Clinical

Although the COVID-19 pandemic put telehealth on fast forward, more than one third of patients in the United States engaged with telehealth services before February 2020, according to Ameet Doshi, MD, and Chrisanne Timpe, MD, of HealthPartners in Bloomington, Minn.

Broadly speaking, telehealth is “using virtual tools to evaluate, manage, and care for our patients, regardless of where they are located,” Dr. Doshi said during a May 6 session at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The entirety of telehealth includes remote ways to meet almost any patient demand, he said. Some common health terms are used interchangeably, but some use telehealth as a broad term for electronic health care services, while telemedicine may refer specifically to remote patient care, he said.

Telemedicine allows flexibility of delivering patient care in inpatient, outpatient, or at-home settings, said Dr. Doshi. To illustrate the current application of telemedicine, he used an example of a 25-bed critical access hospital serving a growing regional population in which outpatient volume is expanding and ambulatory care services are being added. In this example, inpatient volume is growing, but not enough to support an inpatient consult service, but telehealth access to specialists such as cardiology would be useful in this case, he said.

Hospitalist telehealth means “being able to provide services to changing patient populations regardless of location; we can bring services to where patients are,” said Dr. Doshi.

Benefits of telehealth to patients include less travel and easier access to care, benefits to clinicians include expanding services at lower financial costs, he said.
 

COVID-19 challenges and opportunities

The COVID-19 pandemic presented both challenges and opportunities for telehealth, Dr. Doshi said. One opportunity was the sudden broad acceptance of virtual care out of necessity and concern for patient and staff safety, and to preserve the use of personal protective equipment, he said. In addition, a loosening of regulatory and financial pressures allowed more institutions to expand and initiate telehealth services.

Challenges included technological limitations and, in some cases, the need to develop a telehealth infrastructure from scratch, Dr. Doshi explained. Concerns also remain regarding how telehealth will evolve in the post-pandemic future, he said.

In the meantime, Medicare data show the impact of the pandemic on telehealth services, said Dr. Doshi. A telehealth waiver issued in March 2020 led to an increase in virtual encounters, and Medicare data show approximately 25 million virtual Medicare encounters between March 2020 and October 2020, representing a 3,000% increase from the same period in 2019, he said.

“Telehealth is here to stay, so the questions are how to craft a hospitalist telehealth program and provide essential patient care,” he said.

Dr. Timpe shared some examples of the evolution of telehealth care during the pandemic, including a case of an asymptomatic but frail patient with diabetes, dementia, and coronary artery disease undergoing outpatient care for a foot infection. The patient presented to an emergency department but refused to be hospitalized because of family concerns about patient isolation (no visitors were allowed at the time) and the concerns about COVID-19 infection.

The need to help treat acutely ill patients such as this patient while avoiding hospital admission during and after the pandemic continues to lead to the development of telehealth programs, Dr. Timpe said. She shared details of the Hospital@Home program developed by her organization, Health Partners. The program is designed to treat acutely ill people in the home, if possible, and avoid the need for hospital admission. Patients receive daily medical management from a hospitalist and care from staff, including registered nurses and community paramedics. Services include provision of IV medications and fluids, but the staff also conduct labs and imaging services, Dr. Timpe said.

Conditions that the program has managed at patients’ homes include pneumonia, COPD, asthma, bronchitis, flu, COVID-19, congestive heart failure, cellulitis, and urinary tract infections, said Dr. Timpe.

“We do not accept people into the program who have treatment needs that can only be met in a hospital,” such as the need for blood products, vasopressor support, telemetry, or positive pressure support, she noted.

Between November 2019 and February 15, 2021, the Hospital@Home program has provided services to 132 patients for a total of 287 visits. The program has averted 50 emergency department visits and 40 hospitalizations, and shorted hospital stays in 57 cases, she noted.

Hospitalists are suited for telehealth for several reasons, including the ability to triage acutely ill patients, familiarity with resource utilization, and expertise in management of complex medical care, said Dr. Timpe.
 

Looking ahead

Dr. Doshi emphasized several ongoing issues regarding the future of telemedicine, primarily the need for standardized regulation and reimbursement; reduction of health equity disparity and attention to technological barriers (including access and technology literacy); and identification of the next frontiers in telehealth.

Research on the impact and effectiveness of telehealth is limited, but growing, and next frontiers might include making patients more active participants in telehealth via patient-operated kits, or the option of an open telemedicine marketplace, in which patients can select providers from across the country, he said. No matter where telehealth leads in the future, “we need to make sure we have a positive patient outcome,” he concluded.

Dr. Doshi and Dr. Timpe had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic put telehealth on fast forward, more than one third of patients in the United States engaged with telehealth services before February 2020, according to Ameet Doshi, MD, and Chrisanne Timpe, MD, of HealthPartners in Bloomington, Minn.

Broadly speaking, telehealth is “using virtual tools to evaluate, manage, and care for our patients, regardless of where they are located,” Dr. Doshi said during a May 6 session at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The entirety of telehealth includes remote ways to meet almost any patient demand, he said. Some common health terms are used interchangeably, but some use telehealth as a broad term for electronic health care services, while telemedicine may refer specifically to remote patient care, he said.

Telemedicine allows flexibility of delivering patient care in inpatient, outpatient, or at-home settings, said Dr. Doshi. To illustrate the current application of telemedicine, he used an example of a 25-bed critical access hospital serving a growing regional population in which outpatient volume is expanding and ambulatory care services are being added. In this example, inpatient volume is growing, but not enough to support an inpatient consult service, but telehealth access to specialists such as cardiology would be useful in this case, he said.

Hospitalist telehealth means “being able to provide services to changing patient populations regardless of location; we can bring services to where patients are,” said Dr. Doshi.

Benefits of telehealth to patients include less travel and easier access to care, benefits to clinicians include expanding services at lower financial costs, he said.
 

COVID-19 challenges and opportunities

The COVID-19 pandemic presented both challenges and opportunities for telehealth, Dr. Doshi said. One opportunity was the sudden broad acceptance of virtual care out of necessity and concern for patient and staff safety, and to preserve the use of personal protective equipment, he said. In addition, a loosening of regulatory and financial pressures allowed more institutions to expand and initiate telehealth services.

Challenges included technological limitations and, in some cases, the need to develop a telehealth infrastructure from scratch, Dr. Doshi explained. Concerns also remain regarding how telehealth will evolve in the post-pandemic future, he said.

In the meantime, Medicare data show the impact of the pandemic on telehealth services, said Dr. Doshi. A telehealth waiver issued in March 2020 led to an increase in virtual encounters, and Medicare data show approximately 25 million virtual Medicare encounters between March 2020 and October 2020, representing a 3,000% increase from the same period in 2019, he said.

“Telehealth is here to stay, so the questions are how to craft a hospitalist telehealth program and provide essential patient care,” he said.

Dr. Timpe shared some examples of the evolution of telehealth care during the pandemic, including a case of an asymptomatic but frail patient with diabetes, dementia, and coronary artery disease undergoing outpatient care for a foot infection. The patient presented to an emergency department but refused to be hospitalized because of family concerns about patient isolation (no visitors were allowed at the time) and the concerns about COVID-19 infection.

The need to help treat acutely ill patients such as this patient while avoiding hospital admission during and after the pandemic continues to lead to the development of telehealth programs, Dr. Timpe said. She shared details of the Hospital@Home program developed by her organization, Health Partners. The program is designed to treat acutely ill people in the home, if possible, and avoid the need for hospital admission. Patients receive daily medical management from a hospitalist and care from staff, including registered nurses and community paramedics. Services include provision of IV medications and fluids, but the staff also conduct labs and imaging services, Dr. Timpe said.

Conditions that the program has managed at patients’ homes include pneumonia, COPD, asthma, bronchitis, flu, COVID-19, congestive heart failure, cellulitis, and urinary tract infections, said Dr. Timpe.

“We do not accept people into the program who have treatment needs that can only be met in a hospital,” such as the need for blood products, vasopressor support, telemetry, or positive pressure support, she noted.

Between November 2019 and February 15, 2021, the Hospital@Home program has provided services to 132 patients for a total of 287 visits. The program has averted 50 emergency department visits and 40 hospitalizations, and shorted hospital stays in 57 cases, she noted.

Hospitalists are suited for telehealth for several reasons, including the ability to triage acutely ill patients, familiarity with resource utilization, and expertise in management of complex medical care, said Dr. Timpe.
 

Looking ahead

Dr. Doshi emphasized several ongoing issues regarding the future of telemedicine, primarily the need for standardized regulation and reimbursement; reduction of health equity disparity and attention to technological barriers (including access and technology literacy); and identification of the next frontiers in telehealth.

Research on the impact and effectiveness of telehealth is limited, but growing, and next frontiers might include making patients more active participants in telehealth via patient-operated kits, or the option of an open telemedicine marketplace, in which patients can select providers from across the country, he said. No matter where telehealth leads in the future, “we need to make sure we have a positive patient outcome,” he concluded.

Dr. Doshi and Dr. Timpe had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic put telehealth on fast forward, more than one third of patients in the United States engaged with telehealth services before February 2020, according to Ameet Doshi, MD, and Chrisanne Timpe, MD, of HealthPartners in Bloomington, Minn.

Broadly speaking, telehealth is “using virtual tools to evaluate, manage, and care for our patients, regardless of where they are located,” Dr. Doshi said during a May 6 session at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The entirety of telehealth includes remote ways to meet almost any patient demand, he said. Some common health terms are used interchangeably, but some use telehealth as a broad term for electronic health care services, while telemedicine may refer specifically to remote patient care, he said.

Telemedicine allows flexibility of delivering patient care in inpatient, outpatient, or at-home settings, said Dr. Doshi. To illustrate the current application of telemedicine, he used an example of a 25-bed critical access hospital serving a growing regional population in which outpatient volume is expanding and ambulatory care services are being added. In this example, inpatient volume is growing, but not enough to support an inpatient consult service, but telehealth access to specialists such as cardiology would be useful in this case, he said.

Hospitalist telehealth means “being able to provide services to changing patient populations regardless of location; we can bring services to where patients are,” said Dr. Doshi.

Benefits of telehealth to patients include less travel and easier access to care, benefits to clinicians include expanding services at lower financial costs, he said.
 

COVID-19 challenges and opportunities

The COVID-19 pandemic presented both challenges and opportunities for telehealth, Dr. Doshi said. One opportunity was the sudden broad acceptance of virtual care out of necessity and concern for patient and staff safety, and to preserve the use of personal protective equipment, he said. In addition, a loosening of regulatory and financial pressures allowed more institutions to expand and initiate telehealth services.

Challenges included technological limitations and, in some cases, the need to develop a telehealth infrastructure from scratch, Dr. Doshi explained. Concerns also remain regarding how telehealth will evolve in the post-pandemic future, he said.

In the meantime, Medicare data show the impact of the pandemic on telehealth services, said Dr. Doshi. A telehealth waiver issued in March 2020 led to an increase in virtual encounters, and Medicare data show approximately 25 million virtual Medicare encounters between March 2020 and October 2020, representing a 3,000% increase from the same period in 2019, he said.

“Telehealth is here to stay, so the questions are how to craft a hospitalist telehealth program and provide essential patient care,” he said.

Dr. Timpe shared some examples of the evolution of telehealth care during the pandemic, including a case of an asymptomatic but frail patient with diabetes, dementia, and coronary artery disease undergoing outpatient care for a foot infection. The patient presented to an emergency department but refused to be hospitalized because of family concerns about patient isolation (no visitors were allowed at the time) and the concerns about COVID-19 infection.

The need to help treat acutely ill patients such as this patient while avoiding hospital admission during and after the pandemic continues to lead to the development of telehealth programs, Dr. Timpe said. She shared details of the Hospital@Home program developed by her organization, Health Partners. The program is designed to treat acutely ill people in the home, if possible, and avoid the need for hospital admission. Patients receive daily medical management from a hospitalist and care from staff, including registered nurses and community paramedics. Services include provision of IV medications and fluids, but the staff also conduct labs and imaging services, Dr. Timpe said.

Conditions that the program has managed at patients’ homes include pneumonia, COPD, asthma, bronchitis, flu, COVID-19, congestive heart failure, cellulitis, and urinary tract infections, said Dr. Timpe.

“We do not accept people into the program who have treatment needs that can only be met in a hospital,” such as the need for blood products, vasopressor support, telemetry, or positive pressure support, she noted.

Between November 2019 and February 15, 2021, the Hospital@Home program has provided services to 132 patients for a total of 287 visits. The program has averted 50 emergency department visits and 40 hospitalizations, and shorted hospital stays in 57 cases, she noted.

Hospitalists are suited for telehealth for several reasons, including the ability to triage acutely ill patients, familiarity with resource utilization, and expertise in management of complex medical care, said Dr. Timpe.
 

Looking ahead

Dr. Doshi emphasized several ongoing issues regarding the future of telemedicine, primarily the need for standardized regulation and reimbursement; reduction of health equity disparity and attention to technological barriers (including access and technology literacy); and identification of the next frontiers in telehealth.

Research on the impact and effectiveness of telehealth is limited, but growing, and next frontiers might include making patients more active participants in telehealth via patient-operated kits, or the option of an open telemedicine marketplace, in which patients can select providers from across the country, he said. No matter where telehealth leads in the future, “we need to make sure we have a positive patient outcome,” he concluded.

Dr. Doshi and Dr. Timpe had no financial conflicts to disclose.

If you don’t have a standardized process for obstructive sleep apnea screening of all patients heading into the operating room at your hospital you should, because perioperative pulmonary complications can occur, according to Efren C. Manjarrez MD, SFHM, FACP.

If OSA is not documented in the patient’s chart, you may find yourself making a bedside assessment. “I usually don’t ask the patients this because they can’t necessarily answer the questions,” Dr. Manjarrez, associate professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Miami, said at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “So, I ask their partner: ‘Does your partner snore loudly? Are they sleepy during the daytime, or are they gasping or choking in the middle of the night?’”

The following factors have a relatively high specificity for OSA: a STOP-Bang score of 5 or greater, a STOP-Bang score of 2 or greater plus male gender, and a STOP-Bang score of 2 or greater plus a body mass index greater than 35 kg/m². Clinicians can also check the Mallampati score on their patients by having them tilt their heads back and stick out their tongues.

“If the uvula is not touching the tongue, that’s a Mallampati score of 1; that’s a pretty wide-open airway,” Dr. Manjarrez said. “However, when you do not have any form of an airway and the palate is touching the tongue, that is a Mallampati score of 4, which indicates OSA.”

Other objective data suggestive of OSA include high blood pressure, a BMI over 35 kg/m², a neck circumference of greater than 40 cm, and male gender. In a study of patients who presented for surgery who did not have a diagnosis of sleep apnea, a high STOP-Bang score indicated a high probability of moderate to severe sleep apnea (Br J. Anaesth 2012;108[5]:768-75).

“If the STOP-Bang score is 0-2, your workup stops,” Dr. Manjarrez said. “If your STOP-Bang score is 5 or above, there’s a high likelihood they have moderate or severe sleep apnea. Patients who have a STOP-Bang of 3-4, calculate their STOP score. If the STOP score is 2 or more and they’re male, obese, and have a neck circumference of greater than 40 cm, there’s a pretty good chance they’ve got OSA.”

Screening for OSA prior to surgery matters, because the potential pulmonary complications are fairly high, “anywhere from postoperative respiratory failure to COPD exacerbation and hypoxia to pneumonia,” he continued. “These patients very commonly desaturate and are difficult for the anesthesiologists to intubate. Fortunately, we have not found significant cardiac complications in the medical literature, but we do know that patients with OSA commonly get postoperative atrial fibrillation. There are also combined complications like desaturation and AFib and difficult intubations. Patients with sleep apnea do have a higher resource utilization perioperatively. Fortunately, at this point in time the data does not show that patients with OSA going in for surgery have an increased mortality.”

To optimize the care of these patients prior to surgery, Dr. Manjarrez recommends that hospitalists document that a patient either has known OSA or suspected OSA. “If possible, obtain their sleep study results and recommended PAP settings,” he said. “Ask patients to bring their PAP device to the hospital or to assure the hospital has appropriate surrogate devices available. You also want to advise the patient and the perioperative care team of the increased risk of complications in patients at high risk for OSA and optimize other conditions that may impair cardiorespiratory function.”

Perioperative risk reduction strategies include planning for difficult intubation and mask ventilation, using regional anesthesia and analgesia, using sedatives with caution, minimizing the use of opioids and anticipating variable opioid responses. “When I have a patient with suspected sleep apnea and no red flags I write down ‘OSA precautions,’ in the chart, which means elevate the head of the bed, perform continuous pulse oximetry, and cautiously supply supplemental oxygen as needed,” he said.

Postoperatively, he continued, minimize sedative agents and opioids, use regional and nonopioid analgesics when possible, provide supplemental oxygen until the patient is able to maintain baseline SaO₂ on room air in a monitored setting, maintain the patient in nonsupine position when feasible, and continuously monitor pulse oximetry.

Consider delay of elective surgery and referral to a sleep medicine specialist in cases of uncontrolled systemic conditions or impaired gas exchange, including hypoventilation syndromes (a clue being a serum HC03 of 28 or higher), severe pulmonary hypertension (a clue being right ventricular systolic blood pressure or pulmonary systolic pressure of 70 mm Hg or above, or right ventricular dilatation/dysfunction), and hypoxemia not explained by cardiac disease.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of six studies that included 904 patients with sleep apnea found that there was no significant difference in the postoperative adverse events between CPAP and no-CPAP treatment (Anesth Analg 2015;120:1013-23). However, there was a significant reduction in the Apnea-Hypopnea Index postoperatively among those who used CPAP (37 vs. 12 events per hour; P less than .001), as well as a significant reduction in hospital length of stay 4 vs. 4.4 days; P = .05).

Dr. Manjarrez reported having no financial disclosures.

If you don’t have a standardized process for obstructive sleep apnea screening of all patients heading into the operating room at your hospital you should, because perioperative pulmonary complications can occur, according to Efren C. Manjarrez MD, SFHM, FACP.

If OSA is not documented in the patient’s chart, you may find yourself making a bedside assessment. “I usually don’t ask the patients this because they can’t necessarily answer the questions,” Dr. Manjarrez, associate professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Miami, said at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “So, I ask their partner: ‘Does your partner snore loudly? Are they sleepy during the daytime, or are they gasping or choking in the middle of the night?’”

The following factors have a relatively high specificity for OSA: a STOP-Bang score of 5 or greater, a STOP-Bang score of 2 or greater plus male gender, and a STOP-Bang score of 2 or greater plus a body mass index greater than 35 kg/m². Clinicians can also check the Mallampati score on their patients by having them tilt their heads back and stick out their tongues.

“If the uvula is not touching the tongue, that’s a Mallampati score of 1; that’s a pretty wide-open airway,” Dr. Manjarrez said. “However, when you do not have any form of an airway and the palate is touching the tongue, that is a Mallampati score of 4, which indicates OSA.”

Other objective data suggestive of OSA include high blood pressure, a BMI over 35 kg/m², a neck circumference of greater than 40 cm, and male gender. In a study of patients who presented for surgery who did not have a diagnosis of sleep apnea, a high STOP-Bang score indicated a high probability of moderate to severe sleep apnea (Br J. Anaesth 2012;108[5]:768-75).

“If the STOP-Bang score is 0-2, your workup stops,” Dr. Manjarrez said. “If your STOP-Bang score is 5 or above, there’s a high likelihood they have moderate or severe sleep apnea. Patients who have a STOP-Bang of 3-4, calculate their STOP score. If the STOP score is 2 or more and they’re male, obese, and have a neck circumference of greater than 40 cm, there’s a pretty good chance they’ve got OSA.”

Screening for OSA prior to surgery matters, because the potential pulmonary complications are fairly high, “anywhere from postoperative respiratory failure to COPD exacerbation and hypoxia to pneumonia,” he continued. “These patients very commonly desaturate and are difficult for the anesthesiologists to intubate. Fortunately, we have not found significant cardiac complications in the medical literature, but we do know that patients with OSA commonly get postoperative atrial fibrillation. There are also combined complications like desaturation and AFib and difficult intubations. Patients with sleep apnea do have a higher resource utilization perioperatively. Fortunately, at this point in time the data does not show that patients with OSA going in for surgery have an increased mortality.”

To optimize the care of these patients prior to surgery, Dr. Manjarrez recommends that hospitalists document that a patient either has known OSA or suspected OSA. “If possible, obtain their sleep study results and recommended PAP settings,” he said. “Ask patients to bring their PAP device to the hospital or to assure the hospital has appropriate surrogate devices available. You also want to advise the patient and the perioperative care team of the increased risk of complications in patients at high risk for OSA and optimize other conditions that may impair cardiorespiratory function.”

Perioperative risk reduction strategies include planning for difficult intubation and mask ventilation, using regional anesthesia and analgesia, using sedatives with caution, minimizing the use of opioids and anticipating variable opioid responses. “When I have a patient with suspected sleep apnea and no red flags I write down ‘OSA precautions,’ in the chart, which means elevate the head of the bed, perform continuous pulse oximetry, and cautiously supply supplemental oxygen as needed,” he said.

Postoperatively, he continued, minimize sedative agents and opioids, use regional and nonopioid analgesics when possible, provide supplemental oxygen until the patient is able to maintain baseline SaO₂ on room air in a monitored setting, maintain the patient in nonsupine position when feasible, and continuously monitor pulse oximetry.

Consider delay of elective surgery and referral to a sleep medicine specialist in cases of uncontrolled systemic conditions or impaired gas exchange, including hypoventilation syndromes (a clue being a serum HC03 of 28 or higher), severe pulmonary hypertension (a clue being right ventricular systolic blood pressure or pulmonary systolic pressure of 70 mm Hg or above, or right ventricular dilatation/dysfunction), and hypoxemia not explained by cardiac disease.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of six studies that included 904 patients with sleep apnea found that there was no significant difference in the postoperative adverse events between CPAP and no-CPAP treatment (Anesth Analg 2015;120:1013-23). However, there was a significant reduction in the Apnea-Hypopnea Index postoperatively among those who used CPAP (37 vs. 12 events per hour; P less than .001), as well as a significant reduction in hospital length of stay 4 vs. 4.4 days; P = .05).

Dr. Manjarrez reported having no financial disclosures.

If you don’t have a standardized process for obstructive sleep apnea screening of all patients heading into the operating room at your hospital you should, because perioperative pulmonary complications can occur, according to Efren C. Manjarrez MD, SFHM, FACP.

If OSA is not documented in the patient’s chart, you may find yourself making a bedside assessment. “I usually don’t ask the patients this because they can’t necessarily answer the questions,” Dr. Manjarrez, associate professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Miami, said at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “So, I ask their partner: ‘Does your partner snore loudly? Are they sleepy during the daytime, or are they gasping or choking in the middle of the night?’”

The following factors have a relatively high specificity for OSA: a STOP-Bang score of 5 or greater, a STOP-Bang score of 2 or greater plus male gender, and a STOP-Bang score of 2 or greater plus a body mass index greater than 35 kg/m². Clinicians can also check the Mallampati score on their patients by having them tilt their heads back and stick out their tongues.

“If the uvula is not touching the tongue, that’s a Mallampati score of 1; that’s a pretty wide-open airway,” Dr. Manjarrez said. “However, when you do not have any form of an airway and the palate is touching the tongue, that is a Mallampati score of 4, which indicates OSA.”

Other objective data suggestive of OSA include high blood pressure, a BMI over 35 kg/m², a neck circumference of greater than 40 cm, and male gender. In a study of patients who presented for surgery who did not have a diagnosis of sleep apnea, a high STOP-Bang score indicated a high probability of moderate to severe sleep apnea (Br J. Anaesth 2012;108[5]:768-75).

“If the STOP-Bang score is 0-2, your workup stops,” Dr. Manjarrez said. “If your STOP-Bang score is 5 or above, there’s a high likelihood they have moderate or severe sleep apnea. Patients who have a STOP-Bang of 3-4, calculate their STOP score. If the STOP score is 2 or more and they’re male, obese, and have a neck circumference of greater than 40 cm, there’s a pretty good chance they’ve got OSA.”

Screening for OSA prior to surgery matters, because the potential pulmonary complications are fairly high, “anywhere from postoperative respiratory failure to COPD exacerbation and hypoxia to pneumonia,” he continued. “These patients very commonly desaturate and are difficult for the anesthesiologists to intubate. Fortunately, we have not found significant cardiac complications in the medical literature, but we do know that patients with OSA commonly get postoperative atrial fibrillation. There are also combined complications like desaturation and AFib and difficult intubations. Patients with sleep apnea do have a higher resource utilization perioperatively. Fortunately, at this point in time the data does not show that patients with OSA going in for surgery have an increased mortality.”

To optimize the care of these patients prior to surgery, Dr. Manjarrez recommends that hospitalists document that a patient either has known OSA or suspected OSA. “If possible, obtain their sleep study results and recommended PAP settings,” he said. “Ask patients to bring their PAP device to the hospital or to assure the hospital has appropriate surrogate devices available. You also want to advise the patient and the perioperative care team of the increased risk of complications in patients at high risk for OSA and optimize other conditions that may impair cardiorespiratory function.”

Perioperative risk reduction strategies include planning for difficult intubation and mask ventilation, using regional anesthesia and analgesia, using sedatives with caution, minimizing the use of opioids and anticipating variable opioid responses. “When I have a patient with suspected sleep apnea and no red flags I write down ‘OSA precautions,’ in the chart, which means elevate the head of the bed, perform continuous pulse oximetry, and cautiously supply supplemental oxygen as needed,” he said.

Postoperatively, he continued, minimize sedative agents and opioids, use regional and nonopioid analgesics when possible, provide supplemental oxygen until the patient is able to maintain baseline SaO₂ on room air in a monitored setting, maintain the patient in nonsupine position when feasible, and continuously monitor pulse oximetry.

Consider delay of elective surgery and referral to a sleep medicine specialist in cases of uncontrolled systemic conditions or impaired gas exchange, including hypoventilation syndromes (a clue being a serum HC03 of 28 or higher), severe pulmonary hypertension (a clue being right ventricular systolic blood pressure or pulmonary systolic pressure of 70 mm Hg or above, or right ventricular dilatation/dysfunction), and hypoxemia not explained by cardiac disease.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of six studies that included 904 patients with sleep apnea found that there was no significant difference in the postoperative adverse events between CPAP and no-CPAP treatment (Anesth Analg 2015;120:1013-23). However, there was a significant reduction in the Apnea-Hypopnea Index postoperatively among those who used CPAP (37 vs. 12 events per hour; P less than .001), as well as a significant reduction in hospital length of stay 4 vs. 4.4 days; P = .05).

Dr. Manjarrez reported having no financial disclosures.

Personalized nutritional support for adults hospitalized with chronic heart failure and deemed to be at high nutritional risk reduced the risk of death or adverse cardiovascular events, compared with standard hospital food, new research indicates.
 

The Swiss EFFORT trial focused on patients with chronic heart failure and high risk of malnutrition defined by low body mass index, weight loss, and low food intake upon hospital admission.

“This high-risk group of chronic heart failure patients showed a significant improvement in mortality over 30 and 180 days, as well as other clinical outcomes, when individualized nutritional support interventions were offered to patients,” Philipp Schuetz, MD, MPH, Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland, said in an interview.

“While monitoring the nutritional status should be done also in outpatient settings by [general practitioners], malnutrition screening upon hospital admission may help to identify high-risk patients with high risk for nutritional status deterioration during the hospital stay who will benefit from nutritional assessment and treatment,” said Dr. Schuetz.

The study was published online May 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

It’s not all about salt

The findings are based on a prespecified secondary analysis of outcomes in 645 patients (median age, 78.8 years, 52% men) hospitalized with chronic heart failure who participated in the open-label EFFORT study.  

One-third of patients were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and two-thirds had chronic heart failure and other acute medical illnesses requiring hospitalization.

All patients were at risk of malnutrition based on a Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score of 3 points or higher. They were randomly allocated 1:1 to individualized nutritional support to reach energy, protein, and micronutrient goals or usual hospital food (control group). 

By 30 days, 27 of 321 patients (8.4%) receiving nutritional support had died compared with 48 of 324 patients (14.8%) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.75; P = .002)

Patients with high nutritional risk (NRS >4 points) showed the most benefit from nutritional support.

Compared with patients with moderate nutritional risk scores (NRS score 3-4), those with high nutritional risk (NRS >4) had a highly significant 65% increased mortality risk over 180 days.

The individual component of the NRS with the strongest association with mortality was low food intake in the week before hospitalization.

Patients who received nutritional support in the hospital also had a lower risk for major cardiovascular events at 30 days (17.4% vs. 26.9%; OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; P = .001).

“Historically, cardiologists and internists caring for patients with heart failure have mainly focused on salt-restrictive diets to reduce blood volume and thus optimize heart function. Yet, reduction of salt intake has not been shown to effectively improve clinical outcome but may, on the contrary, increase the risk of malnutrition as low-salt diets are often not tasty,” Dr. Schuetz said.

“Our data suggest that we should move our focus away from salt-restrictive diets to high-protein diets to cover individual nutritional goals in this high-risk group of patients, which includes screening, assessment, and nutritional support by dietitians,” Dr. Schuetz said.

In a linked editorial, Sheldon Gottlieb, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said there has been “relatively little attention” paid to the role of diet in heart failure other than recommending reduced salt intake. 

In fact, in the 2021 American College of Cardiology expert consensus recommendations for optimizing heart failure treatment, roughly five words are devoted to diet and exercise and there is no mention of nutrition assessment by a dietitian, he points out.

“This study adds another tile to the still-fragmentary mosaic picture of the patient with heart failure at nutritional risk who might benefit from nutritional support,” Dr. Dr. Gottlieb wrote.

“ ‘Good medical care’ dictates that all hospitalized patients deserve to have a standardized nutritional assessment; the challenge remains: how to determine which patient with heart failure at nutritional risk will benefit by medical nutrition therapy,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau provided funding for the trial. Dr. Schuetz’s institution has previously received unrestricted grant money unrelated to this project from Nestle Health Science and Abbott Nutrition. Dr. Gottlieb owns a federal trademark for the “Greens, Beans, and Leans” diet, and has a pending federal trademark for “FLOATS”: flax + oats cereal.

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

Personalized nutritional support for adults hospitalized with chronic heart failure and deemed to be at high nutritional risk reduced the risk of death or adverse cardiovascular events, compared with standard hospital food, new research indicates.
 

The Swiss EFFORT trial focused on patients with chronic heart failure and high risk of malnutrition defined by low body mass index, weight loss, and low food intake upon hospital admission.

“This high-risk group of chronic heart failure patients showed a significant improvement in mortality over 30 and 180 days, as well as other clinical outcomes, when individualized nutritional support interventions were offered to patients,” Philipp Schuetz, MD, MPH, Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland, said in an interview.

“While monitoring the nutritional status should be done also in outpatient settings by [general practitioners], malnutrition screening upon hospital admission may help to identify high-risk patients with high risk for nutritional status deterioration during the hospital stay who will benefit from nutritional assessment and treatment,” said Dr. Schuetz.

The study was published online May 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

It’s not all about salt

The findings are based on a prespecified secondary analysis of outcomes in 645 patients (median age, 78.8 years, 52% men) hospitalized with chronic heart failure who participated in the open-label EFFORT study.  

One-third of patients were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and two-thirds had chronic heart failure and other acute medical illnesses requiring hospitalization.

All patients were at risk of malnutrition based on a Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score of 3 points or higher. They were randomly allocated 1:1 to individualized nutritional support to reach energy, protein, and micronutrient goals or usual hospital food (control group). 

By 30 days, 27 of 321 patients (8.4%) receiving nutritional support had died compared with 48 of 324 patients (14.8%) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.75; P = .002)

Patients with high nutritional risk (NRS >4 points) showed the most benefit from nutritional support.

Compared with patients with moderate nutritional risk scores (NRS score 3-4), those with high nutritional risk (NRS >4) had a highly significant 65% increased mortality risk over 180 days.

The individual component of the NRS with the strongest association with mortality was low food intake in the week before hospitalization.

Patients who received nutritional support in the hospital also had a lower risk for major cardiovascular events at 30 days (17.4% vs. 26.9%; OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; P = .001).

“Historically, cardiologists and internists caring for patients with heart failure have mainly focused on salt-restrictive diets to reduce blood volume and thus optimize heart function. Yet, reduction of salt intake has not been shown to effectively improve clinical outcome but may, on the contrary, increase the risk of malnutrition as low-salt diets are often not tasty,” Dr. Schuetz said.

“Our data suggest that we should move our focus away from salt-restrictive diets to high-protein diets to cover individual nutritional goals in this high-risk group of patients, which includes screening, assessment, and nutritional support by dietitians,” Dr. Schuetz said.

In a linked editorial, Sheldon Gottlieb, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said there has been “relatively little attention” paid to the role of diet in heart failure other than recommending reduced salt intake. 

In fact, in the 2021 American College of Cardiology expert consensus recommendations for optimizing heart failure treatment, roughly five words are devoted to diet and exercise and there is no mention of nutrition assessment by a dietitian, he points out.

“This study adds another tile to the still-fragmentary mosaic picture of the patient with heart failure at nutritional risk who might benefit from nutritional support,” Dr. Dr. Gottlieb wrote.

“ ‘Good medical care’ dictates that all hospitalized patients deserve to have a standardized nutritional assessment; the challenge remains: how to determine which patient with heart failure at nutritional risk will benefit by medical nutrition therapy,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau provided funding for the trial. Dr. Schuetz’s institution has previously received unrestricted grant money unrelated to this project from Nestle Health Science and Abbott Nutrition. Dr. Gottlieb owns a federal trademark for the “Greens, Beans, and Leans” diet, and has a pending federal trademark for “FLOATS”: flax + oats cereal.

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

Personalized nutritional support for adults hospitalized with chronic heart failure and deemed to be at high nutritional risk reduced the risk of death or adverse cardiovascular events, compared with standard hospital food, new research indicates.
 

The Swiss EFFORT trial focused on patients with chronic heart failure and high risk of malnutrition defined by low body mass index, weight loss, and low food intake upon hospital admission.

“This high-risk group of chronic heart failure patients showed a significant improvement in mortality over 30 and 180 days, as well as other clinical outcomes, when individualized nutritional support interventions were offered to patients,” Philipp Schuetz, MD, MPH, Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland, said in an interview.

“While monitoring the nutritional status should be done also in outpatient settings by [general practitioners], malnutrition screening upon hospital admission may help to identify high-risk patients with high risk for nutritional status deterioration during the hospital stay who will benefit from nutritional assessment and treatment,” said Dr. Schuetz.

The study was published online May 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

It’s not all about salt

The findings are based on a prespecified secondary analysis of outcomes in 645 patients (median age, 78.8 years, 52% men) hospitalized with chronic heart failure who participated in the open-label EFFORT study.  

One-third of patients were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and two-thirds had chronic heart failure and other acute medical illnesses requiring hospitalization.

All patients were at risk of malnutrition based on a Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score of 3 points or higher. They were randomly allocated 1:1 to individualized nutritional support to reach energy, protein, and micronutrient goals or usual hospital food (control group). 

By 30 days, 27 of 321 patients (8.4%) receiving nutritional support had died compared with 48 of 324 patients (14.8%) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.75; P = .002)

Patients with high nutritional risk (NRS >4 points) showed the most benefit from nutritional support.

Compared with patients with moderate nutritional risk scores (NRS score 3-4), those with high nutritional risk (NRS >4) had a highly significant 65% increased mortality risk over 180 days.

The individual component of the NRS with the strongest association with mortality was low food intake in the week before hospitalization.

Patients who received nutritional support in the hospital also had a lower risk for major cardiovascular events at 30 days (17.4% vs. 26.9%; OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; P = .001).

“Historically, cardiologists and internists caring for patients with heart failure have mainly focused on salt-restrictive diets to reduce blood volume and thus optimize heart function. Yet, reduction of salt intake has not been shown to effectively improve clinical outcome but may, on the contrary, increase the risk of malnutrition as low-salt diets are often not tasty,” Dr. Schuetz said.

“Our data suggest that we should move our focus away from salt-restrictive diets to high-protein diets to cover individual nutritional goals in this high-risk group of patients, which includes screening, assessment, and nutritional support by dietitians,” Dr. Schuetz said.

In a linked editorial, Sheldon Gottlieb, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said there has been “relatively little attention” paid to the role of diet in heart failure other than recommending reduced salt intake. 

In fact, in the 2021 American College of Cardiology expert consensus recommendations for optimizing heart failure treatment, roughly five words are devoted to diet and exercise and there is no mention of nutrition assessment by a dietitian, he points out.

“This study adds another tile to the still-fragmentary mosaic picture of the patient with heart failure at nutritional risk who might benefit from nutritional support,” Dr. Dr. Gottlieb wrote.

“ ‘Good medical care’ dictates that all hospitalized patients deserve to have a standardized nutritional assessment; the challenge remains: how to determine which patient with heart failure at nutritional risk will benefit by medical nutrition therapy,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau provided funding for the trial. Dr. Schuetz’s institution has previously received unrestricted grant money unrelated to this project from Nestle Health Science and Abbott Nutrition. Dr. Gottlieb owns a federal trademark for the “Greens, Beans, and Leans” diet, and has a pending federal trademark for “FLOATS”: flax + oats cereal.

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

More than 11 million individuals in the United States identify as LGBTQ+, and data show that this population has a shorter life expectancy and increased rates of suicide, violence, and cardiovascular disease, according to Keshav Khanijow, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and Nicole Rosendale, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

More than half of these individuals report experiencing discrimination, and one in three transgendered individuals have reported prejudice when visiting a doctor or health clinic, they said in a presentation at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“It is impossible to know how someone identifies by gender just by looking at them,” Dr. Rosendale emphasized.

However, attention to terminology, use of affirming language and documentation, and attention to clinical considerations can help LGBTQ+ patients feel comfortable in the health care setting.
 

Ask, don’t assume

Do ask patients how they identify themselves, Dr. Khanijow said. It is important to ask about sexual orientation as part of a social history. One big “Don’t” in terminology is to avoid the use of the term “homosexual,” he added. Although the description “homosexual” began as a scientific term, it has become associated with pathology, rather than identity, and is often used by hate groups. Also, do not assume sexual orientation based on a patient’s partner.

Always ask about sexual orientation before assuming it, and include that information in documentation. Dr. Khanijow used an example of a “one-liner” case of a 45-year-old male who self-identifies as “queer” and presents with a migraine. The most appropriate version would be “45yoM who identifies as queer with PMHx Migraines presents with Headache,” Dr. Khanijow said. However, as a clinician, consider why you are including sexual orientation in the one-liner. If there isn’t any real reason to include it (such as stress related to coming out, increased risk for other conditions) it may not be necessary in all visits.
 

Transgender considerations

Dr. Khanijow shared some specific considerations for the transgender/nonbinary population.

In terms of gender, “it is most respectful to identify the patient as they would like to be identified,” he said.

Ask how they identify their gender, including their preferred pronouns, and be sure to note this identification in their documents, he said. Be vigilant in addressing a transgender patient correctly. Mistakes happen, and when they do, correct yourself, apologize succinctly and move on.
 

Clinical challenges

Research on LGBTQ+ health is limited, and these individuals are often grouped into a single category despite diverse experiences, Dr. Rosendale said. Another limitation in LGBTQ+ research is that some studies assess based on identity (such as gay, lesbian, bisexual) while others assess behavior (studies of men who have sex with men).

Dr. Rosendale went on to highlight several important clinical concerns for the LGBTQ+ population. Compared with the general population, lesbian women are at higher risk for breast cancer, and gay men are at increased risk for prostate, colon, and testicular cancers. Potential heart disease risk factors of physical inactivity, obesity, and smoking are more prevalent among lesbian women, and tobacco and alcohol use are more prevalent among gay men, and men who have sex with men are at increased risk for STIs.

Clinicians also should be aware that “bisexual individuals face worse health outcomes than their lesbian, gay, and heterosexual counterparts,” Dr. Rosendale said.

LGBTQ+ patients often use hormone therapy, so clinicians should be aware of some potential adverse effects, Dr. Rosendale said. For example, trans women on gender-affirming estrogen therapy may have increased cardiovascular risks including incident MI, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular mortality, compared with cisgender women.

In trans men, testosterone use has not been definitively linked to cardiovascular risk, although patients may show small changes in systolic blood pressure, lipid profiles, and blood glucose, Dr. Rosendale noted.
 

In-hospital issues

Inpatient and critical care of transgender and LGBTQ+ patients may have unique psychosocial considerations in hospital care, Dr. Rosendale said. To provide some guidance, a document on “Transgender-Affirming Hospital Policies” has been developed jointly by Lamda Legal, the Human Rights Campaign, the law firm of Hogan Lovells, and the New York City Bar.

Best practices noted in the document include rooming transgender individuals according to their identity, and recognizing that these patients may experience additional stress while an inpatient if personal clothing or other means of gender expression are replaced during the hospital stay, Dr. Rosendale noted.

Finally, clinicians seeing LGBTQ+ patients in an acute care setting should keep in mind that socioeconomic disparities may limit access to outpatient care, and that this population has higher rates of unemployment, exacerbated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Rosendale said. In addition, she advised clinicians to be aware that LGBTQ+ people may experience discrimination in rehabilitation centers, and their surrogate decision makers may be individuals other than family members.

Dr. Khanijow and Dr. Rosendale had no financial conflicts to disclose.

More than 11 million individuals in the United States identify as LGBTQ+, and data show that this population has a shorter life expectancy and increased rates of suicide, violence, and cardiovascular disease, according to Keshav Khanijow, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and Nicole Rosendale, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

More than half of these individuals report experiencing discrimination, and one in three transgendered individuals have reported prejudice when visiting a doctor or health clinic, they said in a presentation at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“It is impossible to know how someone identifies by gender just by looking at them,” Dr. Rosendale emphasized.

However, attention to terminology, use of affirming language and documentation, and attention to clinical considerations can help LGBTQ+ patients feel comfortable in the health care setting.
 

Ask, don’t assume

Do ask patients how they identify themselves, Dr. Khanijow said. It is important to ask about sexual orientation as part of a social history. One big “Don’t” in terminology is to avoid the use of the term “homosexual,” he added. Although the description “homosexual” began as a scientific term, it has become associated with pathology, rather than identity, and is often used by hate groups. Also, do not assume sexual orientation based on a patient’s partner.

Always ask about sexual orientation before assuming it, and include that information in documentation. Dr. Khanijow used an example of a “one-liner” case of a 45-year-old male who self-identifies as “queer” and presents with a migraine. The most appropriate version would be “45yoM who identifies as queer with PMHx Migraines presents with Headache,” Dr. Khanijow said. However, as a clinician, consider why you are including sexual orientation in the one-liner. If there isn’t any real reason to include it (such as stress related to coming out, increased risk for other conditions) it may not be necessary in all visits.
 

Transgender considerations

Dr. Khanijow shared some specific considerations for the transgender/nonbinary population.

In terms of gender, “it is most respectful to identify the patient as they would like to be identified,” he said.

Ask how they identify their gender, including their preferred pronouns, and be sure to note this identification in their documents, he said. Be vigilant in addressing a transgender patient correctly. Mistakes happen, and when they do, correct yourself, apologize succinctly and move on.
 

Clinical challenges

Research on LGBTQ+ health is limited, and these individuals are often grouped into a single category despite diverse experiences, Dr. Rosendale said. Another limitation in LGBTQ+ research is that some studies assess based on identity (such as gay, lesbian, bisexual) while others assess behavior (studies of men who have sex with men).

Dr. Rosendale went on to highlight several important clinical concerns for the LGBTQ+ population. Compared with the general population, lesbian women are at higher risk for breast cancer, and gay men are at increased risk for prostate, colon, and testicular cancers. Potential heart disease risk factors of physical inactivity, obesity, and smoking are more prevalent among lesbian women, and tobacco and alcohol use are more prevalent among gay men, and men who have sex with men are at increased risk for STIs.

Clinicians also should be aware that “bisexual individuals face worse health outcomes than their lesbian, gay, and heterosexual counterparts,” Dr. Rosendale said.

LGBTQ+ patients often use hormone therapy, so clinicians should be aware of some potential adverse effects, Dr. Rosendale said. For example, trans women on gender-affirming estrogen therapy may have increased cardiovascular risks including incident MI, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular mortality, compared with cisgender women.

In trans men, testosterone use has not been definitively linked to cardiovascular risk, although patients may show small changes in systolic blood pressure, lipid profiles, and blood glucose, Dr. Rosendale noted.
 

In-hospital issues

Inpatient and critical care of transgender and LGBTQ+ patients may have unique psychosocial considerations in hospital care, Dr. Rosendale said. To provide some guidance, a document on “Transgender-Affirming Hospital Policies” has been developed jointly by Lamda Legal, the Human Rights Campaign, the law firm of Hogan Lovells, and the New York City Bar.

Best practices noted in the document include rooming transgender individuals according to their identity, and recognizing that these patients may experience additional stress while an inpatient if personal clothing or other means of gender expression are replaced during the hospital stay, Dr. Rosendale noted.

Finally, clinicians seeing LGBTQ+ patients in an acute care setting should keep in mind that socioeconomic disparities may limit access to outpatient care, and that this population has higher rates of unemployment, exacerbated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Rosendale said. In addition, she advised clinicians to be aware that LGBTQ+ people may experience discrimination in rehabilitation centers, and their surrogate decision makers may be individuals other than family members.

Dr. Khanijow and Dr. Rosendale had no financial conflicts to disclose.

More than 11 million individuals in the United States identify as LGBTQ+, and data show that this population has a shorter life expectancy and increased rates of suicide, violence, and cardiovascular disease, according to Keshav Khanijow, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and Nicole Rosendale, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco.

More than half of these individuals report experiencing discrimination, and one in three transgendered individuals have reported prejudice when visiting a doctor or health clinic, they said in a presentation at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“It is impossible to know how someone identifies by gender just by looking at them,” Dr. Rosendale emphasized.

However, attention to terminology, use of affirming language and documentation, and attention to clinical considerations can help LGBTQ+ patients feel comfortable in the health care setting.
 

Ask, don’t assume

Do ask patients how they identify themselves, Dr. Khanijow said. It is important to ask about sexual orientation as part of a social history. One big “Don’t” in terminology is to avoid the use of the term “homosexual,” he added. Although the description “homosexual” began as a scientific term, it has become associated with pathology, rather than identity, and is often used by hate groups. Also, do not assume sexual orientation based on a patient’s partner.

Always ask about sexual orientation before assuming it, and include that information in documentation. Dr. Khanijow used an example of a “one-liner” case of a 45-year-old male who self-identifies as “queer” and presents with a migraine. The most appropriate version would be “45yoM who identifies as queer with PMHx Migraines presents with Headache,” Dr. Khanijow said. However, as a clinician, consider why you are including sexual orientation in the one-liner. If there isn’t any real reason to include it (such as stress related to coming out, increased risk for other conditions) it may not be necessary in all visits.
 

Transgender considerations

Dr. Khanijow shared some specific considerations for the transgender/nonbinary population.

In terms of gender, “it is most respectful to identify the patient as they would like to be identified,” he said.

Ask how they identify their gender, including their preferred pronouns, and be sure to note this identification in their documents, he said. Be vigilant in addressing a transgender patient correctly. Mistakes happen, and when they do, correct yourself, apologize succinctly and move on.
 

Clinical challenges

Research on LGBTQ+ health is limited, and these individuals are often grouped into a single category despite diverse experiences, Dr. Rosendale said. Another limitation in LGBTQ+ research is that some studies assess based on identity (such as gay, lesbian, bisexual) while others assess behavior (studies of men who have sex with men).

Dr. Rosendale went on to highlight several important clinical concerns for the LGBTQ+ population. Compared with the general population, lesbian women are at higher risk for breast cancer, and gay men are at increased risk for prostate, colon, and testicular cancers. Potential heart disease risk factors of physical inactivity, obesity, and smoking are more prevalent among lesbian women, and tobacco and alcohol use are more prevalent among gay men, and men who have sex with men are at increased risk for STIs.

Clinicians also should be aware that “bisexual individuals face worse health outcomes than their lesbian, gay, and heterosexual counterparts,” Dr. Rosendale said.

LGBTQ+ patients often use hormone therapy, so clinicians should be aware of some potential adverse effects, Dr. Rosendale said. For example, trans women on gender-affirming estrogen therapy may have increased cardiovascular risks including incident MI, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular mortality, compared with cisgender women.

In trans men, testosterone use has not been definitively linked to cardiovascular risk, although patients may show small changes in systolic blood pressure, lipid profiles, and blood glucose, Dr. Rosendale noted.
 

In-hospital issues

Inpatient and critical care of transgender and LGBTQ+ patients may have unique psychosocial considerations in hospital care, Dr. Rosendale said. To provide some guidance, a document on “Transgender-Affirming Hospital Policies” has been developed jointly by Lamda Legal, the Human Rights Campaign, the law firm of Hogan Lovells, and the New York City Bar.

Best practices noted in the document include rooming transgender individuals according to their identity, and recognizing that these patients may experience additional stress while an inpatient if personal clothing or other means of gender expression are replaced during the hospital stay, Dr. Rosendale noted.

Finally, clinicians seeing LGBTQ+ patients in an acute care setting should keep in mind that socioeconomic disparities may limit access to outpatient care, and that this population has higher rates of unemployment, exacerbated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Rosendale said. In addition, she advised clinicians to be aware that LGBTQ+ people may experience discrimination in rehabilitation centers, and their surrogate decision makers may be individuals other than family members.

Dr. Khanijow and Dr. Rosendale had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly one out of five American adults with hypertension is on a prescription drug known to raise blood pressure, based on analysis of more than 27,000 people included in recent reports from the recurring National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Nearly half of these American adults had hypertension, and in this subgroup, 18.5% reported using a prescription drug known to increase blood pressure. The most widely used class of agents with this effect was antidepressants, used by 8.7%; followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used by 6.5%; steroids, 1.9%; estrogens, 1.7%; and several other agents each used by fewer than 1% of the study cohort, John Vitarello, MD, said during a press briefing on reports from the upcoming annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

He and his associates estimated that this use of prescription drugs known to raise blood pressure could be what stands in the way of some 560,000-2.2 million Americans from having their hypertension under control, depending on the exact blood pressure impact that various pressure-increasing drugs have and presuming that half of those on blood pressure increasing agents could stop them and switch to alternative agents, said Dr. Vitarello, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He also highlighted that the study assessed only prescription drugs and did not examine OTC drug use, which may be especially relevant for the many people who regularly take NSAIDs.

“Clinicians should review the prescription and OTC drug use of patients with hypertension and consider stopping drugs that increase blood pressure or switching the patient to alternatives” that are blood pressure neutral, Dr. Vitarello said during the briefing. He cautioned that maintaining hypertensive patients on agents that raise their blood pressure can result in “prescribing cascades” where taking drugs that boost blood pressure results in need for intensified antihypertensive treatment.
 

An opportunity for NSAID alternatives

“This study hopefully raises awareness that there is a very high use of medications that increase blood pressure, and use of OTC agents could increase the rate even higher” said Eugene Yang, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program of the University of Washington, Seattle. Substituting for certain antidepressant agents may often not be realistic, but an opportunity exists for reducing NSAID use, a class also linked with an increased risk for bleeding and other adverse effects, Dr. Yang said during the briefing. Minimizing use of NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen use “is something to think about,” he suggested.

“The effect of NSAIDs on blood pressure is not well studied and can vary from person to person” noted Dr. Vitarello, who added that higher NSAID dosages and more prolonged use likely increase the risk for an adverse effect on blood pressure. One reasonable option is to encourage patients to use an alternative class of pain reliever such as acetaminophen.

It remains “a challenge” to discern differences in adverse blood pressure effects, and in all adverse cardiovascular effects among different NSAIDs, said Dr. Yang. Results from “some studies show that certain NSAIDs may be safer, but other studies did not. We need to be very careful using NSAIDs because, on average, they increase blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg. We need to be mindful to try to prescribe alternative agents, like acetaminophen.”
 

A decade of data from NHANES

The analysis run by Dr. Vitarello and associates used data from 27,599 American adults included in the NHANES during 2009-2018, and focused on the 44% who either had an average blood pressure measurement of at least 130/80 mm Hg or reported having ever been told by a clinician that they had hypertension. The NHANES assessments included the prescription medications taken by each participant. The prevalence of using at least one prescription drug known to raise blood pressure was 24% among women and 14% among men, and 4% of those with hypertension were on two or more pressure-increasing agents.

The researchers based their identification of pressure-increasing prescription drugs on the list included in the 2017 guideline for managing high blood pressure from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. This list specifies that the antidepressants that raise blood pressure are the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.

Dr. Vitarello and Dr. Yang had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Nearly one out of five American adults with hypertension is on a prescription drug known to raise blood pressure, based on analysis of more than 27,000 people included in recent reports from the recurring National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Nearly half of these American adults had hypertension, and in this subgroup, 18.5% reported using a prescription drug known to increase blood pressure. The most widely used class of agents with this effect was antidepressants, used by 8.7%; followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used by 6.5%; steroids, 1.9%; estrogens, 1.7%; and several other agents each used by fewer than 1% of the study cohort, John Vitarello, MD, said during a press briefing on reports from the upcoming annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

He and his associates estimated that this use of prescription drugs known to raise blood pressure could be what stands in the way of some 560,000-2.2 million Americans from having their hypertension under control, depending on the exact blood pressure impact that various pressure-increasing drugs have and presuming that half of those on blood pressure increasing agents could stop them and switch to alternative agents, said Dr. Vitarello, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He also highlighted that the study assessed only prescription drugs and did not examine OTC drug use, which may be especially relevant for the many people who regularly take NSAIDs.

“Clinicians should review the prescription and OTC drug use of patients with hypertension and consider stopping drugs that increase blood pressure or switching the patient to alternatives” that are blood pressure neutral, Dr. Vitarello said during the briefing. He cautioned that maintaining hypertensive patients on agents that raise their blood pressure can result in “prescribing cascades” where taking drugs that boost blood pressure results in need for intensified antihypertensive treatment.
 

An opportunity for NSAID alternatives

“This study hopefully raises awareness that there is a very high use of medications that increase blood pressure, and use of OTC agents could increase the rate even higher” said Eugene Yang, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program of the University of Washington, Seattle. Substituting for certain antidepressant agents may often not be realistic, but an opportunity exists for reducing NSAID use, a class also linked with an increased risk for bleeding and other adverse effects, Dr. Yang said during the briefing. Minimizing use of NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen use “is something to think about,” he suggested.

“The effect of NSAIDs on blood pressure is not well studied and can vary from person to person” noted Dr. Vitarello, who added that higher NSAID dosages and more prolonged use likely increase the risk for an adverse effect on blood pressure. One reasonable option is to encourage patients to use an alternative class of pain reliever such as acetaminophen.

It remains “a challenge” to discern differences in adverse blood pressure effects, and in all adverse cardiovascular effects among different NSAIDs, said Dr. Yang. Results from “some studies show that certain NSAIDs may be safer, but other studies did not. We need to be very careful using NSAIDs because, on average, they increase blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg. We need to be mindful to try to prescribe alternative agents, like acetaminophen.”
 

A decade of data from NHANES

The analysis run by Dr. Vitarello and associates used data from 27,599 American adults included in the NHANES during 2009-2018, and focused on the 44% who either had an average blood pressure measurement of at least 130/80 mm Hg or reported having ever been told by a clinician that they had hypertension. The NHANES assessments included the prescription medications taken by each participant. The prevalence of using at least one prescription drug known to raise blood pressure was 24% among women and 14% among men, and 4% of those with hypertension were on two or more pressure-increasing agents.

The researchers based their identification of pressure-increasing prescription drugs on the list included in the 2017 guideline for managing high blood pressure from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. This list specifies that the antidepressants that raise blood pressure are the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.

Dr. Vitarello and Dr. Yang had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Nearly one out of five American adults with hypertension is on a prescription drug known to raise blood pressure, based on analysis of more than 27,000 people included in recent reports from the recurring National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Nearly half of these American adults had hypertension, and in this subgroup, 18.5% reported using a prescription drug known to increase blood pressure. The most widely used class of agents with this effect was antidepressants, used by 8.7%; followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used by 6.5%; steroids, 1.9%; estrogens, 1.7%; and several other agents each used by fewer than 1% of the study cohort, John Vitarello, MD, said during a press briefing on reports from the upcoming annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

He and his associates estimated that this use of prescription drugs known to raise blood pressure could be what stands in the way of some 560,000-2.2 million Americans from having their hypertension under control, depending on the exact blood pressure impact that various pressure-increasing drugs have and presuming that half of those on blood pressure increasing agents could stop them and switch to alternative agents, said Dr. Vitarello, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He also highlighted that the study assessed only prescription drugs and did not examine OTC drug use, which may be especially relevant for the many people who regularly take NSAIDs.

“Clinicians should review the prescription and OTC drug use of patients with hypertension and consider stopping drugs that increase blood pressure or switching the patient to alternatives” that are blood pressure neutral, Dr. Vitarello said during the briefing. He cautioned that maintaining hypertensive patients on agents that raise their blood pressure can result in “prescribing cascades” where taking drugs that boost blood pressure results in need for intensified antihypertensive treatment.
 

An opportunity for NSAID alternatives

“This study hopefully raises awareness that there is a very high use of medications that increase blood pressure, and use of OTC agents could increase the rate even higher” said Eugene Yang, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program of the University of Washington, Seattle. Substituting for certain antidepressant agents may often not be realistic, but an opportunity exists for reducing NSAID use, a class also linked with an increased risk for bleeding and other adverse effects, Dr. Yang said during the briefing. Minimizing use of NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen use “is something to think about,” he suggested.

“The effect of NSAIDs on blood pressure is not well studied and can vary from person to person” noted Dr. Vitarello, who added that higher NSAID dosages and more prolonged use likely increase the risk for an adverse effect on blood pressure. One reasonable option is to encourage patients to use an alternative class of pain reliever such as acetaminophen.

It remains “a challenge” to discern differences in adverse blood pressure effects, and in all adverse cardiovascular effects among different NSAIDs, said Dr. Yang. Results from “some studies show that certain NSAIDs may be safer, but other studies did not. We need to be very careful using NSAIDs because, on average, they increase blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg. We need to be mindful to try to prescribe alternative agents, like acetaminophen.”
 

A decade of data from NHANES

The analysis run by Dr. Vitarello and associates used data from 27,599 American adults included in the NHANES during 2009-2018, and focused on the 44% who either had an average blood pressure measurement of at least 130/80 mm Hg or reported having ever been told by a clinician that they had hypertension. The NHANES assessments included the prescription medications taken by each participant. The prevalence of using at least one prescription drug known to raise blood pressure was 24% among women and 14% among men, and 4% of those with hypertension were on two or more pressure-increasing agents.

The researchers based their identification of pressure-increasing prescription drugs on the list included in the 2017 guideline for managing high blood pressure from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. This list specifies that the antidepressants that raise blood pressure are the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.

Dr. Vitarello and Dr. Yang had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Discharge practices for COVID-19 patients vary widely at the nation’s academic medical centers, but there are some areas of strong concordance, especially related to procedures for isolation and mitigating transmission of COVID-19.

In addition, most sites use some form of clinical criteria to determine discharge readiness, S. Ryan Greysen, MD, MHS, SFHM, said on May 5 at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Those rank among the key findings from of a survey of 22 academic medical centers conducted by the Hospital Medicine Re-engineering Network (HOMERuN), which was launched in 2011 as a way to advance hospital medicine through rigorous research to improve the care of hospitalized patients.

“When COVID came and changed all of our lives, HOMERuN was well positioned to examine the state of practices in member hospitals, and we set out some key principles,” Dr. Greysen said. “First, we wanted to respect the challenges and needs of sites during this extraordinary time. We wanted to support speed and flexibility from our study design to get results to the front lines as quickly as possible. Therefore, we used lightweight research methods such as cross-sectional surveys, periodic evaluations, and we use the data to support operational needs. We have developed linkages to more granular datasets such as electronic health records, but our focus to date has been mostly on the frontline experience of hospitalists and gathering consensus around clinical practice, especially in the early stages of the pandemic.”

In March and April of 2020, Dr. Greysen and colleagues collected and analyzed any discharge protocols, policies, or other documents from 22 academic medical centers. From this they created a follow-up survey containing 21 different domains that was administered to the same institutions in May and June of 2020. “It’s not meant to be a completely comprehensive list, but these 21 domains were the themes we saw coming out of these discharge practice documents,” explained Dr. Greysen, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, which is one of the participating sites.

Next, the researchers used a concordance table to help them keep track of which institution responded in which way for which domain, and they bundled the discharge criteria into five higher order domains: procedures for isolation and mitigating transmission; clinical criteria for discharge; nonclinical/nonisolation issues; discharge to settings other than home, and postdischarge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up.

In the procedures for isolation and mitigating transmission domain, Dr. Greysen reported that the use of isolation guidelines was the area of greatest consensus in the study, with 19 of 22 sites (86%) citing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 7 (32%) also citing state department of health guidance. “Specifically, most sites included the ability to socially isolate at home (until no longer necessary per CDC guidance) as part of the criteria,” he said. Most sites (73%) required use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in transportation from the hospital and 73% gave masks and other PPE for use at home.

Session copresenter Maralyssa A. Bann, MD, a hospitalist at the University of Washington/Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, another participating site, pointed out that the institutions surveyed look to the CDC as being “the single source of truth on discharge practices,” specifically material for health care workers related to discharging COVID-19 patients. “Notable specific recent updates include the recommendation that meeting criteria for discontinuation of Transmission-Based Precautions is not a prerequisite for discharge from a health care facility,” Dr. Bann said. “Also, as of August 2020, use of symptom-based strategy for discontinuation of isolation precautions instead of repeat testing is recommended for most patients. This is a rapidly evolving area.”

Practices in the clinical criteria for discharge domain varied by site. Slightly more than one-quarter of sites (27%) gave little or no guidance by using terms like “use clinical judgment,” while 14% gave very specific detailed algorithms. “Most sites fell in between and gave some parameters, usually along the lines of symptom improvement, temperature, and oxygen requirement, but the criteria were variable,” Dr. Greysen said. “For example, in terms of temperature, many sites said that patients should be afebrile for a specific length of time, 24-72 hours, while other sites simply said afebrile at discharge.” Meanwhile, the following criteria for discharge were addressed by relatively few sites: lab criteria (36%), age (36%), high-risk comorbidities (32%), or ID consultation (18%).

In the nonclinical/nonisolation domain, 73% of sites assessed for level of support available, though this was variably defined. Slightly more than half (55%) specifically assessed activities of daily living or the presence of a caregiver to assist, while 18% reported addressing durable medical equipment such as beds and toilets and access to food or medication supplies in ways that were specific for COVID-19 patients.

In the discharge to settings other than home domain, 77% of sites addressed discharge to skilled nursing facilities, inpatient rehabilitation, or long-term care, although specific requirements were often set by the accepting facilities. In addition, 65% of sites gave specific guidance for patients experiencing unstable housing/homelessness, usually recommending a respite facility or similar, and 59% addressed congregate/shared living spaces such as assisted living facilities. “Often the strictest criteria [two negative COVID tests] were applied to discharge to these types of settings,” he said.

In the postdischarge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up domain, 73% of sites reported providing home monitoring and/or virtual follow-up care. Programs ranged from daily texting via SMS or patient portals, RN phone calls, home pulse oximeters, and/or thermometers. In addition, 55% of sites had created COVID-specific brochures, discharge instructions, and other materials to standardize content such as use of PPE, travel restrictions, social distancing, signs and symptoms to watch out for, and what to do if worsening clinically.

Dr. Bann predicted future trends on the heels of the HOMERuN survey, including the development of more evidence and consensus related to discharge criteria. “Clarity is needed specifically around hypoxemia at rest/on ambulation, as well as more flexible criteria for oxygen supplementation,” she said. “We also think there will be a considerable amount of growth in posthospitalization monitoring and support, in particular home-based and virtual/remote monitoring.”

HOMERuN is supported by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the AAMC, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the Clinical Data Research Networks, the Patient-Powered Research Networks, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Greysen and Dr. Bann reported having no financial disclosures.

Discharge practices for COVID-19 patients vary widely at the nation’s academic medical centers, but there are some areas of strong concordance, especially related to procedures for isolation and mitigating transmission of COVID-19.

In addition, most sites use some form of clinical criteria to determine discharge readiness, S. Ryan Greysen, MD, MHS, SFHM, said on May 5 at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Those rank among the key findings from of a survey of 22 academic medical centers conducted by the Hospital Medicine Re-engineering Network (HOMERuN), which was launched in 2011 as a way to advance hospital medicine through rigorous research to improve the care of hospitalized patients.

“When COVID came and changed all of our lives, HOMERuN was well positioned to examine the state of practices in member hospitals, and we set out some key principles,” Dr. Greysen said. “First, we wanted to respect the challenges and needs of sites during this extraordinary time. We wanted to support speed and flexibility from our study design to get results to the front lines as quickly as possible. Therefore, we used lightweight research methods such as cross-sectional surveys, periodic evaluations, and we use the data to support operational needs. We have developed linkages to more granular datasets such as electronic health records, but our focus to date has been mostly on the frontline experience of hospitalists and gathering consensus around clinical practice, especially in the early stages of the pandemic.”

In March and April of 2020, Dr. Greysen and colleagues collected and analyzed any discharge protocols, policies, or other documents from 22 academic medical centers. From this they created a follow-up survey containing 21 different domains that was administered to the same institutions in May and June of 2020. “It’s not meant to be a completely comprehensive list, but these 21 domains were the themes we saw coming out of these discharge practice documents,” explained Dr. Greysen, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, which is one of the participating sites.

Next, the researchers used a concordance table to help them keep track of which institution responded in which way for which domain, and they bundled the discharge criteria into five higher order domains: procedures for isolation and mitigating transmission; clinical criteria for discharge; nonclinical/nonisolation issues; discharge to settings other than home, and postdischarge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up.

In the procedures for isolation and mitigating transmission domain, Dr. Greysen reported that the use of isolation guidelines was the area of greatest consensus in the study, with 19 of 22 sites (86%) citing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 7 (32%) also citing state department of health guidance. “Specifically, most sites included the ability to socially isolate at home (until no longer necessary per CDC guidance) as part of the criteria,” he said. Most sites (73%) required use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in transportation from the hospital and 73% gave masks and other PPE for use at home.

Session copresenter Maralyssa A. Bann, MD, a hospitalist at the University of Washington/Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, another participating site, pointed out that the institutions surveyed look to the CDC as being “the single source of truth on discharge practices,” specifically material for health care workers related to discharging COVID-19 patients. “Notable specific recent updates include the recommendation that meeting criteria for discontinuation of Transmission-Based Precautions is not a prerequisite for discharge from a health care facility,” Dr. Bann said. “Also, as of August 2020, use of symptom-based strategy for discontinuation of isolation precautions instead of repeat testing is recommended for most patients. This is a rapidly evolving area.”

Practices in the clinical criteria for discharge domain varied by site. Slightly more than one-quarter of sites (27%) gave little or no guidance by using terms like “use clinical judgment,” while 14% gave very specific detailed algorithms. “Most sites fell in between and gave some parameters, usually along the lines of symptom improvement, temperature, and oxygen requirement, but the criteria were variable,” Dr. Greysen said. “For example, in terms of temperature, many sites said that patients should be afebrile for a specific length of time, 24-72 hours, while other sites simply said afebrile at discharge.” Meanwhile, the following criteria for discharge were addressed by relatively few sites: lab criteria (36%), age (36%), high-risk comorbidities (32%), or ID consultation (18%).

In the nonclinical/nonisolation domain, 73% of sites assessed for level of support available, though this was variably defined. Slightly more than half (55%) specifically assessed activities of daily living or the presence of a caregiver to assist, while 18% reported addressing durable medical equipment such as beds and toilets and access to food or medication supplies in ways that were specific for COVID-19 patients.

In the discharge to settings other than home domain, 77% of sites addressed discharge to skilled nursing facilities, inpatient rehabilitation, or long-term care, although specific requirements were often set by the accepting facilities. In addition, 65% of sites gave specific guidance for patients experiencing unstable housing/homelessness, usually recommending a respite facility or similar, and 59% addressed congregate/shared living spaces such as assisted living facilities. “Often the strictest criteria [two negative COVID tests] were applied to discharge to these types of settings,” he said.

In the postdischarge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up domain, 73% of sites reported providing home monitoring and/or virtual follow-up care. Programs ranged from daily texting via SMS or patient portals, RN phone calls, home pulse oximeters, and/or thermometers. In addition, 55% of sites had created COVID-specific brochures, discharge instructions, and other materials to standardize content such as use of PPE, travel restrictions, social distancing, signs and symptoms to watch out for, and what to do if worsening clinically.

Dr. Bann predicted future trends on the heels of the HOMERuN survey, including the development of more evidence and consensus related to discharge criteria. “Clarity is needed specifically around hypoxemia at rest/on ambulation, as well as more flexible criteria for oxygen supplementation,” she said. “We also think there will be a considerable amount of growth in posthospitalization monitoring and support, in particular home-based and virtual/remote monitoring.”

HOMERuN is supported by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the AAMC, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the Clinical Data Research Networks, the Patient-Powered Research Networks, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Greysen and Dr. Bann reported having no financial disclosures.

Discharge practices for COVID-19 patients vary widely at the nation’s academic medical centers, but there are some areas of strong concordance, especially related to procedures for isolation and mitigating transmission of COVID-19.

In addition, most sites use some form of clinical criteria to determine discharge readiness, S. Ryan Greysen, MD, MHS, SFHM, said on May 5 at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Those rank among the key findings from of a survey of 22 academic medical centers conducted by the Hospital Medicine Re-engineering Network (HOMERuN), which was launched in 2011 as a way to advance hospital medicine through rigorous research to improve the care of hospitalized patients.

“When COVID came and changed all of our lives, HOMERuN was well positioned to examine the state of practices in member hospitals, and we set out some key principles,” Dr. Greysen said. “First, we wanted to respect the challenges and needs of sites during this extraordinary time. We wanted to support speed and flexibility from our study design to get results to the front lines as quickly as possible. Therefore, we used lightweight research methods such as cross-sectional surveys, periodic evaluations, and we use the data to support operational needs. We have developed linkages to more granular datasets such as electronic health records, but our focus to date has been mostly on the frontline experience of hospitalists and gathering consensus around clinical practice, especially in the early stages of the pandemic.”

In March and April of 2020, Dr. Greysen and colleagues collected and analyzed any discharge protocols, policies, or other documents from 22 academic medical centers. From this they created a follow-up survey containing 21 different domains that was administered to the same institutions in May and June of 2020. “It’s not meant to be a completely comprehensive list, but these 21 domains were the themes we saw coming out of these discharge practice documents,” explained Dr. Greysen, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, which is one of the participating sites.

Next, the researchers used a concordance table to help them keep track of which institution responded in which way for which domain, and they bundled the discharge criteria into five higher order domains: procedures for isolation and mitigating transmission; clinical criteria for discharge; nonclinical/nonisolation issues; discharge to settings other than home, and postdischarge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up.

In the procedures for isolation and mitigating transmission domain, Dr. Greysen reported that the use of isolation guidelines was the area of greatest consensus in the study, with 19 of 22 sites (86%) citing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 7 (32%) also citing state department of health guidance. “Specifically, most sites included the ability to socially isolate at home (until no longer necessary per CDC guidance) as part of the criteria,” he said. Most sites (73%) required use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in transportation from the hospital and 73% gave masks and other PPE for use at home.

Session copresenter Maralyssa A. Bann, MD, a hospitalist at the University of Washington/Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, another participating site, pointed out that the institutions surveyed look to the CDC as being “the single source of truth on discharge practices,” specifically material for health care workers related to discharging COVID-19 patients. “Notable specific recent updates include the recommendation that meeting criteria for discontinuation of Transmission-Based Precautions is not a prerequisite for discharge from a health care facility,” Dr. Bann said. “Also, as of August 2020, use of symptom-based strategy for discontinuation of isolation precautions instead of repeat testing is recommended for most patients. This is a rapidly evolving area.”

Practices in the clinical criteria for discharge domain varied by site. Slightly more than one-quarter of sites (27%) gave little or no guidance by using terms like “use clinical judgment,” while 14% gave very specific detailed algorithms. “Most sites fell in between and gave some parameters, usually along the lines of symptom improvement, temperature, and oxygen requirement, but the criteria were variable,” Dr. Greysen said. “For example, in terms of temperature, many sites said that patients should be afebrile for a specific length of time, 24-72 hours, while other sites simply said afebrile at discharge.” Meanwhile, the following criteria for discharge were addressed by relatively few sites: lab criteria (36%), age (36%), high-risk comorbidities (32%), or ID consultation (18%).

In the nonclinical/nonisolation domain, 73% of sites assessed for level of support available, though this was variably defined. Slightly more than half (55%) specifically assessed activities of daily living or the presence of a caregiver to assist, while 18% reported addressing durable medical equipment such as beds and toilets and access to food or medication supplies in ways that were specific for COVID-19 patients.

In the discharge to settings other than home domain, 77% of sites addressed discharge to skilled nursing facilities, inpatient rehabilitation, or long-term care, although specific requirements were often set by the accepting facilities. In addition, 65% of sites gave specific guidance for patients experiencing unstable housing/homelessness, usually recommending a respite facility or similar, and 59% addressed congregate/shared living spaces such as assisted living facilities. “Often the strictest criteria [two negative COVID tests] were applied to discharge to these types of settings,” he said.

In the postdischarge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up domain, 73% of sites reported providing home monitoring and/or virtual follow-up care. Programs ranged from daily texting via SMS or patient portals, RN phone calls, home pulse oximeters, and/or thermometers. In addition, 55% of sites had created COVID-specific brochures, discharge instructions, and other materials to standardize content such as use of PPE, travel restrictions, social distancing, signs and symptoms to watch out for, and what to do if worsening clinically.

Dr. Bann predicted future trends on the heels of the HOMERuN survey, including the development of more evidence and consensus related to discharge criteria. “Clarity is needed specifically around hypoxemia at rest/on ambulation, as well as more flexible criteria for oxygen supplementation,” she said. “We also think there will be a considerable amount of growth in posthospitalization monitoring and support, in particular home-based and virtual/remote monitoring.”

HOMERuN is supported by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the AAMC, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the Clinical Data Research Networks, the Patient-Powered Research Networks, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Greysen and Dr. Bann reported having no financial disclosures.

A novel program that coaches healthcare workers effectively bolsters wellness and resilience in the face of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Investigators found the program they developed successfully reduced the severity of mental health threats in healthcare workers.

The pandemic has been “an enormous threat to the resilience of healthcare workers,” said program leader Benjamin Rosen, MD, assistant professor, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, and staff psychiatrist at Sinai Health in Toronto.

“Working at a hospital this year, you’re not only worried about battling COVID, but you’re also enduring uncertainty and fear and moral distress, which has contributed to unprecedented levels of burnout,” Dr. Rosen added.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, held virtually this year.
 

‘Psychological PPE’

Building on previous experience supporting colleagues through the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in Toronto, Dr. Rosen’s team designed and implemented an initiative to support colleagues’ wellness and resilience early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Resilience Coaching for Healthcare Workers program is designed to support psychological well-being during times of chronic stress and help healthcare workers “keep their heads in the game so that they can sustain the focus and the rigor that they need to do their work,” Dr. Rosen said during a press briefing.

Participating coaches are mental health clinicians with training in psychological first aid, resilience, and psychotherapy to provide peer support to units and teams working on the front line. The program provides a kind of “psychological PPE” to complement other protective measures, Dr. Rosen explained.

There are currently 15 coaches working with 17 units and clinical teams at Sinai Health, which encompasses Mount Sinai Hospital and Bridgepoint Active Health, both in Toronto. Most coaches provide support to groups of up to 15 people either virtually or in person. More than 5,300 staff members have received coaching support since the program’s launch in April 2020.  

Mary Preisman, MD, consultation liaison psychiatrist at Mount Sinai Hospital, who is involved with the program, said it’s important to note that coaches are not in clinical relationships with healthcare providers, but rather are applying diverse psychotherapeutic tools to deliver collegial support. When clinical support is requested, coaches facilitate connection with other psychiatrists.
 

‘An excellent model’

Preliminary analysis of qualitative data, which includes interviews with coaches and providers, suggests that coaching is successful in mitigating the severity of mental health threats that healthcare workers face.

“The feedback so far is that coaching has really helped to strengthen team cohesiveness and resilience, which has been really encouraging for us,” Dr. Rosen said.

For example, some participants said the coaching improved relationships with their colleagues, decreased loneliness, and increased the sense of support from their employer.

Others commented on the value of regularly scheduled coaching “huddles” that are embedded within the work environment.

Dr. Rosen said the program is funded by academic grants through the end of next year, which is key given that Toronto is currently in the middle of a third wave of the pandemic.

“One of the things that we learned from previous pandemics is that the psychological impact on healthcare workers usually exceeds the infectious outbreak. There have been studies that show, even years after a pandemic or an epidemic has ended, the psychological consequences of anxiety and distress persist,” Dr. Rosen said.

Briefing moderator Jeffrey Borenstein, MD, president and CEO, Brain & Behavior Research Foundation and editor-in-chief, Psychiatric News, said the Toronto team has developed “an excellent model that could be used around the world to support the well-being of healthcare workers who are on the front lines of a pandemic.”

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Rosen, Dr. Preisman, and Dr. Borenstein have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel program that coaches healthcare workers effectively bolsters wellness and resilience in the face of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Investigators found the program they developed successfully reduced the severity of mental health threats in healthcare workers.

The pandemic has been “an enormous threat to the resilience of healthcare workers,” said program leader Benjamin Rosen, MD, assistant professor, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, and staff psychiatrist at Sinai Health in Toronto.

“Working at a hospital this year, you’re not only worried about battling COVID, but you’re also enduring uncertainty and fear and moral distress, which has contributed to unprecedented levels of burnout,” Dr. Rosen added.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, held virtually this year.
 

‘Psychological PPE’

Building on previous experience supporting colleagues through the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in Toronto, Dr. Rosen’s team designed and implemented an initiative to support colleagues’ wellness and resilience early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Resilience Coaching for Healthcare Workers program is designed to support psychological well-being during times of chronic stress and help healthcare workers “keep their heads in the game so that they can sustain the focus and the rigor that they need to do their work,” Dr. Rosen said during a press briefing.

Participating coaches are mental health clinicians with training in psychological first aid, resilience, and psychotherapy to provide peer support to units and teams working on the front line. The program provides a kind of “psychological PPE” to complement other protective measures, Dr. Rosen explained.

There are currently 15 coaches working with 17 units and clinical teams at Sinai Health, which encompasses Mount Sinai Hospital and Bridgepoint Active Health, both in Toronto. Most coaches provide support to groups of up to 15 people either virtually or in person. More than 5,300 staff members have received coaching support since the program’s launch in April 2020.  

Mary Preisman, MD, consultation liaison psychiatrist at Mount Sinai Hospital, who is involved with the program, said it’s important to note that coaches are not in clinical relationships with healthcare providers, but rather are applying diverse psychotherapeutic tools to deliver collegial support. When clinical support is requested, coaches facilitate connection with other psychiatrists.
 

‘An excellent model’

Preliminary analysis of qualitative data, which includes interviews with coaches and providers, suggests that coaching is successful in mitigating the severity of mental health threats that healthcare workers face.

“The feedback so far is that coaching has really helped to strengthen team cohesiveness and resilience, which has been really encouraging for us,” Dr. Rosen said.

For example, some participants said the coaching improved relationships with their colleagues, decreased loneliness, and increased the sense of support from their employer.

Others commented on the value of regularly scheduled coaching “huddles” that are embedded within the work environment.

Dr. Rosen said the program is funded by academic grants through the end of next year, which is key given that Toronto is currently in the middle of a third wave of the pandemic.

“One of the things that we learned from previous pandemics is that the psychological impact on healthcare workers usually exceeds the infectious outbreak. There have been studies that show, even years after a pandemic or an epidemic has ended, the psychological consequences of anxiety and distress persist,” Dr. Rosen said.

Briefing moderator Jeffrey Borenstein, MD, president and CEO, Brain & Behavior Research Foundation and editor-in-chief, Psychiatric News, said the Toronto team has developed “an excellent model that could be used around the world to support the well-being of healthcare workers who are on the front lines of a pandemic.”

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Rosen, Dr. Preisman, and Dr. Borenstein have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel program that coaches healthcare workers effectively bolsters wellness and resilience in the face of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Investigators found the program they developed successfully reduced the severity of mental health threats in healthcare workers.

The pandemic has been “an enormous threat to the resilience of healthcare workers,” said program leader Benjamin Rosen, MD, assistant professor, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, and staff psychiatrist at Sinai Health in Toronto.

“Working at a hospital this year, you’re not only worried about battling COVID, but you’re also enduring uncertainty and fear and moral distress, which has contributed to unprecedented levels of burnout,” Dr. Rosen added.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, held virtually this year.
 

‘Psychological PPE’

Building on previous experience supporting colleagues through the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in Toronto, Dr. Rosen’s team designed and implemented an initiative to support colleagues’ wellness and resilience early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Resilience Coaching for Healthcare Workers program is designed to support psychological well-being during times of chronic stress and help healthcare workers “keep their heads in the game so that they can sustain the focus and the rigor that they need to do their work,” Dr. Rosen said during a press briefing.

Participating coaches are mental health clinicians with training in psychological first aid, resilience, and psychotherapy to provide peer support to units and teams working on the front line. The program provides a kind of “psychological PPE” to complement other protective measures, Dr. Rosen explained.

There are currently 15 coaches working with 17 units and clinical teams at Sinai Health, which encompasses Mount Sinai Hospital and Bridgepoint Active Health, both in Toronto. Most coaches provide support to groups of up to 15 people either virtually or in person. More than 5,300 staff members have received coaching support since the program’s launch in April 2020.  

Mary Preisman, MD, consultation liaison psychiatrist at Mount Sinai Hospital, who is involved with the program, said it’s important to note that coaches are not in clinical relationships with healthcare providers, but rather are applying diverse psychotherapeutic tools to deliver collegial support. When clinical support is requested, coaches facilitate connection with other psychiatrists.
 

‘An excellent model’

Preliminary analysis of qualitative data, which includes interviews with coaches and providers, suggests that coaching is successful in mitigating the severity of mental health threats that healthcare workers face.

“The feedback so far is that coaching has really helped to strengthen team cohesiveness and resilience, which has been really encouraging for us,” Dr. Rosen said.

For example, some participants said the coaching improved relationships with their colleagues, decreased loneliness, and increased the sense of support from their employer.

Others commented on the value of regularly scheduled coaching “huddles” that are embedded within the work environment.

Dr. Rosen said the program is funded by academic grants through the end of next year, which is key given that Toronto is currently in the middle of a third wave of the pandemic.

“One of the things that we learned from previous pandemics is that the psychological impact on healthcare workers usually exceeds the infectious outbreak. There have been studies that show, even years after a pandemic or an epidemic has ended, the psychological consequences of anxiety and distress persist,” Dr. Rosen said.

Briefing moderator Jeffrey Borenstein, MD, president and CEO, Brain & Behavior Research Foundation and editor-in-chief, Psychiatric News, said the Toronto team has developed “an excellent model that could be used around the world to support the well-being of healthcare workers who are on the front lines of a pandemic.”

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Rosen, Dr. Preisman, and Dr. Borenstein have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

When starting a new loop diuretic for a patient with heart failure, strongly consider torsemide over furosemide, Anthony C. Breu, MD, advised at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“Whether or not you take a patient who’s already on furosemide and you make the switch to torsemide is a little bit tougher for me to advocate, though that has happened in clinical trials,” said Dr. Breu, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who spoke May 5 at the Converge session “Things We Do for No Reason.” He co-presented the session with Leonard Feldman, MD, SFHM, director of the Osler Medical Residency Urban Health Track and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“If you consider doing this it would make sense to do so concert with the outpatient primary doctor and the outpatient cardiologist,” Dr. Breu said. “But in my review of the literature, it’s at least worth having these discussions, particularly for a patient who has multiple readmissions for heart failure. That may be a time to pause and ask: ‘Could torsemide be of benefit here?’ ”

In Dr. Breu’s opinion, there are at least three reasons why consider torsemide should be considered a first-line treatment for heart failure. For one thing, the current evidence says so. In a trial published in 2001, researchers randomized 234 patients with heart failure to receive torsemide or furosemide for 1 year. The percentage of patients who had one or more hospital readmissions was lower among those who received torsemide, compared with those who received furosemide in the torsemide group for heart failure (17% vs. 32%, respectively; P < .01) and for other cardiovascular causes (44% vs. 59%; P = .03). In addition, the number of total admissions was numerically lower for patients in the torsemide group, compared with the furosemide group for heart failure (23 vs. 61; P < .01) and for cardiovascular causes (78 vs. 130; P = .02).

In a separate study, researchers conducted an open-label trial of 237 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV heart failure who were randomized to torsemide or furosemide. They found that a significantly higher percentage of patients in the torsemide group improved by one or more NYHA heart failure class, compared with those in the furosemide group (40%; P = .001 vs. 31%; P = .3). Moreover, patients treated with furosemide had more restrictions of daily life at 9 months, compared with those treated with torsemide (P < .001).

A separate, open-label, nonrandomized, postmarketing surveillance trial also found benefits of torsemide over furosemide or other agents used for patients with NYHA class III and IV heart failure. Patients treated with torsemide had a lower total mortality, compared with those treated with furosemide or other agents (2.2% vs. 4.5%, respectively; P < .05) as well as a lower cardiac mortality (1.4% vs. 3.5%; P < .05). They were also more likely to improve by one or more heart failure class (46% vs. 37%; P < .01) and less likely to have potassium levels less than 3.5 mEq/L or greater than 5.0 mEq/L (13% vs. 18%; P = .01).

According to Dr. Breu, meta-analyses of this topic consistently show that the NYHA class improved more with torsemide than with furosemide. “Some meta-analyses find a mortality benefit, while others find a readmissions benefit,” he said. “None of them show a benefit of furosemide over torsemide.”

A second reason to use torsemide as a first-line treatment for heart failure is that it has superior pharmacokinetics/dynamics, compared with furosemide. “We’ve all heard that furosemide has variable bioavailability,” said Dr. Breu, who also deputy editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine’s “Things We Do For No Reason” article series. “Torsemide and bumetanide are much more reliably absorbed, partially because they are not affected by food, whereas furosemide is. That could be potentially problematic for patients who take their diuretic with meals. The fact that torsemide has less renal clearance is a benefit, because patients with heart failure have changing renal function.” In addition, the half-life of torsemide is 3-4 hours and the duration of action is 12 hours, “which are both longer than those for furosemide or bumetanide,” he added.

He also pointed out that torsemide has been shown to block the aldosterone receptor in vitro and in rat models – an effect that has not been observed with other loop diuretics. A randomized trial of patients with chronic heart failure found that levels of renin and aldosterone increased more with torsemide, compared with furosemide, supporting the hypothesis of aldosterone receptor blockade.

A third main reason to use torsemide as your go-to for heart failure has to do with its purported antifibrotic effects, “so that it could be more than a diuretic,” Dr. Breu said. “In heart failure, myocardial fibrosis occurs from increased collagen synthesis and turnover. Aldosterone has been shown to play a role in this myocardial fibrosis. Spironolactone has been shown to mitigate this to some extent. If torsemide acts a little like spironolactone, maybe that could explain some of the long-term effects that we see in these studies.”

A study supporting this notion found that torsemide but not furosemide reduced levels of serum carboxyl-terminal peptide of procollagen type I, which is associated with exaggerated myocardial deposition of collagen type I fibers in cardiac diseases.

Going forward, a study known as TRANSFORM-HF, which is currently recruiting about 6,000 patients, should bring more clarity to the topic. The primary objective is to compare the treatment strategy of torsemide versus furosemide on clinical outcomes over 12 months in patients with heart failure who are hospitalized. The estimated completion is mid-2022.

Dr. Breu and Dr. Feldman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

When starting a new loop diuretic for a patient with heart failure, strongly consider torsemide over furosemide, Anthony C. Breu, MD, advised at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“Whether or not you take a patient who’s already on furosemide and you make the switch to torsemide is a little bit tougher for me to advocate, though that has happened in clinical trials,” said Dr. Breu, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who spoke May 5 at the Converge session “Things We Do for No Reason.” He co-presented the session with Leonard Feldman, MD, SFHM, director of the Osler Medical Residency Urban Health Track and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“If you consider doing this it would make sense to do so concert with the outpatient primary doctor and the outpatient cardiologist,” Dr. Breu said. “But in my review of the literature, it’s at least worth having these discussions, particularly for a patient who has multiple readmissions for heart failure. That may be a time to pause and ask: ‘Could torsemide be of benefit here?’ ”

In Dr. Breu’s opinion, there are at least three reasons why consider torsemide should be considered a first-line treatment for heart failure. For one thing, the current evidence says so. In a trial published in 2001, researchers randomized 234 patients with heart failure to receive torsemide or furosemide for 1 year. The percentage of patients who had one or more hospital readmissions was lower among those who received torsemide, compared with those who received furosemide in the torsemide group for heart failure (17% vs. 32%, respectively; P < .01) and for other cardiovascular causes (44% vs. 59%; P = .03). In addition, the number of total admissions was numerically lower for patients in the torsemide group, compared with the furosemide group for heart failure (23 vs. 61; P < .01) and for cardiovascular causes (78 vs. 130; P = .02).

In a separate study, researchers conducted an open-label trial of 237 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV heart failure who were randomized to torsemide or furosemide. They found that a significantly higher percentage of patients in the torsemide group improved by one or more NYHA heart failure class, compared with those in the furosemide group (40%; P = .001 vs. 31%; P = .3). Moreover, patients treated with furosemide had more restrictions of daily life at 9 months, compared with those treated with torsemide (P < .001).

A separate, open-label, nonrandomized, postmarketing surveillance trial also found benefits of torsemide over furosemide or other agents used for patients with NYHA class III and IV heart failure. Patients treated with torsemide had a lower total mortality, compared with those treated with furosemide or other agents (2.2% vs. 4.5%, respectively; P < .05) as well as a lower cardiac mortality (1.4% vs. 3.5%; P < .05). They were also more likely to improve by one or more heart failure class (46% vs. 37%; P < .01) and less likely to have potassium levels less than 3.5 mEq/L or greater than 5.0 mEq/L (13% vs. 18%; P = .01).

According to Dr. Breu, meta-analyses of this topic consistently show that the NYHA class improved more with torsemide than with furosemide. “Some meta-analyses find a mortality benefit, while others find a readmissions benefit,” he said. “None of them show a benefit of furosemide over torsemide.”

A second reason to use torsemide as a first-line treatment for heart failure is that it has superior pharmacokinetics/dynamics, compared with furosemide. “We’ve all heard that furosemide has variable bioavailability,” said Dr. Breu, who also deputy editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine’s “Things We Do For No Reason” article series. “Torsemide and bumetanide are much more reliably absorbed, partially because they are not affected by food, whereas furosemide is. That could be potentially problematic for patients who take their diuretic with meals. The fact that torsemide has less renal clearance is a benefit, because patients with heart failure have changing renal function.” In addition, the half-life of torsemide is 3-4 hours and the duration of action is 12 hours, “which are both longer than those for furosemide or bumetanide,” he added.

He also pointed out that torsemide has been shown to block the aldosterone receptor in vitro and in rat models – an effect that has not been observed with other loop diuretics. A randomized trial of patients with chronic heart failure found that levels of renin and aldosterone increased more with torsemide, compared with furosemide, supporting the hypothesis of aldosterone receptor blockade.

A third main reason to use torsemide as your go-to for heart failure has to do with its purported antifibrotic effects, “so that it could be more than a diuretic,” Dr. Breu said. “In heart failure, myocardial fibrosis occurs from increased collagen synthesis and turnover. Aldosterone has been shown to play a role in this myocardial fibrosis. Spironolactone has been shown to mitigate this to some extent. If torsemide acts a little like spironolactone, maybe that could explain some of the long-term effects that we see in these studies.”

A study supporting this notion found that torsemide but not furosemide reduced levels of serum carboxyl-terminal peptide of procollagen type I, which is associated with exaggerated myocardial deposition of collagen type I fibers in cardiac diseases.

Going forward, a study known as TRANSFORM-HF, which is currently recruiting about 6,000 patients, should bring more clarity to the topic. The primary objective is to compare the treatment strategy of torsemide versus furosemide on clinical outcomes over 12 months in patients with heart failure who are hospitalized. The estimated completion is mid-2022.

Dr. Breu and Dr. Feldman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

When starting a new loop diuretic for a patient with heart failure, strongly consider torsemide over furosemide, Anthony C. Breu, MD, advised at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“Whether or not you take a patient who’s already on furosemide and you make the switch to torsemide is a little bit tougher for me to advocate, though that has happened in clinical trials,” said Dr. Breu, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who spoke May 5 at the Converge session “Things We Do for No Reason.” He co-presented the session with Leonard Feldman, MD, SFHM, director of the Osler Medical Residency Urban Health Track and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“If you consider doing this it would make sense to do so concert with the outpatient primary doctor and the outpatient cardiologist,” Dr. Breu said. “But in my review of the literature, it’s at least worth having these discussions, particularly for a patient who has multiple readmissions for heart failure. That may be a time to pause and ask: ‘Could torsemide be of benefit here?’ ”

In Dr. Breu’s opinion, there are at least three reasons why consider torsemide should be considered a first-line treatment for heart failure. For one thing, the current evidence says so. In a trial published in 2001, researchers randomized 234 patients with heart failure to receive torsemide or furosemide for 1 year. The percentage of patients who had one or more hospital readmissions was lower among those who received torsemide, compared with those who received furosemide in the torsemide group for heart failure (17% vs. 32%, respectively; P < .01) and for other cardiovascular causes (44% vs. 59%; P = .03). In addition, the number of total admissions was numerically lower for patients in the torsemide group, compared with the furosemide group for heart failure (23 vs. 61; P < .01) and for cardiovascular causes (78 vs. 130; P = .02).

In a separate study, researchers conducted an open-label trial of 237 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV heart failure who were randomized to torsemide or furosemide. They found that a significantly higher percentage of patients in the torsemide group improved by one or more NYHA heart failure class, compared with those in the furosemide group (40%; P = .001 vs. 31%; P = .3). Moreover, patients treated with furosemide had more restrictions of daily life at 9 months, compared with those treated with torsemide (P < .001).

A separate, open-label, nonrandomized, postmarketing surveillance trial also found benefits of torsemide over furosemide or other agents used for patients with NYHA class III and IV heart failure. Patients treated with torsemide had a lower total mortality, compared with those treated with furosemide or other agents (2.2% vs. 4.5%, respectively; P < .05) as well as a lower cardiac mortality (1.4% vs. 3.5%; P < .05). They were also more likely to improve by one or more heart failure class (46% vs. 37%; P < .01) and less likely to have potassium levels less than 3.5 mEq/L or greater than 5.0 mEq/L (13% vs. 18%; P = .01).

According to Dr. Breu, meta-analyses of this topic consistently show that the NYHA class improved more with torsemide than with furosemide. “Some meta-analyses find a mortality benefit, while others find a readmissions benefit,” he said. “None of them show a benefit of furosemide over torsemide.”

A second reason to use torsemide as a first-line treatment for heart failure is that it has superior pharmacokinetics/dynamics, compared with furosemide. “We’ve all heard that furosemide has variable bioavailability,” said Dr. Breu, who also deputy editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine’s “Things We Do For No Reason” article series. “Torsemide and bumetanide are much more reliably absorbed, partially because they are not affected by food, whereas furosemide is. That could be potentially problematic for patients who take their diuretic with meals. The fact that torsemide has less renal clearance is a benefit, because patients with heart failure have changing renal function.” In addition, the half-life of torsemide is 3-4 hours and the duration of action is 12 hours, “which are both longer than those for furosemide or bumetanide,” he added.

He also pointed out that torsemide has been shown to block the aldosterone receptor in vitro and in rat models – an effect that has not been observed with other loop diuretics. A randomized trial of patients with chronic heart failure found that levels of renin and aldosterone increased more with torsemide, compared with furosemide, supporting the hypothesis of aldosterone receptor blockade.

A third main reason to use torsemide as your go-to for heart failure has to do with its purported antifibrotic effects, “so that it could be more than a diuretic,” Dr. Breu said. “In heart failure, myocardial fibrosis occurs from increased collagen synthesis and turnover. Aldosterone has been shown to play a role in this myocardial fibrosis. Spironolactone has been shown to mitigate this to some extent. If torsemide acts a little like spironolactone, maybe that could explain some of the long-term effects that we see in these studies.”

A study supporting this notion found that torsemide but not furosemide reduced levels of serum carboxyl-terminal peptide of procollagen type I, which is associated with exaggerated myocardial deposition of collagen type I fibers in cardiac diseases.

Going forward, a study known as TRANSFORM-HF, which is currently recruiting about 6,000 patients, should bring more clarity to the topic. The primary objective is to compare the treatment strategy of torsemide versus furosemide on clinical outcomes over 12 months in patients with heart failure who are hospitalized. The estimated completion is mid-2022.

Dr. Breu and Dr. Feldman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Severely ill COVID-19 patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) had similar survival to hospital discharge and long-term outcomes as survivors treated with mechanical ventilation alone, results of a new, multicenter study suggest.

Importantly, the study also showed that survivors, regardless of the treatment they received, experienced significant deficits following their stay in the ICU and were suffering problems with physical, psychological, and cognitive functioning for months afterward.

At 3 months after discharge, 50% of the survivors reported cognitive dysfunction, ICU-acquired weakness and depression, anxiety, or PTSD; over 25% still required supplemental oxygen; and only one in six survivors were back at work.

The findings were presented April 30 at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery annual meeting.

The study represents the efforts of a multidisciplinary team that included cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care doctors, medical staff at long-term care facilities, and physical therapists in addition to other specialists. The research followed patients at five academic centers: the University of Colorado, the University of Virginia, the University of Kentucky, Johns Hopkins University, and Vanderbilt University.

“We were a multidisciplinary team, a whole variety of people to really track the long-term outcomes for patients who have been critically ill from COVID-19 and survived to hospital discharge,” presenting author Lauren J. Taylor, MD, fellow at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

It’s unclear currently what happens to these patients once they leave the hospital, she noted. “This is information we have not had, but when we followed these patients in these multidisciplinary clinics, there was a high level of either physical, emotional, or cognitive dysfunction, even for patients who were well enough to be living at home at the time of follow-up.

“So, if you have somebody living at home and they come into the clinic, you assume they are functioning pretty well, but when you actually provide them with cognitive and psychological testing and check their physical capabilities, you find a high degree of deficits throughout the entire cohort of this study,” she said.

The study was prompted by discussion with patients’ family members about the rationale, risks, and benefits of ECMO cannulation in patients with COVID-19 failing mechanical ventilation, senior author Jessica V. Rove, MD, also from the University of Colorado, said in an interview.

“We wanted to find out what their hospital course would be like and what cognitive, physical, or emotional deficits might they experience if they survive,” Dr. Rove said.

The investigators compared 262 mechanically ventilated patients with 46 patients cannulated for ECMO who were hospitalized between March and May 2020.

ECMO patients were younger and traveled farther but there were no significant differences in gender, race, or body mass index.

ECMO patients were mechanically ventilated for longer durations (median, 26 days vs. 13 days) and were more likely to receive inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, neuromuscular blockade, investigational COVID-19 therapies, blood transfusions, and inotropes.

They also experienced greater bleeding and clotting events (P < .01).

Despite a more complex critical illness course, patients treated with ECMO had similar survival at discharge and long-term outcomes, compared with those who were treated with mechanical ventilation alone.

The survival rate for ECMO patients was 69.9%, and for mechanically ventilated patients it was 69.6%.

Of the 215 survivors, 66.5% had documented follow-up within 3 months of discharge from hospital. Most survivors (93.9%) were living at home; a small percentage (16.1%) had returned to work or their usual activities, and 26.2% were still using supplemental oxygen.

These rates did not differ significantly based on ECMO status and rates of physical, psychological, and cognitive deficits did not differ significantly.

“The cognitive, emotional, and physical deficits seen in survivors of critical illness from COVID-19 can only be treated if diagnosed,” Dr. Rove said.

“Detrimental effects can potentially be ameliorated with use of best practices in the ICU, maximizing acute rehabilitation services where indicated, and follow-up with providers in multidisciplinary post-ICU clinics who can assess and treat these patients to optimize survivorship,” she said.

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

Severely ill COVID-19 patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) had similar survival to hospital discharge and long-term outcomes as survivors treated with mechanical ventilation alone, results of a new, multicenter study suggest.

Importantly, the study also showed that survivors, regardless of the treatment they received, experienced significant deficits following their stay in the ICU and were suffering problems with physical, psychological, and cognitive functioning for months afterward.

At 3 months after discharge, 50% of the survivors reported cognitive dysfunction, ICU-acquired weakness and depression, anxiety, or PTSD; over 25% still required supplemental oxygen; and only one in six survivors were back at work.

The findings were presented April 30 at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery annual meeting.

The study represents the efforts of a multidisciplinary team that included cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care doctors, medical staff at long-term care facilities, and physical therapists in addition to other specialists. The research followed patients at five academic centers: the University of Colorado, the University of Virginia, the University of Kentucky, Johns Hopkins University, and Vanderbilt University.

“We were a multidisciplinary team, a whole variety of people to really track the long-term outcomes for patients who have been critically ill from COVID-19 and survived to hospital discharge,” presenting author Lauren J. Taylor, MD, fellow at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

It’s unclear currently what happens to these patients once they leave the hospital, she noted. “This is information we have not had, but when we followed these patients in these multidisciplinary clinics, there was a high level of either physical, emotional, or cognitive dysfunction, even for patients who were well enough to be living at home at the time of follow-up.

“So, if you have somebody living at home and they come into the clinic, you assume they are functioning pretty well, but when you actually provide them with cognitive and psychological testing and check their physical capabilities, you find a high degree of deficits throughout the entire cohort of this study,” she said.

The study was prompted by discussion with patients’ family members about the rationale, risks, and benefits of ECMO cannulation in patients with COVID-19 failing mechanical ventilation, senior author Jessica V. Rove, MD, also from the University of Colorado, said in an interview.

“We wanted to find out what their hospital course would be like and what cognitive, physical, or emotional deficits might they experience if they survive,” Dr. Rove said.

The investigators compared 262 mechanically ventilated patients with 46 patients cannulated for ECMO who were hospitalized between March and May 2020.

ECMO patients were younger and traveled farther but there were no significant differences in gender, race, or body mass index.

ECMO patients were mechanically ventilated for longer durations (median, 26 days vs. 13 days) and were more likely to receive inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, neuromuscular blockade, investigational COVID-19 therapies, blood transfusions, and inotropes.

They also experienced greater bleeding and clotting events (P < .01).

Despite a more complex critical illness course, patients treated with ECMO had similar survival at discharge and long-term outcomes, compared with those who were treated with mechanical ventilation alone.

The survival rate for ECMO patients was 69.9%, and for mechanically ventilated patients it was 69.6%.

Of the 215 survivors, 66.5% had documented follow-up within 3 months of discharge from hospital. Most survivors (93.9%) were living at home; a small percentage (16.1%) had returned to work or their usual activities, and 26.2% were still using supplemental oxygen.

These rates did not differ significantly based on ECMO status and rates of physical, psychological, and cognitive deficits did not differ significantly.

“The cognitive, emotional, and physical deficits seen in survivors of critical illness from COVID-19 can only be treated if diagnosed,” Dr. Rove said.

“Detrimental effects can potentially be ameliorated with use of best practices in the ICU, maximizing acute rehabilitation services where indicated, and follow-up with providers in multidisciplinary post-ICU clinics who can assess and treat these patients to optimize survivorship,” she said.

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

Severely ill COVID-19 patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) had similar survival to hospital discharge and long-term outcomes as survivors treated with mechanical ventilation alone, results of a new, multicenter study suggest.

Importantly, the study also showed that survivors, regardless of the treatment they received, experienced significant deficits following their stay in the ICU and were suffering problems with physical, psychological, and cognitive functioning for months afterward.

At 3 months after discharge, 50% of the survivors reported cognitive dysfunction, ICU-acquired weakness and depression, anxiety, or PTSD; over 25% still required supplemental oxygen; and only one in six survivors were back at work.

The findings were presented April 30 at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery annual meeting.

The study represents the efforts of a multidisciplinary team that included cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care doctors, medical staff at long-term care facilities, and physical therapists in addition to other specialists. The research followed patients at five academic centers: the University of Colorado, the University of Virginia, the University of Kentucky, Johns Hopkins University, and Vanderbilt University.

“We were a multidisciplinary team, a whole variety of people to really track the long-term outcomes for patients who have been critically ill from COVID-19 and survived to hospital discharge,” presenting author Lauren J. Taylor, MD, fellow at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

It’s unclear currently what happens to these patients once they leave the hospital, she noted. “This is information we have not had, but when we followed these patients in these multidisciplinary clinics, there was a high level of either physical, emotional, or cognitive dysfunction, even for patients who were well enough to be living at home at the time of follow-up.

“So, if you have somebody living at home and they come into the clinic, you assume they are functioning pretty well, but when you actually provide them with cognitive and psychological testing and check their physical capabilities, you find a high degree of deficits throughout the entire cohort of this study,” she said.

The study was prompted by discussion with patients’ family members about the rationale, risks, and benefits of ECMO cannulation in patients with COVID-19 failing mechanical ventilation, senior author Jessica V. Rove, MD, also from the University of Colorado, said in an interview.

“We wanted to find out what their hospital course would be like and what cognitive, physical, or emotional deficits might they experience if they survive,” Dr. Rove said.

The investigators compared 262 mechanically ventilated patients with 46 patients cannulated for ECMO who were hospitalized between March and May 2020.

ECMO patients were younger and traveled farther but there were no significant differences in gender, race, or body mass index.

ECMO patients were mechanically ventilated for longer durations (median, 26 days vs. 13 days) and were more likely to receive inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, neuromuscular blockade, investigational COVID-19 therapies, blood transfusions, and inotropes.

They also experienced greater bleeding and clotting events (P < .01).

Despite a more complex critical illness course, patients treated with ECMO had similar survival at discharge and long-term outcomes, compared with those who were treated with mechanical ventilation alone.

The survival rate for ECMO patients was 69.9%, and for mechanically ventilated patients it was 69.6%.

Of the 215 survivors, 66.5% had documented follow-up within 3 months of discharge from hospital. Most survivors (93.9%) were living at home; a small percentage (16.1%) had returned to work or their usual activities, and 26.2% were still using supplemental oxygen.

These rates did not differ significantly based on ECMO status and rates of physical, psychological, and cognitive deficits did not differ significantly.

“The cognitive, emotional, and physical deficits seen in survivors of critical illness from COVID-19 can only be treated if diagnosed,” Dr. Rove said.

“Detrimental effects can potentially be ameliorated with use of best practices in the ICU, maximizing acute rehabilitation services where indicated, and follow-up with providers in multidisciplinary post-ICU clinics who can assess and treat these patients to optimize survivorship,” she said.

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

A year into the COVID-19 pandemic, it is fair to say that children do transmit the virus, but at lower rates, Philip Zachariah, MD, of Columbia University, New York, said in a presentation at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Supportive care remains a key element in treating children with COVID-19, Dr. Zachariah emphasized. His presentation on pediatric hot topics in COVID-19 addressed several issues including the importance of risk stratification, current therapeutic options, and the latest on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) associated with COVID-19.
 

Recognize the high-risk patient

When it comes to identifying risk factors for COVID-19 in children, remember that the trajectory of disease is diverse, Dr. Zachariah said.

The presentations of COVID-19 in children include those who are older and/or have comorbidities and present with mainly respiratory issues, those who are younger with symptoms that might overlap with Kawasaki disease, and those who are older with symptoms of cardiac involvement and MIS-C.

The overall hospitalization rate for children with COVID-19 is approximately 5%, but once hospitalized, the rates of ICU admission are approximately 30% and reflect rates seen in adult patients, Dr. Zachariah noted.

In general, data show that underlying conditions are more common in acute COVID-19 cases, and laboratory anomalies are more pronounced in patients with MIS-C, he said.

Based on the most recent studies, independent risk factors for acute COVID-19 in children include extremes of age (infancy or adolescence), minority populations, obesity, medical complexity, immune compromise, and asthma.

However, data are limited on specific issues of medical complexity, and risk depends on the level and type of immunosuppression, as morbidity and mortality have been relatively low in transplant patients, Dr. Zachariah noted.

Another dilemma lies in recognizing MIS-C in a febrile child, Dr. Zachariah noted. A complex question, “but persistent high fever in the setting of known recent COVID-19 infections (within 3 to 6 weeks) seems key,” he said. “If given the chance to do one blood test, I would suggest doing a CRP [C-reactive protein] as a screening test,” Dr. Zachariah said. The best laboratory prognosticators appear to be lymphopenia and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) he added.

A final risk factor is innate immune defects that might predispose previously healthy children to severe acute COVID-19, such as differences in cytokine expression, said Dr. Zachariah.

“For example, autoantibodies against type 1 interferon production may dispose to severe disease,” he noted. Patients with MIS-C have shown patterns of T-cell activation similar to those seen in severely ill adults, and activation of vascular patrolling CX3CR1+ CD8 + T cells appears as a distinguishing feature in MIS-C, he explained.
 

Prevention plans with monoclonal antibodies

Another hot topic in pediatric COVID-19 is the prevention of severe disease and hospitalization using the currently available therapies, Dr. Zachariah said. However, when interpreting efficacy data, clinicians are almost always extrapolating relative risk to absolute risk in children, he noted.

“Convalescent plasma was promising, but the data on efficacy are increasingly negative,” he noted. Instead, a more exciting development is the use of monoclonal antibodies, which, ideally, “will deliver protection to ‘high risk’ populations in the very early stages of infection,” he said.

Bamlanivimab/etesevimab is “a neutralizing IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds to overlapping domains of the receptor binding domain of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Zachariah. In a study of 1,035 patients with a median age of 56 years, a single intravenous infusion of bamlanivimab plus etesevimab within 3 days of a positive COVID-19 test showed a 70% reduction in risk of COVID-19 hospitalizations or death.

For children, the current Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization for monoclonal antibody use covers patients aged 12-17 years, who weigh 40 kg or more, and meet any of several other criteria: a body mass index at the 85th percentile or higher, sickle cell disease, congenital or acquired heart disease, neurodevelopmental disorders such as cerebral palsy, chronic respiratory disease requiring daily control, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease, Dr. Zachariah said.

In addition, pediatric patients aged 12-17 years could be considered for monoclonal antibody treatment in consultation with a pediatric infectious disease specialist if they are symptomatic with COVID-19, weigh at least 40 kg, are not hospitalized for COVID-19 symptoms, and have no new oxygen requirements, he said.
 

More on MIS-C

Currently, IVIG is the most common treatment for MIS-C in the United States, Dr. Zachariah said. In addition, a study published in JAMA Feb. 1, 2021, showed that IVIG in combination with methylprednisolone was associated with a lower risk of treatment failure compared to IVIG alone in 111 children with a median age of 8.6 years.

Although comparative effectiveness data are lacking, in long-term follow-up, all the patients seemed to be doing fine, Dr. Zachariah said. Potential second-line therapies for atypical MIS-C include anakinra and tocilizumab, he added.

Dr. Zachariah concluded by emphasizing the potential of COVID-19 vaccines, with studies underway for both Moderna and Pfizer vaccines in children younger than 16 years.

Dr. Zachariah had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A year into the COVID-19 pandemic, it is fair to say that children do transmit the virus, but at lower rates, Philip Zachariah, MD, of Columbia University, New York, said in a presentation at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Supportive care remains a key element in treating children with COVID-19, Dr. Zachariah emphasized. His presentation on pediatric hot topics in COVID-19 addressed several issues including the importance of risk stratification, current therapeutic options, and the latest on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) associated with COVID-19.
 

Recognize the high-risk patient

When it comes to identifying risk factors for COVID-19 in children, remember that the trajectory of disease is diverse, Dr. Zachariah said.

The presentations of COVID-19 in children include those who are older and/or have comorbidities and present with mainly respiratory issues, those who are younger with symptoms that might overlap with Kawasaki disease, and those who are older with symptoms of cardiac involvement and MIS-C.

The overall hospitalization rate for children with COVID-19 is approximately 5%, but once hospitalized, the rates of ICU admission are approximately 30% and reflect rates seen in adult patients, Dr. Zachariah noted.

In general, data show that underlying conditions are more common in acute COVID-19 cases, and laboratory anomalies are more pronounced in patients with MIS-C, he said.

Based on the most recent studies, independent risk factors for acute COVID-19 in children include extremes of age (infancy or adolescence), minority populations, obesity, medical complexity, immune compromise, and asthma.

However, data are limited on specific issues of medical complexity, and risk depends on the level and type of immunosuppression, as morbidity and mortality have been relatively low in transplant patients, Dr. Zachariah noted.

Another dilemma lies in recognizing MIS-C in a febrile child, Dr. Zachariah noted. A complex question, “but persistent high fever in the setting of known recent COVID-19 infections (within 3 to 6 weeks) seems key,” he said. “If given the chance to do one blood test, I would suggest doing a CRP [C-reactive protein] as a screening test,” Dr. Zachariah said. The best laboratory prognosticators appear to be lymphopenia and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) he added.

A final risk factor is innate immune defects that might predispose previously healthy children to severe acute COVID-19, such as differences in cytokine expression, said Dr. Zachariah.

“For example, autoantibodies against type 1 interferon production may dispose to severe disease,” he noted. Patients with MIS-C have shown patterns of T-cell activation similar to those seen in severely ill adults, and activation of vascular patrolling CX3CR1+ CD8 + T cells appears as a distinguishing feature in MIS-C, he explained.
 

Prevention plans with monoclonal antibodies

Another hot topic in pediatric COVID-19 is the prevention of severe disease and hospitalization using the currently available therapies, Dr. Zachariah said. However, when interpreting efficacy data, clinicians are almost always extrapolating relative risk to absolute risk in children, he noted.

“Convalescent plasma was promising, but the data on efficacy are increasingly negative,” he noted. Instead, a more exciting development is the use of monoclonal antibodies, which, ideally, “will deliver protection to ‘high risk’ populations in the very early stages of infection,” he said.

Bamlanivimab/etesevimab is “a neutralizing IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds to overlapping domains of the receptor binding domain of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Zachariah. In a study of 1,035 patients with a median age of 56 years, a single intravenous infusion of bamlanivimab plus etesevimab within 3 days of a positive COVID-19 test showed a 70% reduction in risk of COVID-19 hospitalizations or death.

For children, the current Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization for monoclonal antibody use covers patients aged 12-17 years, who weigh 40 kg or more, and meet any of several other criteria: a body mass index at the 85th percentile or higher, sickle cell disease, congenital or acquired heart disease, neurodevelopmental disorders such as cerebral palsy, chronic respiratory disease requiring daily control, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease, Dr. Zachariah said.

In addition, pediatric patients aged 12-17 years could be considered for monoclonal antibody treatment in consultation with a pediatric infectious disease specialist if they are symptomatic with COVID-19, weigh at least 40 kg, are not hospitalized for COVID-19 symptoms, and have no new oxygen requirements, he said.
 

More on MIS-C

Currently, IVIG is the most common treatment for MIS-C in the United States, Dr. Zachariah said. In addition, a study published in JAMA Feb. 1, 2021, showed that IVIG in combination with methylprednisolone was associated with a lower risk of treatment failure compared to IVIG alone in 111 children with a median age of 8.6 years.

Although comparative effectiveness data are lacking, in long-term follow-up, all the patients seemed to be doing fine, Dr. Zachariah said. Potential second-line therapies for atypical MIS-C include anakinra and tocilizumab, he added.

Dr. Zachariah concluded by emphasizing the potential of COVID-19 vaccines, with studies underway for both Moderna and Pfizer vaccines in children younger than 16 years.

Dr. Zachariah had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A year into the COVID-19 pandemic, it is fair to say that children do transmit the virus, but at lower rates, Philip Zachariah, MD, of Columbia University, New York, said in a presentation at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Supportive care remains a key element in treating children with COVID-19, Dr. Zachariah emphasized. His presentation on pediatric hot topics in COVID-19 addressed several issues including the importance of risk stratification, current therapeutic options, and the latest on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) associated with COVID-19.
 

Recognize the high-risk patient

When it comes to identifying risk factors for COVID-19 in children, remember that the trajectory of disease is diverse, Dr. Zachariah said.

The presentations of COVID-19 in children include those who are older and/or have comorbidities and present with mainly respiratory issues, those who are younger with symptoms that might overlap with Kawasaki disease, and those who are older with symptoms of cardiac involvement and MIS-C.

The overall hospitalization rate for children with COVID-19 is approximately 5%, but once hospitalized, the rates of ICU admission are approximately 30% and reflect rates seen in adult patients, Dr. Zachariah noted.

In general, data show that underlying conditions are more common in acute COVID-19 cases, and laboratory anomalies are more pronounced in patients with MIS-C, he said.

Based on the most recent studies, independent risk factors for acute COVID-19 in children include extremes of age (infancy or adolescence), minority populations, obesity, medical complexity, immune compromise, and asthma.

However, data are limited on specific issues of medical complexity, and risk depends on the level and type of immunosuppression, as morbidity and mortality have been relatively low in transplant patients, Dr. Zachariah noted.

Another dilemma lies in recognizing MIS-C in a febrile child, Dr. Zachariah noted. A complex question, “but persistent high fever in the setting of known recent COVID-19 infections (within 3 to 6 weeks) seems key,” he said. “If given the chance to do one blood test, I would suggest doing a CRP [C-reactive protein] as a screening test,” Dr. Zachariah said. The best laboratory prognosticators appear to be lymphopenia and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) he added.

A final risk factor is innate immune defects that might predispose previously healthy children to severe acute COVID-19, such as differences in cytokine expression, said Dr. Zachariah.

“For example, autoantibodies against type 1 interferon production may dispose to severe disease,” he noted. Patients with MIS-C have shown patterns of T-cell activation similar to those seen in severely ill adults, and activation of vascular patrolling CX3CR1+ CD8 + T cells appears as a distinguishing feature in MIS-C, he explained.
 

Prevention plans with monoclonal antibodies

Another hot topic in pediatric COVID-19 is the prevention of severe disease and hospitalization using the currently available therapies, Dr. Zachariah said. However, when interpreting efficacy data, clinicians are almost always extrapolating relative risk to absolute risk in children, he noted.

“Convalescent plasma was promising, but the data on efficacy are increasingly negative,” he noted. Instead, a more exciting development is the use of monoclonal antibodies, which, ideally, “will deliver protection to ‘high risk’ populations in the very early stages of infection,” he said.

Bamlanivimab/etesevimab is “a neutralizing IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds to overlapping domains of the receptor binding domain of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Zachariah. In a study of 1,035 patients with a median age of 56 years, a single intravenous infusion of bamlanivimab plus etesevimab within 3 days of a positive COVID-19 test showed a 70% reduction in risk of COVID-19 hospitalizations or death.

For children, the current Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization for monoclonal antibody use covers patients aged 12-17 years, who weigh 40 kg or more, and meet any of several other criteria: a body mass index at the 85th percentile or higher, sickle cell disease, congenital or acquired heart disease, neurodevelopmental disorders such as cerebral palsy, chronic respiratory disease requiring daily control, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease, Dr. Zachariah said.

In addition, pediatric patients aged 12-17 years could be considered for monoclonal antibody treatment in consultation with a pediatric infectious disease specialist if they are symptomatic with COVID-19, weigh at least 40 kg, are not hospitalized for COVID-19 symptoms, and have no new oxygen requirements, he said.
 

More on MIS-C

Currently, IVIG is the most common treatment for MIS-C in the United States, Dr. Zachariah said. In addition, a study published in JAMA Feb. 1, 2021, showed that IVIG in combination with methylprednisolone was associated with a lower risk of treatment failure compared to IVIG alone in 111 children with a median age of 8.6 years.

Although comparative effectiveness data are lacking, in long-term follow-up, all the patients seemed to be doing fine, Dr. Zachariah said. Potential second-line therapies for atypical MIS-C include anakinra and tocilizumab, he added.

Dr. Zachariah concluded by emphasizing the potential of COVID-19 vaccines, with studies underway for both Moderna and Pfizer vaccines in children younger than 16 years.

Dr. Zachariah had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.