothesized that the lack of major corresponding clinical benefit could be explained by detrimental thrombotic processes.

“The net effect of plasma is prothrombotic,” Dr. Pathak wrote, which should raise safety concerns, since “COVID-19 is a life-threatening thrombotic disorder.”

According to Dr. Pathak, large-scale datasets may be giving a false sense of security. She cited a recent safety analysis of 20,000 U.S. patients who received convalescent plasma, in which the investigators excluded 88.2% of cardiac events and 66.3% of thrombotic events, as these were deemed unrelated to transfusion; but this decision was made by the treating physician, without independent review or a defined protocol.

Michael J. Joyner, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., was the lead author of the above safety study, and is leading the Food and Drug Administration expanded access program for convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19. He suggested that the study by Dr. Agarwal and colleagues was admirable, but flaws in the treatment protocol cast doubt upon the efficacy findings.

“It is very impressive that these investigators performed a large trial of convalescent plasma in the midst of a pandemic,” Dr. Joyner said. “Unfortunately it is unclear how generalizable the findings are because many of the units of plasma had either very low or no antibody titers and because the plasma was given late in the course of the disease. It has been known since at least the 1930s that antibody therapy works best when enough product is given either prophylactically or early in the course of disease.”

Dr. Joyner had a more positive interpretation of the reported symptom improvements.

“It is also interesting to note that while there was no mortality benefit, that – even with the limitations of the study – there was some evidence of improved patient physiology at 7 days,” he said. “So, at one level, [this is] a negative study, but at least [there are] some hints of efficacy given the suboptimal use case in the patients studied.”

The study was funded by the Indian Council of Medical Research, which employs several of the authors and PLACID Trial Collaborators. Dr. Pathak and Dr. Joyner reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Agarwal A et al. BMJ. 2020 Oct 23. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3939 .

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved remdesivir (Veklury) Oct. 22 as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients aged 12 and up, making it the first and only approved treatment for COVID-19, according to a release from drug manufacturer Gilead Sciences.

The FDA’s initial Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the antiviral, issued in May, allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who needed oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

An August EUA expanded treatment to include all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease. The FDA also issued a new EUA for remdesivir Oct. 22 allowing treatment of hospitalized pediatric patients younger than 12 weighing at least 3.5 kg.

Today’s approval is based on three randomized controlled trials, according to Gilead.

Final trial results from one of them, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease–funded ACTT-1 trial, published earlier in October, showed that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received remdesivir had a shorter median recovery time than those who received a placebo – 10 days versus 15 days.

This difference and some related secondary endpoints were statistically significant in the randomized trial, but there was not a statistically significant difference in mortality between the treatment and placebo groups.

The other two trials used for the approval, the SIMPLE trials, were open-label phase 3 trials conducted in countries with a high prevalence of COVID-19 infections, according to Gilead.

The SIMPLE-Severe trial was a randomized, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing plus standard of care in 397 hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 14 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale, according to Gilead.

The trial found that a 5-day or a 10-day treatment course of Veklury achieved similar clinical outcomes to the ACTT-1 trial (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.12).

The SIMPLE-Moderate trial was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing durations of Veklury plus standard of care, compared with standard of care alone in 600 hospitalized adult patients with moderate COVID-19, Gilead stated in its release.

The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 11 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale.

The results showed statistically improved clinical outcomes with a 5-day treatment course of Veklury, compared with standard of care (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.0-2.48; P = .017), according to Gilead.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved remdesivir (Veklury) Oct. 22 as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients aged 12 and up, making it the first and only approved treatment for COVID-19, according to a release from drug manufacturer Gilead Sciences.

The FDA’s initial Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the antiviral, issued in May, allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who needed oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

An August EUA expanded treatment to include all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease. The FDA also issued a new EUA for remdesivir Oct. 22 allowing treatment of hospitalized pediatric patients younger than 12 weighing at least 3.5 kg.

Today’s approval is based on three randomized controlled trials, according to Gilead.

Final trial results from one of them, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease–funded ACTT-1 trial, published earlier in October, showed that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received remdesivir had a shorter median recovery time than those who received a placebo – 10 days versus 15 days.

This difference and some related secondary endpoints were statistically significant in the randomized trial, but there was not a statistically significant difference in mortality between the treatment and placebo groups.

The other two trials used for the approval, the SIMPLE trials, were open-label phase 3 trials conducted in countries with a high prevalence of COVID-19 infections, according to Gilead.

The SIMPLE-Severe trial was a randomized, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing plus standard of care in 397 hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 14 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale, according to Gilead.

The trial found that a 5-day or a 10-day treatment course of Veklury achieved similar clinical outcomes to the ACTT-1 trial (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.12).

The SIMPLE-Moderate trial was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing durations of Veklury plus standard of care, compared with standard of care alone in 600 hospitalized adult patients with moderate COVID-19, Gilead stated in its release.

The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 11 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale.

The results showed statistically improved clinical outcomes with a 5-day treatment course of Veklury, compared with standard of care (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.0-2.48; P = .017), according to Gilead.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved remdesivir (Veklury) Oct. 22 as a treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients aged 12 and up, making it the first and only approved treatment for COVID-19, according to a release from drug manufacturer Gilead Sciences.

The FDA’s initial Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the antiviral, issued in May, allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who needed oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

An August EUA expanded treatment to include all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease. The FDA also issued a new EUA for remdesivir Oct. 22 allowing treatment of hospitalized pediatric patients younger than 12 weighing at least 3.5 kg.

Today’s approval is based on three randomized controlled trials, according to Gilead.

Final trial results from one of them, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease–funded ACTT-1 trial, published earlier in October, showed that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received remdesivir had a shorter median recovery time than those who received a placebo – 10 days versus 15 days.

This difference and some related secondary endpoints were statistically significant in the randomized trial, but there was not a statistically significant difference in mortality between the treatment and placebo groups.

The other two trials used for the approval, the SIMPLE trials, were open-label phase 3 trials conducted in countries with a high prevalence of COVID-19 infections, according to Gilead.

The SIMPLE-Severe trial was a randomized, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing plus standard of care in 397 hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 14 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale, according to Gilead.

The trial found that a 5-day or a 10-day treatment course of Veklury achieved similar clinical outcomes to the ACTT-1 trial (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.12).

The SIMPLE-Moderate trial was a randomized, controlled, multicenter study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 5-day and 10-day dosing durations of Veklury plus standard of care, compared with standard of care alone in 600 hospitalized adult patients with moderate COVID-19, Gilead stated in its release.

The primary endpoint was clinical status on day 11 assessed on a 7-point ordinal scale.

The results showed statistically improved clinical outcomes with a 5-day treatment course of Veklury, compared with standard of care (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.0-2.48; P = .017), according to Gilead.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In addition to screening adolescent patients at least once a year for substance use, it’s important that pediatricians build relationships with other behavioral health providers and develop a strategy for ensuring that teens with substance use issues continue returning to your practice as their medical home, according to Lucien Gonzalez, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

In a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year, Dr. Gonzalez discussed some of the common challenges pediatricians face in appropriately screening, diagnosing, and managing or referring youth when it comes to substance use.
 

Substance use screening

One of these included picking the right assessment tool and frequency for screening patients for substance use. A number of validated tools are out there, including the Screening to Brief Intervention (S2BI) and CRAFFT Screening Tool for Adolescent Substance Abuse. Regardless of which screening tool providers choose, “the important thing is to use a tool that is validated in the pediatric population and ideally has frequency results in it,” Dr. Gonzalez said.

In terms of frequency, screening young people at least once a year is fairly standard, but it may be necessary to screen adolescents more often or to screen them at acute visits.

“As many of you who work with adolescents know, you can’t always rely on the yearly well child visit because after a certain age, you start to see drop-off,” Dr. Gonzalez said. “They often aren’t coming for well child visits, and they often are then only showing up for acute visits.”

That means doctors need to think about how their clinics operate, how often they see their teen patients, and other factors – including how much can happen in a single year of adolescence – to ensure that screening captures these patients at least once a year, but more if that works within the practice.
 

Screening vs. diagnosis

Dr. Gonzalez also addressed the difference between screening and diagnosis, a very familiar distinction to physicians in other areas of medicine but often a source of confusion in the area of substance use.

“Screening is the presumptive identification of unrecognized disease in apparently healthy people who don’t have symptoms, using assessments that can be used rapidly,” Dr. Gonzalez said. “When we move into the diagnostic realm, these are people who present with symptoms or they have positive results on our screening test prompting further investigation.”

Sonia Khan, MD, a pediatrician and the medical director of the substance use disorder counseling program in the department of health and human services in Fremont, Calif., who heard the talk, particularly appreciated this point about screening versus diagnosis.

“As soon as you get a hint that there’s a problem with the kid, you’re no longer screening. You’re doing diagnostic investigation,” Dr. Khan, also the human relations commissioner for the city of Fremont, Calif., said in an interview. “Screening is about the kids you don’t know about. It seems like a small point to make a big deal out of, but it’s not.”

Sometimes a screening tool can serve as an introductory interview guide when beginning a clinical investigation with a patient who already shows symptoms, but that doesn’t mean it’s a screen.

Dr. Gonzalez emphasized the importance of not prescreening.

“A prescreener looks at a kid and decides whether or not they need to be screened,” Dr. Gonzalez said. “We have research that demonstrates that that doesn’t work. Physicians are not good at determining this by eyeballing it, and it’s fraught with bias. Universal screening with a validated screening tool is what works.”

Again, the idea of confronting one’s own personal biases and how they could interfere with screening really resonated with Dr. Khan.

“When it comes to the prescreening, if you’re only screening the ones you [think you] need to screen, you’re introducing bias into your screening,” she said. “It’s usually judgmental. It’s important to focus on really getting the bias out of what you’re doing because it’s a field fraught with bias and expectations.”


 

Brief interventions

Another area of confusion for many providers is what qualifies as a brief intervention and how to deliver it. The brief intervention needs to focus on increasing the patient’s knowledge, insights, and awareness when it comes to their own substance use and how it affects others. It should also support motivation in the patient to make behavioral changes. “It is always given in a nonjudgmental, supportive manner,” Dr. Gonzalez said.

Though motivational interviewing is often discussed as though it’s a brief intervention, it is actually the mechanism for delivering the intervention – not the intervention itself.

Dr. Gonzalez highly recommended that providers seek motivational interviewing training if they haven’t already. He went on to caution attendees about behavior goals in interventions: They should be the patient’s change goals, not the provider’s, and the provider is there to facilitate the teen’s clarification of those goals.

“It’s very important to use those listening skills that we have and honor their decision-making and listen to their language in establishing their own goals,” he said. It’s also important to keep cultural relevance and respect in mind when delivering the intervention. He shared a chart showing the dominant and nondominant groups along various demographic cultural influences, including age, disability status, faith, race/ethnicity, indigenous heritage, socioeconomic status, national origin, gender and sexuality.

For example, the dominant age groups are the young and middle-aged while the nondominant are children and elderly. The dominant faith in the United States is Christian or secular, and the dominant sexuality is heterosexual; the corresponding nondominant groups would be non-Christian and nonheterosexual. It’s important for providers to consider the child’s needs within that entire behavioral context to understand where they’re coming from.

“Have you ever characterized a kid’s situation with regard to substance use and diagnoses based on certain characteristics?” Dr. Gonzalez asked attendees. “We like to think that we don’t, but research on diagnostic disparities indicates otherwise.”

A way to help avoid this is to know who you are in the room and who you’re with in terms of dominant and nondominant groups. “Oftentimes a kid’s cultural make-up holds a big part of the answer to what they need,” Dr. Gonzalez said. He provided the example of a patient who was witnessing domestic violence in the home. A key part to helping him meet his goal of reducing cannabis and alcohol use was understanding his relationship with his dad, his response to trauma, and his depression, all within his cultural and religious background.
 

Preserving the medical home

Finally, when it comes to referrals, consider what are you referring a patient for and whom are you referring them to because not all programs and all clinicians are created equal. Create, build, and maintain relationships with as many behavioral health clinicians and practices as you can, he advised.

Further, it’s important to preserve the medical home, though that can require extra effort, particularly with children who have seen a lot of providers. Each physician will need to develop their own strategy for how to do this. Sometimes kids feel passed around and there’s poor communication within programs, leaving kids and their families feeling unwelcome at your practice.

“No child is a hot potato,” he said. Because they may feel like they’re being bounced around among different providers, programs, emergency departments, facilities, and such, it’s important to convey strongly that you want to continue to care for them.

“Whether we’ve been part of that or not, we become part of that,” Dr. Gonzalez said. “They may think that you don’t want to see them again. You want to keep them, and you might have to continue giving repeated messages. Sometimes we need to be very overt and repeat ourselves and say no, ‘I really, really, really want you to come back. This is your home and I want you to come back.’ ”

Dr. Gonzalez and Dr. Khan have no disclosures.

In addition to screening adolescent patients at least once a year for substance use, it’s important that pediatricians build relationships with other behavioral health providers and develop a strategy for ensuring that teens with substance use issues continue returning to your practice as their medical home, according to Lucien Gonzalez, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

In a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year, Dr. Gonzalez discussed some of the common challenges pediatricians face in appropriately screening, diagnosing, and managing or referring youth when it comes to substance use.
 

Substance use screening

One of these included picking the right assessment tool and frequency for screening patients for substance use. A number of validated tools are out there, including the Screening to Brief Intervention (S2BI) and CRAFFT Screening Tool for Adolescent Substance Abuse. Regardless of which screening tool providers choose, “the important thing is to use a tool that is validated in the pediatric population and ideally has frequency results in it,” Dr. Gonzalez said.

In terms of frequency, screening young people at least once a year is fairly standard, but it may be necessary to screen adolescents more often or to screen them at acute visits.

“As many of you who work with adolescents know, you can’t always rely on the yearly well child visit because after a certain age, you start to see drop-off,” Dr. Gonzalez said. “They often aren’t coming for well child visits, and they often are then only showing up for acute visits.”

That means doctors need to think about how their clinics operate, how often they see their teen patients, and other factors – including how much can happen in a single year of adolescence – to ensure that screening captures these patients at least once a year, but more if that works within the practice.
 

Screening vs. diagnosis

Dr. Gonzalez also addressed the difference between screening and diagnosis, a very familiar distinction to physicians in other areas of medicine but often a source of confusion in the area of substance use.

“Screening is the presumptive identification of unrecognized disease in apparently healthy people who don’t have symptoms, using assessments that can be used rapidly,” Dr. Gonzalez said. “When we move into the diagnostic realm, these are people who present with symptoms or they have positive results on our screening test prompting further investigation.”

Sonia Khan, MD, a pediatrician and the medical director of the substance use disorder counseling program in the department of health and human services in Fremont, Calif., who heard the talk, particularly appreciated this point about screening versus diagnosis.

“As soon as you get a hint that there’s a problem with the kid, you’re no longer screening. You’re doing diagnostic investigation,” Dr. Khan, also the human relations commissioner for the city of Fremont, Calif., said in an interview. “Screening is about the kids you don’t know about. It seems like a small point to make a big deal out of, but it’s not.”

Sometimes a screening tool can serve as an introductory interview guide when beginning a clinical investigation with a patient who already shows symptoms, but that doesn’t mean it’s a screen.

Dr. Gonzalez emphasized the importance of not prescreening.

“A prescreener looks at a kid and decides whether or not they need to be screened,” Dr. Gonzalez said. “We have research that demonstrates that that doesn’t work. Physicians are not good at determining this by eyeballing it, and it’s fraught with bias. Universal screening with a validated screening tool is what works.”

Again, the idea of confronting one’s own personal biases and how they could interfere with screening really resonated with Dr. Khan.

“When it comes to the prescreening, if you’re only screening the ones you [think you] need to screen, you’re introducing bias into your screening,” she said. “It’s usually judgmental. It’s important to focus on really getting the bias out of what you’re doing because it’s a field fraught with bias and expectations.”


 

Brief interventions

Another area of confusion for many providers is what qualifies as a brief intervention and how to deliver it. The brief intervention needs to focus on increasing the patient’s knowledge, insights, and awareness when it comes to their own substance use and how it affects others. It should also support motivation in the patient to make behavioral changes. “It is always given in a nonjudgmental, supportive manner,” Dr. Gonzalez said.

Though motivational interviewing is often discussed as though it’s a brief intervention, it is actually the mechanism for delivering the intervention – not the intervention itself.

Dr. Gonzalez highly recommended that providers seek motivational interviewing training if they haven’t already. He went on to caution attendees about behavior goals in interventions: They should be the patient’s change goals, not the provider’s, and the provider is there to facilitate the teen’s clarification of those goals.

“It’s very important to use those listening skills that we have and honor their decision-making and listen to their language in establishing their own goals,” he said. It’s also important to keep cultural relevance and respect in mind when delivering the intervention. He shared a chart showing the dominant and nondominant groups along various demographic cultural influences, including age, disability status, faith, race/ethnicity, indigenous heritage, socioeconomic status, national origin, gender and sexuality.

For example, the dominant age groups are the young and middle-aged while the nondominant are children and elderly. The dominant faith in the United States is Christian or secular, and the dominant sexuality is heterosexual; the corresponding nondominant groups would be non-Christian and nonheterosexual. It’s important for providers to consider the child’s needs within that entire behavioral context to understand where they’re coming from.

“Have you ever characterized a kid’s situation with regard to substance use and diagnoses based on certain characteristics?” Dr. Gonzalez asked attendees. “We like to think that we don’t, but research on diagnostic disparities indicates otherwise.”

A way to help avoid this is to know who you are in the room and who you’re with in terms of dominant and nondominant groups. “Oftentimes a kid’s cultural make-up holds a big part of the answer to what they need,” Dr. Gonzalez said. He provided the example of a patient who was witnessing domestic violence in the home. A key part to helping him meet his goal of reducing cannabis and alcohol use was understanding his relationship with his dad, his response to trauma, and his depression, all within his cultural and religious background.
 

Preserving the medical home

Finally, when it comes to referrals, consider what are you referring a patient for and whom are you referring them to because not all programs and all clinicians are created equal. Create, build, and maintain relationships with as many behavioral health clinicians and practices as you can, he advised.

Further, it’s important to preserve the medical home, though that can require extra effort, particularly with children who have seen a lot of providers. Each physician will need to develop their own strategy for how to do this. Sometimes kids feel passed around and there’s poor communication within programs, leaving kids and their families feeling unwelcome at your practice.

“No child is a hot potato,” he said. Because they may feel like they’re being bounced around among different providers, programs, emergency departments, facilities, and such, it’s important to convey strongly that you want to continue to care for them.

“Whether we’ve been part of that or not, we become part of that,” Dr. Gonzalez said. “They may think that you don’t want to see them again. You want to keep them, and you might have to continue giving repeated messages. Sometimes we need to be very overt and repeat ourselves and say no, ‘I really, really, really want you to come back. This is your home and I want you to come back.’ ”

Dr. Gonzalez and Dr. Khan have no disclosures.

In addition to screening adolescent patients at least once a year for substance use, it’s important that pediatricians build relationships with other behavioral health providers and develop a strategy for ensuring that teens with substance use issues continue returning to your practice as their medical home, according to Lucien Gonzalez, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

In a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year, Dr. Gonzalez discussed some of the common challenges pediatricians face in appropriately screening, diagnosing, and managing or referring youth when it comes to substance use.
 

Substance use screening

One of these included picking the right assessment tool and frequency for screening patients for substance use. A number of validated tools are out there, including the Screening to Brief Intervention (S2BI) and CRAFFT Screening Tool for Adolescent Substance Abuse. Regardless of which screening tool providers choose, “the important thing is to use a tool that is validated in the pediatric population and ideally has frequency results in it,” Dr. Gonzalez said.

In terms of frequency, screening young people at least once a year is fairly standard, but it may be necessary to screen adolescents more often or to screen them at acute visits.

“As many of you who work with adolescents know, you can’t always rely on the yearly well child visit because after a certain age, you start to see drop-off,” Dr. Gonzalez said. “They often aren’t coming for well child visits, and they often are then only showing up for acute visits.”

That means doctors need to think about how their clinics operate, how often they see their teen patients, and other factors – including how much can happen in a single year of adolescence – to ensure that screening captures these patients at least once a year, but more if that works within the practice.
 

Screening vs. diagnosis

Dr. Gonzalez also addressed the difference between screening and diagnosis, a very familiar distinction to physicians in other areas of medicine but often a source of confusion in the area of substance use.

“Screening is the presumptive identification of unrecognized disease in apparently healthy people who don’t have symptoms, using assessments that can be used rapidly,” Dr. Gonzalez said. “When we move into the diagnostic realm, these are people who present with symptoms or they have positive results on our screening test prompting further investigation.”

Sonia Khan, MD, a pediatrician and the medical director of the substance use disorder counseling program in the department of health and human services in Fremont, Calif., who heard the talk, particularly appreciated this point about screening versus diagnosis.

“As soon as you get a hint that there’s a problem with the kid, you’re no longer screening. You’re doing diagnostic investigation,” Dr. Khan, also the human relations commissioner for the city of Fremont, Calif., said in an interview. “Screening is about the kids you don’t know about. It seems like a small point to make a big deal out of, but it’s not.”

Sometimes a screening tool can serve as an introductory interview guide when beginning a clinical investigation with a patient who already shows symptoms, but that doesn’t mean it’s a screen.

Dr. Gonzalez emphasized the importance of not prescreening.

“A prescreener looks at a kid and decides whether or not they need to be screened,” Dr. Gonzalez said. “We have research that demonstrates that that doesn’t work. Physicians are not good at determining this by eyeballing it, and it’s fraught with bias. Universal screening with a validated screening tool is what works.”

Again, the idea of confronting one’s own personal biases and how they could interfere with screening really resonated with Dr. Khan.

“When it comes to the prescreening, if you’re only screening the ones you [think you] need to screen, you’re introducing bias into your screening,” she said. “It’s usually judgmental. It’s important to focus on really getting the bias out of what you’re doing because it’s a field fraught with bias and expectations.”


 

Brief interventions

Another area of confusion for many providers is what qualifies as a brief intervention and how to deliver it. The brief intervention needs to focus on increasing the patient’s knowledge, insights, and awareness when it comes to their own substance use and how it affects others. It should also support motivation in the patient to make behavioral changes. “It is always given in a nonjudgmental, supportive manner,” Dr. Gonzalez said.

Though motivational interviewing is often discussed as though it’s a brief intervention, it is actually the mechanism for delivering the intervention – not the intervention itself.

Dr. Gonzalez highly recommended that providers seek motivational interviewing training if they haven’t already. He went on to caution attendees about behavior goals in interventions: They should be the patient’s change goals, not the provider’s, and the provider is there to facilitate the teen’s clarification of those goals.

“It’s very important to use those listening skills that we have and honor their decision-making and listen to their language in establishing their own goals,” he said. It’s also important to keep cultural relevance and respect in mind when delivering the intervention. He shared a chart showing the dominant and nondominant groups along various demographic cultural influences, including age, disability status, faith, race/ethnicity, indigenous heritage, socioeconomic status, national origin, gender and sexuality.

For example, the dominant age groups are the young and middle-aged while the nondominant are children and elderly. The dominant faith in the United States is Christian or secular, and the dominant sexuality is heterosexual; the corresponding nondominant groups would be non-Christian and nonheterosexual. It’s important for providers to consider the child’s needs within that entire behavioral context to understand where they’re coming from.

“Have you ever characterized a kid’s situation with regard to substance use and diagnoses based on certain characteristics?” Dr. Gonzalez asked attendees. “We like to think that we don’t, but research on diagnostic disparities indicates otherwise.”

A way to help avoid this is to know who you are in the room and who you’re with in terms of dominant and nondominant groups. “Oftentimes a kid’s cultural make-up holds a big part of the answer to what they need,” Dr. Gonzalez said. He provided the example of a patient who was witnessing domestic violence in the home. A key part to helping him meet his goal of reducing cannabis and alcohol use was understanding his relationship with his dad, his response to trauma, and his depression, all within his cultural and religious background.
 

Preserving the medical home

Finally, when it comes to referrals, consider what are you referring a patient for and whom are you referring them to because not all programs and all clinicians are created equal. Create, build, and maintain relationships with as many behavioral health clinicians and practices as you can, he advised.

Further, it’s important to preserve the medical home, though that can require extra effort, particularly with children who have seen a lot of providers. Each physician will need to develop their own strategy for how to do this. Sometimes kids feel passed around and there’s poor communication within programs, leaving kids and their families feeling unwelcome at your practice.

“No child is a hot potato,” he said. Because they may feel like they’re being bounced around among different providers, programs, emergency departments, facilities, and such, it’s important to convey strongly that you want to continue to care for them.

“Whether we’ve been part of that or not, we become part of that,” Dr. Gonzalez said. “They may think that you don’t want to see them again. You want to keep them, and you might have to continue giving repeated messages. Sometimes we need to be very overt and repeat ourselves and say no, ‘I really, really, really want you to come back. This is your home and I want you to come back.’ ”

Dr. Gonzalez and Dr. Khan have no disclosures.

Multiple mouthwash and oral rinse products wiped out a human coronavirus closely related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus in a laboratory comparison study.

Listerine Antiseptic led the list of most effective mouthwashes for inactivating the coronavirus. Interestingly, a 1% nasal rinse solution of Johnson’s Baby Shampoo also worked, eliminating up to 99.9% of the viral load in the in vitro experiments.

In contrast, use of a neti pot nasal solution yielded no decrease in virus levels.

The study was published in the Journal of Medical Virology.

Because the mouthwash and hydrogen peroxide oral rinses in the study are widely available and easy to use, “I would recommend the use of the rinses on top of wearing mask and social distancing. This could add a layer of protection for yourself and others,” lead study author Craig Meyers, PhD, professor of microbiology and immunology and obstetrics and gynecology, Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, told Medscape Medical News.

Meyers and colleagues found that efficacy aligned with duration of time the cell cultures were exposed to each mouthwash or rinse product. Although it varied, the products required at least 30 seconds to kill most of the virus. Waiting 1 or 2 minutes tended to fortify results.

“This study adds to and further confirms the recently published evidence from virologists in Germany that mouthwashes can inactivate the virus that causes COVID-19 in a test tube,” Valerie O’Donnell, PhD, co-director of the Systems Immunity Research Institute of Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, said when asked to comment on the study.

“While this is great to see, what is still lacking is in vivo evidence, since we know the virus will be continually shed in the mouth,” O’Donnell said. “So, the question now becomes, by how much could mouthwashes reduce viral load in the oropharynx of infected people, and if so, then for how long?”

Meyers noted that studies of people positive for COVID-19 using each product would be informative. It remains unknown, for example, if swishing, gargling, and/or spitting out mouthwash would add or decrease the efficacy demonstrated in the lab.

The investigators used the human coronavirus HCoV‐229e as a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2. They noted HCoV-229e is analogous, and SARS-CoV-2 would have been more expensive, less available, and would have required biosafety level 3 laboratory conditions.
 

Listerine Antiseptic leads the way

“Surprisingly, we found that several of these common products had strong virucidal properties, inactivating from 2 log10 [or 99%] to greater than 4 log10 [or 99.99%] of infectious human coronavirus,” the researchers note.

Timing of the essence?

Meyers and colleagues also tested a nasal rinse solution of 1% baby shampoo because it is sometimes used to treat people with chronic rhinosinusitis. They found 30 seconds led to < 90% to < 99.99% effectiveness, but that, by 2 minutes, efficacy climbed to > 99.9% to > 99.99%.

“Thirty seconds for some products just was not enough time for the efficacy to be observed,” Meyers said. “Whereas, after a minute or two the active ingredient had enough time to work. Thirty seconds may be at the border to see full efficacy.” More research is needed to confirm the timing and determine which active ingredients are driving the findings.

A future trial could test the efficacy of mouthwash products to reduce the viral load in people with COVID-19. “If we are able to get funding to continue, I would like to see a small clinical trial as the next step,” Meyers said.

Meyers and O’Donnell disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Multiple mouthwash and oral rinse products wiped out a human coronavirus closely related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus in a laboratory comparison study.

Listerine Antiseptic led the list of most effective mouthwashes for inactivating the coronavirus. Interestingly, a 1% nasal rinse solution of Johnson’s Baby Shampoo also worked, eliminating up to 99.9% of the viral load in the in vitro experiments.

In contrast, use of a neti pot nasal solution yielded no decrease in virus levels.

The study was published in the Journal of Medical Virology.

Because the mouthwash and hydrogen peroxide oral rinses in the study are widely available and easy to use, “I would recommend the use of the rinses on top of wearing mask and social distancing. This could add a layer of protection for yourself and others,” lead study author Craig Meyers, PhD, professor of microbiology and immunology and obstetrics and gynecology, Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, told Medscape Medical News.

Meyers and colleagues found that efficacy aligned with duration of time the cell cultures were exposed to each mouthwash or rinse product. Although it varied, the products required at least 30 seconds to kill most of the virus. Waiting 1 or 2 minutes tended to fortify results.

“This study adds to and further confirms the recently published evidence from virologists in Germany that mouthwashes can inactivate the virus that causes COVID-19 in a test tube,” Valerie O’Donnell, PhD, co-director of the Systems Immunity Research Institute of Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, said when asked to comment on the study.

“While this is great to see, what is still lacking is in vivo evidence, since we know the virus will be continually shed in the mouth,” O’Donnell said. “So, the question now becomes, by how much could mouthwashes reduce viral load in the oropharynx of infected people, and if so, then for how long?”

Meyers noted that studies of people positive for COVID-19 using each product would be informative. It remains unknown, for example, if swishing, gargling, and/or spitting out mouthwash would add or decrease the efficacy demonstrated in the lab.

The investigators used the human coronavirus HCoV‐229e as a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2. They noted HCoV-229e is analogous, and SARS-CoV-2 would have been more expensive, less available, and would have required biosafety level 3 laboratory conditions.
 

Listerine Antiseptic leads the way

“Surprisingly, we found that several of these common products had strong virucidal properties, inactivating from 2 log10 [or 99%] to greater than 4 log10 [or 99.99%] of infectious human coronavirus,” the researchers note.

Timing of the essence?

Meyers and colleagues also tested a nasal rinse solution of 1% baby shampoo because it is sometimes used to treat people with chronic rhinosinusitis. They found 30 seconds led to < 90% to < 99.99% effectiveness, but that, by 2 minutes, efficacy climbed to > 99.9% to > 99.99%.

“Thirty seconds for some products just was not enough time for the efficacy to be observed,” Meyers said. “Whereas, after a minute or two the active ingredient had enough time to work. Thirty seconds may be at the border to see full efficacy.” More research is needed to confirm the timing and determine which active ingredients are driving the findings.

A future trial could test the efficacy of mouthwash products to reduce the viral load in people with COVID-19. “If we are able to get funding to continue, I would like to see a small clinical trial as the next step,” Meyers said.

Meyers and O’Donnell disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Multiple mouthwash and oral rinse products wiped out a human coronavirus closely related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus in a laboratory comparison study.

Listerine Antiseptic led the list of most effective mouthwashes for inactivating the coronavirus. Interestingly, a 1% nasal rinse solution of Johnson’s Baby Shampoo also worked, eliminating up to 99.9% of the viral load in the in vitro experiments.

In contrast, use of a neti pot nasal solution yielded no decrease in virus levels.

The study was published in the Journal of Medical Virology.

Because the mouthwash and hydrogen peroxide oral rinses in the study are widely available and easy to use, “I would recommend the use of the rinses on top of wearing mask and social distancing. This could add a layer of protection for yourself and others,” lead study author Craig Meyers, PhD, professor of microbiology and immunology and obstetrics and gynecology, Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, told Medscape Medical News.

Meyers and colleagues found that efficacy aligned with duration of time the cell cultures were exposed to each mouthwash or rinse product. Although it varied, the products required at least 30 seconds to kill most of the virus. Waiting 1 or 2 minutes tended to fortify results.

“This study adds to and further confirms the recently published evidence from virologists in Germany that mouthwashes can inactivate the virus that causes COVID-19 in a test tube,” Valerie O’Donnell, PhD, co-director of the Systems Immunity Research Institute of Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, said when asked to comment on the study.

“While this is great to see, what is still lacking is in vivo evidence, since we know the virus will be continually shed in the mouth,” O’Donnell said. “So, the question now becomes, by how much could mouthwashes reduce viral load in the oropharynx of infected people, and if so, then for how long?”

Meyers noted that studies of people positive for COVID-19 using each product would be informative. It remains unknown, for example, if swishing, gargling, and/or spitting out mouthwash would add or decrease the efficacy demonstrated in the lab.

The investigators used the human coronavirus HCoV‐229e as a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2. They noted HCoV-229e is analogous, and SARS-CoV-2 would have been more expensive, less available, and would have required biosafety level 3 laboratory conditions.
 

Listerine Antiseptic leads the way

“Surprisingly, we found that several of these common products had strong virucidal properties, inactivating from 2 log10 [or 99%] to greater than 4 log10 [or 99.99%] of infectious human coronavirus,” the researchers note.

Timing of the essence?

Meyers and colleagues also tested a nasal rinse solution of 1% baby shampoo because it is sometimes used to treat people with chronic rhinosinusitis. They found 30 seconds led to < 90% to < 99.99% effectiveness, but that, by 2 minutes, efficacy climbed to > 99.9% to > 99.99%.

“Thirty seconds for some products just was not enough time for the efficacy to be observed,” Meyers said. “Whereas, after a minute or two the active ingredient had enough time to work. Thirty seconds may be at the border to see full efficacy.” More research is needed to confirm the timing and determine which active ingredients are driving the findings.

A future trial could test the efficacy of mouthwash products to reduce the viral load in people with COVID-19. “If we are able to get funding to continue, I would like to see a small clinical trial as the next step,” Meyers said.

Meyers and O’Donnell disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although medical education is constantly evolving, unique and rapid developments in recent years have sparked controversy. The next generation of physicians is learning much differently from how established doctors once did. Training has shifted from an acute focus on disease to a wider approach that considers patients within the larger context of their community and society. Although many, like myself, see this as progress, others have expressed doubts about this and many other changes.

Amid the madness that is the year 2020, I’m grateful to have a moment to reflect on this subject. Five years ago, in celebration of Medscape’s 20th anniversary, I spoke with various leaders in medical education to learn how med ed had evolved since they were in school. Since then, I’ve gone from student to faculty. This year, for Medscape’s 25th anniversary, I reached out to current medical trainees to reflect on how much things have changed in such a short time.

From adjustments forced on us by COVID-19 to trends that predated the pandemic – including an increased emphasis on social justice and a decreased emphasis on other material – becoming a doctor no longer looks like it did just a half-decade ago.
 

Social justice is now in the curricula

More than ever, medical training has shifted toward humanism, population health, and social justice. Students are now being shown not only how to treat the patient in front of them but how to “treat” the larger communities they serve. Research skills around social drivers of health, such as structural racism, are increasingly becoming status quo.

In reflecting on her current experience, Emily Kahoud, a third-year medical student at New Jersey Medical School, Newark, told me about a course she took that was devoted to health equity. She applauded how her professors have incorporated this education into their courses. “It’s so nice and refreshing to be in a community that appreciates that.”

I, too, have seen this change firsthand. In addition to caring for patients and teaching at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, I work with a team that develops curricula around social justice. We strive to integrate this material into existing courses and rotations. I believe that this is not only the right thing to teach trainees in order to help their future patients, but that it also reduces harm that many students experience. The “hidden curriculum” of medical school has long marginalized anyone who isn’t White and/or male.

Children, women, and the elderly were often referred to as “special populations” during my training. Even now, content about social and structural drivers of health is still most often relegated to separate courses rather than integrated into existing material. I hope to help improve this at my institution and that others are doing the same elsewhere.

If the current students I spoke with are any indication, further integration will be a welcomed change. Travis Benson, a third-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, appreciates where medical training is headed. Specifically, he is interested in inequities in the care of transgender patients. He says he has loved what his school has done with education on issues not previously considered part of med ed. “In the first week of school, we go on tours and spend time in community health centers and learn about the ‘Family Van,’ a mobile health care clinic that offers free care. I even had an opportunity to have a longitudinal clinic experience at a jail.”

While some critics argue that this learning goes too far, others argue that it has not gone far enough fast enough. In general, I consider the progress made in this area since my time in med school to be a very good thing. Medical students are now being taught to think about the science of medicine in the context of the larger human condition.
 

More technology, less preclinical time and cost

Beyond evolution in curricular content, technical and logistical changes have dramatically reshaped med ed. Since I started my training in 2012, most medical schools now no longer formally require students to attend lectures. Instead, they make them available online for students to view on demand. This undoubtedly makes schedules more flexible, allows students to learn at their own pace, and helps accommodate students with different needs.

Another big change: Preclinical years may now be as short as 1.5 years or less. This is a big draw for some students. Most choose to go to medical school to take care of patients. Shortening the preclinical years means students have more time immersed in patient care and less time dealing with medical minutiae.

That also means that they can spend more time thinking about professional development. Ramie Fathy, a fourth-year student, told me, “I came to Penn [University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia] because of the shortened preclinical curriculum. That allowed more time on the back end to explore different specialties.” Although some established doctors worry about what scientific details may be left out, providing more hands-on experience sure seems like a good thing to me. Learning from textbooks can only take you so far in this profession.

Another, and more expected, development is the use of ever-advancing technology. Some schools now offer 3D virtual modeling for the study of anatomy, as well as a myriad of electronic visual aids for subjects like pathology and microbiology. Adapting to technological changes can be challenging, however, especially because more nontraditional students are being admitted to medical school each year.

Kahoud is one such nontraditional – older – student. She had some concerns about reliance on newer resources going in. “It [medical school] has become increasingly dependent on technology, even before COVID,” she said. “When you are not well versed in these tools it can definitely be a struggle.”

Thanks to the pandemic, remote learning is now the name of the game for many. As a result, instructors have had to amend their teaching styles to suit distance education, various untested applications and programs have been integrated into the curriculum, and students and administrators alike have had to find alternative ways to build a sense of community.

Is this a glimpse at the future for med ed? And if so, what may be lost or gained from this transition? Tino Delamerced, a third-year student at the Brown University, Providence, R.I., shared a likely very widely held hope: “If the preclinical years can be totally remote permanently, then can tuition be cheaper?”

Med ed debt keeps growing and remains a huge deterrent for potential students, especially those who are the first in their family to pursue medicine, come from a disadvantaged background, or have other people for whom they are financially responsible. Is it possible that the restrictions of COVID-19 could finally lead to cost cutting?

A bigger solution – free medical school – predated the pandemic. Institutions such as New York University have completely eliminated tuition, whereas others such as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (my alma mater) have limited the amount of debt with which a student graduates. You can imagine my frustration that the debt limit policy was enacted after I graduated.

Still, as optimistic as some have been at this movement that developed in the past 5 years, many think this specific evolution is little more than a “pipe dream.”
 

Current students score big with USMLE change

Beyond med school cost, another universally despised part of medical training that has seen a dramatic change is the licensing examination. My dedicated study period for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 was my worst time of medical school. Well, it was second to holding a retractor in the operating room for hours at a time.

Like everyone, I suspected that Step 1 would not be an accurate indicator of my ability to actually care for patients. As a practicing physician, I can now tell you for sure that this is the case. How lucky for the next generation, then, that the test is going to a pass/fail grading system.

Step 1 has always been important, as residency programs rely on the score to weed out applicants. Even if that screening emphasis simply gets shifted to scores on other examinations, this change still feels like progress. As Fathy told me, “There will likely be more emphasis on USMLE Step 2. But I think, based on practice questions I’ve done, that is more relevant to clinical abilities.” From my new vantage point, I can confirm that.

Not everyone is excited, though. Delamerced told me that he fears that the pass/fail Step 1 score may disparately affect students outside of allopathic medical schools. He said that the new scoring system “does not allow students to distinguish themselves via a standardized test score. That may hurt IMGs or DO students.”

Even then, Delamerced conceded that the change has some clear benefits. “For med students’ mental health, it’s probably a good thing.” From a population-based perspective, a medical student’s mental health often declines throughout school. Standardized exams are not the only cause, but we all know that it is a big contributor. The Step 1 switch can only help with that.
 

Finish faster or learn more?

In addition to evolution in the content and methods used to teach and assess current med students, the duration of med ed has also changed. Today’s students can choose to complete medical school in less than 4 years.

At the school where I work, the Fully Integrated Readiness for Service Training (FIRST) program allows certain students to complete their education in just 3 years. This program is for students who already know early on that they want to pursue a specialty included on our curated list. The goal of the program is to ultimately train physicians in family medicine, psychiatry, pediatrics, or general surgery in order to provide crucial care to those who need it most in our state.

Other medical schools offer accelerated MD programs for students based on various admissions criteria and specialty interest. The benefit of these programs is that shortening training time cuts down on debt for students.

Accelerated MD programs also aim to quickly increase the number of practicing physicians. This is especially important for primary care, which expects to see a growing gap in the years to come. That aim has come under some criticism, as some believe that the 4-year program was the standard for a reason. But when I reflect on it, I often wonder whether my fourth year was really worth $60,000. I spent a lot of that year traveling for residency interviews and watching Netflix between clinic electives.

Instead of finishing medical school faster, some students now have an opportunity to integrate additional training and education. Benson told me that, at Harvard, many students take a year off to pursue other opportunities. He said, “About 40% of students end up taking a fifth year to do either a master’s degree, global health, or research.” Benson said the additional learning opportunities are broad. “Some classmates even go to other schools altogether to get additional education.” Widened areas of learning are likely to produce better doctors, in my opinion.

This chance to look back on medical education has shown me that the ways in which it has changed rapidly in just the past few years are largely positive. Although COVID-19 has been an unwanted bane, it has also forced schools to integrate new technology and has placed an even brighter spotlight on health inequities and other areas in which education further improved. I hope that, when I look back on med ed in another 5 years, it has grown even more flexible and nimble in meeting the ever-changing needs of students and patients alike.

Alexa Mieses Malchuk, MD, MPH, was born and raised in Queens, New York. Social justice is what drew her to family medicine. As an academic physician at the University of North Carolina, she practices inpatient and outpatient medicine and serves as a medical educator for students and residents.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although medical education is constantly evolving, unique and rapid developments in recent years have sparked controversy. The next generation of physicians is learning much differently from how established doctors once did. Training has shifted from an acute focus on disease to a wider approach that considers patients within the larger context of their community and society. Although many, like myself, see this as progress, others have expressed doubts about this and many other changes.

Amid the madness that is the year 2020, I’m grateful to have a moment to reflect on this subject. Five years ago, in celebration of Medscape’s 20th anniversary, I spoke with various leaders in medical education to learn how med ed had evolved since they were in school. Since then, I’ve gone from student to faculty. This year, for Medscape’s 25th anniversary, I reached out to current medical trainees to reflect on how much things have changed in such a short time.

From adjustments forced on us by COVID-19 to trends that predated the pandemic – including an increased emphasis on social justice and a decreased emphasis on other material – becoming a doctor no longer looks like it did just a half-decade ago.
 

Social justice is now in the curricula

More than ever, medical training has shifted toward humanism, population health, and social justice. Students are now being shown not only how to treat the patient in front of them but how to “treat” the larger communities they serve. Research skills around social drivers of health, such as structural racism, are increasingly becoming status quo.

In reflecting on her current experience, Emily Kahoud, a third-year medical student at New Jersey Medical School, Newark, told me about a course she took that was devoted to health equity. She applauded how her professors have incorporated this education into their courses. “It’s so nice and refreshing to be in a community that appreciates that.”

I, too, have seen this change firsthand. In addition to caring for patients and teaching at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, I work with a team that develops curricula around social justice. We strive to integrate this material into existing courses and rotations. I believe that this is not only the right thing to teach trainees in order to help their future patients, but that it also reduces harm that many students experience. The “hidden curriculum” of medical school has long marginalized anyone who isn’t White and/or male.

Children, women, and the elderly were often referred to as “special populations” during my training. Even now, content about social and structural drivers of health is still most often relegated to separate courses rather than integrated into existing material. I hope to help improve this at my institution and that others are doing the same elsewhere.

If the current students I spoke with are any indication, further integration will be a welcomed change. Travis Benson, a third-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, appreciates where medical training is headed. Specifically, he is interested in inequities in the care of transgender patients. He says he has loved what his school has done with education on issues not previously considered part of med ed. “In the first week of school, we go on tours and spend time in community health centers and learn about the ‘Family Van,’ a mobile health care clinic that offers free care. I even had an opportunity to have a longitudinal clinic experience at a jail.”

While some critics argue that this learning goes too far, others argue that it has not gone far enough fast enough. In general, I consider the progress made in this area since my time in med school to be a very good thing. Medical students are now being taught to think about the science of medicine in the context of the larger human condition.
 

More technology, less preclinical time and cost

Beyond evolution in curricular content, technical and logistical changes have dramatically reshaped med ed. Since I started my training in 2012, most medical schools now no longer formally require students to attend lectures. Instead, they make them available online for students to view on demand. This undoubtedly makes schedules more flexible, allows students to learn at their own pace, and helps accommodate students with different needs.

Another big change: Preclinical years may now be as short as 1.5 years or less. This is a big draw for some students. Most choose to go to medical school to take care of patients. Shortening the preclinical years means students have more time immersed in patient care and less time dealing with medical minutiae.

That also means that they can spend more time thinking about professional development. Ramie Fathy, a fourth-year student, told me, “I came to Penn [University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia] because of the shortened preclinical curriculum. That allowed more time on the back end to explore different specialties.” Although some established doctors worry about what scientific details may be left out, providing more hands-on experience sure seems like a good thing to me. Learning from textbooks can only take you so far in this profession.

Another, and more expected, development is the use of ever-advancing technology. Some schools now offer 3D virtual modeling for the study of anatomy, as well as a myriad of electronic visual aids for subjects like pathology and microbiology. Adapting to technological changes can be challenging, however, especially because more nontraditional students are being admitted to medical school each year.

Kahoud is one such nontraditional – older – student. She had some concerns about reliance on newer resources going in. “It [medical school] has become increasingly dependent on technology, even before COVID,” she said. “When you are not well versed in these tools it can definitely be a struggle.”

Thanks to the pandemic, remote learning is now the name of the game for many. As a result, instructors have had to amend their teaching styles to suit distance education, various untested applications and programs have been integrated into the curriculum, and students and administrators alike have had to find alternative ways to build a sense of community.

Is this a glimpse at the future for med ed? And if so, what may be lost or gained from this transition? Tino Delamerced, a third-year student at the Brown University, Providence, R.I., shared a likely very widely held hope: “If the preclinical years can be totally remote permanently, then can tuition be cheaper?”

Med ed debt keeps growing and remains a huge deterrent for potential students, especially those who are the first in their family to pursue medicine, come from a disadvantaged background, or have other people for whom they are financially responsible. Is it possible that the restrictions of COVID-19 could finally lead to cost cutting?

A bigger solution – free medical school – predated the pandemic. Institutions such as New York University have completely eliminated tuition, whereas others such as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (my alma mater) have limited the amount of debt with which a student graduates. You can imagine my frustration that the debt limit policy was enacted after I graduated.

Still, as optimistic as some have been at this movement that developed in the past 5 years, many think this specific evolution is little more than a “pipe dream.”
 

Current students score big with USMLE change

Beyond med school cost, another universally despised part of medical training that has seen a dramatic change is the licensing examination. My dedicated study period for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 was my worst time of medical school. Well, it was second to holding a retractor in the operating room for hours at a time.

Like everyone, I suspected that Step 1 would not be an accurate indicator of my ability to actually care for patients. As a practicing physician, I can now tell you for sure that this is the case. How lucky for the next generation, then, that the test is going to a pass/fail grading system.

Step 1 has always been important, as residency programs rely on the score to weed out applicants. Even if that screening emphasis simply gets shifted to scores on other examinations, this change still feels like progress. As Fathy told me, “There will likely be more emphasis on USMLE Step 2. But I think, based on practice questions I’ve done, that is more relevant to clinical abilities.” From my new vantage point, I can confirm that.

Not everyone is excited, though. Delamerced told me that he fears that the pass/fail Step 1 score may disparately affect students outside of allopathic medical schools. He said that the new scoring system “does not allow students to distinguish themselves via a standardized test score. That may hurt IMGs or DO students.”

Even then, Delamerced conceded that the change has some clear benefits. “For med students’ mental health, it’s probably a good thing.” From a population-based perspective, a medical student’s mental health often declines throughout school. Standardized exams are not the only cause, but we all know that it is a big contributor. The Step 1 switch can only help with that.
 

Finish faster or learn more?

In addition to evolution in the content and methods used to teach and assess current med students, the duration of med ed has also changed. Today’s students can choose to complete medical school in less than 4 years.

At the school where I work, the Fully Integrated Readiness for Service Training (FIRST) program allows certain students to complete their education in just 3 years. This program is for students who already know early on that they want to pursue a specialty included on our curated list. The goal of the program is to ultimately train physicians in family medicine, psychiatry, pediatrics, or general surgery in order to provide crucial care to those who need it most in our state.

Other medical schools offer accelerated MD programs for students based on various admissions criteria and specialty interest. The benefit of these programs is that shortening training time cuts down on debt for students.

Accelerated MD programs also aim to quickly increase the number of practicing physicians. This is especially important for primary care, which expects to see a growing gap in the years to come. That aim has come under some criticism, as some believe that the 4-year program was the standard for a reason. But when I reflect on it, I often wonder whether my fourth year was really worth $60,000. I spent a lot of that year traveling for residency interviews and watching Netflix between clinic electives.

Instead of finishing medical school faster, some students now have an opportunity to integrate additional training and education. Benson told me that, at Harvard, many students take a year off to pursue other opportunities. He said, “About 40% of students end up taking a fifth year to do either a master’s degree, global health, or research.” Benson said the additional learning opportunities are broad. “Some classmates even go to other schools altogether to get additional education.” Widened areas of learning are likely to produce better doctors, in my opinion.

This chance to look back on medical education has shown me that the ways in which it has changed rapidly in just the past few years are largely positive. Although COVID-19 has been an unwanted bane, it has also forced schools to integrate new technology and has placed an even brighter spotlight on health inequities and other areas in which education further improved. I hope that, when I look back on med ed in another 5 years, it has grown even more flexible and nimble in meeting the ever-changing needs of students and patients alike.

Alexa Mieses Malchuk, MD, MPH, was born and raised in Queens, New York. Social justice is what drew her to family medicine. As an academic physician at the University of North Carolina, she practices inpatient and outpatient medicine and serves as a medical educator for students and residents.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although medical education is constantly evolving, unique and rapid developments in recent years have sparked controversy. The next generation of physicians is learning much differently from how established doctors once did. Training has shifted from an acute focus on disease to a wider approach that considers patients within the larger context of their community and society. Although many, like myself, see this as progress, others have expressed doubts about this and many other changes.

Amid the madness that is the year 2020, I’m grateful to have a moment to reflect on this subject. Five years ago, in celebration of Medscape’s 20th anniversary, I spoke with various leaders in medical education to learn how med ed had evolved since they were in school. Since then, I’ve gone from student to faculty. This year, for Medscape’s 25th anniversary, I reached out to current medical trainees to reflect on how much things have changed in such a short time.

From adjustments forced on us by COVID-19 to trends that predated the pandemic – including an increased emphasis on social justice and a decreased emphasis on other material – becoming a doctor no longer looks like it did just a half-decade ago.
 

Social justice is now in the curricula

More than ever, medical training has shifted toward humanism, population health, and social justice. Students are now being shown not only how to treat the patient in front of them but how to “treat” the larger communities they serve. Research skills around social drivers of health, such as structural racism, are increasingly becoming status quo.

In reflecting on her current experience, Emily Kahoud, a third-year medical student at New Jersey Medical School, Newark, told me about a course she took that was devoted to health equity. She applauded how her professors have incorporated this education into their courses. “It’s so nice and refreshing to be in a community that appreciates that.”

I, too, have seen this change firsthand. In addition to caring for patients and teaching at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, I work with a team that develops curricula around social justice. We strive to integrate this material into existing courses and rotations. I believe that this is not only the right thing to teach trainees in order to help their future patients, but that it also reduces harm that many students experience. The “hidden curriculum” of medical school has long marginalized anyone who isn’t White and/or male.

Children, women, and the elderly were often referred to as “special populations” during my training. Even now, content about social and structural drivers of health is still most often relegated to separate courses rather than integrated into existing material. I hope to help improve this at my institution and that others are doing the same elsewhere.

If the current students I spoke with are any indication, further integration will be a welcomed change. Travis Benson, a third-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, appreciates where medical training is headed. Specifically, he is interested in inequities in the care of transgender patients. He says he has loved what his school has done with education on issues not previously considered part of med ed. “In the first week of school, we go on tours and spend time in community health centers and learn about the ‘Family Van,’ a mobile health care clinic that offers free care. I even had an opportunity to have a longitudinal clinic experience at a jail.”

While some critics argue that this learning goes too far, others argue that it has not gone far enough fast enough. In general, I consider the progress made in this area since my time in med school to be a very good thing. Medical students are now being taught to think about the science of medicine in the context of the larger human condition.
 

More technology, less preclinical time and cost

Beyond evolution in curricular content, technical and logistical changes have dramatically reshaped med ed. Since I started my training in 2012, most medical schools now no longer formally require students to attend lectures. Instead, they make them available online for students to view on demand. This undoubtedly makes schedules more flexible, allows students to learn at their own pace, and helps accommodate students with different needs.

Another big change: Preclinical years may now be as short as 1.5 years or less. This is a big draw for some students. Most choose to go to medical school to take care of patients. Shortening the preclinical years means students have more time immersed in patient care and less time dealing with medical minutiae.

That also means that they can spend more time thinking about professional development. Ramie Fathy, a fourth-year student, told me, “I came to Penn [University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia] because of the shortened preclinical curriculum. That allowed more time on the back end to explore different specialties.” Although some established doctors worry about what scientific details may be left out, providing more hands-on experience sure seems like a good thing to me. Learning from textbooks can only take you so far in this profession.

Another, and more expected, development is the use of ever-advancing technology. Some schools now offer 3D virtual modeling for the study of anatomy, as well as a myriad of electronic visual aids for subjects like pathology and microbiology. Adapting to technological changes can be challenging, however, especially because more nontraditional students are being admitted to medical school each year.

Kahoud is one such nontraditional – older – student. She had some concerns about reliance on newer resources going in. “It [medical school] has become increasingly dependent on technology, even before COVID,” she said. “When you are not well versed in these tools it can definitely be a struggle.”

Thanks to the pandemic, remote learning is now the name of the game for many. As a result, instructors have had to amend their teaching styles to suit distance education, various untested applications and programs have been integrated into the curriculum, and students and administrators alike have had to find alternative ways to build a sense of community.

Is this a glimpse at the future for med ed? And if so, what may be lost or gained from this transition? Tino Delamerced, a third-year student at the Brown University, Providence, R.I., shared a likely very widely held hope: “If the preclinical years can be totally remote permanently, then can tuition be cheaper?”

Med ed debt keeps growing and remains a huge deterrent for potential students, especially those who are the first in their family to pursue medicine, come from a disadvantaged background, or have other people for whom they are financially responsible. Is it possible that the restrictions of COVID-19 could finally lead to cost cutting?

A bigger solution – free medical school – predated the pandemic. Institutions such as New York University have completely eliminated tuition, whereas others such as the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (my alma mater) have limited the amount of debt with which a student graduates. You can imagine my frustration that the debt limit policy was enacted after I graduated.

Still, as optimistic as some have been at this movement that developed in the past 5 years, many think this specific evolution is little more than a “pipe dream.”
 

Current students score big with USMLE change

Beyond med school cost, another universally despised part of medical training that has seen a dramatic change is the licensing examination. My dedicated study period for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 was my worst time of medical school. Well, it was second to holding a retractor in the operating room for hours at a time.

Like everyone, I suspected that Step 1 would not be an accurate indicator of my ability to actually care for patients. As a practicing physician, I can now tell you for sure that this is the case. How lucky for the next generation, then, that the test is going to a pass/fail grading system.

Step 1 has always been important, as residency programs rely on the score to weed out applicants. Even if that screening emphasis simply gets shifted to scores on other examinations, this change still feels like progress. As Fathy told me, “There will likely be more emphasis on USMLE Step 2. But I think, based on practice questions I’ve done, that is more relevant to clinical abilities.” From my new vantage point, I can confirm that.

Not everyone is excited, though. Delamerced told me that he fears that the pass/fail Step 1 score may disparately affect students outside of allopathic medical schools. He said that the new scoring system “does not allow students to distinguish themselves via a standardized test score. That may hurt IMGs or DO students.”

Even then, Delamerced conceded that the change has some clear benefits. “For med students’ mental health, it’s probably a good thing.” From a population-based perspective, a medical student’s mental health often declines throughout school. Standardized exams are not the only cause, but we all know that it is a big contributor. The Step 1 switch can only help with that.
 

Finish faster or learn more?

In addition to evolution in the content and methods used to teach and assess current med students, the duration of med ed has also changed. Today’s students can choose to complete medical school in less than 4 years.

At the school where I work, the Fully Integrated Readiness for Service Training (FIRST) program allows certain students to complete their education in just 3 years. This program is for students who already know early on that they want to pursue a specialty included on our curated list. The goal of the program is to ultimately train physicians in family medicine, psychiatry, pediatrics, or general surgery in order to provide crucial care to those who need it most in our state.

Other medical schools offer accelerated MD programs for students based on various admissions criteria and specialty interest. The benefit of these programs is that shortening training time cuts down on debt for students.

Accelerated MD programs also aim to quickly increase the number of practicing physicians. This is especially important for primary care, which expects to see a growing gap in the years to come. That aim has come under some criticism, as some believe that the 4-year program was the standard for a reason. But when I reflect on it, I often wonder whether my fourth year was really worth $60,000. I spent a lot of that year traveling for residency interviews and watching Netflix between clinic electives.

Instead of finishing medical school faster, some students now have an opportunity to integrate additional training and education. Benson told me that, at Harvard, many students take a year off to pursue other opportunities. He said, “About 40% of students end up taking a fifth year to do either a master’s degree, global health, or research.” Benson said the additional learning opportunities are broad. “Some classmates even go to other schools altogether to get additional education.” Widened areas of learning are likely to produce better doctors, in my opinion.

This chance to look back on medical education has shown me that the ways in which it has changed rapidly in just the past few years are largely positive. Although COVID-19 has been an unwanted bane, it has also forced schools to integrate new technology and has placed an even brighter spotlight on health inequities and other areas in which education further improved. I hope that, when I look back on med ed in another 5 years, it has grown even more flexible and nimble in meeting the ever-changing needs of students and patients alike.

Alexa Mieses Malchuk, MD, MPH, was born and raised in Queens, New York. Social justice is what drew her to family medicine. As an academic physician at the University of North Carolina, she practices inpatient and outpatient medicine and serves as a medical educator for students and residents.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Starting Nov. 2, all patients in the United States will have immediate access to clinical notes and thus will be able to read their doctors’ writings, as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

FG Trade/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The 21st Century Cures Act mandates that patients have fast, electronic access to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, history, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes.

But this federal mandate, called “open notes” by many, is potentially confusing and frightening for patients, say some physicians. Others worry that the change will increase workload as clinicians tailor notes for patients and answer related questions.

The law means that inpatient and outpatient notes will be released immediately and that patients will have immediate access to testing and imaging results, including results from sexually transmitted disease tests, Pap tests, cancer biopsies, CT and PET scans, fetal ultrasounds, pneumonia cultures, and mammograms.

Such notes could contain sensitive information, and there is concern that patients could be shocked, confused, or annoyed by what they read, even with more run-of-the-mill notes.

Champions of open notes say that the benefits, including better provider-patient communication, greatly outweigh such risks.

“This is about convenience – a bit like online banking,” commented Charlotte Blease, PhD, resident scholar at OpenNotes, an advocacy nonprofit organization headquartered at the Beth Israel–Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “But it’s a culture shift for doctors,” she said in an interview.

“It turns physician paternalism on its head,” said C. T. Lin, MD, chief medical information officer, UCHealth, Denver. The change requires “some letting go of old traditions” in medicine, he wrote in an August blog post, referring to the fact that a computer screen – and not a physician – may tell patients about a new health problem.

Dr. Lin summarized the experience at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, which has allowed patients to have access to oncology notes for the past 5 years: “No issues and highly appreciated by patients. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
 

A new audience

Other institutions have also been voluntarily implementing open notes.

UC Davis Health in Sacramento, Calif., has run an optional program for the past year. However, only about two dozen of approximately 1,000 staff physicians opted in to the program.

“This illustrates the point that it’s a new thing that physicians aren’t used to doing. They’ve traditionally written notes for the benefit of their colleagues, for billing, for their own reference,” Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at UC Davis Health, told this news organization.

“They’ve never –until recently – had the patient as one of the audiences for a note,” he said.

Liam Keating, MD, an otolaryngologist in Martinez, Calif., recalls that he once wrote “globus hystericus,” and the patient wanted to sue him for saying that the patient was hysterical. “I now just code ‘Globus’ (if I don’t jump straight to LPD [lateral pharyngeal diverticulum]),” he commented in response to a commentary on open notes.

Sensitive information occurs more often in certain specialties, for example, psychiatry, genetics, adolescent medicine, and oncology, experts say.

“Cancer is an area that is highly charged for patients and doctors alike,” Dr. MacDonald pointed out. When reading pathology or imaging notes, patients may learn that they have been diagnosed with cancer or that they have a recurrence “without the physician being able to contextualize it and explain things – that’s just new and scary,” he said.

California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first, said Dr. MacDonald, but not all states have such laws.
 

Adjustments needed – or not – with open notes

At UCHealth in Aurora, Colo., Robert Breeze, MD, vice-chair of neurosurgery, said he has adjusted his practice to accommodate open notes and to anticipate trouble spots.*

“When I order imaging or send pathology specimens, I have already discussed with the patient the possibilities, including cancer, and what we will do next. Patients deeply appreciate these discussions, before they see the results,” he commented in an institutional white paper issued in anticipation of the changes on Nov. 2.

This is called precounseling, said Trent Rosenbloom, MD, MPH, director of patient portals at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., which has been a pioneer in information sharing with patients. Their system does delay the release of information in the case of “complicated” results, such as from cancer biopsies, he said in an interview.

However, Christiaan Hoff, MD, PhD, a surgeon at the Medical Center Leeuwarden (the Netherlands), wonders how important it is for the physician to be present when the patient receives bad news, including news about cancer. “We may overestimate our added value in these situations,” he suggested.

“Our empathy may not outweigh” the disadvantages of the situation, and the “finer points of our explanation will often go unnoticed” by the stressed patient, he commented. Dr. Hoff was also responding to the commentary about open notes.

In that commentary, Jack West, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., was concerned about misunderstandings. Oncology is complex, and patients can struggle to understand their prognosis and planned treatment efficacy, especially in cases of metastatic disease, he wrote.

This concern is somewhat refuted by a study published Oct. 5 in Cancer Cell. Responses to two surveys involving 96 oncology clinicians at three U.S. centers found that almost half (44%) believed that their patients “would be confused” by open notes.

However, only 4% of the 3,418 cancer patients from the same surveys reported being confused by open notes. (A majority of participants had more than a high school education, and English was their primary language.)

“Patient and clinician views about open notes in oncology are not aligned, with patients expressing considerably more enthusiasm,” wrote the authors, led by Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who has been treated for brain cancer.

“All clinicians are anxious at first,” Ms. Salmi told this news organization. “Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions … are more likely to read their notes.”

The survey results echo the early experience reported from Sweden, where open notes was launched in 2012. “Patients have loved it from the beginning,” said Maria Haggland, PhD, of Uppsala MedTech Science Innovation Center.

However, when the scheme first launched, it was considered to be “very controversial,” and “there were a lot of complaints, from health care professionals, especially,” she added.

Over time, clinicians have embraced open notes, and the program has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, she observed during an Oct. 5 webinar on open notes.
 

More work for already overworked clinicians?

An outstanding concern about open notes is that it will cause more work for health care professionals.

Traditionally, doctors have written notes using medical lexicon, including a lot of abbreviations and jargon for efficiency’s sake. Now that patients will read the notes, will clinicians have to spell out things in lay terms, alter their writing so as not to offend, and generally do more work?

William Harvey, MD, chief medical information officer, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, acknowledged that that may be the case.

In a forthcoming note to staff about the Nov. 2 start of open notes, Dr. Harvey will include a reminder to accommodate the patient as a reader. But that may or may not mean an increase in work volume, depending on the provider. “Clinical note writing is highly personal. There’s an art to it,” he said in an interview. “So it’s hard to give standard advice.”

Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco and a lecturer at California Pacific Medical Center, is particularly concerned about the impact of open notes on progress notes, which he calls a tool to develop strategies and make observations while working with a patient.

By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” he told this news organization.

“These notes serve many masters already,” he said, referring to purposes such as utilization review and billing. “The more masters they serve, the less useful they are to get medical work done.”

Dr. MacDonald, the medical information officer, said the new law doesn’t mandate a change in writing style.

In a study published last year, researchers analyzed notes written by oncologists before and after adoption of open notes. They found that, on average, clinicians did not change their note writing. The investigators analyzed more than 100,000 clinical notes written by 35 oncologists at a single center.

Advocates for open notes emphasize that there are benefits for clinicians.

“Doctors are overworked. They’re overburdened. But empowered patients can help the doctor,” said OpenNotes’ Dr. Blease. She cited survey data that show that patients better understand their treatment plan and medication, which can cut down on physician workload.

Open notes are “what you make of it,” said Marlene Millen, MD, an internist at UC San Diego Health, which has had a pilot program for 3 years. Each day, Dr. Millen discusses a shared note with two or three patients. “I actually end all of my appointments with, ‘Don’t forget to read your note later,’ ” she told this news organization.

“I was a little afraid of this initially,” she said, but within the first 3 months of the pilot, about 15 patients gave her direct feedback on how much they appreciated her notes. “It seemed to really reassure them that they were getting good care.”

The persons quoted in this article have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

Correction, 10/23/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the campus' location. 

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

Starting Nov. 2, all patients in the United States will have immediate access to clinical notes and thus will be able to read their doctors’ writings, as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

FG Trade/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The 21st Century Cures Act mandates that patients have fast, electronic access to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, history, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes.

But this federal mandate, called “open notes” by many, is potentially confusing and frightening for patients, say some physicians. Others worry that the change will increase workload as clinicians tailor notes for patients and answer related questions.

The law means that inpatient and outpatient notes will be released immediately and that patients will have immediate access to testing and imaging results, including results from sexually transmitted disease tests, Pap tests, cancer biopsies, CT and PET scans, fetal ultrasounds, pneumonia cultures, and mammograms.

Such notes could contain sensitive information, and there is concern that patients could be shocked, confused, or annoyed by what they read, even with more run-of-the-mill notes.

Champions of open notes say that the benefits, including better provider-patient communication, greatly outweigh such risks.

“This is about convenience – a bit like online banking,” commented Charlotte Blease, PhD, resident scholar at OpenNotes, an advocacy nonprofit organization headquartered at the Beth Israel–Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “But it’s a culture shift for doctors,” she said in an interview.

“It turns physician paternalism on its head,” said C. T. Lin, MD, chief medical information officer, UCHealth, Denver. The change requires “some letting go of old traditions” in medicine, he wrote in an August blog post, referring to the fact that a computer screen – and not a physician – may tell patients about a new health problem.

Dr. Lin summarized the experience at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, which has allowed patients to have access to oncology notes for the past 5 years: “No issues and highly appreciated by patients. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
 

A new audience

Other institutions have also been voluntarily implementing open notes.

UC Davis Health in Sacramento, Calif., has run an optional program for the past year. However, only about two dozen of approximately 1,000 staff physicians opted in to the program.

“This illustrates the point that it’s a new thing that physicians aren’t used to doing. They’ve traditionally written notes for the benefit of their colleagues, for billing, for their own reference,” Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at UC Davis Health, told this news organization.

“They’ve never –until recently – had the patient as one of the audiences for a note,” he said.

Liam Keating, MD, an otolaryngologist in Martinez, Calif., recalls that he once wrote “globus hystericus,” and the patient wanted to sue him for saying that the patient was hysterical. “I now just code ‘Globus’ (if I don’t jump straight to LPD [lateral pharyngeal diverticulum]),” he commented in response to a commentary on open notes.

Sensitive information occurs more often in certain specialties, for example, psychiatry, genetics, adolescent medicine, and oncology, experts say.

“Cancer is an area that is highly charged for patients and doctors alike,” Dr. MacDonald pointed out. When reading pathology or imaging notes, patients may learn that they have been diagnosed with cancer or that they have a recurrence “without the physician being able to contextualize it and explain things – that’s just new and scary,” he said.

California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first, said Dr. MacDonald, but not all states have such laws.
 

Adjustments needed – or not – with open notes

At UCHealth in Aurora, Colo., Robert Breeze, MD, vice-chair of neurosurgery, said he has adjusted his practice to accommodate open notes and to anticipate trouble spots.*

“When I order imaging or send pathology specimens, I have already discussed with the patient the possibilities, including cancer, and what we will do next. Patients deeply appreciate these discussions, before they see the results,” he commented in an institutional white paper issued in anticipation of the changes on Nov. 2.

This is called precounseling, said Trent Rosenbloom, MD, MPH, director of patient portals at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., which has been a pioneer in information sharing with patients. Their system does delay the release of information in the case of “complicated” results, such as from cancer biopsies, he said in an interview.

However, Christiaan Hoff, MD, PhD, a surgeon at the Medical Center Leeuwarden (the Netherlands), wonders how important it is for the physician to be present when the patient receives bad news, including news about cancer. “We may overestimate our added value in these situations,” he suggested.

“Our empathy may not outweigh” the disadvantages of the situation, and the “finer points of our explanation will often go unnoticed” by the stressed patient, he commented. Dr. Hoff was also responding to the commentary about open notes.

In that commentary, Jack West, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., was concerned about misunderstandings. Oncology is complex, and patients can struggle to understand their prognosis and planned treatment efficacy, especially in cases of metastatic disease, he wrote.

This concern is somewhat refuted by a study published Oct. 5 in Cancer Cell. Responses to two surveys involving 96 oncology clinicians at three U.S. centers found that almost half (44%) believed that their patients “would be confused” by open notes.

However, only 4% of the 3,418 cancer patients from the same surveys reported being confused by open notes. (A majority of participants had more than a high school education, and English was their primary language.)

“Patient and clinician views about open notes in oncology are not aligned, with patients expressing considerably more enthusiasm,” wrote the authors, led by Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who has been treated for brain cancer.

“All clinicians are anxious at first,” Ms. Salmi told this news organization. “Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions … are more likely to read their notes.”

The survey results echo the early experience reported from Sweden, where open notes was launched in 2012. “Patients have loved it from the beginning,” said Maria Haggland, PhD, of Uppsala MedTech Science Innovation Center.

However, when the scheme first launched, it was considered to be “very controversial,” and “there were a lot of complaints, from health care professionals, especially,” she added.

Over time, clinicians have embraced open notes, and the program has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, she observed during an Oct. 5 webinar on open notes.
 

More work for already overworked clinicians?

An outstanding concern about open notes is that it will cause more work for health care professionals.

Traditionally, doctors have written notes using medical lexicon, including a lot of abbreviations and jargon for efficiency’s sake. Now that patients will read the notes, will clinicians have to spell out things in lay terms, alter their writing so as not to offend, and generally do more work?

William Harvey, MD, chief medical information officer, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, acknowledged that that may be the case.

In a forthcoming note to staff about the Nov. 2 start of open notes, Dr. Harvey will include a reminder to accommodate the patient as a reader. But that may or may not mean an increase in work volume, depending on the provider. “Clinical note writing is highly personal. There’s an art to it,” he said in an interview. “So it’s hard to give standard advice.”

Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco and a lecturer at California Pacific Medical Center, is particularly concerned about the impact of open notes on progress notes, which he calls a tool to develop strategies and make observations while working with a patient.

By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” he told this news organization.

“These notes serve many masters already,” he said, referring to purposes such as utilization review and billing. “The more masters they serve, the less useful they are to get medical work done.”

Dr. MacDonald, the medical information officer, said the new law doesn’t mandate a change in writing style.

In a study published last year, researchers analyzed notes written by oncologists before and after adoption of open notes. They found that, on average, clinicians did not change their note writing. The investigators analyzed more than 100,000 clinical notes written by 35 oncologists at a single center.

Advocates for open notes emphasize that there are benefits for clinicians.

“Doctors are overworked. They’re overburdened. But empowered patients can help the doctor,” said OpenNotes’ Dr. Blease. She cited survey data that show that patients better understand their treatment plan and medication, which can cut down on physician workload.

Open notes are “what you make of it,” said Marlene Millen, MD, an internist at UC San Diego Health, which has had a pilot program for 3 years. Each day, Dr. Millen discusses a shared note with two or three patients. “I actually end all of my appointments with, ‘Don’t forget to read your note later,’ ” she told this news organization.

“I was a little afraid of this initially,” she said, but within the first 3 months of the pilot, about 15 patients gave her direct feedback on how much they appreciated her notes. “It seemed to really reassure them that they were getting good care.”

The persons quoted in this article have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

Correction, 10/23/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the campus' location. 

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

Starting Nov. 2, all patients in the United States will have immediate access to clinical notes and thus will be able to read their doctors’ writings, as well as test results and reports from pathology and imaging.

FG Trade/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The 21st Century Cures Act mandates that patients have fast, electronic access to the following types of notes: consultations, discharge summaries, history, physical examination findings, imaging narratives, laboratory and pathology report narratives, and procedure and progress notes.

But this federal mandate, called “open notes” by many, is potentially confusing and frightening for patients, say some physicians. Others worry that the change will increase workload as clinicians tailor notes for patients and answer related questions.

The law means that inpatient and outpatient notes will be released immediately and that patients will have immediate access to testing and imaging results, including results from sexually transmitted disease tests, Pap tests, cancer biopsies, CT and PET scans, fetal ultrasounds, pneumonia cultures, and mammograms.

Such notes could contain sensitive information, and there is concern that patients could be shocked, confused, or annoyed by what they read, even with more run-of-the-mill notes.

Champions of open notes say that the benefits, including better provider-patient communication, greatly outweigh such risks.

“This is about convenience – a bit like online banking,” commented Charlotte Blease, PhD, resident scholar at OpenNotes, an advocacy nonprofit organization headquartered at the Beth Israel–Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “But it’s a culture shift for doctors,” she said in an interview.

“It turns physician paternalism on its head,” said C. T. Lin, MD, chief medical information officer, UCHealth, Denver. The change requires “some letting go of old traditions” in medicine, he wrote in an August blog post, referring to the fact that a computer screen – and not a physician – may tell patients about a new health problem.

Dr. Lin summarized the experience at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, which has allowed patients to have access to oncology notes for the past 5 years: “No issues and highly appreciated by patients. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
 

A new audience

Other institutions have also been voluntarily implementing open notes.

UC Davis Health in Sacramento, Calif., has run an optional program for the past year. However, only about two dozen of approximately 1,000 staff physicians opted in to the program.

“This illustrates the point that it’s a new thing that physicians aren’t used to doing. They’ve traditionally written notes for the benefit of their colleagues, for billing, for their own reference,” Scott MacDonald, MD, an internist and electronic health record medical director at UC Davis Health, told this news organization.

“They’ve never –until recently – had the patient as one of the audiences for a note,” he said.

Liam Keating, MD, an otolaryngologist in Martinez, Calif., recalls that he once wrote “globus hystericus,” and the patient wanted to sue him for saying that the patient was hysterical. “I now just code ‘Globus’ (if I don’t jump straight to LPD [lateral pharyngeal diverticulum]),” he commented in response to a commentary on open notes.

Sensitive information occurs more often in certain specialties, for example, psychiatry, genetics, adolescent medicine, and oncology, experts say.

“Cancer is an area that is highly charged for patients and doctors alike,” Dr. MacDonald pointed out. When reading pathology or imaging notes, patients may learn that they have been diagnosed with cancer or that they have a recurrence “without the physician being able to contextualize it and explain things – that’s just new and scary,” he said.

California law dictates that providers cannot post cancer test results without talking with the patient first, said Dr. MacDonald, but not all states have such laws.
 

Adjustments needed – or not – with open notes

At UCHealth in Aurora, Colo., Robert Breeze, MD, vice-chair of neurosurgery, said he has adjusted his practice to accommodate open notes and to anticipate trouble spots.*

“When I order imaging or send pathology specimens, I have already discussed with the patient the possibilities, including cancer, and what we will do next. Patients deeply appreciate these discussions, before they see the results,” he commented in an institutional white paper issued in anticipation of the changes on Nov. 2.

This is called precounseling, said Trent Rosenbloom, MD, MPH, director of patient portals at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., which has been a pioneer in information sharing with patients. Their system does delay the release of information in the case of “complicated” results, such as from cancer biopsies, he said in an interview.

However, Christiaan Hoff, MD, PhD, a surgeon at the Medical Center Leeuwarden (the Netherlands), wonders how important it is for the physician to be present when the patient receives bad news, including news about cancer. “We may overestimate our added value in these situations,” he suggested.

“Our empathy may not outweigh” the disadvantages of the situation, and the “finer points of our explanation will often go unnoticed” by the stressed patient, he commented. Dr. Hoff was also responding to the commentary about open notes.

In that commentary, Jack West, MD, a medical oncologist at City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif., was concerned about misunderstandings. Oncology is complex, and patients can struggle to understand their prognosis and planned treatment efficacy, especially in cases of metastatic disease, he wrote.

This concern is somewhat refuted by a study published Oct. 5 in Cancer Cell. Responses to two surveys involving 96 oncology clinicians at three U.S. centers found that almost half (44%) believed that their patients “would be confused” by open notes.

However, only 4% of the 3,418 cancer patients from the same surveys reported being confused by open notes. (A majority of participants had more than a high school education, and English was their primary language.)

“Patient and clinician views about open notes in oncology are not aligned, with patients expressing considerably more enthusiasm,” wrote the authors, led by Liz Salmi, senior strategist at OpenNotes, who has been treated for brain cancer.

“All clinicians are anxious at first,” Ms. Salmi told this news organization. “Those patients who have more serious or chronic conditions … are more likely to read their notes.”

The survey results echo the early experience reported from Sweden, where open notes was launched in 2012. “Patients have loved it from the beginning,” said Maria Haggland, PhD, of Uppsala MedTech Science Innovation Center.

However, when the scheme first launched, it was considered to be “very controversial,” and “there were a lot of complaints, from health care professionals, especially,” she added.

Over time, clinicians have embraced open notes, and the program has 7.2 million patient accounts in a country of 10 million people, she observed during an Oct. 5 webinar on open notes.
 

More work for already overworked clinicians?

An outstanding concern about open notes is that it will cause more work for health care professionals.

Traditionally, doctors have written notes using medical lexicon, including a lot of abbreviations and jargon for efficiency’s sake. Now that patients will read the notes, will clinicians have to spell out things in lay terms, alter their writing so as not to offend, and generally do more work?

William Harvey, MD, chief medical information officer, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, acknowledged that that may be the case.

In a forthcoming note to staff about the Nov. 2 start of open notes, Dr. Harvey will include a reminder to accommodate the patient as a reader. But that may or may not mean an increase in work volume, depending on the provider. “Clinical note writing is highly personal. There’s an art to it,” he said in an interview. “So it’s hard to give standard advice.”

Steven Reidbord, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in San Francisco and a lecturer at California Pacific Medical Center, is particularly concerned about the impact of open notes on progress notes, which he calls a tool to develop strategies and make observations while working with a patient.

By watering down the language for patients, “you are trading away the technical precision and other advantages of having a professional language,” he told this news organization.

“These notes serve many masters already,” he said, referring to purposes such as utilization review and billing. “The more masters they serve, the less useful they are to get medical work done.”

Dr. MacDonald, the medical information officer, said the new law doesn’t mandate a change in writing style.

In a study published last year, researchers analyzed notes written by oncologists before and after adoption of open notes. They found that, on average, clinicians did not change their note writing. The investigators analyzed more than 100,000 clinical notes written by 35 oncologists at a single center.

Advocates for open notes emphasize that there are benefits for clinicians.

“Doctors are overworked. They’re overburdened. But empowered patients can help the doctor,” said OpenNotes’ Dr. Blease. She cited survey data that show that patients better understand their treatment plan and medication, which can cut down on physician workload.

Open notes are “what you make of it,” said Marlene Millen, MD, an internist at UC San Diego Health, which has had a pilot program for 3 years. Each day, Dr. Millen discusses a shared note with two or three patients. “I actually end all of my appointments with, ‘Don’t forget to read your note later,’ ” she told this news organization.

“I was a little afraid of this initially,” she said, but within the first 3 months of the pilot, about 15 patients gave her direct feedback on how much they appreciated her notes. “It seemed to really reassure them that they were getting good care.”

The persons quoted in this article have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

Correction, 10/23/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the campus' location. 

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