MDedge Psychiatry

Approximately one-fifth of patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), based on a retrospective analysis.

Patient factors at time of transplantation, such as low quality of life and high anxiety, predicted PTSD 6 months later, reported lead author Sarah Griffith, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who presented findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“We know that patients admitted for HSCT are often isolated in the hospital for a prolonged period of time, usually about 3-4 weeks, and that they endure substantial toxicities that impact both their physical and psychological well-being,” Dr. Griffith said. “We also know from the literature that HSCT can be considered a traumatic event and that it may lead to clinically significant PTSD symptoms.” But studies evaluating the prevalence and characteristics of PTSD in this patient population have been lacking, she noted.

Dr. Griffith and her colleagues therefore conducted a retrospective analysis involving 250 adults with hematologic malignancies who underwent autologous or allogeneic HSCT during clinical trials conducted from 2014 to 2016. Median patient age was 56 years.

The first objective of the study was to measure the prevalence of PTSD. The second was to characterize features of PTSD such as intrusion, which entails reliving experiences in the form of nightmares or flashbacks, and hypervigilance, which encompasses insomnia, irritability, and hyperarousal for threat. The third objective was to determine risk factors at baseline.

At time of admission for HSCT, after 2 weeks of hospitalization, and again 6 months after transplantation, patients were evaluated using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), which measured of quality of life, anxiety, and depression. Six months after HSCT, patients also underwent screening for PTSD with the Post-Traumatic Stress Checklist (PTSD-CL). Multivariate regression models were used to determine predictive risk factors.

Six months after HSCT, 18.9% of patients had clinically significant PTSD symptoms; most common were symptoms of avoidance (92.3%), hypervigilance (92.3%), and intrusion (76.9%). Among those who did not have clinically significant PTSD, almost one-quarter (24.5%) demonstrated significant hypervigilance, while 13.7% showed symptoms of avoidance.

“Clinically significant PTSD symptoms are common in the transplant population,” Dr. Griffith said.

Baseline predictors of PTSD included single status and lower quality of life. More severe PTSD was predicted by single status, younger age, higher baseline scores for anxiety or depression, and increased anxiety during hospitalization.

Concluding her presentation, Dr. Griffith said that the findings, while correlative and not causative, should prompt concern and intervention.

“It is very important to be aware of and to manage PTSD symptoms in these patients,” she said. “There are several baseline factors that can be identified prior to HSCT that may illuminate patients at risk for developing worse PTSD symptoms down the road, and these patients may benefit from tailored supportive care interventions.”

Specifically, Dr. Griffith recommended integrating palliative care into hospitalization, as this has been shown to reduce anxiety.

In a virtual presentation, invited discussant Nirali N. Shah, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., highlighted the importance of the findings, while also noting that the impact of palliative care on risk of PTSD has yet to be demonstrated.

Dr. Shah suggested that future research may be improved through use of a formal diagnosis for PTSD, instead of a PTSD checklist, as was used in the present study.

“And certainly long-term follow-up would be important to evaluate the utility of this tool looking at symptoms beyond 6 months,” she said.

Dr. Shah went on to discuss the relevance of the findings for pediatric populations, as children may face unique risk factors and consequences related to PTSD.

“[PTSD in children] may be impacted by family dynamics and structure,” Dr. Shah said. “Children may also have significant neurocognitive implications as a result of their underlying disease or prior therapy. They may experience chronic pain as they go out into adulthood and long-term survivorship, and may also struggle with symptoms of anxiety and depression.”

According to Dr. Shah, one previous study involving more than 6,000 adult survivors of childhood cancer found that PTSD was relatively common, with prevalence rate of 9%, suggesting that interventional work is necessary.

“Applying the data in the study from Griffith et al. suggests that evaluation in the more proximal posttransplant period for children is needed to specifically evaluate PTSD and symptoms thereof, and to try to use this to identify an opportunity for intervention,” Dr. Shah said.

“Pediatric-specific assessments are essential to optimally capture disease and/or age-specific considerations,” she added.

The study was funded by the Lymphoma and Leukemia Society. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Vector Oncology, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Gaido Health/BCG Digital Ventures.

SOURCE: Griffith et al. ASCO 2020. Abstract # 7505.

Approximately one-fifth of patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), based on a retrospective analysis.

Patient factors at time of transplantation, such as low quality of life and high anxiety, predicted PTSD 6 months later, reported lead author Sarah Griffith, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who presented findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“We know that patients admitted for HSCT are often isolated in the hospital for a prolonged period of time, usually about 3-4 weeks, and that they endure substantial toxicities that impact both their physical and psychological well-being,” Dr. Griffith said. “We also know from the literature that HSCT can be considered a traumatic event and that it may lead to clinically significant PTSD symptoms.” But studies evaluating the prevalence and characteristics of PTSD in this patient population have been lacking, she noted.

Dr. Griffith and her colleagues therefore conducted a retrospective analysis involving 250 adults with hematologic malignancies who underwent autologous or allogeneic HSCT during clinical trials conducted from 2014 to 2016. Median patient age was 56 years.

The first objective of the study was to measure the prevalence of PTSD. The second was to characterize features of PTSD such as intrusion, which entails reliving experiences in the form of nightmares or flashbacks, and hypervigilance, which encompasses insomnia, irritability, and hyperarousal for threat. The third objective was to determine risk factors at baseline.

At time of admission for HSCT, after 2 weeks of hospitalization, and again 6 months after transplantation, patients were evaluated using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), which measured of quality of life, anxiety, and depression. Six months after HSCT, patients also underwent screening for PTSD with the Post-Traumatic Stress Checklist (PTSD-CL). Multivariate regression models were used to determine predictive risk factors.

Six months after HSCT, 18.9% of patients had clinically significant PTSD symptoms; most common were symptoms of avoidance (92.3%), hypervigilance (92.3%), and intrusion (76.9%). Among those who did not have clinically significant PTSD, almost one-quarter (24.5%) demonstrated significant hypervigilance, while 13.7% showed symptoms of avoidance.

“Clinically significant PTSD symptoms are common in the transplant population,” Dr. Griffith said.

Baseline predictors of PTSD included single status and lower quality of life. More severe PTSD was predicted by single status, younger age, higher baseline scores for anxiety or depression, and increased anxiety during hospitalization.

Concluding her presentation, Dr. Griffith said that the findings, while correlative and not causative, should prompt concern and intervention.

“It is very important to be aware of and to manage PTSD symptoms in these patients,” she said. “There are several baseline factors that can be identified prior to HSCT that may illuminate patients at risk for developing worse PTSD symptoms down the road, and these patients may benefit from tailored supportive care interventions.”

Specifically, Dr. Griffith recommended integrating palliative care into hospitalization, as this has been shown to reduce anxiety.

In a virtual presentation, invited discussant Nirali N. Shah, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., highlighted the importance of the findings, while also noting that the impact of palliative care on risk of PTSD has yet to be demonstrated.

Dr. Shah suggested that future research may be improved through use of a formal diagnosis for PTSD, instead of a PTSD checklist, as was used in the present study.

“And certainly long-term follow-up would be important to evaluate the utility of this tool looking at symptoms beyond 6 months,” she said.

Dr. Shah went on to discuss the relevance of the findings for pediatric populations, as children may face unique risk factors and consequences related to PTSD.

“[PTSD in children] may be impacted by family dynamics and structure,” Dr. Shah said. “Children may also have significant neurocognitive implications as a result of their underlying disease or prior therapy. They may experience chronic pain as they go out into adulthood and long-term survivorship, and may also struggle with symptoms of anxiety and depression.”

According to Dr. Shah, one previous study involving more than 6,000 adult survivors of childhood cancer found that PTSD was relatively common, with prevalence rate of 9%, suggesting that interventional work is necessary.

“Applying the data in the study from Griffith et al. suggests that evaluation in the more proximal posttransplant period for children is needed to specifically evaluate PTSD and symptoms thereof, and to try to use this to identify an opportunity for intervention,” Dr. Shah said.

“Pediatric-specific assessments are essential to optimally capture disease and/or age-specific considerations,” she added.

The study was funded by the Lymphoma and Leukemia Society. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Vector Oncology, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Gaido Health/BCG Digital Ventures.

SOURCE: Griffith et al. ASCO 2020. Abstract # 7505.

Approximately one-fifth of patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), based on a retrospective analysis.

Patient factors at time of transplantation, such as low quality of life and high anxiety, predicted PTSD 6 months later, reported lead author Sarah Griffith, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who presented findings as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.

“We know that patients admitted for HSCT are often isolated in the hospital for a prolonged period of time, usually about 3-4 weeks, and that they endure substantial toxicities that impact both their physical and psychological well-being,” Dr. Griffith said. “We also know from the literature that HSCT can be considered a traumatic event and that it may lead to clinically significant PTSD symptoms.” But studies evaluating the prevalence and characteristics of PTSD in this patient population have been lacking, she noted.

Dr. Griffith and her colleagues therefore conducted a retrospective analysis involving 250 adults with hematologic malignancies who underwent autologous or allogeneic HSCT during clinical trials conducted from 2014 to 2016. Median patient age was 56 years.

The first objective of the study was to measure the prevalence of PTSD. The second was to characterize features of PTSD such as intrusion, which entails reliving experiences in the form of nightmares or flashbacks, and hypervigilance, which encompasses insomnia, irritability, and hyperarousal for threat. The third objective was to determine risk factors at baseline.

At time of admission for HSCT, after 2 weeks of hospitalization, and again 6 months after transplantation, patients were evaluated using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), which measured of quality of life, anxiety, and depression. Six months after HSCT, patients also underwent screening for PTSD with the Post-Traumatic Stress Checklist (PTSD-CL). Multivariate regression models were used to determine predictive risk factors.

Six months after HSCT, 18.9% of patients had clinically significant PTSD symptoms; most common were symptoms of avoidance (92.3%), hypervigilance (92.3%), and intrusion (76.9%). Among those who did not have clinically significant PTSD, almost one-quarter (24.5%) demonstrated significant hypervigilance, while 13.7% showed symptoms of avoidance.

“Clinically significant PTSD symptoms are common in the transplant population,” Dr. Griffith said.

Baseline predictors of PTSD included single status and lower quality of life. More severe PTSD was predicted by single status, younger age, higher baseline scores for anxiety or depression, and increased anxiety during hospitalization.

Concluding her presentation, Dr. Griffith said that the findings, while correlative and not causative, should prompt concern and intervention.

“It is very important to be aware of and to manage PTSD symptoms in these patients,” she said. “There are several baseline factors that can be identified prior to HSCT that may illuminate patients at risk for developing worse PTSD symptoms down the road, and these patients may benefit from tailored supportive care interventions.”

Specifically, Dr. Griffith recommended integrating palliative care into hospitalization, as this has been shown to reduce anxiety.

In a virtual presentation, invited discussant Nirali N. Shah, MD, of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md., highlighted the importance of the findings, while also noting that the impact of palliative care on risk of PTSD has yet to be demonstrated.

Dr. Shah suggested that future research may be improved through use of a formal diagnosis for PTSD, instead of a PTSD checklist, as was used in the present study.

“And certainly long-term follow-up would be important to evaluate the utility of this tool looking at symptoms beyond 6 months,” she said.

Dr. Shah went on to discuss the relevance of the findings for pediatric populations, as children may face unique risk factors and consequences related to PTSD.

“[PTSD in children] may be impacted by family dynamics and structure,” Dr. Shah said. “Children may also have significant neurocognitive implications as a result of their underlying disease or prior therapy. They may experience chronic pain as they go out into adulthood and long-term survivorship, and may also struggle with symptoms of anxiety and depression.”

According to Dr. Shah, one previous study involving more than 6,000 adult survivors of childhood cancer found that PTSD was relatively common, with prevalence rate of 9%, suggesting that interventional work is necessary.

“Applying the data in the study from Griffith et al. suggests that evaluation in the more proximal posttransplant period for children is needed to specifically evaluate PTSD and symptoms thereof, and to try to use this to identify an opportunity for intervention,” Dr. Shah said.

“Pediatric-specific assessments are essential to optimally capture disease and/or age-specific considerations,” she added.

The study was funded by the Lymphoma and Leukemia Society. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Vector Oncology, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Gaido Health/BCG Digital Ventures.

SOURCE: Griffith et al. ASCO 2020. Abstract # 7505.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

ACS Update: ‘It is best not to drink alcohol’

The American Cancer Society (ACS) is taking its strongest stance yet against drinking. In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the ACS now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.” Previously, the organizations had suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive. The guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. Read more.

COVID health system changes may be here to stay

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced sudden major changes to the nation’s health care system that are unlikely to be reversed. While there’s some good news, there are also some alarming trends. Experts said there are three trends that are likely to stick around: telehealth for all, an exodus of primary care physicians, and less emphasis on hospital care. “I’ve been trying to raise the alarm about the kind of perilous future of primary care,” said Farzad Mostashari, MD, a top Department of Health & Human Services official in the Obama administration. Dr. Mostashari runs Aledade, a company that helps primary care doctors make the transition from fee-for-service medicine to new payment models. The American Academy of Family Physicians reports that 70% of primary care physicians are reporting declines in patient volume of 50% or more since March, and 40% have laid off or furloughed staff. The AAFP has joined other primary care and insurance groups in asking HHS for an infusion of cash. “This is absolutely essential to effectively treat patients today and to maintain their ongoing operations until we overcome this public health emergency,” the groups wrote. Read more.

Asthma-COPD overlap deaths

Death rates for combined asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease declined during 1999-2016, but the risk remains higher among women, compared with men, and in certain occupations, according to a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There is also an association between mortality and nonworking status among adults aged 25-64 years, which “suggests that asthma-COPD overlap might be associated with substantial morbidity,” Katelynn E. Dodd, MPH, and associates at the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “These patients have been reported to have worse health outcomes than do those with asthma or COPD alone.” Read more.

Cancer triage in a pandemic: There’s an app for that

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help? OncCOVID is a free tool that was launched in May by the University of Michigan. It allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care. “We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine. Read more.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center . All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com .

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

ACS Update: ‘It is best not to drink alcohol’

The American Cancer Society (ACS) is taking its strongest stance yet against drinking. In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the ACS now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.” Previously, the organizations had suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive. The guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. Read more.

COVID health system changes may be here to stay

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced sudden major changes to the nation’s health care system that are unlikely to be reversed. While there’s some good news, there are also some alarming trends. Experts said there are three trends that are likely to stick around: telehealth for all, an exodus of primary care physicians, and less emphasis on hospital care. “I’ve been trying to raise the alarm about the kind of perilous future of primary care,” said Farzad Mostashari, MD, a top Department of Health & Human Services official in the Obama administration. Dr. Mostashari runs Aledade, a company that helps primary care doctors make the transition from fee-for-service medicine to new payment models. The American Academy of Family Physicians reports that 70% of primary care physicians are reporting declines in patient volume of 50% or more since March, and 40% have laid off or furloughed staff. The AAFP has joined other primary care and insurance groups in asking HHS for an infusion of cash. “This is absolutely essential to effectively treat patients today and to maintain their ongoing operations until we overcome this public health emergency,” the groups wrote. Read more.

Asthma-COPD overlap deaths

Death rates for combined asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease declined during 1999-2016, but the risk remains higher among women, compared with men, and in certain occupations, according to a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There is also an association between mortality and nonworking status among adults aged 25-64 years, which “suggests that asthma-COPD overlap might be associated with substantial morbidity,” Katelynn E. Dodd, MPH, and associates at the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “These patients have been reported to have worse health outcomes than do those with asthma or COPD alone.” Read more.

Cancer triage in a pandemic: There’s an app for that

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help? OncCOVID is a free tool that was launched in May by the University of Michigan. It allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care. “We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine. Read more.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center . All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com .

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

ACS Update: ‘It is best not to drink alcohol’

The American Cancer Society (ACS) is taking its strongest stance yet against drinking. In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the ACS now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.” Previously, the organizations had suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive. The guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. Read more.

COVID health system changes may be here to stay

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced sudden major changes to the nation’s health care system that are unlikely to be reversed. While there’s some good news, there are also some alarming trends. Experts said there are three trends that are likely to stick around: telehealth for all, an exodus of primary care physicians, and less emphasis on hospital care. “I’ve been trying to raise the alarm about the kind of perilous future of primary care,” said Farzad Mostashari, MD, a top Department of Health & Human Services official in the Obama administration. Dr. Mostashari runs Aledade, a company that helps primary care doctors make the transition from fee-for-service medicine to new payment models. The American Academy of Family Physicians reports that 70% of primary care physicians are reporting declines in patient volume of 50% or more since March, and 40% have laid off or furloughed staff. The AAFP has joined other primary care and insurance groups in asking HHS for an infusion of cash. “This is absolutely essential to effectively treat patients today and to maintain their ongoing operations until we overcome this public health emergency,” the groups wrote. Read more.

Asthma-COPD overlap deaths

Death rates for combined asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease declined during 1999-2016, but the risk remains higher among women, compared with men, and in certain occupations, according to a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There is also an association between mortality and nonworking status among adults aged 25-64 years, which “suggests that asthma-COPD overlap might be associated with substantial morbidity,” Katelynn E. Dodd, MPH, and associates at the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health said in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “These patients have been reported to have worse health outcomes than do those with asthma or COPD alone.” Read more.

Cancer triage in a pandemic: There’s an app for that

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help? OncCOVID is a free tool that was launched in May by the University of Michigan. It allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care. “We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine. Read more.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center . All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com .

Irritability in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) and stimulant use disorder (SUD) is strongly linked to suicidality and should be assessed by clinicians.

Three clinical trials of adults with MDD and one trial of adults with SUD showed that the link between irritability and suicidality was stronger than the association between depression severity and suicidal behaviors.

“Irritability is an important construct that is not often studied in adults with major depressive disorder,” Manish K. Jha, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“If you look at current diagnostic convention, irritability is not considered a symptom of major depressive episodes in adults, but below age 18, it is considered one of the two main symptoms,” Dr. Jha said.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2020 annual Meeting.
 

Clinically useful

Irritability is assessed using age-related norms of behavior, Dr. Jha said.

“The best way to conceptualize it is that it is the propensity to get angry easily or more frequently as compared to peers in response to frustration. I have a 2½-year old, and if he throws a tantrum, that is perfectly age appropriate. But if I do the same thing, it would be extreme irritability. The pediatric literature uses the word ‘grouchiness,’ but it is a little bit difficult to define, in part because it hasn’t been studied extensively,” he said.

To better understand the potential association between irritability and suicidality, the investigators reviewed results of three trials involving adults with MDD. These trials were CO-MED (Combining Medications to Enhance Depression Outcomes), which included 665 patients; EMBARC (Establishing Moderators and Biosignatures of Antidepressant Response in Clinical Care), which included 296 patients; and SAMS (Suicide Assessment Methodology Study), which included 266 patients.

They also examined the STRIDE (Stimulant Reduction Intervention Using Dosed Exercise) study, which was conducted in 302 adults with SUD.

All studies assessed irritability using the Concise Associated Symptom Tracking scale, a 5-point Likert scale. The trials also assessed suicidality with the Concise Health Risk Tracking Suicidal Thoughts.

The investigators found that irritability and suicidality were positively correlated. The association between irritability and suicidality was 2-11 times stronger than the link to overall depression.

Higher irritability at baseline predicted higher levels of suicidality at week 9 in CO-MED (P = .011), EMBARC (P < .0001), and STRIDE (P = .007), but not in SAMS (P = .21).

Greater reduction in irritability from baseline to week 4 predicted lower levels of suicidality at week 8 in CO-MED (P = .007), EMBARC (P < .0001), and STRIDE (P < .0001), but not in SAMS (P = .065).

Similarly, lower baseline levels and greater reductions in irritability were associated with lower levels of suicidality at week 28 of CO-MED, week 16 of EMBARC, and week 36 of STRIDE.

Dr. Jha speculated that by treating irritability, it may be possible to lower rates of subsequent suicidal ideation, and he believes that measuring irritability in MDD “has clinical utility.”
 

A common and disabling symptom

Commenting on the study, Sanjay J. Mathew, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said the findings provide further support that irritability is a relatively common and disabling symptom associated with major depression.

“The presence of significant irritability was associated with higher levels of suicidal ideation and is therefore highly relevant for clinicians to assess,” said Dr. Mathew, who was not part of the study.

“Early improvements in irritability are associated with better longer-term outcomes with antidepressant treatments, and this highlights the need for careful clinical evaluation early on in the course of antidepressant therapy, ideally within the first 2 weeks,” he said.

Dr. Jha reports financial relationships with Acadia Pharmaceuticals and Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Mathew reports financial relationships with Allergan, Vistagen, Janssen, Clexio, and Biohaven.
 

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

Irritability in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) and stimulant use disorder (SUD) is strongly linked to suicidality and should be assessed by clinicians.

Three clinical trials of adults with MDD and one trial of adults with SUD showed that the link between irritability and suicidality was stronger than the association between depression severity and suicidal behaviors.

“Irritability is an important construct that is not often studied in adults with major depressive disorder,” Manish K. Jha, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“If you look at current diagnostic convention, irritability is not considered a symptom of major depressive episodes in adults, but below age 18, it is considered one of the two main symptoms,” Dr. Jha said.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2020 annual Meeting.
 

Clinically useful

Irritability is assessed using age-related norms of behavior, Dr. Jha said.

“The best way to conceptualize it is that it is the propensity to get angry easily or more frequently as compared to peers in response to frustration. I have a 2½-year old, and if he throws a tantrum, that is perfectly age appropriate. But if I do the same thing, it would be extreme irritability. The pediatric literature uses the word ‘grouchiness,’ but it is a little bit difficult to define, in part because it hasn’t been studied extensively,” he said.

To better understand the potential association between irritability and suicidality, the investigators reviewed results of three trials involving adults with MDD. These trials were CO-MED (Combining Medications to Enhance Depression Outcomes), which included 665 patients; EMBARC (Establishing Moderators and Biosignatures of Antidepressant Response in Clinical Care), which included 296 patients; and SAMS (Suicide Assessment Methodology Study), which included 266 patients.

They also examined the STRIDE (Stimulant Reduction Intervention Using Dosed Exercise) study, which was conducted in 302 adults with SUD.

All studies assessed irritability using the Concise Associated Symptom Tracking scale, a 5-point Likert scale. The trials also assessed suicidality with the Concise Health Risk Tracking Suicidal Thoughts.

The investigators found that irritability and suicidality were positively correlated. The association between irritability and suicidality was 2-11 times stronger than the link to overall depression.

Higher irritability at baseline predicted higher levels of suicidality at week 9 in CO-MED (P = .011), EMBARC (P < .0001), and STRIDE (P = .007), but not in SAMS (P = .21).

Greater reduction in irritability from baseline to week 4 predicted lower levels of suicidality at week 8 in CO-MED (P = .007), EMBARC (P < .0001), and STRIDE (P < .0001), but not in SAMS (P = .065).

Similarly, lower baseline levels and greater reductions in irritability were associated with lower levels of suicidality at week 28 of CO-MED, week 16 of EMBARC, and week 36 of STRIDE.

Dr. Jha speculated that by treating irritability, it may be possible to lower rates of subsequent suicidal ideation, and he believes that measuring irritability in MDD “has clinical utility.”
 

A common and disabling symptom

Commenting on the study, Sanjay J. Mathew, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said the findings provide further support that irritability is a relatively common and disabling symptom associated with major depression.

“The presence of significant irritability was associated with higher levels of suicidal ideation and is therefore highly relevant for clinicians to assess,” said Dr. Mathew, who was not part of the study.

“Early improvements in irritability are associated with better longer-term outcomes with antidepressant treatments, and this highlights the need for careful clinical evaluation early on in the course of antidepressant therapy, ideally within the first 2 weeks,” he said.

Dr. Jha reports financial relationships with Acadia Pharmaceuticals and Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Mathew reports financial relationships with Allergan, Vistagen, Janssen, Clexio, and Biohaven.
 

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

Irritability in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) and stimulant use disorder (SUD) is strongly linked to suicidality and should be assessed by clinicians.

Three clinical trials of adults with MDD and one trial of adults with SUD showed that the link between irritability and suicidality was stronger than the association between depression severity and suicidal behaviors.

“Irritability is an important construct that is not often studied in adults with major depressive disorder,” Manish K. Jha, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“If you look at current diagnostic convention, irritability is not considered a symptom of major depressive episodes in adults, but below age 18, it is considered one of the two main symptoms,” Dr. Jha said.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2020 annual Meeting.
 

Clinically useful

Irritability is assessed using age-related norms of behavior, Dr. Jha said.

“The best way to conceptualize it is that it is the propensity to get angry easily or more frequently as compared to peers in response to frustration. I have a 2½-year old, and if he throws a tantrum, that is perfectly age appropriate. But if I do the same thing, it would be extreme irritability. The pediatric literature uses the word ‘grouchiness,’ but it is a little bit difficult to define, in part because it hasn’t been studied extensively,” he said.

To better understand the potential association between irritability and suicidality, the investigators reviewed results of three trials involving adults with MDD. These trials were CO-MED (Combining Medications to Enhance Depression Outcomes), which included 665 patients; EMBARC (Establishing Moderators and Biosignatures of Antidepressant Response in Clinical Care), which included 296 patients; and SAMS (Suicide Assessment Methodology Study), which included 266 patients.

They also examined the STRIDE (Stimulant Reduction Intervention Using Dosed Exercise) study, which was conducted in 302 adults with SUD.

All studies assessed irritability using the Concise Associated Symptom Tracking scale, a 5-point Likert scale. The trials also assessed suicidality with the Concise Health Risk Tracking Suicidal Thoughts.

The investigators found that irritability and suicidality were positively correlated. The association between irritability and suicidality was 2-11 times stronger than the link to overall depression.

Higher irritability at baseline predicted higher levels of suicidality at week 9 in CO-MED (P = .011), EMBARC (P < .0001), and STRIDE (P = .007), but not in SAMS (P = .21).

Greater reduction in irritability from baseline to week 4 predicted lower levels of suicidality at week 8 in CO-MED (P = .007), EMBARC (P < .0001), and STRIDE (P < .0001), but not in SAMS (P = .065).

Similarly, lower baseline levels and greater reductions in irritability were associated with lower levels of suicidality at week 28 of CO-MED, week 16 of EMBARC, and week 36 of STRIDE.

Dr. Jha speculated that by treating irritability, it may be possible to lower rates of subsequent suicidal ideation, and he believes that measuring irritability in MDD “has clinical utility.”
 

A common and disabling symptom

Commenting on the study, Sanjay J. Mathew, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said the findings provide further support that irritability is a relatively common and disabling symptom associated with major depression.

“The presence of significant irritability was associated with higher levels of suicidal ideation and is therefore highly relevant for clinicians to assess,” said Dr. Mathew, who was not part of the study.

“Early improvements in irritability are associated with better longer-term outcomes with antidepressant treatments, and this highlights the need for careful clinical evaluation early on in the course of antidepressant therapy, ideally within the first 2 weeks,” he said.

Dr. Jha reports financial relationships with Acadia Pharmaceuticals and Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Mathew reports financial relationships with Allergan, Vistagen, Janssen, Clexio, and Biohaven.
 

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

I am writing this commentary to bring to readers’ attention a medical and ethical complexity related to human sitters for presumably suicidal, COVID-19–positive hospitalized patients.

To shape and bundle the ethics issues addressed here into a single question, I offer the following: Should policies and practices requiring that patients in presumed need of a sitter because of assessed suicidality change when the patient is COVID-19–positive? Although the analysis might be similar when a sitter is monitoring a Patient Under Investigation (PUI), here I focus only on COVID-19–positive patients. Similarly, there are other reasons for sitters, of course, such as to prevent elopement, or, if a patient is in restraints, to prevent the patient from pulling out lines or tubes. Again, discussion of some of these ethical complications is beyond the scope of this piece. Just considering the matter of potential suicidality and sitters is complex enough. And so, to start, I sought out existing sources for guidance.

In looking for such sources, I first turned to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services before COVID-19. CMS has required that there be a sitter for a patient who is suicidal and that the sitter remain in the room so that the sitter can intervene expeditiously if the patient tries to hurt himself or herself. There has been no change in this guidance since the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. To the best of my knowledge, there is no substantive guidance for protecting sitters from contagion other than PPE. Given this, it begs the question: Shouldn’t the CMS guidance be changed to allow for hospitals to study different approaches to contagion reduction for sitters?

In my hospital, I already have begun discussing the potential risks of harm and potential benefits to our suicidal patients of having a sitter directly outside the patient’s room. I also have considered whether to have one sitter watching several room cameras at once, commonly referred to as “telehealth strategies.”

To be sure, sitting for hours in the room of a COVID-19–positive patient is onerous. The sitter is required to be in full PPE (N-95 mask, gown, and gloves), which is hot and uncomfortable. Current practice is resource intensive in other ways. It requires changing out the sitter every 2 hours, which uses substantial amounts of PPE and multiple sitters.

Regardless, however, there are really no data upon which to base any sound ethics judgment about what should or should not be tried. We just have no information on how to attempt to balance potential risks and prospects for the benefit of whom and when. And, given that good clinical ethics always begin with the facts, I write this piece to see whether readers have thought about these issues before – and whether any of clinicians have started collecting the valuable data needed to begin making sound ethical judgments about how to care for our presumably suicidal COVID-19–positive patients and the sitters who watch over them.
 

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington. She has no disclosures and can be reached at [email protected].

This column is an outcome of a discussion that occurred during Psych/Ethics rounds on June 5, and does not represent any official statements of Medstar Washington Hospital Center or any entity of the MedStar Corp. Dr. Ritchie would like to thank Evan G. DeRenzo, PhD, of the John J. Lynch Center for Ethics, for her thoughtful review of a previous draft of this commentary.

I am writing this commentary to bring to readers’ attention a medical and ethical complexity related to human sitters for presumably suicidal, COVID-19–positive hospitalized patients.

To shape and bundle the ethics issues addressed here into a single question, I offer the following: Should policies and practices requiring that patients in presumed need of a sitter because of assessed suicidality change when the patient is COVID-19–positive? Although the analysis might be similar when a sitter is monitoring a Patient Under Investigation (PUI), here I focus only on COVID-19–positive patients. Similarly, there are other reasons for sitters, of course, such as to prevent elopement, or, if a patient is in restraints, to prevent the patient from pulling out lines or tubes. Again, discussion of some of these ethical complications is beyond the scope of this piece. Just considering the matter of potential suicidality and sitters is complex enough. And so, to start, I sought out existing sources for guidance.

In looking for such sources, I first turned to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services before COVID-19. CMS has required that there be a sitter for a patient who is suicidal and that the sitter remain in the room so that the sitter can intervene expeditiously if the patient tries to hurt himself or herself. There has been no change in this guidance since the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. To the best of my knowledge, there is no substantive guidance for protecting sitters from contagion other than PPE. Given this, it begs the question: Shouldn’t the CMS guidance be changed to allow for hospitals to study different approaches to contagion reduction for sitters?

In my hospital, I already have begun discussing the potential risks of harm and potential benefits to our suicidal patients of having a sitter directly outside the patient’s room. I also have considered whether to have one sitter watching several room cameras at once, commonly referred to as “telehealth strategies.”

To be sure, sitting for hours in the room of a COVID-19–positive patient is onerous. The sitter is required to be in full PPE (N-95 mask, gown, and gloves), which is hot and uncomfortable. Current practice is resource intensive in other ways. It requires changing out the sitter every 2 hours, which uses substantial amounts of PPE and multiple sitters.

Regardless, however, there are really no data upon which to base any sound ethics judgment about what should or should not be tried. We just have no information on how to attempt to balance potential risks and prospects for the benefit of whom and when. And, given that good clinical ethics always begin with the facts, I write this piece to see whether readers have thought about these issues before – and whether any of clinicians have started collecting the valuable data needed to begin making sound ethical judgments about how to care for our presumably suicidal COVID-19–positive patients and the sitters who watch over them.
 

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington. She has no disclosures and can be reached at [email protected].

This column is an outcome of a discussion that occurred during Psych/Ethics rounds on June 5, and does not represent any official statements of Medstar Washington Hospital Center or any entity of the MedStar Corp. Dr. Ritchie would like to thank Evan G. DeRenzo, PhD, of the John J. Lynch Center for Ethics, for her thoughtful review of a previous draft of this commentary.

I am writing this commentary to bring to readers’ attention a medical and ethical complexity related to human sitters for presumably suicidal, COVID-19–positive hospitalized patients.

To shape and bundle the ethics issues addressed here into a single question, I offer the following: Should policies and practices requiring that patients in presumed need of a sitter because of assessed suicidality change when the patient is COVID-19–positive? Although the analysis might be similar when a sitter is monitoring a Patient Under Investigation (PUI), here I focus only on COVID-19–positive patients. Similarly, there are other reasons for sitters, of course, such as to prevent elopement, or, if a patient is in restraints, to prevent the patient from pulling out lines or tubes. Again, discussion of some of these ethical complications is beyond the scope of this piece. Just considering the matter of potential suicidality and sitters is complex enough. And so, to start, I sought out existing sources for guidance.

In looking for such sources, I first turned to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services before COVID-19. CMS has required that there be a sitter for a patient who is suicidal and that the sitter remain in the room so that the sitter can intervene expeditiously if the patient tries to hurt himself or herself. There has been no change in this guidance since the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. To the best of my knowledge, there is no substantive guidance for protecting sitters from contagion other than PPE. Given this, it begs the question: Shouldn’t the CMS guidance be changed to allow for hospitals to study different approaches to contagion reduction for sitters?

In my hospital, I already have begun discussing the potential risks of harm and potential benefits to our suicidal patients of having a sitter directly outside the patient’s room. I also have considered whether to have one sitter watching several room cameras at once, commonly referred to as “telehealth strategies.”

To be sure, sitting for hours in the room of a COVID-19–positive patient is onerous. The sitter is required to be in full PPE (N-95 mask, gown, and gloves), which is hot and uncomfortable. Current practice is resource intensive in other ways. It requires changing out the sitter every 2 hours, which uses substantial amounts of PPE and multiple sitters.

Regardless, however, there are really no data upon which to base any sound ethics judgment about what should or should not be tried. We just have no information on how to attempt to balance potential risks and prospects for the benefit of whom and when. And, given that good clinical ethics always begin with the facts, I write this piece to see whether readers have thought about these issues before – and whether any of clinicians have started collecting the valuable data needed to begin making sound ethical judgments about how to care for our presumably suicidal COVID-19–positive patients and the sitters who watch over them.
 

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, Washington. She has no disclosures and can be reached at [email protected].

This column is an outcome of a discussion that occurred during Psych/Ethics rounds on June 5, and does not represent any official statements of Medstar Washington Hospital Center or any entity of the MedStar Corp. Dr. Ritchie would like to thank Evan G. DeRenzo, PhD, of the John J. Lynch Center for Ethics, for her thoughtful review of a previous draft of this commentary.

Pediatric patients hospitalized with more severe COVID-19 disease had higher levels of several inflammatory markers than did those with less severe disease, according to data from 50 patients at a single tertiary care center.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

“Risk factors for severe disease in pediatric populations have not been clearly identified and the high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in NYC offers an opportunity to describe severe pediatric disease in more detail,” wrote Philip Zachariah, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and colleagues.

In a retrospective case series published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 50 patients: 41 classified as severe and 9 classified as nonsevere. Among the patients, 27 were male and 25 were Hispanic. The patient population had a median of 2 days from symptom onset to hospital admission. The most common symptoms were fever (80%) and respiratory symptoms (64%). Seventy-six percent of patients had a median length of stay of 3 days (range 1-30 days).

At hospital admission, children with severe disease had significantly higher levels of several inflammatory markers compared with those without severe disease, notably C-reactive protein (median 8.978 mg/dL vs. 0.64 mg/dL) and procalcitonin (median 0.31 ng/mL vs. 0.17 ng/mL, (P < .001 for both). High mean peak levels of C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, interleukin 6, ferritin, and D-dimer were seen among the nine children (16%) who required mechanical ventilation, Dr. Zachariah and associates said.

None of the 14 infants and 1 of the 8 immunocompromised children in the study had severe disease, the researchers wrote.

Bacterial coinfections detected while patients were hospitalized were bacteremia in 6%, suspected bacterial pneumonia in 18%, urinary tract infections in 10%, skin and soft tissue infections in 6%, and streptococcus pharyngitis in 2%, Dr. Zachariah and associates reported.

Overall, 61% of the children had comorbidities identified in previous COVID-19 studies, of which obesity was the most common (22%); other comorbidities included asthma, sickle cell disease, cardiac disease, and diabetes. Obesity also was significantly associated with the need for mechanical ventilation in children aged 2 years and older (67%). A total of 16 patients required respiratory support, 9 of these were placed on mechanical ventilation; 6 of these 9 children were obese.

Fifteen patients (30%) who met criteria for increased oxygen requirements and respiratory distress received hydroxychloroquine, but the small sample size did not allow for assessment of treatment efficacy, the researchers said.

“Expanding our knowledge of COVID-19 [disease] in children will potentially permit early recognition of SARS-CoV-2 infection, understanding of the natural history of disease, and potential complications, said Stephen I. Pelton, MD, professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and senior attending physician at Boston Medical Center. This review of 50 SARS-CoV-2 infected children (less than 21 years of age) “provides insight into the short period of symptoms prior to hospitalization, challenges the concept that infants less than 1 year are at greatest risk of severe disease (as from the experience in China), and suggests rapid recovery in many children, as median length of stay was 3 days.

“The review revealed two findings that were surprising to me. First, the median length of stay of 3 days. As nearly 20% of the children required mechanical ventilation, it suggests many of the children were discharged quickly after evaluation, suggesting that we need to identify markers of severity to predict those children likely to have progressive disease and require respiratory support,” Dr. Pelton noted.

“The second observation suggests high rates of bacterial infection (bacteremia, pneumonia, UTI, and skin and soft tissue infection). I do not think this has been widely reported in adults, and may represent a difference between child and adult disease. More studies such as this will be required to identify how common coinfection with bacteria is,” he said.

“The take-home message is that although most children with COVID-19 have a mild or even asymptomatic course, some become severely ill requiring ventilator support and potentially ECMO [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation]. Potential predictors of severity include high C-reactive protein, obesity, and older age [adolescence], said Dr. Pelton, who was not involved in the study.

What additional research is needed? Dr. Pelton said that better markers of severe disease are needed, as well as an understanding of why obesity is a risk factor for severe disease in both children and adults. Are these prediabetic patients? he asked.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and high proportion of Hispanic patients, which may limit generalizability, and some symptoms and comorbidities may have been missed because of the retrospective nature of the study, the researchers noted. However, the results support the need for hospitals to remain vigilant to the variable presentations of COVID-19 infections in children.

“Therapeutic considerations need to [include] the risk of toxicity, control of antiviral replication, and early recognition and management of immune dysregulation,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Zachariah had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two coauthors reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies and organizations. Dr. Pelton said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zachariah P et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 June 3. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.2430.

Pediatric patients hospitalized with more severe COVID-19 disease had higher levels of several inflammatory markers than did those with less severe disease, according to data from 50 patients at a single tertiary care center.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

“Risk factors for severe disease in pediatric populations have not been clearly identified and the high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in NYC offers an opportunity to describe severe pediatric disease in more detail,” wrote Philip Zachariah, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and colleagues.

In a retrospective case series published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 50 patients: 41 classified as severe and 9 classified as nonsevere. Among the patients, 27 were male and 25 were Hispanic. The patient population had a median of 2 days from symptom onset to hospital admission. The most common symptoms were fever (80%) and respiratory symptoms (64%). Seventy-six percent of patients had a median length of stay of 3 days (range 1-30 days).

At hospital admission, children with severe disease had significantly higher levels of several inflammatory markers compared with those without severe disease, notably C-reactive protein (median 8.978 mg/dL vs. 0.64 mg/dL) and procalcitonin (median 0.31 ng/mL vs. 0.17 ng/mL, (P < .001 for both). High mean peak levels of C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, interleukin 6, ferritin, and D-dimer were seen among the nine children (16%) who required mechanical ventilation, Dr. Zachariah and associates said.

None of the 14 infants and 1 of the 8 immunocompromised children in the study had severe disease, the researchers wrote.

Bacterial coinfections detected while patients were hospitalized were bacteremia in 6%, suspected bacterial pneumonia in 18%, urinary tract infections in 10%, skin and soft tissue infections in 6%, and streptococcus pharyngitis in 2%, Dr. Zachariah and associates reported.

Overall, 61% of the children had comorbidities identified in previous COVID-19 studies, of which obesity was the most common (22%); other comorbidities included asthma, sickle cell disease, cardiac disease, and diabetes. Obesity also was significantly associated with the need for mechanical ventilation in children aged 2 years and older (67%). A total of 16 patients required respiratory support, 9 of these were placed on mechanical ventilation; 6 of these 9 children were obese.

Fifteen patients (30%) who met criteria for increased oxygen requirements and respiratory distress received hydroxychloroquine, but the small sample size did not allow for assessment of treatment efficacy, the researchers said.

“Expanding our knowledge of COVID-19 [disease] in children will potentially permit early recognition of SARS-CoV-2 infection, understanding of the natural history of disease, and potential complications, said Stephen I. Pelton, MD, professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and senior attending physician at Boston Medical Center. This review of 50 SARS-CoV-2 infected children (less than 21 years of age) “provides insight into the short period of symptoms prior to hospitalization, challenges the concept that infants less than 1 year are at greatest risk of severe disease (as from the experience in China), and suggests rapid recovery in many children, as median length of stay was 3 days.

“The review revealed two findings that were surprising to me. First, the median length of stay of 3 days. As nearly 20% of the children required mechanical ventilation, it suggests many of the children were discharged quickly after evaluation, suggesting that we need to identify markers of severity to predict those children likely to have progressive disease and require respiratory support,” Dr. Pelton noted.

“The second observation suggests high rates of bacterial infection (bacteremia, pneumonia, UTI, and skin and soft tissue infection). I do not think this has been widely reported in adults, and may represent a difference between child and adult disease. More studies such as this will be required to identify how common coinfection with bacteria is,” he said.

“The take-home message is that although most children with COVID-19 have a mild or even asymptomatic course, some become severely ill requiring ventilator support and potentially ECMO [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation]. Potential predictors of severity include high C-reactive protein, obesity, and older age [adolescence], said Dr. Pelton, who was not involved in the study.

What additional research is needed? Dr. Pelton said that better markers of severe disease are needed, as well as an understanding of why obesity is a risk factor for severe disease in both children and adults. Are these prediabetic patients? he asked.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and high proportion of Hispanic patients, which may limit generalizability, and some symptoms and comorbidities may have been missed because of the retrospective nature of the study, the researchers noted. However, the results support the need for hospitals to remain vigilant to the variable presentations of COVID-19 infections in children.

“Therapeutic considerations need to [include] the risk of toxicity, control of antiviral replication, and early recognition and management of immune dysregulation,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Zachariah had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two coauthors reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies and organizations. Dr. Pelton said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zachariah P et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 June 3. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.2430.

Pediatric patients hospitalized with more severe COVID-19 disease had higher levels of several inflammatory markers than did those with less severe disease, according to data from 50 patients at a single tertiary care center.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

“Risk factors for severe disease in pediatric populations have not been clearly identified and the high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in NYC offers an opportunity to describe severe pediatric disease in more detail,” wrote Philip Zachariah, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, and colleagues.

In a retrospective case series published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 50 patients: 41 classified as severe and 9 classified as nonsevere. Among the patients, 27 were male and 25 were Hispanic. The patient population had a median of 2 days from symptom onset to hospital admission. The most common symptoms were fever (80%) and respiratory symptoms (64%). Seventy-six percent of patients had a median length of stay of 3 days (range 1-30 days).

At hospital admission, children with severe disease had significantly higher levels of several inflammatory markers compared with those without severe disease, notably C-reactive protein (median 8.978 mg/dL vs. 0.64 mg/dL) and procalcitonin (median 0.31 ng/mL vs. 0.17 ng/mL, (P < .001 for both). High mean peak levels of C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, interleukin 6, ferritin, and D-dimer were seen among the nine children (16%) who required mechanical ventilation, Dr. Zachariah and associates said.

None of the 14 infants and 1 of the 8 immunocompromised children in the study had severe disease, the researchers wrote.

Bacterial coinfections detected while patients were hospitalized were bacteremia in 6%, suspected bacterial pneumonia in 18%, urinary tract infections in 10%, skin and soft tissue infections in 6%, and streptococcus pharyngitis in 2%, Dr. Zachariah and associates reported.

Overall, 61% of the children had comorbidities identified in previous COVID-19 studies, of which obesity was the most common (22%); other comorbidities included asthma, sickle cell disease, cardiac disease, and diabetes. Obesity also was significantly associated with the need for mechanical ventilation in children aged 2 years and older (67%). A total of 16 patients required respiratory support, 9 of these were placed on mechanical ventilation; 6 of these 9 children were obese.

Fifteen patients (30%) who met criteria for increased oxygen requirements and respiratory distress received hydroxychloroquine, but the small sample size did not allow for assessment of treatment efficacy, the researchers said.

“Expanding our knowledge of COVID-19 [disease] in children will potentially permit early recognition of SARS-CoV-2 infection, understanding of the natural history of disease, and potential complications, said Stephen I. Pelton, MD, professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and senior attending physician at Boston Medical Center. This review of 50 SARS-CoV-2 infected children (less than 21 years of age) “provides insight into the short period of symptoms prior to hospitalization, challenges the concept that infants less than 1 year are at greatest risk of severe disease (as from the experience in China), and suggests rapid recovery in many children, as median length of stay was 3 days.

“The review revealed two findings that were surprising to me. First, the median length of stay of 3 days. As nearly 20% of the children required mechanical ventilation, it suggests many of the children were discharged quickly after evaluation, suggesting that we need to identify markers of severity to predict those children likely to have progressive disease and require respiratory support,” Dr. Pelton noted.

“The second observation suggests high rates of bacterial infection (bacteremia, pneumonia, UTI, and skin and soft tissue infection). I do not think this has been widely reported in adults, and may represent a difference between child and adult disease. More studies such as this will be required to identify how common coinfection with bacteria is,” he said.

“The take-home message is that although most children with COVID-19 have a mild or even asymptomatic course, some become severely ill requiring ventilator support and potentially ECMO [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation]. Potential predictors of severity include high C-reactive protein, obesity, and older age [adolescence], said Dr. Pelton, who was not involved in the study.

What additional research is needed? Dr. Pelton said that better markers of severe disease are needed, as well as an understanding of why obesity is a risk factor for severe disease in both children and adults. Are these prediabetic patients? he asked.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and high proportion of Hispanic patients, which may limit generalizability, and some symptoms and comorbidities may have been missed because of the retrospective nature of the study, the researchers noted. However, the results support the need for hospitals to remain vigilant to the variable presentations of COVID-19 infections in children.

“Therapeutic considerations need to [include] the risk of toxicity, control of antiviral replication, and early recognition and management of immune dysregulation,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Zachariah had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two coauthors reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies and organizations. Dr. Pelton said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zachariah P et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 June 3. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.2430.

The U.S. health care system is famously resistant to government-imposed change. It took decades to create Medicare and Medicaid, mostly because of opposition from the medical-industrial complex. Then it was nearly another half-century before the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

But the COVID-19 pandemic has done what no president or social movement or venture capitalist could have dreamed of: It forced sudden major changes to the nation’s health care system that are unlikely to be reversed.

“Health care is never going back to the way it was before,” said Gail Wilensky, a health economist who ran the Medicare and Medicaid programs for President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.

Ms. Wilensky is far from the only longtime observer of the American health care system to marvel at the speed of some long-sought changes. But experts warn that the breakthroughs may not all make the health system work better or make it less expensive.

That said, here are three trends that seem likely to continue.
 

Telehealth for all

Telehealth is not new; medical professionals have used it to reach patients in rural or remote settings since the late 1980s.

But even while technology has made video visits easier, it has failed to reach critical mass, largely because of political fights. Licensing has been one main obstacle – determining how a doctor in one state can legally treat a patient in a state where the doctor is not licensed.

The other obstacle, not surprisingly, is payment. Should a video visit be reimbursed at the same rate as an in-person visit? Will making it easier for doctors and other medical professionals to use telehealth encourage unnecessary care, thus driving up the nation’s $3.6 trillion health tab even more? Or could it replace care once provided free by phone?

Still, the pandemic has pushed aside those sticking points. Almost overnight, by necessity, every health care provider who can is delivering telemedicine. A new survey from Gallup found the number of patients reporting “virtual” medical visits more than doubled, from 12% to 27%, from late March to mid-May. That is attributable, at least in part, to Medicare having made it easier for doctors to bill for virtual visits.

It’s easy to see why many patients like video visits – there’s no parking to find and pay for, and it takes far less time out of a workday than going to an office.

Doctors and other practitioners seem more ambivalent. On one hand, it can be harder to examine a patient over video and some services just can’t be done via a digital connection. On the other hand, they can see more patients in the same amount of time and may need less support staff and possibly smaller offices if more visits are conducted virtually.

Of course, telemedicine doesn’t work for everyone. Many areas and patients don’t have reliable or robust broadband connections that make video visits work. And some patients, particularly the oldest seniors, lack the technological skills needed to connect.
 

Primary care doctors in peril

Another trend that has suddenly accelerated is worry over the nation’s dwindling supply of primary care doctors. The exodus of practitioners performing primary care has been a concern over the past several years, as baby boomer doctors retire and others have grown weary of more and more bureaucracy from government and private payers. Having faced a difficult financial crisis during the pandemic, more family physicians may move into retirement or seek other professional options.

At the same time, fewer current medical students are choosing specialties in primary care.

“I’ve been trying to raise the alarm about the kind of perilous future of primary care,” said Farzad Mostashari, MD, a top Department of Health & Human Services official in the Obama administration. Dr. Mostashari runs Aledade, a company that helps primary care doctors make the transition from fee-for-service medicine to new payment models.

The American Academy of Family Physicians reports that 70% of primary care physicians are reporting declines in patient volume of 50% or more since March, and 40% have laid off or furloughed staff. The AAFP has joined other primary care and insurance groups in asking HHS for an infusion of cash.

“This is absolutely essential to effectively treat patients today and to maintain their ongoing operations until we overcome this public health emergency,” the groups wrote.

One easy way to help keep primary care doctors afloat would be to pay them not according to what they do, but in a lump sum to keep patients healthy. This move from fee-for-service to what’s known as capitation or value-based care has unfolded gradually and was championed in the Affordable Care Act.

But some experts argue it needs to happen more quickly and they predict that the coronavirus pandemic could finally mark the beginning of the end for doctors who still charge for each service individually. Dr. Mostashari, who spends his time helping doctors make the transition, said in times like these, it would make more sense for primary care doctors to have “a steady monthly revenue stream, and [the doctor] can decide the best way to deliver that care: unlimited texts, phone calls, video calls. The goal is to give you satisfactory outcomes and a great patient experience.”

Still, many physicians, particularly those in solo or small practices, worry about the potential financial risk – especially the possibility of getting paid less if they don’t meet certain benchmarks that the doctors may not be able to directly control.

But with many practices now ground to a halt, or just starting to reopen, those physicians who get paid per patient rather than per service are in a much better position to stay afloat. That model may gain traction as doctors ponder the next pandemic, or the next wave of this one.
 

Hospitals on the decline?

The pandemic also might lead to less emphasis on hospital-based care. While hospitals in many parts of the country have obviously been full of very sick COVID patients, they have closed down other nonemergency services to preserve supplies and resources to fight the pandemic. People with other ailments have stayed away in droves even when services were available, for fear of catching something worse than what they already have.

Many experts predict that care won’t just snap back when the current emergency wanes. Mark Smith, MD, former president of the California Health Care Foundation, said among consumers, a switch has been flipped. “Overnight it seems we’ve gone from high-touch to no-touch.”

Which is not great for hospitals that have spent millions trying to attract patients to their labor-and-delivery units, orthopedic centers, and other parts of the facility that once generated lots of income.

Even more concerning is that hospitals’ ability to weather the current financial shock varies widely. Those most in danger of closing are in rural and underserved areas, where patients could wind up with even less access to care that is scarce already.

All of which underscores the point that not all these changes will necessarily be good for the health system or society. Financial pressures could end up driving more consolidation, which could push up prices as large groups of hospitals and doctors gain more bargaining clout.

But the changes are definitely happening at a pace few have ever seen, said Ms. Wilensky, “When you’re forced to find different ways of doing things, and you find out they are easier and more efficient, it’s going to be hard to go back to the old way.”
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The U.S. health care system is famously resistant to government-imposed change. It took decades to create Medicare and Medicaid, mostly because of opposition from the medical-industrial complex. Then it was nearly another half-century before the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

But the COVID-19 pandemic has done what no president or social movement or venture capitalist could have dreamed of: It forced sudden major changes to the nation’s health care system that are unlikely to be reversed.

“Health care is never going back to the way it was before,” said Gail Wilensky, a health economist who ran the Medicare and Medicaid programs for President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.

Ms. Wilensky is far from the only longtime observer of the American health care system to marvel at the speed of some long-sought changes. But experts warn that the breakthroughs may not all make the health system work better or make it less expensive.

That said, here are three trends that seem likely to continue.
 

Telehealth for all

Telehealth is not new; medical professionals have used it to reach patients in rural or remote settings since the late 1980s.

But even while technology has made video visits easier, it has failed to reach critical mass, largely because of political fights. Licensing has been one main obstacle – determining how a doctor in one state can legally treat a patient in a state where the doctor is not licensed.

The other obstacle, not surprisingly, is payment. Should a video visit be reimbursed at the same rate as an in-person visit? Will making it easier for doctors and other medical professionals to use telehealth encourage unnecessary care, thus driving up the nation’s $3.6 trillion health tab even more? Or could it replace care once provided free by phone?

Still, the pandemic has pushed aside those sticking points. Almost overnight, by necessity, every health care provider who can is delivering telemedicine. A new survey from Gallup found the number of patients reporting “virtual” medical visits more than doubled, from 12% to 27%, from late March to mid-May. That is attributable, at least in part, to Medicare having made it easier for doctors to bill for virtual visits.

It’s easy to see why many patients like video visits – there’s no parking to find and pay for, and it takes far less time out of a workday than going to an office.

Doctors and other practitioners seem more ambivalent. On one hand, it can be harder to examine a patient over video and some services just can’t be done via a digital connection. On the other hand, they can see more patients in the same amount of time and may need less support staff and possibly smaller offices if more visits are conducted virtually.

Of course, telemedicine doesn’t work for everyone. Many areas and patients don’t have reliable or robust broadband connections that make video visits work. And some patients, particularly the oldest seniors, lack the technological skills needed to connect.
 

Primary care doctors in peril

Another trend that has suddenly accelerated is worry over the nation’s dwindling supply of primary care doctors. The exodus of practitioners performing primary care has been a concern over the past several years, as baby boomer doctors retire and others have grown weary of more and more bureaucracy from government and private payers. Having faced a difficult financial crisis during the pandemic, more family physicians may move into retirement or seek other professional options.

At the same time, fewer current medical students are choosing specialties in primary care.

“I’ve been trying to raise the alarm about the kind of perilous future of primary care,” said Farzad Mostashari, MD, a top Department of Health & Human Services official in the Obama administration. Dr. Mostashari runs Aledade, a company that helps primary care doctors make the transition from fee-for-service medicine to new payment models.

The American Academy of Family Physicians reports that 70% of primary care physicians are reporting declines in patient volume of 50% or more since March, and 40% have laid off or furloughed staff. The AAFP has joined other primary care and insurance groups in asking HHS for an infusion of cash.

“This is absolutely essential to effectively treat patients today and to maintain their ongoing operations until we overcome this public health emergency,” the groups wrote.

One easy way to help keep primary care doctors afloat would be to pay them not according to what they do, but in a lump sum to keep patients healthy. This move from fee-for-service to what’s known as capitation or value-based care has unfolded gradually and was championed in the Affordable Care Act.

But some experts argue it needs to happen more quickly and they predict that the coronavirus pandemic could finally mark the beginning of the end for doctors who still charge for each service individually. Dr. Mostashari, who spends his time helping doctors make the transition, said in times like these, it would make more sense for primary care doctors to have “a steady monthly revenue stream, and [the doctor] can decide the best way to deliver that care: unlimited texts, phone calls, video calls. The goal is to give you satisfactory outcomes and a great patient experience.”

Still, many physicians, particularly those in solo or small practices, worry about the potential financial risk – especially the possibility of getting paid less if they don’t meet certain benchmarks that the doctors may not be able to directly control.

But with many practices now ground to a halt, or just starting to reopen, those physicians who get paid per patient rather than per service are in a much better position to stay afloat. That model may gain traction as doctors ponder the next pandemic, or the next wave of this one.
 

Hospitals on the decline?

The pandemic also might lead to less emphasis on hospital-based care. While hospitals in many parts of the country have obviously been full of very sick COVID patients, they have closed down other nonemergency services to preserve supplies and resources to fight the pandemic. People with other ailments have stayed away in droves even when services were available, for fear of catching something worse than what they already have.

Many experts predict that care won’t just snap back when the current emergency wanes. Mark Smith, MD, former president of the California Health Care Foundation, said among consumers, a switch has been flipped. “Overnight it seems we’ve gone from high-touch to no-touch.”

Which is not great for hospitals that have spent millions trying to attract patients to their labor-and-delivery units, orthopedic centers, and other parts of the facility that once generated lots of income.

Even more concerning is that hospitals’ ability to weather the current financial shock varies widely. Those most in danger of closing are in rural and underserved areas, where patients could wind up with even less access to care that is scarce already.

All of which underscores the point that not all these changes will necessarily be good for the health system or society. Financial pressures could end up driving more consolidation, which could push up prices as large groups of hospitals and doctors gain more bargaining clout.

But the changes are definitely happening at a pace few have ever seen, said Ms. Wilensky, “When you’re forced to find different ways of doing things, and you find out they are easier and more efficient, it’s going to be hard to go back to the old way.”
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The U.S. health care system is famously resistant to government-imposed change. It took decades to create Medicare and Medicaid, mostly because of opposition from the medical-industrial complex. Then it was nearly another half-century before the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

But the COVID-19 pandemic has done what no president or social movement or venture capitalist could have dreamed of: It forced sudden major changes to the nation’s health care system that are unlikely to be reversed.

“Health care is never going back to the way it was before,” said Gail Wilensky, a health economist who ran the Medicare and Medicaid programs for President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.

Ms. Wilensky is far from the only longtime observer of the American health care system to marvel at the speed of some long-sought changes. But experts warn that the breakthroughs may not all make the health system work better or make it less expensive.

That said, here are three trends that seem likely to continue.
 

Telehealth for all

Telehealth is not new; medical professionals have used it to reach patients in rural or remote settings since the late 1980s.

But even while technology has made video visits easier, it has failed to reach critical mass, largely because of political fights. Licensing has been one main obstacle – determining how a doctor in one state can legally treat a patient in a state where the doctor is not licensed.

The other obstacle, not surprisingly, is payment. Should a video visit be reimbursed at the same rate as an in-person visit? Will making it easier for doctors and other medical professionals to use telehealth encourage unnecessary care, thus driving up the nation’s $3.6 trillion health tab even more? Or could it replace care once provided free by phone?

Still, the pandemic has pushed aside those sticking points. Almost overnight, by necessity, every health care provider who can is delivering telemedicine. A new survey from Gallup found the number of patients reporting “virtual” medical visits more than doubled, from 12% to 27%, from late March to mid-May. That is attributable, at least in part, to Medicare having made it easier for doctors to bill for virtual visits.

It’s easy to see why many patients like video visits – there’s no parking to find and pay for, and it takes far less time out of a workday than going to an office.

Doctors and other practitioners seem more ambivalent. On one hand, it can be harder to examine a patient over video and some services just can’t be done via a digital connection. On the other hand, they can see more patients in the same amount of time and may need less support staff and possibly smaller offices if more visits are conducted virtually.

Of course, telemedicine doesn’t work for everyone. Many areas and patients don’t have reliable or robust broadband connections that make video visits work. And some patients, particularly the oldest seniors, lack the technological skills needed to connect.
 

Primary care doctors in peril

Another trend that has suddenly accelerated is worry over the nation’s dwindling supply of primary care doctors. The exodus of practitioners performing primary care has been a concern over the past several years, as baby boomer doctors retire and others have grown weary of more and more bureaucracy from government and private payers. Having faced a difficult financial crisis during the pandemic, more family physicians may move into retirement or seek other professional options.

At the same time, fewer current medical students are choosing specialties in primary care.

“I’ve been trying to raise the alarm about the kind of perilous future of primary care,” said Farzad Mostashari, MD, a top Department of Health & Human Services official in the Obama administration. Dr. Mostashari runs Aledade, a company that helps primary care doctors make the transition from fee-for-service medicine to new payment models.

The American Academy of Family Physicians reports that 70% of primary care physicians are reporting declines in patient volume of 50% or more since March, and 40% have laid off or furloughed staff. The AAFP has joined other primary care and insurance groups in asking HHS for an infusion of cash.

“This is absolutely essential to effectively treat patients today and to maintain their ongoing operations until we overcome this public health emergency,” the groups wrote.

One easy way to help keep primary care doctors afloat would be to pay them not according to what they do, but in a lump sum to keep patients healthy. This move from fee-for-service to what’s known as capitation or value-based care has unfolded gradually and was championed in the Affordable Care Act.

But some experts argue it needs to happen more quickly and they predict that the coronavirus pandemic could finally mark the beginning of the end for doctors who still charge for each service individually. Dr. Mostashari, who spends his time helping doctors make the transition, said in times like these, it would make more sense for primary care doctors to have “a steady monthly revenue stream, and [the doctor] can decide the best way to deliver that care: unlimited texts, phone calls, video calls. The goal is to give you satisfactory outcomes and a great patient experience.”

Still, many physicians, particularly those in solo or small practices, worry about the potential financial risk – especially the possibility of getting paid less if they don’t meet certain benchmarks that the doctors may not be able to directly control.

But with many practices now ground to a halt, or just starting to reopen, those physicians who get paid per patient rather than per service are in a much better position to stay afloat. That model may gain traction as doctors ponder the next pandemic, or the next wave of this one.
 

Hospitals on the decline?

The pandemic also might lead to less emphasis on hospital-based care. While hospitals in many parts of the country have obviously been full of very sick COVID patients, they have closed down other nonemergency services to preserve supplies and resources to fight the pandemic. People with other ailments have stayed away in droves even when services were available, for fear of catching something worse than what they already have.

Many experts predict that care won’t just snap back when the current emergency wanes. Mark Smith, MD, former president of the California Health Care Foundation, said among consumers, a switch has been flipped. “Overnight it seems we’ve gone from high-touch to no-touch.”

Which is not great for hospitals that have spent millions trying to attract patients to their labor-and-delivery units, orthopedic centers, and other parts of the facility that once generated lots of income.

Even more concerning is that hospitals’ ability to weather the current financial shock varies widely. Those most in danger of closing are in rural and underserved areas, where patients could wind up with even less access to care that is scarce already.

All of which underscores the point that not all these changes will necessarily be good for the health system or society. Financial pressures could end up driving more consolidation, which could push up prices as large groups of hospitals and doctors gain more bargaining clout.

But the changes are definitely happening at a pace few have ever seen, said Ms. Wilensky, “When you’re forced to find different ways of doing things, and you find out they are easier and more efficient, it’s going to be hard to go back to the old way.”
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The presence of pulmonary arterial hypertension, whether preexisting or occurring in conjunction with a COVID-19 infection, will likely increase the risk for morbidity and mortality in these patients, according to a research article published in Pulmonary Circulation.

“The impetus for this manuscript was a recent discussion within the Pulmonary Hypertension Association (PHA) and [its] Scientific Leadership Council who expressed a need for guidelines from experts in the field,” wrote John J. Ryan, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

The authors highlight some of the unique challenges in caring for patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), particularly pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Telemedicine and temporary visit schedules for new and returning PAH patients can help reduce risk of virus transmission, if patient accessibility to telemedicine is feasible. Protocols to reduce the risk of virus exposure or transmission in the office setting included less frequent echocardiography and 6-Minute Walk Tests (6MWTs) for patients in stable condition. In stable patients, “avoid pulmonary function of V/Q tests when possible,” the authors wrote.

New patients who have been referred for PAH present a challenge in conducting a thorough evaluation that would normally include measurement of invasive hemodynamics in keeping with current diagnostic guidelines. Clinicians will need to balance the potential risks of COVID-19 exposure during elective procedures against the benefits of full evaluations to plan PAH treatment, the authors noted.

For established patients who are clinically stable, remote visits may be an option, with a risk/benefit assessment of the need for in-person diagnostic tests at the current time, they said. However, telemedicine’s limitations include not only patient accessibility and understanding of audio and video technology, but also inability to accurately measure vital signs, they said.

As for routine testing such as echocardiograms, 6MWTs, and other laboratory testing, “it is important to consider the additive value of these sometimes comprehensive tests in the context of the risks associated with visiting the hospital or clinic to obtain them,” the authors said.

Patients who are unstable and experience worsening right heart failure (RHF) at home may have contracted a COVID-19 infection, but the differential diagnosis includes sepsis, ischemia, and PAH disease progression. “During the current pandemic, fever at home in a PAH patient should be assumed to represent a COVID-19 infection,” and patients with worsening respiratory symptoms that require hospitalization should be tested for COVID-19, the authors emphasized.

Use of ECMO or other intensive interventions should be considered in the context of risk assessment, the authors said. “As a general recommendation, practitioners should consider utilizing an established PAH-specific risk assessment tool to help identify patients who are more likely to survive heroic interventions during the COVID-19 outbreak,” they wrote.

Training and education of PH providers will continue to be limited by the pandemic, and many clinical trials and research programs have been suspended and will need to be restructured to minimize risk of transmission of the COVID-19 virus, the authors said. However, health care providers must continue to provide PAH patients and families with advice and updates in best practices, while “acknowledging that the situation changes rapidly,” they concluded.

Dr. Ryan disclosed participating on the speakers bureau, and provides consulting services for, Actelion and Bayer, as well as research support from the Reagan Corporation, the Gordon Family, and the Cushman Family.

SOURCE: Ryan JJ et al. Pulm Circ. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1177/2045894020920153.

The presence of pulmonary arterial hypertension, whether preexisting or occurring in conjunction with a COVID-19 infection, will likely increase the risk for morbidity and mortality in these patients, according to a research article published in Pulmonary Circulation.

“The impetus for this manuscript was a recent discussion within the Pulmonary Hypertension Association (PHA) and [its] Scientific Leadership Council who expressed a need for guidelines from experts in the field,” wrote John J. Ryan, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

The authors highlight some of the unique challenges in caring for patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), particularly pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Telemedicine and temporary visit schedules for new and returning PAH patients can help reduce risk of virus transmission, if patient accessibility to telemedicine is feasible. Protocols to reduce the risk of virus exposure or transmission in the office setting included less frequent echocardiography and 6-Minute Walk Tests (6MWTs) for patients in stable condition. In stable patients, “avoid pulmonary function of V/Q tests when possible,” the authors wrote.

New patients who have been referred for PAH present a challenge in conducting a thorough evaluation that would normally include measurement of invasive hemodynamics in keeping with current diagnostic guidelines. Clinicians will need to balance the potential risks of COVID-19 exposure during elective procedures against the benefits of full evaluations to plan PAH treatment, the authors noted.

For established patients who are clinically stable, remote visits may be an option, with a risk/benefit assessment of the need for in-person diagnostic tests at the current time, they said. However, telemedicine’s limitations include not only patient accessibility and understanding of audio and video technology, but also inability to accurately measure vital signs, they said.

As for routine testing such as echocardiograms, 6MWTs, and other laboratory testing, “it is important to consider the additive value of these sometimes comprehensive tests in the context of the risks associated with visiting the hospital or clinic to obtain them,” the authors said.

Patients who are unstable and experience worsening right heart failure (RHF) at home may have contracted a COVID-19 infection, but the differential diagnosis includes sepsis, ischemia, and PAH disease progression. “During the current pandemic, fever at home in a PAH patient should be assumed to represent a COVID-19 infection,” and patients with worsening respiratory symptoms that require hospitalization should be tested for COVID-19, the authors emphasized.

Use of ECMO or other intensive interventions should be considered in the context of risk assessment, the authors said. “As a general recommendation, practitioners should consider utilizing an established PAH-specific risk assessment tool to help identify patients who are more likely to survive heroic interventions during the COVID-19 outbreak,” they wrote.

Training and education of PH providers will continue to be limited by the pandemic, and many clinical trials and research programs have been suspended and will need to be restructured to minimize risk of transmission of the COVID-19 virus, the authors said. However, health care providers must continue to provide PAH patients and families with advice and updates in best practices, while “acknowledging that the situation changes rapidly,” they concluded.

Dr. Ryan disclosed participating on the speakers bureau, and provides consulting services for, Actelion and Bayer, as well as research support from the Reagan Corporation, the Gordon Family, and the Cushman Family.

SOURCE: Ryan JJ et al. Pulm Circ. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1177/2045894020920153.

The presence of pulmonary arterial hypertension, whether preexisting or occurring in conjunction with a COVID-19 infection, will likely increase the risk for morbidity and mortality in these patients, according to a research article published in Pulmonary Circulation.

“The impetus for this manuscript was a recent discussion within the Pulmonary Hypertension Association (PHA) and [its] Scientific Leadership Council who expressed a need for guidelines from experts in the field,” wrote John J. Ryan, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

The authors highlight some of the unique challenges in caring for patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), particularly pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Telemedicine and temporary visit schedules for new and returning PAH patients can help reduce risk of virus transmission, if patient accessibility to telemedicine is feasible. Protocols to reduce the risk of virus exposure or transmission in the office setting included less frequent echocardiography and 6-Minute Walk Tests (6MWTs) for patients in stable condition. In stable patients, “avoid pulmonary function of V/Q tests when possible,” the authors wrote.

New patients who have been referred for PAH present a challenge in conducting a thorough evaluation that would normally include measurement of invasive hemodynamics in keeping with current diagnostic guidelines. Clinicians will need to balance the potential risks of COVID-19 exposure during elective procedures against the benefits of full evaluations to plan PAH treatment, the authors noted.

For established patients who are clinically stable, remote visits may be an option, with a risk/benefit assessment of the need for in-person diagnostic tests at the current time, they said. However, telemedicine’s limitations include not only patient accessibility and understanding of audio and video technology, but also inability to accurately measure vital signs, they said.

As for routine testing such as echocardiograms, 6MWTs, and other laboratory testing, “it is important to consider the additive value of these sometimes comprehensive tests in the context of the risks associated with visiting the hospital or clinic to obtain them,” the authors said.

Patients who are unstable and experience worsening right heart failure (RHF) at home may have contracted a COVID-19 infection, but the differential diagnosis includes sepsis, ischemia, and PAH disease progression. “During the current pandemic, fever at home in a PAH patient should be assumed to represent a COVID-19 infection,” and patients with worsening respiratory symptoms that require hospitalization should be tested for COVID-19, the authors emphasized.

Use of ECMO or other intensive interventions should be considered in the context of risk assessment, the authors said. “As a general recommendation, practitioners should consider utilizing an established PAH-specific risk assessment tool to help identify patients who are more likely to survive heroic interventions during the COVID-19 outbreak,” they wrote.

Training and education of PH providers will continue to be limited by the pandemic, and many clinical trials and research programs have been suspended and will need to be restructured to minimize risk of transmission of the COVID-19 virus, the authors said. However, health care providers must continue to provide PAH patients and families with advice and updates in best practices, while “acknowledging that the situation changes rapidly,” they concluded.

Dr. Ryan disclosed participating on the speakers bureau, and provides consulting services for, Actelion and Bayer, as well as research support from the Reagan Corporation, the Gordon Family, and the Cushman Family.

SOURCE: Ryan JJ et al. Pulm Circ. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1177/2045894020920153.

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite the ever-increasing acceptance of medical cannabis and its notably common use in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), clinicians treating those patients still may be poorly informed about risks, benefits, regulations, and proper uses, experts say.

“There is evidence of a ‘clinical void,’ with clinicians on one side and people with MS and other conditions on the other that doesn’t usually exist regarding therapies that people with MS are using,” said Allen C. Bowling, MD, PhD, director of the NeuroHealth Institute and clinical professor of neurology at the University of Colorado, in Aurora. His presentation was part of the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

While approximately 8% of the general population uses cannabis, evidence shows that the proportion of people with MS who do so ranges from 9% to 38%, for an average of about 20%, Dr. Bowling noted. Yet, according to research, only about 20% of those actually discuss their cannabis use with their clinicians, which could have potentially adverse implications in the management of the disease.

As an example, Dr. Bowling described a case of his own involving a stroke syndrome associated with cannabis use – reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), which he mistook for an MS flare-up. “I had a patient who developed RCVS, but because it appeared to be an MS attack, I was treating her with corticosteroids, and she kept getting worse,” he said. “It’s very important for MS clinicians to be aware of this stroke syndrome that can mimic an MS attack. The way to rule it out is with CT angiography.”
 

Misconceptions common among clinicians

Studies underscore that such misconceptions could be common. One recent study showed that as many as 90% of residents and fellows did not feel prepared to recommend or answer questions on cannabis use, and in fact, most states do not even require physicians to have training in medical uses of cannabis, Dr. Bowling noted.

Other research shows that the rates of clinicians with high knowledge in medical cannabis use are in the single digits, while many have no cannabis training at all.

In a survey of 556 physicians taken as recently as January 2020, 47% gave incorrect responses regarding tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), while 33% reported being familiar with “nano-cannabinoids” – which don’t even exist, and the term was created for the sake of the survey.

Clinicians’ misconceptions about the regulation of cannabis was especially eyebrow raising, Dr. Bowling indicated. “The part that concerns me the most is regarding dispensary cannabis products – 17% of respondents thought the products were Food and Drug Administration–controlled and 25% said they thought that dispensary products were FDA approved,” he said.

There are, meanwhile, no formal clinical studies evaluating the medical efficacy of any products sold in U.S. cannabis dispensaries, much less FDA regulation, Dr. Bowling said.

Among the most recent research of cannabis use among MS patients is a real-world study of more than 2,000 patients with MS in Denmark. Said to be the most comprehensive survey of cannabis use among MS patients to date, the researchers found that 21% of patients reported cannabis use in the past year, with only 21% of those having a prescription to use the drug legally because of strict regulations in Denmark.

Respondents reported that the primary reasons for use in MS were to alleviate pain (61%), spasticity (52%), and sleep disturbances (46%). The most common adverse effects were drowsiness (30%), feeling quiet/subdued (23%), and dizziness (13%), with effects that were mild to moderate.

And a 2019 study of electronic medical record data for 561 patients with multiple sclerosis in British Columbia, Canada, showed that 19% reported using cannabis, with 71% reporting use for alleviation of pain, 71% for sleep, 44% for mood, and 40% for spasticity.

Dr. Bowling said the findings are consistent with his clinical experience in treating patients in Colorado, where medical cannabis has been legal for about 2 decades. “It seems that people who benefit most are those who use small amounts and typically use it for alleviation of pain and/or spasticity that interferes with sleep,” he said.

However, with a lack of regulation about the true components in dispensary products, there are many uncertainties about what works or doesn’t. “Very anecdotally, preparations that are high in cannabidiol (CBD) and low in tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis) seem the most helpful. Pure CBD preparations (i.e., with no THC) seem less effective,” Dr. Bowling noted.

Other recent evidence on cannabis use in MS, however, suggests important benefits once patients abstain from its use.

However, the exceptionally wide array of components in unregulated cannabis accounts for substantial variety in potency, benefits, and side effects, Dr. Bowling said.

He pointed out one recent study looking mainly at patients with MS who regularly smoked cannabis and showed cognitive improvements upon abstaining. The study included 40 MS patients who reported smoking cannabis regularly – at least 4 days per week for multiple years – who were randomized to continue their cannabis use or withdraw.

While there were no cognitive differences among the patients at baseline, after 28 days, the abstinence group showed significant improvements on functional MRI in every cognitive index (P < .0001 for all). On the Symbol Digit Modalities Test at day 28, the withdrawal group completed more trials correctly (P < .012) and had a faster reaction time (P < .002) that was associated with significantly increased activation in brain regions known to be associated with performance of the test, including the bilateral inferior frontal gyri, caudate, and declive/cerebellum (P < .001 for all regions), the authors said.

“These results reveal that patients with multiple sclerosis who are frequent, long-term cannabis users can show significant improvements in memory, processing speed, and executive function after 28 days of drug abstinence,” the authors reported.
 

Addiction, distinguishing cannabis from MS symptoms

Dr. Bowling said that, while the findings are consistent with his own clinical observations, abstinence isn’t always easy. “I’ve seen patients with cognitive impairment whose cognition and overall day-to-day function have improved with discontinuation of cannabis,” he said. “For some of these patients, however, it was a long-term challenge to discontinue cannabis because they were addicted.”

Addiction to cannabis in MS in fact may be more common than many realize, and comes with a host of other adverse effects, Dr. Bowling said. “In my practice, I have definitely seen many cases of addiction. I think that it’s very underdiagnosed. In addition to cognitive dysfunction, it can worsen anxiety and depression and decrease balance, leading to falls.”

The RCVS risk is another concern, and changes in liver enzymes should also raise a red flag when MS patients are cannabis users, Bowling added.

“I’ve seen in multiple patients where the liver enzymes went up and I thought it was because of the disease-modifying therapy, but it turned out to have been because the patient had started CBD, so you need to be aware of potential hepatotoxicity.”

“The bottom line is that we don’t have strong data in this area and herbs are extremely complex with many unknown constituents.”

Dr. Bowling noted that pure CBD or CBD-enriched products would be expected to produce less cognitive dysfunction than does regular cannabis smoking, “however, it’s important to keep in mind that a ‘CBD-enriched’ product could have low but still significant THC content,” he said.

Dr. Bowling reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Greenwich Biosciences, and Novartis, and he received royalties from Springer Publishing.

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

Despite the ever-increasing acceptance of medical cannabis and its notably common use in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), clinicians treating those patients still may be poorly informed about risks, benefits, regulations, and proper uses, experts say.

“There is evidence of a ‘clinical void,’ with clinicians on one side and people with MS and other conditions on the other that doesn’t usually exist regarding therapies that people with MS are using,” said Allen C. Bowling, MD, PhD, director of the NeuroHealth Institute and clinical professor of neurology at the University of Colorado, in Aurora. His presentation was part of the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

While approximately 8% of the general population uses cannabis, evidence shows that the proportion of people with MS who do so ranges from 9% to 38%, for an average of about 20%, Dr. Bowling noted. Yet, according to research, only about 20% of those actually discuss their cannabis use with their clinicians, which could have potentially adverse implications in the management of the disease.

As an example, Dr. Bowling described a case of his own involving a stroke syndrome associated with cannabis use – reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), which he mistook for an MS flare-up. “I had a patient who developed RCVS, but because it appeared to be an MS attack, I was treating her with corticosteroids, and she kept getting worse,” he said. “It’s very important for MS clinicians to be aware of this stroke syndrome that can mimic an MS attack. The way to rule it out is with CT angiography.”
 

Misconceptions common among clinicians

Studies underscore that such misconceptions could be common. One recent study showed that as many as 90% of residents and fellows did not feel prepared to recommend or answer questions on cannabis use, and in fact, most states do not even require physicians to have training in medical uses of cannabis, Dr. Bowling noted.

Other research shows that the rates of clinicians with high knowledge in medical cannabis use are in the single digits, while many have no cannabis training at all.

In a survey of 556 physicians taken as recently as January 2020, 47% gave incorrect responses regarding tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), while 33% reported being familiar with “nano-cannabinoids” – which don’t even exist, and the term was created for the sake of the survey.

Clinicians’ misconceptions about the regulation of cannabis was especially eyebrow raising, Dr. Bowling indicated. “The part that concerns me the most is regarding dispensary cannabis products – 17% of respondents thought the products were Food and Drug Administration–controlled and 25% said they thought that dispensary products were FDA approved,” he said.

There are, meanwhile, no formal clinical studies evaluating the medical efficacy of any products sold in U.S. cannabis dispensaries, much less FDA regulation, Dr. Bowling said.

Among the most recent research of cannabis use among MS patients is a real-world study of more than 2,000 patients with MS in Denmark. Said to be the most comprehensive survey of cannabis use among MS patients to date, the researchers found that 21% of patients reported cannabis use in the past year, with only 21% of those having a prescription to use the drug legally because of strict regulations in Denmark.

Respondents reported that the primary reasons for use in MS were to alleviate pain (61%), spasticity (52%), and sleep disturbances (46%). The most common adverse effects were drowsiness (30%), feeling quiet/subdued (23%), and dizziness (13%), with effects that were mild to moderate.

And a 2019 study of electronic medical record data for 561 patients with multiple sclerosis in British Columbia, Canada, showed that 19% reported using cannabis, with 71% reporting use for alleviation of pain, 71% for sleep, 44% for mood, and 40% for spasticity.

Dr. Bowling said the findings are consistent with his clinical experience in treating patients in Colorado, where medical cannabis has been legal for about 2 decades. “It seems that people who benefit most are those who use small amounts and typically use it for alleviation of pain and/or spasticity that interferes with sleep,” he said.

However, with a lack of regulation about the true components in dispensary products, there are many uncertainties about what works or doesn’t. “Very anecdotally, preparations that are high in cannabidiol (CBD) and low in tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis) seem the most helpful. Pure CBD preparations (i.e., with no THC) seem less effective,” Dr. Bowling noted.

Other recent evidence on cannabis use in MS, however, suggests important benefits once patients abstain from its use.

However, the exceptionally wide array of components in unregulated cannabis accounts for substantial variety in potency, benefits, and side effects, Dr. Bowling said.

He pointed out one recent study looking mainly at patients with MS who regularly smoked cannabis and showed cognitive improvements upon abstaining. The study included 40 MS patients who reported smoking cannabis regularly – at least 4 days per week for multiple years – who were randomized to continue their cannabis use or withdraw.

While there were no cognitive differences among the patients at baseline, after 28 days, the abstinence group showed significant improvements on functional MRI in every cognitive index (P < .0001 for all). On the Symbol Digit Modalities Test at day 28, the withdrawal group completed more trials correctly (P < .012) and had a faster reaction time (P < .002) that was associated with significantly increased activation in brain regions known to be associated with performance of the test, including the bilateral inferior frontal gyri, caudate, and declive/cerebellum (P < .001 for all regions), the authors said.

“These results reveal that patients with multiple sclerosis who are frequent, long-term cannabis users can show significant improvements in memory, processing speed, and executive function after 28 days of drug abstinence,” the authors reported.
 

Addiction, distinguishing cannabis from MS symptoms

Dr. Bowling said that, while the findings are consistent with his own clinical observations, abstinence isn’t always easy. “I’ve seen patients with cognitive impairment whose cognition and overall day-to-day function have improved with discontinuation of cannabis,” he said. “For some of these patients, however, it was a long-term challenge to discontinue cannabis because they were addicted.”

Addiction to cannabis in MS in fact may be more common than many realize, and comes with a host of other adverse effects, Dr. Bowling said. “In my practice, I have definitely seen many cases of addiction. I think that it’s very underdiagnosed. In addition to cognitive dysfunction, it can worsen anxiety and depression and decrease balance, leading to falls.”

The RCVS risk is another concern, and changes in liver enzymes should also raise a red flag when MS patients are cannabis users, Bowling added.

“I’ve seen in multiple patients where the liver enzymes went up and I thought it was because of the disease-modifying therapy, but it turned out to have been because the patient had started CBD, so you need to be aware of potential hepatotoxicity.”

“The bottom line is that we don’t have strong data in this area and herbs are extremely complex with many unknown constituents.”

Dr. Bowling noted that pure CBD or CBD-enriched products would be expected to produce less cognitive dysfunction than does regular cannabis smoking, “however, it’s important to keep in mind that a ‘CBD-enriched’ product could have low but still significant THC content,” he said.

Dr. Bowling reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Greenwich Biosciences, and Novartis, and he received royalties from Springer Publishing.

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

Despite the ever-increasing acceptance of medical cannabis and its notably common use in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), clinicians treating those patients still may be poorly informed about risks, benefits, regulations, and proper uses, experts say.

“There is evidence of a ‘clinical void,’ with clinicians on one side and people with MS and other conditions on the other that doesn’t usually exist regarding therapies that people with MS are using,” said Allen C. Bowling, MD, PhD, director of the NeuroHealth Institute and clinical professor of neurology at the University of Colorado, in Aurora. His presentation was part of the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

While approximately 8% of the general population uses cannabis, evidence shows that the proportion of people with MS who do so ranges from 9% to 38%, for an average of about 20%, Dr. Bowling noted. Yet, according to research, only about 20% of those actually discuss their cannabis use with their clinicians, which could have potentially adverse implications in the management of the disease.

As an example, Dr. Bowling described a case of his own involving a stroke syndrome associated with cannabis use – reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), which he mistook for an MS flare-up. “I had a patient who developed RCVS, but because it appeared to be an MS attack, I was treating her with corticosteroids, and she kept getting worse,” he said. “It’s very important for MS clinicians to be aware of this stroke syndrome that can mimic an MS attack. The way to rule it out is with CT angiography.”
 

Misconceptions common among clinicians

Studies underscore that such misconceptions could be common. One recent study showed that as many as 90% of residents and fellows did not feel prepared to recommend or answer questions on cannabis use, and in fact, most states do not even require physicians to have training in medical uses of cannabis, Dr. Bowling noted.

Other research shows that the rates of clinicians with high knowledge in medical cannabis use are in the single digits, while many have no cannabis training at all.

In a survey of 556 physicians taken as recently as January 2020, 47% gave incorrect responses regarding tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), while 33% reported being familiar with “nano-cannabinoids” – which don’t even exist, and the term was created for the sake of the survey.

Clinicians’ misconceptions about the regulation of cannabis was especially eyebrow raising, Dr. Bowling indicated. “The part that concerns me the most is regarding dispensary cannabis products – 17% of respondents thought the products were Food and Drug Administration–controlled and 25% said they thought that dispensary products were FDA approved,” he said.

There are, meanwhile, no formal clinical studies evaluating the medical efficacy of any products sold in U.S. cannabis dispensaries, much less FDA regulation, Dr. Bowling said.

Among the most recent research of cannabis use among MS patients is a real-world study of more than 2,000 patients with MS in Denmark. Said to be the most comprehensive survey of cannabis use among MS patients to date, the researchers found that 21% of patients reported cannabis use in the past year, with only 21% of those having a prescription to use the drug legally because of strict regulations in Denmark.

Respondents reported that the primary reasons for use in MS were to alleviate pain (61%), spasticity (52%), and sleep disturbances (46%). The most common adverse effects were drowsiness (30%), feeling quiet/subdued (23%), and dizziness (13%), with effects that were mild to moderate.

And a 2019 study of electronic medical record data for 561 patients with multiple sclerosis in British Columbia, Canada, showed that 19% reported using cannabis, with 71% reporting use for alleviation of pain, 71% for sleep, 44% for mood, and 40% for spasticity.

Dr. Bowling said the findings are consistent with his clinical experience in treating patients in Colorado, where medical cannabis has been legal for about 2 decades. “It seems that people who benefit most are those who use small amounts and typically use it for alleviation of pain and/or spasticity that interferes with sleep,” he said.

However, with a lack of regulation about the true components in dispensary products, there are many uncertainties about what works or doesn’t. “Very anecdotally, preparations that are high in cannabidiol (CBD) and low in tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis) seem the most helpful. Pure CBD preparations (i.e., with no THC) seem less effective,” Dr. Bowling noted.

Other recent evidence on cannabis use in MS, however, suggests important benefits once patients abstain from its use.

However, the exceptionally wide array of components in unregulated cannabis accounts for substantial variety in potency, benefits, and side effects, Dr. Bowling said.

He pointed out one recent study looking mainly at patients with MS who regularly smoked cannabis and showed cognitive improvements upon abstaining. The study included 40 MS patients who reported smoking cannabis regularly – at least 4 days per week for multiple years – who were randomized to continue their cannabis use or withdraw.

While there were no cognitive differences among the patients at baseline, after 28 days, the abstinence group showed significant improvements on functional MRI in every cognitive index (P < .0001 for all). On the Symbol Digit Modalities Test at day 28, the withdrawal group completed more trials correctly (P < .012) and had a faster reaction time (P < .002) that was associated with significantly increased activation in brain regions known to be associated with performance of the test, including the bilateral inferior frontal gyri, caudate, and declive/cerebellum (P < .001 for all regions), the authors said.

“These results reveal that patients with multiple sclerosis who are frequent, long-term cannabis users can show significant improvements in memory, processing speed, and executive function after 28 days of drug abstinence,” the authors reported.
 

Addiction, distinguishing cannabis from MS symptoms

Dr. Bowling said that, while the findings are consistent with his own clinical observations, abstinence isn’t always easy. “I’ve seen patients with cognitive impairment whose cognition and overall day-to-day function have improved with discontinuation of cannabis,” he said. “For some of these patients, however, it was a long-term challenge to discontinue cannabis because they were addicted.”

Addiction to cannabis in MS in fact may be more common than many realize, and comes with a host of other adverse effects, Dr. Bowling said. “In my practice, I have definitely seen many cases of addiction. I think that it’s very underdiagnosed. In addition to cognitive dysfunction, it can worsen anxiety and depression and decrease balance, leading to falls.”

The RCVS risk is another concern, and changes in liver enzymes should also raise a red flag when MS patients are cannabis users, Bowling added.

“I’ve seen in multiple patients where the liver enzymes went up and I thought it was because of the disease-modifying therapy, but it turned out to have been because the patient had started CBD, so you need to be aware of potential hepatotoxicity.”

“The bottom line is that we don’t have strong data in this area and herbs are extremely complex with many unknown constituents.”

Dr. Bowling noted that pure CBD or CBD-enriched products would be expected to produce less cognitive dysfunction than does regular cannabis smoking, “however, it’s important to keep in mind that a ‘CBD-enriched’ product could have low but still significant THC content,” he said.

Dr. Bowling reported relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Genzyme, Greenwich Biosciences, and Novartis, and he received royalties from Springer Publishing.

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

The coding expert answers your questions

Betsy Nicoletti, MS, a nationally recognized coding expert, will take your coding questions via email and provide guidance on how to code properly to maximize reimbursement. Have a question about coding? Send it here.

In this column, Nicoletti addresses several readers’ questions on using telehealth and provides guidance on delivering mental health services remotely.
 

Telehealth: Frequently asked questions

Since the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) expanded use of telehealth during the COVID-19 emergency, I’ve seen various follow-up questions coming from physicians. Here are the most common ones received and some guidance.

Q: How long can we continue using telehealth?

A: Private payers will set their own rules for the end date. For Medicare, telehealth is allowed until the end of the public health emergency. Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar II renewed the status of the public health emergency, effective April 26, 2020, for an additional 90 days.

Q: Can I bill Medicare annual wellness visits via telehealth?

A: Yes, you can bill the initial and subsequent Medicare wellness visits (G0438, G0439) via telehealth, but the Welcome to Medicare visit (G0402) is not on the list of telehealth services.

In fact, the wellness visits mentioned above may be billed with audio-only communications because of the expansion of telehealth services, although these visits require height, weight, BMI calculation, and blood pressure, and CMS has not issued guidance about whether the patient’s self-reported measurements are sufficient or whether they can be deferred.

Q: Can I bill an office visit via telehealth?

A: Yes, you may bill new and established patient visits 99201-99215 via telehealth, but for Medicare, these still require the use of real-time, audio-visual communications equipment.

Q: Can I bill an office visit conducted via telephone only?

A: For Medicare patients, you may not bill office visit codes for audio only communication. If there is audio only, use phone call codes 99441-99443. In order to bill an office visit, with codes 99201-99215 to a Medicare patient, audio and visual, real time communication is required. Some state Medicaid programs and private insurers allow office visits to be billed with audio equipment only, so check your state requirements.

Q: How do I select a level of office visit?

A: CMS’s announcement on March 31 relaxed the rules for practitioners to select a level of service for office and other patient services (99201-99215). CMS stated that clinicians could use either total time or medical decision-making to select a code.

If using time, count the practitioner’s total time for the visit, both face to face and non–face to face. It does not need to be greater than 50% in counseling. If using medical decision-making, history and exam are not needed to select the level of service. Medical decision-making alone can be used to select the code.

Q: Can I count the time it takes my medical assistant to set up the audio-visual communication with a patient?

A: No, you cannot count staff time in coding and billing a patient visit in this manner.

Q: Is there a code for a registered nurse to use for making phone calls with patients?

A: No, unfortunately.

Q: How do I know if a service can be billed with phone only?

A: These are indicated as “yes” on CMS’s list of covered telehealth services as allowed via audio only.
 

Providing mental health services during COVID-19

Q: I am a mental health provider who finds himself trying to provide the best care for my patients during this pandemic. How do I bill for behavioral health services if I am not able to conduct in-person visits?

A: Psychiatrists and behavioral health professionals can perform psychiatric diagnostic evaluations and psychotherapy over the phone during the public health emergency.

The use of real-time, audio-visual communication equipment is not required. This is one of the many changes CMS made in its interim final rule regarding COVID-19, released April 30.

Not only did CMS update the list of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes that could be reported via real-time, audio-visual communication, but it also added a column to guidance on covered telehealth services: “Can Audio-only Interaction Meet the Requirements?” The codes for psychiatric diagnostic evaluations and psychotherapy are indicated as “yes.”

In addition to psychiatric diagnostic evaluations and time-based psychotherapy codes, psychotherapy for crisis, family, and group psychotherapy can be done with audio-only technology.

CMS has issued multiple waivers and two major rules that greatly expand the ability of medical practices to treat patients without requiring an in-person visit. This latest change, allowing some services to be performed with audio equipment only, is remarkable.

For Medicare patients, report the place of service that would have been used if the patient was seen in person. This could be office (POS 11), outpatient department (POS 19, 21), or community mental health center (POS 53).

Some private payers require the place of service for telehealth (02). The lack of consistency between payers is difficult for practices. Append modifier 95 to the CPT code for all payers. The definition of modifier 95 is “synchronous telemedicine service using audio and visual communication.” However, as CMS added these services to the telehealth list, use modifier 95.

Have a coding question? Send it in and it may be answered in a future column. (Please be sure to note your specialty in the text of the question.)

Betsy Nicoletti, MS, is a consultant, author, and speaker, as well as the founder of CodingIntel.com, a library of medical practice coding resources.

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

The coding expert answers your questions

Betsy Nicoletti, MS, a nationally recognized coding expert, will take your coding questions via email and provide guidance on how to code properly to maximize reimbursement. Have a question about coding? Send it here.

In this column, Nicoletti addresses several readers’ questions on using telehealth and provides guidance on delivering mental health services remotely.
 

Telehealth: Frequently asked questions

Since the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) expanded use of telehealth during the COVID-19 emergency, I’ve seen various follow-up questions coming from physicians. Here are the most common ones received and some guidance.

Q: How long can we continue using telehealth?

A: Private payers will set their own rules for the end date. For Medicare, telehealth is allowed until the end of the public health emergency. Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar II renewed the status of the public health emergency, effective April 26, 2020, for an additional 90 days.

Q: Can I bill Medicare annual wellness visits via telehealth?

A: Yes, you can bill the initial and subsequent Medicare wellness visits (G0438, G0439) via telehealth, but the Welcome to Medicare visit (G0402) is not on the list of telehealth services.

In fact, the wellness visits mentioned above may be billed with audio-only communications because of the expansion of telehealth services, although these visits require height, weight, BMI calculation, and blood pressure, and CMS has not issued guidance about whether the patient’s self-reported measurements are sufficient or whether they can be deferred.

Q: Can I bill an office visit via telehealth?

A: Yes, you may bill new and established patient visits 99201-99215 via telehealth, but for Medicare, these still require the use of real-time, audio-visual communications equipment.

Q: Can I bill an office visit conducted via telephone only?

A: For Medicare patients, you may not bill office visit codes for audio only communication. If there is audio only, use phone call codes 99441-99443. In order to bill an office visit, with codes 99201-99215 to a Medicare patient, audio and visual, real time communication is required. Some state Medicaid programs and private insurers allow office visits to be billed with audio equipment only, so check your state requirements.

Q: How do I select a level of office visit?

A: CMS’s announcement on March 31 relaxed the rules for practitioners to select a level of service for office and other patient services (99201-99215). CMS stated that clinicians could use either total time or medical decision-making to select a code.

If using time, count the practitioner’s total time for the visit, both face to face and non–face to face. It does not need to be greater than 50% in counseling. If using medical decision-making, history and exam are not needed to select the level of service. Medical decision-making alone can be used to select the code.

Q: Can I count the time it takes my medical assistant to set up the audio-visual communication with a patient?

A: No, you cannot count staff time in coding and billing a patient visit in this manner.

Q: Is there a code for a registered nurse to use for making phone calls with patients?

A: No, unfortunately.

Q: How do I know if a service can be billed with phone only?

A: These are indicated as “yes” on CMS’s list of covered telehealth services as allowed via audio only.
 

Providing mental health services during COVID-19

Q: I am a mental health provider who finds himself trying to provide the best care for my patients during this pandemic. How do I bill for behavioral health services if I am not able to conduct in-person visits?

A: Psychiatrists and behavioral health professionals can perform psychiatric diagnostic evaluations and psychotherapy over the phone during the public health emergency.

The use of real-time, audio-visual communication equipment is not required. This is one of the many changes CMS made in its interim final rule regarding COVID-19, released April 30.

Not only did CMS update the list of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes that could be reported via real-time, audio-visual communication, but it also added a column to guidance on covered telehealth services: “Can Audio-only Interaction Meet the Requirements?” The codes for psychiatric diagnostic evaluations and psychotherapy are indicated as “yes.”

In addition to psychiatric diagnostic evaluations and time-based psychotherapy codes, psychotherapy for crisis, family, and group psychotherapy can be done with audio-only technology.

CMS has issued multiple waivers and two major rules that greatly expand the ability of medical practices to treat patients without requiring an in-person visit. This latest change, allowing some services to be performed with audio equipment only, is remarkable.

For Medicare patients, report the place of service that would have been used if the patient was seen in person. This could be office (POS 11), outpatient department (POS 19, 21), or community mental health center (POS 53).

Some private payers require the place of service for telehealth (02). The lack of consistency between payers is difficult for practices. Append modifier 95 to the CPT code for all payers. The definition of modifier 95 is “synchronous telemedicine service using audio and visual communication.” However, as CMS added these services to the telehealth list, use modifier 95.

Have a coding question? Send it in and it may be answered in a future column. (Please be sure to note your specialty in the text of the question.)

Betsy Nicoletti, MS, is a consultant, author, and speaker, as well as the founder of CodingIntel.com, a library of medical practice coding resources.

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

The coding expert answers your questions

Betsy Nicoletti, MS, a nationally recognized coding expert, will take your coding questions via email and provide guidance on how to code properly to maximize reimbursement. Have a question about coding? Send it here.

In this column, Nicoletti addresses several readers’ questions on using telehealth and provides guidance on delivering mental health services remotely.
 

Telehealth: Frequently asked questions

Since the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) expanded use of telehealth during the COVID-19 emergency, I’ve seen various follow-up questions coming from physicians. Here are the most common ones received and some guidance.

Q: How long can we continue using telehealth?

A: Private payers will set their own rules for the end date. For Medicare, telehealth is allowed until the end of the public health emergency. Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar II renewed the status of the public health emergency, effective April 26, 2020, for an additional 90 days.

Q: Can I bill Medicare annual wellness visits via telehealth?

A: Yes, you can bill the initial and subsequent Medicare wellness visits (G0438, G0439) via telehealth, but the Welcome to Medicare visit (G0402) is not on the list of telehealth services.

In fact, the wellness visits mentioned above may be billed with audio-only communications because of the expansion of telehealth services, although these visits require height, weight, BMI calculation, and blood pressure, and CMS has not issued guidance about whether the patient’s self-reported measurements are sufficient or whether they can be deferred.

Q: Can I bill an office visit via telehealth?

A: Yes, you may bill new and established patient visits 99201-99215 via telehealth, but for Medicare, these still require the use of real-time, audio-visual communications equipment.

Q: Can I bill an office visit conducted via telephone only?

A: For Medicare patients, you may not bill office visit codes for audio only communication. If there is audio only, use phone call codes 99441-99443. In order to bill an office visit, with codes 99201-99215 to a Medicare patient, audio and visual, real time communication is required. Some state Medicaid programs and private insurers allow office visits to be billed with audio equipment only, so check your state requirements.

Q: How do I select a level of office visit?

A: CMS’s announcement on March 31 relaxed the rules for practitioners to select a level of service for office and other patient services (99201-99215). CMS stated that clinicians could use either total time or medical decision-making to select a code.

If using time, count the practitioner’s total time for the visit, both face to face and non–face to face. It does not need to be greater than 50% in counseling. If using medical decision-making, history and exam are not needed to select the level of service. Medical decision-making alone can be used to select the code.

Q: Can I count the time it takes my medical assistant to set up the audio-visual communication with a patient?

A: No, you cannot count staff time in coding and billing a patient visit in this manner.

Q: Is there a code for a registered nurse to use for making phone calls with patients?

A: No, unfortunately.

Q: How do I know if a service can be billed with phone only?

A: These are indicated as “yes” on CMS’s list of covered telehealth services as allowed via audio only.
 

Providing mental health services during COVID-19

Q: I am a mental health provider who finds himself trying to provide the best care for my patients during this pandemic. How do I bill for behavioral health services if I am not able to conduct in-person visits?

A: Psychiatrists and behavioral health professionals can perform psychiatric diagnostic evaluations and psychotherapy over the phone during the public health emergency.

The use of real-time, audio-visual communication equipment is not required. This is one of the many changes CMS made in its interim final rule regarding COVID-19, released April 30.

Not only did CMS update the list of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes that could be reported via real-time, audio-visual communication, but it also added a column to guidance on covered telehealth services: “Can Audio-only Interaction Meet the Requirements?” The codes for psychiatric diagnostic evaluations and psychotherapy are indicated as “yes.”

In addition to psychiatric diagnostic evaluations and time-based psychotherapy codes, psychotherapy for crisis, family, and group psychotherapy can be done with audio-only technology.

CMS has issued multiple waivers and two major rules that greatly expand the ability of medical practices to treat patients without requiring an in-person visit. This latest change, allowing some services to be performed with audio equipment only, is remarkable.

For Medicare patients, report the place of service that would have been used if the patient was seen in person. This could be office (POS 11), outpatient department (POS 19, 21), or community mental health center (POS 53).

Some private payers require the place of service for telehealth (02). The lack of consistency between payers is difficult for practices. Append modifier 95 to the CPT code for all payers. The definition of modifier 95 is “synchronous telemedicine service using audio and visual communication.” However, as CMS added these services to the telehealth list, use modifier 95.

Have a coding question? Send it in and it may be answered in a future column. (Please be sure to note your specialty in the text of the question.)

Betsy Nicoletti, MS, is a consultant, author, and speaker, as well as the founder of CodingIntel.com, a library of medical practice coding resources.

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