User login
BMI, age, and sex affect COVID-19 vaccine antibody response
The capacity to mount humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccinations may be reduced among people who are heavier, older, and male, new findings suggest.
The data pertain specifically to the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer. The study was conducted by Italian researchers and was published Feb. 26 as a preprint.
The study involved 248 health care workers who each received two doses of the vaccine. Of the participants, 99.5% developed a humoral immune response after the second dose. Those responses varied by body mass index (BMI), age, and sex.
“The findings imply that female, lean, and young people have an increased capacity to mount humoral immune responses, compared to male, overweight, and older populations,” Raul Pellini, MD, professor at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, and colleagues said.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze Covid-19 vaccine response in correlation to BMI,” they noted.
“Although further studies are needed, this data may have important implications to the development of vaccination strategies for COVID-19, particularly in obese people,” they wrote. If the data are confirmed by larger studies, “giving obese people an extra dose of the vaccine or a higher dose could be options to be evaluated in this population.”
Results contrast with Pfizer trials of vaccine
The BMI finding seemingly contrasts with final data from the phase 3 clinical trial of the vaccine, which were reported in a supplement to an article published Dec. 31, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that study, vaccine efficacy did not differ by obesity status.
Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, professor of immunology at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and an investigator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that, although the current Italian study showed somewhat lower levels of antibodies in people with obesity, compared with people who did not have obesity, the phase 3 trial found no difference in symptomatic infection rates.
“These results indicate that even with a slightly lower level of antibody induced in obese people, that level was sufficient to protect against symptomatic infection,” Dr. Iwasaki said in an interview.
Indeed, Dr. Pellini and colleagues pointed out that responses to vaccines against influenza, hepatitis B, and rabies are also reduced in those with obesity, compared with lean individuals.
However, they said, it was especially important to study the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in people with obesity, because obesity is a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.
“The constant state of low-grade inflammation, present in overweight people, can weaken some immune responses, including those launched by T cells, which can directly kill infected cells,” the authors noted.
Findings reported in British newspapers
The findings of the Italian study were widely covered in the lay press in the United Kingdom, with headlines such as “Pfizer Vaccine May Be Less Effective in People With Obesity, Says Study” and “Pfizer Vaccine: Overweight People Might Need Bigger Dose, Italian Study Says.” In tabloid newspapers, some headlines were slightly more stigmatizing.
The reports do stress that the Italian research was published as a preprint and has not been peer reviewed, or “is yet to be scrutinized by fellow scientists.”
Most make the point that there were only 26 people with obesity among the 248 persons in the study.
“We always knew that BMI was an enormous predictor of poor immune response to vaccines, so this paper is definitely interesting, although it is based on a rather small preliminary dataset,” Danny Altmann, PhD, a professor of immunology at Imperial College London, told the Guardian.
“It confirms that having a vaccinated population isn’t synonymous with having an immune population, especially in a country with high obesity, and emphasizes the vital need for long-term immune monitoring programs,” he added.
Antibody responses differ by BMI, age, and sex
In the Italian study, the participants – 158 women and 90 men – were assigned to receive a priming BNT162b2 vaccine dose with a booster at day 21. Blood and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline and 7 days after the second vaccine dose.
After the second dose, 99.5% of participants developed a humoral immune response; one person did not respond. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
Titers of SARS-CoV-2–binding antibodies were greater in younger than in older participants. There were statistically significant differences between those aged 37 years and younger (453.5 AU/mL) and those aged 47-56 years (239.8 AU/mL; P = .005), those aged 37 years and younger versus those older than 56 years (453.5 vs 182.4 AU/mL; P < .0001), and those aged 37-47 years versus those older than 56 years (330.9 vs. 182.4 AU/mL; P = .01).
Antibody response was significantly greater for women than for men (338.5 vs. 212.6 AU/mL; P = .001).
Humoral responses were greater in persons of normal-weight BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2; 325.8 AU/mL) and those of underweight BMI (<18.5 kg/m2; 455.4 AU/mL), compared with persons with preobesity, defined as BMI of 25-29.9 (222.4 AU/mL), and those with obesity (BMI ≥30; 167.0 AU/mL; P < .0001). This association remained after adjustment for age (P = .003).
“Our data stresses the importance of close vaccination monitoring of obese people, considering the growing list of countries with obesity problems,” the researchers noted.
Hypertension was also associated with lower antibody titers (P = .006), but that lost statistical significance after matching for age (P = .22).
“We strongly believe that our results are extremely encouraging and useful for the scientific community,” Dr. Pellini and colleagues concluded.
The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki is a cofounder of RIGImmune and is a member of its scientific advisory board.
This article was updated on 3/8/21.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The capacity to mount humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccinations may be reduced among people who are heavier, older, and male, new findings suggest.
The data pertain specifically to the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer. The study was conducted by Italian researchers and was published Feb. 26 as a preprint.
The study involved 248 health care workers who each received two doses of the vaccine. Of the participants, 99.5% developed a humoral immune response after the second dose. Those responses varied by body mass index (BMI), age, and sex.
“The findings imply that female, lean, and young people have an increased capacity to mount humoral immune responses, compared to male, overweight, and older populations,” Raul Pellini, MD, professor at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, and colleagues said.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze Covid-19 vaccine response in correlation to BMI,” they noted.
“Although further studies are needed, this data may have important implications to the development of vaccination strategies for COVID-19, particularly in obese people,” they wrote. If the data are confirmed by larger studies, “giving obese people an extra dose of the vaccine or a higher dose could be options to be evaluated in this population.”
Results contrast with Pfizer trials of vaccine
The BMI finding seemingly contrasts with final data from the phase 3 clinical trial of the vaccine, which were reported in a supplement to an article published Dec. 31, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that study, vaccine efficacy did not differ by obesity status.
Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, professor of immunology at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and an investigator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that, although the current Italian study showed somewhat lower levels of antibodies in people with obesity, compared with people who did not have obesity, the phase 3 trial found no difference in symptomatic infection rates.
“These results indicate that even with a slightly lower level of antibody induced in obese people, that level was sufficient to protect against symptomatic infection,” Dr. Iwasaki said in an interview.
Indeed, Dr. Pellini and colleagues pointed out that responses to vaccines against influenza, hepatitis B, and rabies are also reduced in those with obesity, compared with lean individuals.
However, they said, it was especially important to study the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in people with obesity, because obesity is a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.
“The constant state of low-grade inflammation, present in overweight people, can weaken some immune responses, including those launched by T cells, which can directly kill infected cells,” the authors noted.
Findings reported in British newspapers
The findings of the Italian study were widely covered in the lay press in the United Kingdom, with headlines such as “Pfizer Vaccine May Be Less Effective in People With Obesity, Says Study” and “Pfizer Vaccine: Overweight People Might Need Bigger Dose, Italian Study Says.” In tabloid newspapers, some headlines were slightly more stigmatizing.
The reports do stress that the Italian research was published as a preprint and has not been peer reviewed, or “is yet to be scrutinized by fellow scientists.”
Most make the point that there were only 26 people with obesity among the 248 persons in the study.
“We always knew that BMI was an enormous predictor of poor immune response to vaccines, so this paper is definitely interesting, although it is based on a rather small preliminary dataset,” Danny Altmann, PhD, a professor of immunology at Imperial College London, told the Guardian.
“It confirms that having a vaccinated population isn’t synonymous with having an immune population, especially in a country with high obesity, and emphasizes the vital need for long-term immune monitoring programs,” he added.
Antibody responses differ by BMI, age, and sex
In the Italian study, the participants – 158 women and 90 men – were assigned to receive a priming BNT162b2 vaccine dose with a booster at day 21. Blood and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline and 7 days after the second vaccine dose.
After the second dose, 99.5% of participants developed a humoral immune response; one person did not respond. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
Titers of SARS-CoV-2–binding antibodies were greater in younger than in older participants. There were statistically significant differences between those aged 37 years and younger (453.5 AU/mL) and those aged 47-56 years (239.8 AU/mL; P = .005), those aged 37 years and younger versus those older than 56 years (453.5 vs 182.4 AU/mL; P < .0001), and those aged 37-47 years versus those older than 56 years (330.9 vs. 182.4 AU/mL; P = .01).
Antibody response was significantly greater for women than for men (338.5 vs. 212.6 AU/mL; P = .001).
Humoral responses were greater in persons of normal-weight BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2; 325.8 AU/mL) and those of underweight BMI (<18.5 kg/m2; 455.4 AU/mL), compared with persons with preobesity, defined as BMI of 25-29.9 (222.4 AU/mL), and those with obesity (BMI ≥30; 167.0 AU/mL; P < .0001). This association remained after adjustment for age (P = .003).
“Our data stresses the importance of close vaccination monitoring of obese people, considering the growing list of countries with obesity problems,” the researchers noted.
Hypertension was also associated with lower antibody titers (P = .006), but that lost statistical significance after matching for age (P = .22).
“We strongly believe that our results are extremely encouraging and useful for the scientific community,” Dr. Pellini and colleagues concluded.
The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki is a cofounder of RIGImmune and is a member of its scientific advisory board.
This article was updated on 3/8/21.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The capacity to mount humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccinations may be reduced among people who are heavier, older, and male, new findings suggest.
The data pertain specifically to the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer. The study was conducted by Italian researchers and was published Feb. 26 as a preprint.
The study involved 248 health care workers who each received two doses of the vaccine. Of the participants, 99.5% developed a humoral immune response after the second dose. Those responses varied by body mass index (BMI), age, and sex.
“The findings imply that female, lean, and young people have an increased capacity to mount humoral immune responses, compared to male, overweight, and older populations,” Raul Pellini, MD, professor at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, and colleagues said.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze Covid-19 vaccine response in correlation to BMI,” they noted.
“Although further studies are needed, this data may have important implications to the development of vaccination strategies for COVID-19, particularly in obese people,” they wrote. If the data are confirmed by larger studies, “giving obese people an extra dose of the vaccine or a higher dose could be options to be evaluated in this population.”
Results contrast with Pfizer trials of vaccine
The BMI finding seemingly contrasts with final data from the phase 3 clinical trial of the vaccine, which were reported in a supplement to an article published Dec. 31, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that study, vaccine efficacy did not differ by obesity status.
Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, professor of immunology at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and an investigator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that, although the current Italian study showed somewhat lower levels of antibodies in people with obesity, compared with people who did not have obesity, the phase 3 trial found no difference in symptomatic infection rates.
“These results indicate that even with a slightly lower level of antibody induced in obese people, that level was sufficient to protect against symptomatic infection,” Dr. Iwasaki said in an interview.
Indeed, Dr. Pellini and colleagues pointed out that responses to vaccines against influenza, hepatitis B, and rabies are also reduced in those with obesity, compared with lean individuals.
However, they said, it was especially important to study the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in people with obesity, because obesity is a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.
“The constant state of low-grade inflammation, present in overweight people, can weaken some immune responses, including those launched by T cells, which can directly kill infected cells,” the authors noted.
Findings reported in British newspapers
The findings of the Italian study were widely covered in the lay press in the United Kingdom, with headlines such as “Pfizer Vaccine May Be Less Effective in People With Obesity, Says Study” and “Pfizer Vaccine: Overweight People Might Need Bigger Dose, Italian Study Says.” In tabloid newspapers, some headlines were slightly more stigmatizing.
The reports do stress that the Italian research was published as a preprint and has not been peer reviewed, or “is yet to be scrutinized by fellow scientists.”
Most make the point that there were only 26 people with obesity among the 248 persons in the study.
“We always knew that BMI was an enormous predictor of poor immune response to vaccines, so this paper is definitely interesting, although it is based on a rather small preliminary dataset,” Danny Altmann, PhD, a professor of immunology at Imperial College London, told the Guardian.
“It confirms that having a vaccinated population isn’t synonymous with having an immune population, especially in a country with high obesity, and emphasizes the vital need for long-term immune monitoring programs,” he added.
Antibody responses differ by BMI, age, and sex
In the Italian study, the participants – 158 women and 90 men – were assigned to receive a priming BNT162b2 vaccine dose with a booster at day 21. Blood and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline and 7 days after the second vaccine dose.
After the second dose, 99.5% of participants developed a humoral immune response; one person did not respond. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
Titers of SARS-CoV-2–binding antibodies were greater in younger than in older participants. There were statistically significant differences between those aged 37 years and younger (453.5 AU/mL) and those aged 47-56 years (239.8 AU/mL; P = .005), those aged 37 years and younger versus those older than 56 years (453.5 vs 182.4 AU/mL; P < .0001), and those aged 37-47 years versus those older than 56 years (330.9 vs. 182.4 AU/mL; P = .01).
Antibody response was significantly greater for women than for men (338.5 vs. 212.6 AU/mL; P = .001).
Humoral responses were greater in persons of normal-weight BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2; 325.8 AU/mL) and those of underweight BMI (<18.5 kg/m2; 455.4 AU/mL), compared with persons with preobesity, defined as BMI of 25-29.9 (222.4 AU/mL), and those with obesity (BMI ≥30; 167.0 AU/mL; P < .0001). This association remained after adjustment for age (P = .003).
“Our data stresses the importance of close vaccination monitoring of obese people, considering the growing list of countries with obesity problems,” the researchers noted.
Hypertension was also associated with lower antibody titers (P = .006), but that lost statistical significance after matching for age (P = .22).
“We strongly believe that our results are extremely encouraging and useful for the scientific community,” Dr. Pellini and colleagues concluded.
The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki is a cofounder of RIGImmune and is a member of its scientific advisory board.
This article was updated on 3/8/21.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Inpatient telemedicine can help address hospitalist pain points
COVID-19 has increased confidence in the technology
Since the advent of COVID-19, health care has seen an unprecedented rise in virtual health. Telemedicine has come to the forefront of our conversations, and there are many speculations around its future state. One such discussion is around the sustainability and expansion of inpatient telemedicine programs post COVID, and if – and how – it is going to be helpful for health care.
Consider the following scenarios:
Scenario 1
A patient presents to an emergency department of a small community hospital. He needs to be seen by a specialist, but (s)he is not available, so patient gets transferred out to the ED of a different hospital several miles away from his hometown.
He is evaluated in the second ED by the specialist, has repeat testing done – some of those tests were already completed at the first hospital. After evaluating him, the specialist recommends that he does not need to be admitted to the hospital and can be safely followed up as an outpatient. The patient does not require any further intervention and is discharged from the ED.
Scenario 2
Dr. N is a hospitalist in a rural hospital that does not have intensivist support at night. She works 7 on/7 off and is on call 24/7 during her “on” week. Dr. N cannot be physically present in the hospital 24/7. She receives messages from the hospital around the clock and feels that this call schedule is no longer sustainable. She doesn’t feel comfortable admitting patients in the ICU who come to the hospital at night without physically seeing them and without ICU backup. Therefore, some of the patients who are sick enough to be admitted in ICU for closer monitoring but can be potentially handled in this rural hospital get transferred out to a different hospital.
Dr. N has been asking the hospital to provide her intensivist back up at night and to give her some flexibility in the call schedule. However, from hospital’s perspective, the volume isn’t high enough to hire a dedicated nocturnist, and because the hospital is in the small rural area, it is having a hard time attracting more intensivists. After multiple conversations between both parties, Dr. N finally resigns.
Scenario 3
Dr. A is a specialist who is on call covering different hospitals and seeing patients in clinic. His call is getting busier. He has received many new consults and also has to follow up on his other patients in hospital who he saw a day prior.
Dr. A started receiving many pages from the hospitals – some of his patients and their families are anxiously waiting on him so that he can let them go home once he sees them, while some are waiting to know what the next steps and plan of action are. He ends up canceling some of his clinic patients who had scheduled an appointment with him 3, 4, or even 5 months ago. It’s already afternoon.
Dr. A now drives to one hospital, sees his new consults, orders tests which may or may not get results the same day, follows up on other patients, reviews their test results, modifies treatment plans for some while clearing other patients for discharge. He then drives to the other hospital and follows the same process. Some of the patients aren’t happy because of the long wait, a few couldn’t arrange for the ride to go home and ended up staying in hospital 1 extra night, while the ER is getting backlogged waiting on discharges.
These scenarios highlight some of the important and prevalent pain points in health care as shown in Figure 1.
Scenario 1 and part of scenario 2 describe what is called potentially avoidable interfacility transfers. One study showed that around 8% of transferred patients (transferred from one ED to another) were discharged after ED evaluation in the second hospital, meaning they could have been retained locally without necessarily getting transferred if they could have been evaluated by the specialist.1
Transferring a patient from one hospital to another isn’t as simple as picking up a person from point A and dropping him off at point B. Rather it’s a very complicated, high-risk, capital-intensive, and time-consuming process that leads not only to excessive cost involved around transfer but also adds additional stress and burden on the patient and family. In these scenarios, having a specialist available via teleconsult could have eliminated much of this hassle and cost, allowing the patient to stay locally close to family and get access to necessary medical expertise from any part of the country in a timely manner.
Scenario 2 talks about the recruitment and retention challenges in low-volume, low-resourced locations because of call schedule and the lack of specialty support. It is reported in one study that 19% of common hospitalist admissions happen between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Eighty percent of admissions occurred prior to midnight. Nonrural facilities averaged 6.69 hospitalist admissions per night in that study, whereas rural facilities averaged 1.35 admissions.2 It’s like a double-edged sword for such facilities. While having a dedicated nocturnist is not a sustainable model for these hospitals, not having adequate support at night impacts physician wellness, which is already costing hospitals billions of dollars as well as leading to physician turnover: It could cost a hospital somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million to replace just one physician.3 Hence, the potential exists for a telehospitalist program in these settings to address this dilemma.
Scenario 3 sheds light on the operational issues resulting in reduced patient satisfaction and lost revenues, both on the outpatient and inpatient sides by cancellation of office visits and ED backlog. Telemedicine use in these situations can improve the turnaround time of physicians who can see some of those patients while staying at one location as they wait on other patients to show up in the clinic or wait on the operation room crew, or the procedure kit etcetera, hence improving the length of stay, ED throughput, patient satisfaction, and quality of care. This also can improve overall workflow and the wellness of physicians.
One common outcome in all these scenarios is emergency department overcrowding. There have been multiple studies that suggest that ED overcrowding can result in increased costs, lost revenues, and poor clinical outcomes, including delayed administration of antibiotics, delayed administration of analgesics to suffering patients, increased hospital length of stay, and even increased mortality.4-6 A crowded ED limits the ability of an institution to accept referrals and increases medicolegal risks. (See Figure 2.)
Another study showed that a 1-hour reduction in ED boarding time would result in over $9,000 of additional revenue by reducing ambulance diversion and the number of patients who left without being seen.7 Another found that using tele-emergency services can potentially result in net savings of $3,823 per avoided transfer, while accounting for the costs related to tele-emergency technology, hospital revenues, and patient-associated savings.8
There are other instances where gaps in staffing and cracks in workflow can have a negative impact on hospital operations. For example, the busier hospitals that do have a dedicated nocturnist also struggle with physician retention, since such hospitals have higher volumes and higher cross-coverage needs, and are therefore hard to manage by just one single physician at night. Since these are temporary surges, hiring another full-time nocturnist is not a viable option for the hospitals and is considered an expense in many places.
Similarly, during day shift, if a physician goes on vacation or there are surges in patient volumes, hiring a locum tenens hospitalist can be an expensive option, since the cost also includes travel and lodging. In many instances, hiring locum tenens in a given time frame is also not possible, and it leaves the physicians short staffed, fueling both physicians’ and patients’ dissatisfaction and leading to other operational and safety challenges, which I highlighted above.
Telemedicine services in these situations can provide cross-coverage while nocturnists can focus on admissions and other acute issues. Also, when physicians are on vacation or there is surge capacity (that can be forecast by using various predictive analytics models), hospitals can make plans accordingly and make use of telemedicine services. For example, Providence St. Joseph Health reported improvement in timeliness and efficiency of care after implementation of a telehospitalist program. Their 2-year study at a partner site showed a 59% improvement in patients admitted prior to midnight, about $547,000 improvement in first-day revenue capture, an increase in total revenue days and comparable patient experience scores, and a substantial increase in inpatient census and case mix index.9
Other institutions have successfully implemented some inpatient telemedicine programs – such as telepsych, telestroke, and tele-ICU – and some have also reported positive outcomes in terms of patient satisfaction, improved access, reduced length of stay in the ED, and improved quality metrics. Emory Healthcare in Atlanta reported $4.6 million savings in Medicare costs over a 15-month period from adopting a telemedicine model in the ICU, and a reduction in 60-day readmissions by 2.1%.10 Similarly, another study showed that one large health care center improved its direct contribution margins by 376% (from $7.9 million to $37.7 million) because of increased case volume, shorter lengths of stay, and higher case revenue relative to direct costs. When combined with a logistics center, they reported improved contribution margins by 665% (from $7.9 million to $60.6 million).11
There are barriers to the integration and implementation of inpatient telemedicine, including regulations, reimbursement, physician licensing, adoption of technology, and trust among staff and patients. However, I am cautiously optimistic that increased use of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed patients, physicians, nurses, and health care workers and leaders to gain experience with this technology, which will help them gain confidence and reduce hesitation in adapting to this new digital platform. Ultimately, the extent to which telemedicine is able to positively impact patient care will revolve around overcoming these barriers, likely through an evolution of both the technology itself and the attitudes and regulations surrounding it.
I do not suggest that telemedicine should replace the in-person encounter, but it can be implemented and used successfully in addressing the pain points in U.S. health care. (See Figure 3.)
To that end, the purpose of this article is to spark discussion around different ways of implementing telemedicine in inpatient settings to solve many of the challenges that health care faces today.
Dr. Zia is an internal medicine board-certified physician, serving as a hospitalist and physician adviser in a medically underserved area. She has also served as interim medical director of the department of hospital medicine, and medical staff president, at SIH Herrin Hospital, in Herrin, Ill., part of Southern Illinois Healthcare. She has a special interest in improving access to health care in physician shortage areas.
References
1. Kindermann DR et al. Emergency department transfers and transfer relationships in United States hospitals. Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Feb;22(2):157-65.
2. Sanders RB et al. New hospital telemedicine services: Potential market for a nighttime hospitalist service. Telemed J E Health. 2014 Oct 1;20(10):902-8.
3. Shanafelt T et al. The business case for investing in physician well-being. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(12):1826-32.
4. Pines JM et al. The impact of emergency department crowding measures on time to antibiotics for patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Ann Emerg Med. 2007 Nov;50(5):510-6.
5. Pines JM and Hollander JE. Emergency department crowding is associated with poor care for patients with severe pain. Ann Emerg Med. 2008 Jan;51(1):1-5.
6. Chalfin DB et al. Impact of delayed transfer of critically ill patients from the emergency department to the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2007 Jun;35(6):1477-83.
7. Pines JM et al. The financial consequences of lost demand and reducing boarding in hospital emergency departments. Ann Emerg Med. 2011 Oct;58(4):331-40.
8. Natafgi N et al. Using tele-emergency to avoid patient transfers in rural emergency. J Telemed Telecare. 2018 Apri;24(3):193-201.
9. Providence.org/telehealthhospitalistcasestudy.
10. Woodruff Health Sciences Center. CMS report: eICU program reduced hospital stays, saved millions, eased provider shortage. 2017 Apr 5.
11. Lilly CM et al. ICU telemedicine program financial outcomes. Chest. 2017 Feb;151(2):286-97.
COVID-19 has increased confidence in the technology
COVID-19 has increased confidence in the technology
Since the advent of COVID-19, health care has seen an unprecedented rise in virtual health. Telemedicine has come to the forefront of our conversations, and there are many speculations around its future state. One such discussion is around the sustainability and expansion of inpatient telemedicine programs post COVID, and if – and how – it is going to be helpful for health care.
Consider the following scenarios:
Scenario 1
A patient presents to an emergency department of a small community hospital. He needs to be seen by a specialist, but (s)he is not available, so patient gets transferred out to the ED of a different hospital several miles away from his hometown.
He is evaluated in the second ED by the specialist, has repeat testing done – some of those tests were already completed at the first hospital. After evaluating him, the specialist recommends that he does not need to be admitted to the hospital and can be safely followed up as an outpatient. The patient does not require any further intervention and is discharged from the ED.
Scenario 2
Dr. N is a hospitalist in a rural hospital that does not have intensivist support at night. She works 7 on/7 off and is on call 24/7 during her “on” week. Dr. N cannot be physically present in the hospital 24/7. She receives messages from the hospital around the clock and feels that this call schedule is no longer sustainable. She doesn’t feel comfortable admitting patients in the ICU who come to the hospital at night without physically seeing them and without ICU backup. Therefore, some of the patients who are sick enough to be admitted in ICU for closer monitoring but can be potentially handled in this rural hospital get transferred out to a different hospital.
Dr. N has been asking the hospital to provide her intensivist back up at night and to give her some flexibility in the call schedule. However, from hospital’s perspective, the volume isn’t high enough to hire a dedicated nocturnist, and because the hospital is in the small rural area, it is having a hard time attracting more intensivists. After multiple conversations between both parties, Dr. N finally resigns.
Scenario 3
Dr. A is a specialist who is on call covering different hospitals and seeing patients in clinic. His call is getting busier. He has received many new consults and also has to follow up on his other patients in hospital who he saw a day prior.
Dr. A started receiving many pages from the hospitals – some of his patients and their families are anxiously waiting on him so that he can let them go home once he sees them, while some are waiting to know what the next steps and plan of action are. He ends up canceling some of his clinic patients who had scheduled an appointment with him 3, 4, or even 5 months ago. It’s already afternoon.
Dr. A now drives to one hospital, sees his new consults, orders tests which may or may not get results the same day, follows up on other patients, reviews their test results, modifies treatment plans for some while clearing other patients for discharge. He then drives to the other hospital and follows the same process. Some of the patients aren’t happy because of the long wait, a few couldn’t arrange for the ride to go home and ended up staying in hospital 1 extra night, while the ER is getting backlogged waiting on discharges.
These scenarios highlight some of the important and prevalent pain points in health care as shown in Figure 1.
Scenario 1 and part of scenario 2 describe what is called potentially avoidable interfacility transfers. One study showed that around 8% of transferred patients (transferred from one ED to another) were discharged after ED evaluation in the second hospital, meaning they could have been retained locally without necessarily getting transferred if they could have been evaluated by the specialist.1
Transferring a patient from one hospital to another isn’t as simple as picking up a person from point A and dropping him off at point B. Rather it’s a very complicated, high-risk, capital-intensive, and time-consuming process that leads not only to excessive cost involved around transfer but also adds additional stress and burden on the patient and family. In these scenarios, having a specialist available via teleconsult could have eliminated much of this hassle and cost, allowing the patient to stay locally close to family and get access to necessary medical expertise from any part of the country in a timely manner.
Scenario 2 talks about the recruitment and retention challenges in low-volume, low-resourced locations because of call schedule and the lack of specialty support. It is reported in one study that 19% of common hospitalist admissions happen between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Eighty percent of admissions occurred prior to midnight. Nonrural facilities averaged 6.69 hospitalist admissions per night in that study, whereas rural facilities averaged 1.35 admissions.2 It’s like a double-edged sword for such facilities. While having a dedicated nocturnist is not a sustainable model for these hospitals, not having adequate support at night impacts physician wellness, which is already costing hospitals billions of dollars as well as leading to physician turnover: It could cost a hospital somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million to replace just one physician.3 Hence, the potential exists for a telehospitalist program in these settings to address this dilemma.
Scenario 3 sheds light on the operational issues resulting in reduced patient satisfaction and lost revenues, both on the outpatient and inpatient sides by cancellation of office visits and ED backlog. Telemedicine use in these situations can improve the turnaround time of physicians who can see some of those patients while staying at one location as they wait on other patients to show up in the clinic or wait on the operation room crew, or the procedure kit etcetera, hence improving the length of stay, ED throughput, patient satisfaction, and quality of care. This also can improve overall workflow and the wellness of physicians.
One common outcome in all these scenarios is emergency department overcrowding. There have been multiple studies that suggest that ED overcrowding can result in increased costs, lost revenues, and poor clinical outcomes, including delayed administration of antibiotics, delayed administration of analgesics to suffering patients, increased hospital length of stay, and even increased mortality.4-6 A crowded ED limits the ability of an institution to accept referrals and increases medicolegal risks. (See Figure 2.)
Another study showed that a 1-hour reduction in ED boarding time would result in over $9,000 of additional revenue by reducing ambulance diversion and the number of patients who left without being seen.7 Another found that using tele-emergency services can potentially result in net savings of $3,823 per avoided transfer, while accounting for the costs related to tele-emergency technology, hospital revenues, and patient-associated savings.8
There are other instances where gaps in staffing and cracks in workflow can have a negative impact on hospital operations. For example, the busier hospitals that do have a dedicated nocturnist also struggle with physician retention, since such hospitals have higher volumes and higher cross-coverage needs, and are therefore hard to manage by just one single physician at night. Since these are temporary surges, hiring another full-time nocturnist is not a viable option for the hospitals and is considered an expense in many places.
Similarly, during day shift, if a physician goes on vacation or there are surges in patient volumes, hiring a locum tenens hospitalist can be an expensive option, since the cost also includes travel and lodging. In many instances, hiring locum tenens in a given time frame is also not possible, and it leaves the physicians short staffed, fueling both physicians’ and patients’ dissatisfaction and leading to other operational and safety challenges, which I highlighted above.
Telemedicine services in these situations can provide cross-coverage while nocturnists can focus on admissions and other acute issues. Also, when physicians are on vacation or there is surge capacity (that can be forecast by using various predictive analytics models), hospitals can make plans accordingly and make use of telemedicine services. For example, Providence St. Joseph Health reported improvement in timeliness and efficiency of care after implementation of a telehospitalist program. Their 2-year study at a partner site showed a 59% improvement in patients admitted prior to midnight, about $547,000 improvement in first-day revenue capture, an increase in total revenue days and comparable patient experience scores, and a substantial increase in inpatient census and case mix index.9
Other institutions have successfully implemented some inpatient telemedicine programs – such as telepsych, telestroke, and tele-ICU – and some have also reported positive outcomes in terms of patient satisfaction, improved access, reduced length of stay in the ED, and improved quality metrics. Emory Healthcare in Atlanta reported $4.6 million savings in Medicare costs over a 15-month period from adopting a telemedicine model in the ICU, and a reduction in 60-day readmissions by 2.1%.10 Similarly, another study showed that one large health care center improved its direct contribution margins by 376% (from $7.9 million to $37.7 million) because of increased case volume, shorter lengths of stay, and higher case revenue relative to direct costs. When combined with a logistics center, they reported improved contribution margins by 665% (from $7.9 million to $60.6 million).11
There are barriers to the integration and implementation of inpatient telemedicine, including regulations, reimbursement, physician licensing, adoption of technology, and trust among staff and patients. However, I am cautiously optimistic that increased use of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed patients, physicians, nurses, and health care workers and leaders to gain experience with this technology, which will help them gain confidence and reduce hesitation in adapting to this new digital platform. Ultimately, the extent to which telemedicine is able to positively impact patient care will revolve around overcoming these barriers, likely through an evolution of both the technology itself and the attitudes and regulations surrounding it.
I do not suggest that telemedicine should replace the in-person encounter, but it can be implemented and used successfully in addressing the pain points in U.S. health care. (See Figure 3.)
To that end, the purpose of this article is to spark discussion around different ways of implementing telemedicine in inpatient settings to solve many of the challenges that health care faces today.
Dr. Zia is an internal medicine board-certified physician, serving as a hospitalist and physician adviser in a medically underserved area. She has also served as interim medical director of the department of hospital medicine, and medical staff president, at SIH Herrin Hospital, in Herrin, Ill., part of Southern Illinois Healthcare. She has a special interest in improving access to health care in physician shortage areas.
References
1. Kindermann DR et al. Emergency department transfers and transfer relationships in United States hospitals. Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Feb;22(2):157-65.
2. Sanders RB et al. New hospital telemedicine services: Potential market for a nighttime hospitalist service. Telemed J E Health. 2014 Oct 1;20(10):902-8.
3. Shanafelt T et al. The business case for investing in physician well-being. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(12):1826-32.
4. Pines JM et al. The impact of emergency department crowding measures on time to antibiotics for patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Ann Emerg Med. 2007 Nov;50(5):510-6.
5. Pines JM and Hollander JE. Emergency department crowding is associated with poor care for patients with severe pain. Ann Emerg Med. 2008 Jan;51(1):1-5.
6. Chalfin DB et al. Impact of delayed transfer of critically ill patients from the emergency department to the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2007 Jun;35(6):1477-83.
7. Pines JM et al. The financial consequences of lost demand and reducing boarding in hospital emergency departments. Ann Emerg Med. 2011 Oct;58(4):331-40.
8. Natafgi N et al. Using tele-emergency to avoid patient transfers in rural emergency. J Telemed Telecare. 2018 Apri;24(3):193-201.
9. Providence.org/telehealthhospitalistcasestudy.
10. Woodruff Health Sciences Center. CMS report: eICU program reduced hospital stays, saved millions, eased provider shortage. 2017 Apr 5.
11. Lilly CM et al. ICU telemedicine program financial outcomes. Chest. 2017 Feb;151(2):286-97.
Since the advent of COVID-19, health care has seen an unprecedented rise in virtual health. Telemedicine has come to the forefront of our conversations, and there are many speculations around its future state. One such discussion is around the sustainability and expansion of inpatient telemedicine programs post COVID, and if – and how – it is going to be helpful for health care.
Consider the following scenarios:
Scenario 1
A patient presents to an emergency department of a small community hospital. He needs to be seen by a specialist, but (s)he is not available, so patient gets transferred out to the ED of a different hospital several miles away from his hometown.
He is evaluated in the second ED by the specialist, has repeat testing done – some of those tests were already completed at the first hospital. After evaluating him, the specialist recommends that he does not need to be admitted to the hospital and can be safely followed up as an outpatient. The patient does not require any further intervention and is discharged from the ED.
Scenario 2
Dr. N is a hospitalist in a rural hospital that does not have intensivist support at night. She works 7 on/7 off and is on call 24/7 during her “on” week. Dr. N cannot be physically present in the hospital 24/7. She receives messages from the hospital around the clock and feels that this call schedule is no longer sustainable. She doesn’t feel comfortable admitting patients in the ICU who come to the hospital at night without physically seeing them and without ICU backup. Therefore, some of the patients who are sick enough to be admitted in ICU for closer monitoring but can be potentially handled in this rural hospital get transferred out to a different hospital.
Dr. N has been asking the hospital to provide her intensivist back up at night and to give her some flexibility in the call schedule. However, from hospital’s perspective, the volume isn’t high enough to hire a dedicated nocturnist, and because the hospital is in the small rural area, it is having a hard time attracting more intensivists. After multiple conversations between both parties, Dr. N finally resigns.
Scenario 3
Dr. A is a specialist who is on call covering different hospitals and seeing patients in clinic. His call is getting busier. He has received many new consults and also has to follow up on his other patients in hospital who he saw a day prior.
Dr. A started receiving many pages from the hospitals – some of his patients and their families are anxiously waiting on him so that he can let them go home once he sees them, while some are waiting to know what the next steps and plan of action are. He ends up canceling some of his clinic patients who had scheduled an appointment with him 3, 4, or even 5 months ago. It’s already afternoon.
Dr. A now drives to one hospital, sees his new consults, orders tests which may or may not get results the same day, follows up on other patients, reviews their test results, modifies treatment plans for some while clearing other patients for discharge. He then drives to the other hospital and follows the same process. Some of the patients aren’t happy because of the long wait, a few couldn’t arrange for the ride to go home and ended up staying in hospital 1 extra night, while the ER is getting backlogged waiting on discharges.
These scenarios highlight some of the important and prevalent pain points in health care as shown in Figure 1.
Scenario 1 and part of scenario 2 describe what is called potentially avoidable interfacility transfers. One study showed that around 8% of transferred patients (transferred from one ED to another) were discharged after ED evaluation in the second hospital, meaning they could have been retained locally without necessarily getting transferred if they could have been evaluated by the specialist.1
Transferring a patient from one hospital to another isn’t as simple as picking up a person from point A and dropping him off at point B. Rather it’s a very complicated, high-risk, capital-intensive, and time-consuming process that leads not only to excessive cost involved around transfer but also adds additional stress and burden on the patient and family. In these scenarios, having a specialist available via teleconsult could have eliminated much of this hassle and cost, allowing the patient to stay locally close to family and get access to necessary medical expertise from any part of the country in a timely manner.
Scenario 2 talks about the recruitment and retention challenges in low-volume, low-resourced locations because of call schedule and the lack of specialty support. It is reported in one study that 19% of common hospitalist admissions happen between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Eighty percent of admissions occurred prior to midnight. Nonrural facilities averaged 6.69 hospitalist admissions per night in that study, whereas rural facilities averaged 1.35 admissions.2 It’s like a double-edged sword for such facilities. While having a dedicated nocturnist is not a sustainable model for these hospitals, not having adequate support at night impacts physician wellness, which is already costing hospitals billions of dollars as well as leading to physician turnover: It could cost a hospital somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million to replace just one physician.3 Hence, the potential exists for a telehospitalist program in these settings to address this dilemma.
Scenario 3 sheds light on the operational issues resulting in reduced patient satisfaction and lost revenues, both on the outpatient and inpatient sides by cancellation of office visits and ED backlog. Telemedicine use in these situations can improve the turnaround time of physicians who can see some of those patients while staying at one location as they wait on other patients to show up in the clinic or wait on the operation room crew, or the procedure kit etcetera, hence improving the length of stay, ED throughput, patient satisfaction, and quality of care. This also can improve overall workflow and the wellness of physicians.
One common outcome in all these scenarios is emergency department overcrowding. There have been multiple studies that suggest that ED overcrowding can result in increased costs, lost revenues, and poor clinical outcomes, including delayed administration of antibiotics, delayed administration of analgesics to suffering patients, increased hospital length of stay, and even increased mortality.4-6 A crowded ED limits the ability of an institution to accept referrals and increases medicolegal risks. (See Figure 2.)
Another study showed that a 1-hour reduction in ED boarding time would result in over $9,000 of additional revenue by reducing ambulance diversion and the number of patients who left without being seen.7 Another found that using tele-emergency services can potentially result in net savings of $3,823 per avoided transfer, while accounting for the costs related to tele-emergency technology, hospital revenues, and patient-associated savings.8
There are other instances where gaps in staffing and cracks in workflow can have a negative impact on hospital operations. For example, the busier hospitals that do have a dedicated nocturnist also struggle with physician retention, since such hospitals have higher volumes and higher cross-coverage needs, and are therefore hard to manage by just one single physician at night. Since these are temporary surges, hiring another full-time nocturnist is not a viable option for the hospitals and is considered an expense in many places.
Similarly, during day shift, if a physician goes on vacation or there are surges in patient volumes, hiring a locum tenens hospitalist can be an expensive option, since the cost also includes travel and lodging. In many instances, hiring locum tenens in a given time frame is also not possible, and it leaves the physicians short staffed, fueling both physicians’ and patients’ dissatisfaction and leading to other operational and safety challenges, which I highlighted above.
Telemedicine services in these situations can provide cross-coverage while nocturnists can focus on admissions and other acute issues. Also, when physicians are on vacation or there is surge capacity (that can be forecast by using various predictive analytics models), hospitals can make plans accordingly and make use of telemedicine services. For example, Providence St. Joseph Health reported improvement in timeliness and efficiency of care after implementation of a telehospitalist program. Their 2-year study at a partner site showed a 59% improvement in patients admitted prior to midnight, about $547,000 improvement in first-day revenue capture, an increase in total revenue days and comparable patient experience scores, and a substantial increase in inpatient census and case mix index.9
Other institutions have successfully implemented some inpatient telemedicine programs – such as telepsych, telestroke, and tele-ICU – and some have also reported positive outcomes in terms of patient satisfaction, improved access, reduced length of stay in the ED, and improved quality metrics. Emory Healthcare in Atlanta reported $4.6 million savings in Medicare costs over a 15-month period from adopting a telemedicine model in the ICU, and a reduction in 60-day readmissions by 2.1%.10 Similarly, another study showed that one large health care center improved its direct contribution margins by 376% (from $7.9 million to $37.7 million) because of increased case volume, shorter lengths of stay, and higher case revenue relative to direct costs. When combined with a logistics center, they reported improved contribution margins by 665% (from $7.9 million to $60.6 million).11
There are barriers to the integration and implementation of inpatient telemedicine, including regulations, reimbursement, physician licensing, adoption of technology, and trust among staff and patients. However, I am cautiously optimistic that increased use of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic has allowed patients, physicians, nurses, and health care workers and leaders to gain experience with this technology, which will help them gain confidence and reduce hesitation in adapting to this new digital platform. Ultimately, the extent to which telemedicine is able to positively impact patient care will revolve around overcoming these barriers, likely through an evolution of both the technology itself and the attitudes and regulations surrounding it.
I do not suggest that telemedicine should replace the in-person encounter, but it can be implemented and used successfully in addressing the pain points in U.S. health care. (See Figure 3.)
To that end, the purpose of this article is to spark discussion around different ways of implementing telemedicine in inpatient settings to solve many of the challenges that health care faces today.
Dr. Zia is an internal medicine board-certified physician, serving as a hospitalist and physician adviser in a medically underserved area. She has also served as interim medical director of the department of hospital medicine, and medical staff president, at SIH Herrin Hospital, in Herrin, Ill., part of Southern Illinois Healthcare. She has a special interest in improving access to health care in physician shortage areas.
References
1. Kindermann DR et al. Emergency department transfers and transfer relationships in United States hospitals. Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Feb;22(2):157-65.
2. Sanders RB et al. New hospital telemedicine services: Potential market for a nighttime hospitalist service. Telemed J E Health. 2014 Oct 1;20(10):902-8.
3. Shanafelt T et al. The business case for investing in physician well-being. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(12):1826-32.
4. Pines JM et al. The impact of emergency department crowding measures on time to antibiotics for patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Ann Emerg Med. 2007 Nov;50(5):510-6.
5. Pines JM and Hollander JE. Emergency department crowding is associated with poor care for patients with severe pain. Ann Emerg Med. 2008 Jan;51(1):1-5.
6. Chalfin DB et al. Impact of delayed transfer of critically ill patients from the emergency department to the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2007 Jun;35(6):1477-83.
7. Pines JM et al. The financial consequences of lost demand and reducing boarding in hospital emergency departments. Ann Emerg Med. 2011 Oct;58(4):331-40.
8. Natafgi N et al. Using tele-emergency to avoid patient transfers in rural emergency. J Telemed Telecare. 2018 Apri;24(3):193-201.
9. Providence.org/telehealthhospitalistcasestudy.
10. Woodruff Health Sciences Center. CMS report: eICU program reduced hospital stays, saved millions, eased provider shortage. 2017 Apr 5.
11. Lilly CM et al. ICU telemedicine program financial outcomes. Chest. 2017 Feb;151(2):286-97.
Late-window stroke thrombolysis not linked to clot migration
In patients with acute ischemic stroke, the use of thrombolysis in the late window of 4.5-9 hours after symptom onset was not associated with an increase in clot migration that would cause reduced clot accessibility to endovascular therapy, a new analysis from the EXTEND trial shows.
“There was no significant difference in the incidence of clot migration leading to clot inaccessibility in patients who received placebo or (intravenous) thrombolysis,” the authors report.
“Our results found no convincing evidence against the use of bridging thrombolysis before endovascular therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke who present outside the 4.5-hour window,” they conclude.
“This information is important because it provides some comfort for neurointerventionists that IV thrombolysis does not unduly increase the risk of clot migration,” senior author, Bernard Yan, DMedSci, FRACP, told this news organization.
The study was published online in Stroke on Feb. 16.
The Australian researchers explain that endovascular thrombectomy is the standard of care in patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke caused by large-vessel occlusion, and current treatment guidelines recommend bridging thrombolysis for all patients receiving thrombectomy within the 4.5-hour time window.
While thrombectomy is also recommended in selected patients up to 24 hours after onset of symptoms, it remains unclear whether thrombolysis pretreatment should be administered in this setting.
One of the issues that might affect use of thrombolysis is distal clot migration. As proximal clot location is a crucial factor determining suitability for endovascular clot retrieval, distal migration may prevent successful thrombectomy, they note.
“Clot migration can happen any time and makes life more difficult for the neurointerventionist who performs the endovascular clot retrieval,” added Dr. Yan, who is a neurologist and neurointerventionist at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia.
In the current paper, the researchers report a retrospective analysis of data from the EXTEND trial of late thrombolysis, defined as 4.5-9 hours after symptom onset, to investigate the association between thrombolysis and clot migration leading to clot irretrievability.
The analysis included a total of 220 patients (109 patients in the placebo group and 111 in the thrombolysis group).
Results showed that retrievable clot was seen on baseline imaging in 69% of patients in the placebo group and 61% in the thrombolysis group. Clot resolution occurred in 28% of patients in the placebo group and 50% in the thrombolysis group.
No significant difference was observed in the incidence of clot migration leading to inaccessibility between groups. Clot migration from a retrievable to nonretrievable location occurred in 19% of the placebo group and 14% of the thrombolysis group, with an odds ratio for clot migration in the thrombolysis group of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.35-1.44). This outcome was consistent across subgroups.
The researchers note that, to their knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled study to assess the effect of thrombolysis on clot migration and accessibility in an extended time window.
They acknowledge that a limitation of this study is that they only assessed clot migration from a retrievable to a nonretrievable location; therefore, the true frequency of any clot migration occurring was likely to be higher, and this could explain why other reports have found higher odds ratios of clot migration.
But they point out that they chose to limit their analysis in this way specifically to guide decision-making regarding bridging thrombolysis incorporating endovascular therapy in the extended time window.
“The findings of this study are highly relevant in the current clinical environment, where there are multiple ongoing trials looking at removing thrombolysis pretreatment within the 4.5-hour time window in thrombectomy patients,” the authors write.
“We have demonstrated that thrombolysis in the 4.5- to 9-hour window is not associated with reduced clot accessibility, and this information will be useful in future trial designs incorporating this extended time window,” they add.
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Michael Hill, MD, University of Calgary (Alta.), said: “Thrombus migration does happen and is likely part of the natural history of ischemic stroke, which may be influenced by therapeutics such as thrombolysis. This paper’s top-line result is that thrombus migration occurs in both treated and untreated groups – and therefore that this is really an observation of natural history.”
Dr. Hill says that, at present, patients should be treated with thrombolysis before endovascular therapy if they are eligible, and these results do not change that recommendation.
“The results of the ongoing trials comparing direct thrombectomy with thrombolysis plus thrombectomy will help to understand the potential clinical outcome relevance of this phenomenon,” he added.
The EXTEND trial was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Flagship Program. Dr. Yan reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In patients with acute ischemic stroke, the use of thrombolysis in the late window of 4.5-9 hours after symptom onset was not associated with an increase in clot migration that would cause reduced clot accessibility to endovascular therapy, a new analysis from the EXTEND trial shows.
“There was no significant difference in the incidence of clot migration leading to clot inaccessibility in patients who received placebo or (intravenous) thrombolysis,” the authors report.
“Our results found no convincing evidence against the use of bridging thrombolysis before endovascular therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke who present outside the 4.5-hour window,” they conclude.
“This information is important because it provides some comfort for neurointerventionists that IV thrombolysis does not unduly increase the risk of clot migration,” senior author, Bernard Yan, DMedSci, FRACP, told this news organization.
The study was published online in Stroke on Feb. 16.
The Australian researchers explain that endovascular thrombectomy is the standard of care in patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke caused by large-vessel occlusion, and current treatment guidelines recommend bridging thrombolysis for all patients receiving thrombectomy within the 4.5-hour time window.
While thrombectomy is also recommended in selected patients up to 24 hours after onset of symptoms, it remains unclear whether thrombolysis pretreatment should be administered in this setting.
One of the issues that might affect use of thrombolysis is distal clot migration. As proximal clot location is a crucial factor determining suitability for endovascular clot retrieval, distal migration may prevent successful thrombectomy, they note.
“Clot migration can happen any time and makes life more difficult for the neurointerventionist who performs the endovascular clot retrieval,” added Dr. Yan, who is a neurologist and neurointerventionist at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia.
In the current paper, the researchers report a retrospective analysis of data from the EXTEND trial of late thrombolysis, defined as 4.5-9 hours after symptom onset, to investigate the association between thrombolysis and clot migration leading to clot irretrievability.
The analysis included a total of 220 patients (109 patients in the placebo group and 111 in the thrombolysis group).
Results showed that retrievable clot was seen on baseline imaging in 69% of patients in the placebo group and 61% in the thrombolysis group. Clot resolution occurred in 28% of patients in the placebo group and 50% in the thrombolysis group.
No significant difference was observed in the incidence of clot migration leading to inaccessibility between groups. Clot migration from a retrievable to nonretrievable location occurred in 19% of the placebo group and 14% of the thrombolysis group, with an odds ratio for clot migration in the thrombolysis group of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.35-1.44). This outcome was consistent across subgroups.
The researchers note that, to their knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled study to assess the effect of thrombolysis on clot migration and accessibility in an extended time window.
They acknowledge that a limitation of this study is that they only assessed clot migration from a retrievable to a nonretrievable location; therefore, the true frequency of any clot migration occurring was likely to be higher, and this could explain why other reports have found higher odds ratios of clot migration.
But they point out that they chose to limit their analysis in this way specifically to guide decision-making regarding bridging thrombolysis incorporating endovascular therapy in the extended time window.
“The findings of this study are highly relevant in the current clinical environment, where there are multiple ongoing trials looking at removing thrombolysis pretreatment within the 4.5-hour time window in thrombectomy patients,” the authors write.
“We have demonstrated that thrombolysis in the 4.5- to 9-hour window is not associated with reduced clot accessibility, and this information will be useful in future trial designs incorporating this extended time window,” they add.
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Michael Hill, MD, University of Calgary (Alta.), said: “Thrombus migration does happen and is likely part of the natural history of ischemic stroke, which may be influenced by therapeutics such as thrombolysis. This paper’s top-line result is that thrombus migration occurs in both treated and untreated groups – and therefore that this is really an observation of natural history.”
Dr. Hill says that, at present, patients should be treated with thrombolysis before endovascular therapy if they are eligible, and these results do not change that recommendation.
“The results of the ongoing trials comparing direct thrombectomy with thrombolysis plus thrombectomy will help to understand the potential clinical outcome relevance of this phenomenon,” he added.
The EXTEND trial was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Flagship Program. Dr. Yan reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In patients with acute ischemic stroke, the use of thrombolysis in the late window of 4.5-9 hours after symptom onset was not associated with an increase in clot migration that would cause reduced clot accessibility to endovascular therapy, a new analysis from the EXTEND trial shows.
“There was no significant difference in the incidence of clot migration leading to clot inaccessibility in patients who received placebo or (intravenous) thrombolysis,” the authors report.
“Our results found no convincing evidence against the use of bridging thrombolysis before endovascular therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke who present outside the 4.5-hour window,” they conclude.
“This information is important because it provides some comfort for neurointerventionists that IV thrombolysis does not unduly increase the risk of clot migration,” senior author, Bernard Yan, DMedSci, FRACP, told this news organization.
The study was published online in Stroke on Feb. 16.
The Australian researchers explain that endovascular thrombectomy is the standard of care in patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke caused by large-vessel occlusion, and current treatment guidelines recommend bridging thrombolysis for all patients receiving thrombectomy within the 4.5-hour time window.
While thrombectomy is also recommended in selected patients up to 24 hours after onset of symptoms, it remains unclear whether thrombolysis pretreatment should be administered in this setting.
One of the issues that might affect use of thrombolysis is distal clot migration. As proximal clot location is a crucial factor determining suitability for endovascular clot retrieval, distal migration may prevent successful thrombectomy, they note.
“Clot migration can happen any time and makes life more difficult for the neurointerventionist who performs the endovascular clot retrieval,” added Dr. Yan, who is a neurologist and neurointerventionist at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia.
In the current paper, the researchers report a retrospective analysis of data from the EXTEND trial of late thrombolysis, defined as 4.5-9 hours after symptom onset, to investigate the association between thrombolysis and clot migration leading to clot irretrievability.
The analysis included a total of 220 patients (109 patients in the placebo group and 111 in the thrombolysis group).
Results showed that retrievable clot was seen on baseline imaging in 69% of patients in the placebo group and 61% in the thrombolysis group. Clot resolution occurred in 28% of patients in the placebo group and 50% in the thrombolysis group.
No significant difference was observed in the incidence of clot migration leading to inaccessibility between groups. Clot migration from a retrievable to nonretrievable location occurred in 19% of the placebo group and 14% of the thrombolysis group, with an odds ratio for clot migration in the thrombolysis group of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.35-1.44). This outcome was consistent across subgroups.
The researchers note that, to their knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled study to assess the effect of thrombolysis on clot migration and accessibility in an extended time window.
They acknowledge that a limitation of this study is that they only assessed clot migration from a retrievable to a nonretrievable location; therefore, the true frequency of any clot migration occurring was likely to be higher, and this could explain why other reports have found higher odds ratios of clot migration.
But they point out that they chose to limit their analysis in this way specifically to guide decision-making regarding bridging thrombolysis incorporating endovascular therapy in the extended time window.
“The findings of this study are highly relevant in the current clinical environment, where there are multiple ongoing trials looking at removing thrombolysis pretreatment within the 4.5-hour time window in thrombectomy patients,” the authors write.
“We have demonstrated that thrombolysis in the 4.5- to 9-hour window is not associated with reduced clot accessibility, and this information will be useful in future trial designs incorporating this extended time window,” they add.
Commenting on the study for this news organization, Michael Hill, MD, University of Calgary (Alta.), said: “Thrombus migration does happen and is likely part of the natural history of ischemic stroke, which may be influenced by therapeutics such as thrombolysis. This paper’s top-line result is that thrombus migration occurs in both treated and untreated groups – and therefore that this is really an observation of natural history.”
Dr. Hill says that, at present, patients should be treated with thrombolysis before endovascular therapy if they are eligible, and these results do not change that recommendation.
“The results of the ongoing trials comparing direct thrombectomy with thrombolysis plus thrombectomy will help to understand the potential clinical outcome relevance of this phenomenon,” he added.
The EXTEND trial was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Flagship Program. Dr. Yan reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Earlier antibiotic initiation for sepsis did not lead to overuse
There has been a marked increase in the time to antibiotic administration for ICU patients with sepsis across Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals, but there is no evidence that they are being given inappropriately, according to new findings.
Accelerating time-to-antibiotics in sepsis means that patients will be treated earlier, but it could also result in more patients receiving antibiotics, including those without infection. This in turn may contribute to antimicrobial resistance.
“The time to antibiotics for sepsis accelerated across VA hospitals, and declined from 5.8 to 4.8 hours between 2013 and 2018,” said lead study author Sarah Seelye, PhD, data scientist at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Ann Arbor, Mich. “Despite this, there was no evidence between hospital level antibiotic acceleration in sepsis and antibiotic use among all patients with potential sepsis.”
The results were presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, which was held virtually this year.
“Many hospitals have initiated programs like this to accelerate the use of antibiotics in patients with severe sepsis, but at the same time, there is growing concern that earlier antibiotic initiation may result in increased antibiotic treatment overall, including those without infection,” said Dr. Seelye. “However, to date, there is little evidence to support this claim.”
The goal of their study was to investigate whether hospital-level acceleration in antibiotic timing for sepsis was associated with increasing antibiotic use among patients hospitalized with potential infection.
They identified 1,101,239 hospitalizations for potential infection in 132 VA hospitals during the period from 2013 to 2018. Of these patients, 608,128 (55.2%) received antibiotics within 48 hours of presentation to the emergency department. A total of 117,435 (10.7%) met the criteria for sepsis.
Hospitals were classified into tertiles of antibiotic acceleration for sepsis: rapid, slow, and flat.
In the VA system, patients with severe sepsis began receiving faster antibiotic treatment in 2017, compared with earlier years. In 2017-2018 more than 20% of sepsis patients had received their first treatment within 2 hours, compared with 14% in 2013-1014.
In 2017-2018, more than 20% of sepsis patients had received their first treatment within 2 hours, compared with 14% in 2013-1014.
Hospitals categorized as rapid accelerators decreased their time to antibiotic initiation from 6.4 hours to 4.5 hours, while slow accelerators went from 5.6 to 4.6 hours from 2013 to 2018, and flat accelerators remained stable during the time period (5.3 hours down to 5.2 hours).
However, statistical analysis showed no real difference between the three groups in antibiotic prescribing.
“Despite this, there was no evidence between hospital-level antibiotic acceleration in sepsis and antibiotic use among all patients with potential sepsis,” said Dr. Seelye.
Weighing in on the study results, Craig M. Coopersmith, MD, professor of surgery at Emory University, Atlanta, noted that these results are very convincing, considering the size of the study and that it encompassed 132 different facilities.
“It’s difficult to say how generalizable these results are but they are definitely generalizable to all hospitals in the VA system,” he said. “In general, there are similarities between large health care systems, and it would be surprising if we found the opposite to be true in non-VA health systems.”
However, he emphasized that there is some possibility that the results would not be identical because different health care systems have different methods of providing care.
“This paper does show that you can get antibiotics into patients faster, which can be life saving, without inappropriately using them on everybody,” Dr. Coopersmith said.
He explained that there is more attention being paid now to antibiotic stewardship, compared with 10 or 15 years ago. “Given the choice of giving someone a single dose of antibiotics who may not need it, as opposed to withholding them from someone who is septic which is life threatening, the risk benefit ratio weighs heavily towards starting them early,” he said. “And then escalate rapidly.”
There has been a marked increase in the time to antibiotic administration for ICU patients with sepsis across Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals, but there is no evidence that they are being given inappropriately, according to new findings.
Accelerating time-to-antibiotics in sepsis means that patients will be treated earlier, but it could also result in more patients receiving antibiotics, including those without infection. This in turn may contribute to antimicrobial resistance.
“The time to antibiotics for sepsis accelerated across VA hospitals, and declined from 5.8 to 4.8 hours between 2013 and 2018,” said lead study author Sarah Seelye, PhD, data scientist at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Ann Arbor, Mich. “Despite this, there was no evidence between hospital level antibiotic acceleration in sepsis and antibiotic use among all patients with potential sepsis.”
The results were presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, which was held virtually this year.
“Many hospitals have initiated programs like this to accelerate the use of antibiotics in patients with severe sepsis, but at the same time, there is growing concern that earlier antibiotic initiation may result in increased antibiotic treatment overall, including those without infection,” said Dr. Seelye. “However, to date, there is little evidence to support this claim.”
The goal of their study was to investigate whether hospital-level acceleration in antibiotic timing for sepsis was associated with increasing antibiotic use among patients hospitalized with potential infection.
They identified 1,101,239 hospitalizations for potential infection in 132 VA hospitals during the period from 2013 to 2018. Of these patients, 608,128 (55.2%) received antibiotics within 48 hours of presentation to the emergency department. A total of 117,435 (10.7%) met the criteria for sepsis.
Hospitals were classified into tertiles of antibiotic acceleration for sepsis: rapid, slow, and flat.
In the VA system, patients with severe sepsis began receiving faster antibiotic treatment in 2017, compared with earlier years. In 2017-2018 more than 20% of sepsis patients had received their first treatment within 2 hours, compared with 14% in 2013-1014.
In 2017-2018, more than 20% of sepsis patients had received their first treatment within 2 hours, compared with 14% in 2013-1014.
Hospitals categorized as rapid accelerators decreased their time to antibiotic initiation from 6.4 hours to 4.5 hours, while slow accelerators went from 5.6 to 4.6 hours from 2013 to 2018, and flat accelerators remained stable during the time period (5.3 hours down to 5.2 hours).
However, statistical analysis showed no real difference between the three groups in antibiotic prescribing.
“Despite this, there was no evidence between hospital-level antibiotic acceleration in sepsis and antibiotic use among all patients with potential sepsis,” said Dr. Seelye.
Weighing in on the study results, Craig M. Coopersmith, MD, professor of surgery at Emory University, Atlanta, noted that these results are very convincing, considering the size of the study and that it encompassed 132 different facilities.
“It’s difficult to say how generalizable these results are but they are definitely generalizable to all hospitals in the VA system,” he said. “In general, there are similarities between large health care systems, and it would be surprising if we found the opposite to be true in non-VA health systems.”
However, he emphasized that there is some possibility that the results would not be identical because different health care systems have different methods of providing care.
“This paper does show that you can get antibiotics into patients faster, which can be life saving, without inappropriately using them on everybody,” Dr. Coopersmith said.
He explained that there is more attention being paid now to antibiotic stewardship, compared with 10 or 15 years ago. “Given the choice of giving someone a single dose of antibiotics who may not need it, as opposed to withholding them from someone who is septic which is life threatening, the risk benefit ratio weighs heavily towards starting them early,” he said. “And then escalate rapidly.”
There has been a marked increase in the time to antibiotic administration for ICU patients with sepsis across Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals, but there is no evidence that they are being given inappropriately, according to new findings.
Accelerating time-to-antibiotics in sepsis means that patients will be treated earlier, but it could also result in more patients receiving antibiotics, including those without infection. This in turn may contribute to antimicrobial resistance.
“The time to antibiotics for sepsis accelerated across VA hospitals, and declined from 5.8 to 4.8 hours between 2013 and 2018,” said lead study author Sarah Seelye, PhD, data scientist at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Ann Arbor, Mich. “Despite this, there was no evidence between hospital level antibiotic acceleration in sepsis and antibiotic use among all patients with potential sepsis.”
The results were presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, which was held virtually this year.
“Many hospitals have initiated programs like this to accelerate the use of antibiotics in patients with severe sepsis, but at the same time, there is growing concern that earlier antibiotic initiation may result in increased antibiotic treatment overall, including those without infection,” said Dr. Seelye. “However, to date, there is little evidence to support this claim.”
The goal of their study was to investigate whether hospital-level acceleration in antibiotic timing for sepsis was associated with increasing antibiotic use among patients hospitalized with potential infection.
They identified 1,101,239 hospitalizations for potential infection in 132 VA hospitals during the period from 2013 to 2018. Of these patients, 608,128 (55.2%) received antibiotics within 48 hours of presentation to the emergency department. A total of 117,435 (10.7%) met the criteria for sepsis.
Hospitals were classified into tertiles of antibiotic acceleration for sepsis: rapid, slow, and flat.
In the VA system, patients with severe sepsis began receiving faster antibiotic treatment in 2017, compared with earlier years. In 2017-2018 more than 20% of sepsis patients had received their first treatment within 2 hours, compared with 14% in 2013-1014.
In 2017-2018, more than 20% of sepsis patients had received their first treatment within 2 hours, compared with 14% in 2013-1014.
Hospitals categorized as rapid accelerators decreased their time to antibiotic initiation from 6.4 hours to 4.5 hours, while slow accelerators went from 5.6 to 4.6 hours from 2013 to 2018, and flat accelerators remained stable during the time period (5.3 hours down to 5.2 hours).
However, statistical analysis showed no real difference between the three groups in antibiotic prescribing.
“Despite this, there was no evidence between hospital-level antibiotic acceleration in sepsis and antibiotic use among all patients with potential sepsis,” said Dr. Seelye.
Weighing in on the study results, Craig M. Coopersmith, MD, professor of surgery at Emory University, Atlanta, noted that these results are very convincing, considering the size of the study and that it encompassed 132 different facilities.
“It’s difficult to say how generalizable these results are but they are definitely generalizable to all hospitals in the VA system,” he said. “In general, there are similarities between large health care systems, and it would be surprising if we found the opposite to be true in non-VA health systems.”
However, he emphasized that there is some possibility that the results would not be identical because different health care systems have different methods of providing care.
“This paper does show that you can get antibiotics into patients faster, which can be life saving, without inappropriately using them on everybody,” Dr. Coopersmith said.
He explained that there is more attention being paid now to antibiotic stewardship, compared with 10 or 15 years ago. “Given the choice of giving someone a single dose of antibiotics who may not need it, as opposed to withholding them from someone who is septic which is life threatening, the risk benefit ratio weighs heavily towards starting them early,” he said. “And then escalate rapidly.”
FROM CCC50
Study clarifies who gets post–COVID-19 interstitial lung disease
A study of post–COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom who developed severe lung inflammation after they left the hospital may provide greater clarity on which patients are most likely to have persistent lung dysfunction.
In addition to pinpointing those most at risk, the findings showed that conventional corticosteroid treatment is highly effective in improving lung function and reducing symptoms.
Researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ National Health Foundation Trust in London reported that a small percentage of patients – 4.8%, or 35 of 837 patients in the study – had severe persistent interstitial lung disease (ILD), mostly organizing pneumonia, 4 weeks after discharge. Of these patients, 30 received steroid treatment, all of whom showed improvement in lung function.
Lead author Katherine Jane Myall, MRCP, and colleagues wrote that the most common radiologic finding in acute COVID-19 is bilateral ground-glass opacification, and findings of organizing pneumonia are common. However, no reports exist of the role of inflammatory infiltrates during recovery from COVID-19 or of the effectiveness of treatments for persistent ILD. “The long-term respiratory morbidity remains unclear,” Dr. Myall and colleagues wrote.
The study findings are significant because they quantify the degree of lung disease that patients have after COVID-19, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. He added that the disease course and presentation followed the pattern of organizing pneumonia in some patients, and traditional corticosteroid therapy seemed to resolve symptoms and improve lung function.
“This is a really important piece to get out there because it describes what a lot of us are worried about in patients with post-COVID lung disease and about what type of lung disease they have. It offers a potential treatment,” he said.
Dr. Myall and colleagues noted that even a “relatively small proportion” of patients with persistent, severe ILD – as reported in this study – pose “a significant disease burden.” They added: “Prompt therapy may avoid potentially permanent fibrosis and functional impairment.”
The single-center, prospective, observational study followed discharged patients with telephone calls 4 weeks after discharge to determine their status. At that point, 39% of the study cohort (n = 325) reported ongoing symptoms.
The patients had outpatient examinations at 6 weeks post discharge, at which time 42.9% (n = 138) had no signs or symptoms of persistent disease; 33.8% (n = 110) had symptoms but no radiologic findings and received referrals to other departments; and 24% (n = 77) were referred to the post-COVID lung disease multidisciplinary team. A total of 59 were diagnosed with persistent post-COVID interstitial change, 35 of whom had organizing pneumonia, hence the rationale for using steroids in this group, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated.
The 30 patients treated with corticosteroids received a maximum initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg prednisolone, which was rapidly weaned over 3 weeks. Some patients received lower doses depending on their comorbidities.
Treatment resulted in an average relative increase in transfer factor of 31.6% (P < .001) and forced vital capacity of 9.6% (P = .014), along with significant improvement in symptoms and x-ray signs.
The study identified some key characteristics of the patients who had persistent post–COVID-19 inflammatory ILD. They were mostly male (71.5%) and overweight with an average body mass index of 28.3, but only 26% were obese. Most had at least one comorbidity, with the most common being diabetes and asthma (22.9%). Their average hospital stay was 16.9 days, 82.9% required oxygen, 55% were in the ICU, and 46% needed invasive mechanical ventilation.
The patients most vulnerable to ILD and organizing pneumonia were the “sicker” of the whole cohort, Dr. Gupta said. “In one sense, it’s reassuring that this is not just happening in anyone; this is happening in patients who had the worst course and were hospitalized in the ICU for the most part.”
The study shows that identifying these patients early on and initiating steroid therapy could avoid persistent lung injury and scarring, Dr. Gupta said.
The London researchers noted that theirs wasn’t a radiologic study, so CT scans weren’t formally scored before and after treatment. They also acknowledged vagueness about imaging and clinical findings representing “nothing other than slow ongoing recovery.”
Patients with post–COVID-19 ILD will require ongoing follow-up to better understand the disease course, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated, although they predicted organizing pneumonia is unlikely to recur once it resolves.
Dr. Myall and coauthors had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Gupta disclosed he is also an employee and shareholder at Genentech.
A study of post–COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom who developed severe lung inflammation after they left the hospital may provide greater clarity on which patients are most likely to have persistent lung dysfunction.
In addition to pinpointing those most at risk, the findings showed that conventional corticosteroid treatment is highly effective in improving lung function and reducing symptoms.
Researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ National Health Foundation Trust in London reported that a small percentage of patients – 4.8%, or 35 of 837 patients in the study – had severe persistent interstitial lung disease (ILD), mostly organizing pneumonia, 4 weeks after discharge. Of these patients, 30 received steroid treatment, all of whom showed improvement in lung function.
Lead author Katherine Jane Myall, MRCP, and colleagues wrote that the most common radiologic finding in acute COVID-19 is bilateral ground-glass opacification, and findings of organizing pneumonia are common. However, no reports exist of the role of inflammatory infiltrates during recovery from COVID-19 or of the effectiveness of treatments for persistent ILD. “The long-term respiratory morbidity remains unclear,” Dr. Myall and colleagues wrote.
The study findings are significant because they quantify the degree of lung disease that patients have after COVID-19, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. He added that the disease course and presentation followed the pattern of organizing pneumonia in some patients, and traditional corticosteroid therapy seemed to resolve symptoms and improve lung function.
“This is a really important piece to get out there because it describes what a lot of us are worried about in patients with post-COVID lung disease and about what type of lung disease they have. It offers a potential treatment,” he said.
Dr. Myall and colleagues noted that even a “relatively small proportion” of patients with persistent, severe ILD – as reported in this study – pose “a significant disease burden.” They added: “Prompt therapy may avoid potentially permanent fibrosis and functional impairment.”
The single-center, prospective, observational study followed discharged patients with telephone calls 4 weeks after discharge to determine their status. At that point, 39% of the study cohort (n = 325) reported ongoing symptoms.
The patients had outpatient examinations at 6 weeks post discharge, at which time 42.9% (n = 138) had no signs or symptoms of persistent disease; 33.8% (n = 110) had symptoms but no radiologic findings and received referrals to other departments; and 24% (n = 77) were referred to the post-COVID lung disease multidisciplinary team. A total of 59 were diagnosed with persistent post-COVID interstitial change, 35 of whom had organizing pneumonia, hence the rationale for using steroids in this group, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated.
The 30 patients treated with corticosteroids received a maximum initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg prednisolone, which was rapidly weaned over 3 weeks. Some patients received lower doses depending on their comorbidities.
Treatment resulted in an average relative increase in transfer factor of 31.6% (P < .001) and forced vital capacity of 9.6% (P = .014), along with significant improvement in symptoms and x-ray signs.
The study identified some key characteristics of the patients who had persistent post–COVID-19 inflammatory ILD. They were mostly male (71.5%) and overweight with an average body mass index of 28.3, but only 26% were obese. Most had at least one comorbidity, with the most common being diabetes and asthma (22.9%). Their average hospital stay was 16.9 days, 82.9% required oxygen, 55% were in the ICU, and 46% needed invasive mechanical ventilation.
The patients most vulnerable to ILD and organizing pneumonia were the “sicker” of the whole cohort, Dr. Gupta said. “In one sense, it’s reassuring that this is not just happening in anyone; this is happening in patients who had the worst course and were hospitalized in the ICU for the most part.”
The study shows that identifying these patients early on and initiating steroid therapy could avoid persistent lung injury and scarring, Dr. Gupta said.
The London researchers noted that theirs wasn’t a radiologic study, so CT scans weren’t formally scored before and after treatment. They also acknowledged vagueness about imaging and clinical findings representing “nothing other than slow ongoing recovery.”
Patients with post–COVID-19 ILD will require ongoing follow-up to better understand the disease course, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated, although they predicted organizing pneumonia is unlikely to recur once it resolves.
Dr. Myall and coauthors had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Gupta disclosed he is also an employee and shareholder at Genentech.
A study of post–COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom who developed severe lung inflammation after they left the hospital may provide greater clarity on which patients are most likely to have persistent lung dysfunction.
In addition to pinpointing those most at risk, the findings showed that conventional corticosteroid treatment is highly effective in improving lung function and reducing symptoms.
Researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ National Health Foundation Trust in London reported that a small percentage of patients – 4.8%, or 35 of 837 patients in the study – had severe persistent interstitial lung disease (ILD), mostly organizing pneumonia, 4 weeks after discharge. Of these patients, 30 received steroid treatment, all of whom showed improvement in lung function.
Lead author Katherine Jane Myall, MRCP, and colleagues wrote that the most common radiologic finding in acute COVID-19 is bilateral ground-glass opacification, and findings of organizing pneumonia are common. However, no reports exist of the role of inflammatory infiltrates during recovery from COVID-19 or of the effectiveness of treatments for persistent ILD. “The long-term respiratory morbidity remains unclear,” Dr. Myall and colleagues wrote.
The study findings are significant because they quantify the degree of lung disease that patients have after COVID-19, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. He added that the disease course and presentation followed the pattern of organizing pneumonia in some patients, and traditional corticosteroid therapy seemed to resolve symptoms and improve lung function.
“This is a really important piece to get out there because it describes what a lot of us are worried about in patients with post-COVID lung disease and about what type of lung disease they have. It offers a potential treatment,” he said.
Dr. Myall and colleagues noted that even a “relatively small proportion” of patients with persistent, severe ILD – as reported in this study – pose “a significant disease burden.” They added: “Prompt therapy may avoid potentially permanent fibrosis and functional impairment.”
The single-center, prospective, observational study followed discharged patients with telephone calls 4 weeks after discharge to determine their status. At that point, 39% of the study cohort (n = 325) reported ongoing symptoms.
The patients had outpatient examinations at 6 weeks post discharge, at which time 42.9% (n = 138) had no signs or symptoms of persistent disease; 33.8% (n = 110) had symptoms but no radiologic findings and received referrals to other departments; and 24% (n = 77) were referred to the post-COVID lung disease multidisciplinary team. A total of 59 were diagnosed with persistent post-COVID interstitial change, 35 of whom had organizing pneumonia, hence the rationale for using steroids in this group, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated.
The 30 patients treated with corticosteroids received a maximum initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg prednisolone, which was rapidly weaned over 3 weeks. Some patients received lower doses depending on their comorbidities.
Treatment resulted in an average relative increase in transfer factor of 31.6% (P < .001) and forced vital capacity of 9.6% (P = .014), along with significant improvement in symptoms and x-ray signs.
The study identified some key characteristics of the patients who had persistent post–COVID-19 inflammatory ILD. They were mostly male (71.5%) and overweight with an average body mass index of 28.3, but only 26% were obese. Most had at least one comorbidity, with the most common being diabetes and asthma (22.9%). Their average hospital stay was 16.9 days, 82.9% required oxygen, 55% were in the ICU, and 46% needed invasive mechanical ventilation.
The patients most vulnerable to ILD and organizing pneumonia were the “sicker” of the whole cohort, Dr. Gupta said. “In one sense, it’s reassuring that this is not just happening in anyone; this is happening in patients who had the worst course and were hospitalized in the ICU for the most part.”
The study shows that identifying these patients early on and initiating steroid therapy could avoid persistent lung injury and scarring, Dr. Gupta said.
The London researchers noted that theirs wasn’t a radiologic study, so CT scans weren’t formally scored before and after treatment. They also acknowledged vagueness about imaging and clinical findings representing “nothing other than slow ongoing recovery.”
Patients with post–COVID-19 ILD will require ongoing follow-up to better understand the disease course, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated, although they predicted organizing pneumonia is unlikely to recur once it resolves.
Dr. Myall and coauthors had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Gupta disclosed he is also an employee and shareholder at Genentech.
FROM ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY
Neurologic disorders ubiquitous and rising in the U.S.
, according to new findings derived from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease study.
The authors of the analysis, led by Valery Feigin, MD, PhD, of New Zealand’s National Institute for Stroke and Applied Neurosciences, and published in the February 2021 issue of JAMA Neurology, looked at prevalence, incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years for 14 neurological disorders across 50 states between 1990 and 2017. The diseases included in the analysis were stroke, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, headaches, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, brain and other nervous system cancers, meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus.
Tracking the burden of neurologic diseases
Dr. Feigin and colleagues estimated that a full 60% of the U.S. population lives with one or more of these disorders, a figure much greater than previous estimates for neurological disease burden nationwide. Tension-type headache and migraine were the most prevalent in the analysis by Dr. Feigin and colleagues. During the study period, they found, prevalence, incidence, and disability burden of nearly all the included disorders increased, with the exception of brain and spinal cord injuries, meningitis, and encephalitis.
The researchers attributed most of the rise in noncommunicable neurological diseases to population aging. An age-standardized analysis found trends for stroke and Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias to be declining or flat. Age-standardized stroke incidence dropped by 16% from 1990 to 2017, while stroke mortality declined by nearly a third, and stroke disability by a quarter. Age-standardized incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias dropped by 12%, and their prevalence by 13%, during the study period, though dementia mortality and disability were seen increasing.
The authors surmised that the age-standardized declines in stroke and dementias could reflect that “primary prevention of these disorders are beginning to show an influence.” With dementia, which is linked to cognitive reserve and education, “improving educational levels of cohort reaching the age groups at greatest risk of disease may also be contributing to a modest decline over time,” Dr. Feigin and his colleagues wrote.
Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis, meanwhile, were both seen rising in incidence, prevalence, and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) even with age-standardized figures. The United States saw comparatively more disability in 2017 from dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, and headache disorders, which together comprised 6.7% of DALYs, compared with 4.4% globally; these also accounted for a higher share of mortality in the U.S. than worldwide. The authors attributed at least some of the difference to better case ascertainment in the U.S.
Regional variations
The researchers also reported variations in disease burden by state and region. While previous studies have identified a “stroke belt” concentrated in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, the new findings point to stroke disability highest in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, and mortality highest in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The researchers noted increases in dementia mortality in these states, “likely attributable to the reciprocal association between stroke and dementia.”
Northern states saw higher burdens of multiple sclerosis compared with the rest of the country, while eastern states had higher rates of Parkinson’s disease.
Such regional and state-by state variations, Dr. Feigin and colleagues wrote in their analysis, “may be associated with differences in the case ascertainment, as well as access to health care; racial/ethnic, genetic, and socioeconomic diversity; quality and comprehensiveness of preventive strategies; and risk factor distribution.”
The researchers noted as a limitation of their study that the 14 diseases captured were not an exhaustive list of neurological conditions; chronic lower back pain, a condition included in a previous major study of the burden of neurological disease in the United States, was omitted, as were restless legs syndrome and peripheral neuropathy. The researchers cited changes to coding practice in the U.S. and accuracy of medical claims data as potential limitations of their analysis. The Global Burden of Disease study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and several of Dr. Feigin’s coauthors reported financial relationships with industry.
Time to adjust the stroke belt?
Amelia Boehme, PhD, a stroke epidemiologist at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York, said in an interview that the current study added to recent findings showing surprising local variability in stroke prevalence, incidence, and mortality. “What we had always conceptually thought of as the ‘stroke belt’ isn’t necessarily the case,” Dr. Boehme said, but is rather subject to local, county-by-county variations. “Looking at the data here in conjunction with what previous authors have found, it raises some questions as to whether or not state-level data is giving a completely accurate picture, and whether we need to start looking at the county level and adjust for populations and age.” Importantly, Dr. Boehme said, data collected in the Global Burden of Disease study tends to be exceptionally rigorous and systematic, adding weight to Dr. Feigin and colleagues’ suggestions that prevention efforts may be making a dent in stroke and dementia.
“More data is always needed before we start to say we’re seeing things change,” Dr. Boehme noted. “But any glimmer of optimism is welcome, especially with regard to interventions that have been put in place, to allow us to build on those interventions.”
Dr. Boehme disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.
, according to new findings derived from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease study.
The authors of the analysis, led by Valery Feigin, MD, PhD, of New Zealand’s National Institute for Stroke and Applied Neurosciences, and published in the February 2021 issue of JAMA Neurology, looked at prevalence, incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years for 14 neurological disorders across 50 states between 1990 and 2017. The diseases included in the analysis were stroke, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, headaches, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, brain and other nervous system cancers, meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus.
Tracking the burden of neurologic diseases
Dr. Feigin and colleagues estimated that a full 60% of the U.S. population lives with one or more of these disorders, a figure much greater than previous estimates for neurological disease burden nationwide. Tension-type headache and migraine were the most prevalent in the analysis by Dr. Feigin and colleagues. During the study period, they found, prevalence, incidence, and disability burden of nearly all the included disorders increased, with the exception of brain and spinal cord injuries, meningitis, and encephalitis.
The researchers attributed most of the rise in noncommunicable neurological diseases to population aging. An age-standardized analysis found trends for stroke and Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias to be declining or flat. Age-standardized stroke incidence dropped by 16% from 1990 to 2017, while stroke mortality declined by nearly a third, and stroke disability by a quarter. Age-standardized incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias dropped by 12%, and their prevalence by 13%, during the study period, though dementia mortality and disability were seen increasing.
The authors surmised that the age-standardized declines in stroke and dementias could reflect that “primary prevention of these disorders are beginning to show an influence.” With dementia, which is linked to cognitive reserve and education, “improving educational levels of cohort reaching the age groups at greatest risk of disease may also be contributing to a modest decline over time,” Dr. Feigin and his colleagues wrote.
Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis, meanwhile, were both seen rising in incidence, prevalence, and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) even with age-standardized figures. The United States saw comparatively more disability in 2017 from dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, and headache disorders, which together comprised 6.7% of DALYs, compared with 4.4% globally; these also accounted for a higher share of mortality in the U.S. than worldwide. The authors attributed at least some of the difference to better case ascertainment in the U.S.
Regional variations
The researchers also reported variations in disease burden by state and region. While previous studies have identified a “stroke belt” concentrated in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, the new findings point to stroke disability highest in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, and mortality highest in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The researchers noted increases in dementia mortality in these states, “likely attributable to the reciprocal association between stroke and dementia.”
Northern states saw higher burdens of multiple sclerosis compared with the rest of the country, while eastern states had higher rates of Parkinson’s disease.
Such regional and state-by state variations, Dr. Feigin and colleagues wrote in their analysis, “may be associated with differences in the case ascertainment, as well as access to health care; racial/ethnic, genetic, and socioeconomic diversity; quality and comprehensiveness of preventive strategies; and risk factor distribution.”
The researchers noted as a limitation of their study that the 14 diseases captured were not an exhaustive list of neurological conditions; chronic lower back pain, a condition included in a previous major study of the burden of neurological disease in the United States, was omitted, as were restless legs syndrome and peripheral neuropathy. The researchers cited changes to coding practice in the U.S. and accuracy of medical claims data as potential limitations of their analysis. The Global Burden of Disease study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and several of Dr. Feigin’s coauthors reported financial relationships with industry.
Time to adjust the stroke belt?
Amelia Boehme, PhD, a stroke epidemiologist at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York, said in an interview that the current study added to recent findings showing surprising local variability in stroke prevalence, incidence, and mortality. “What we had always conceptually thought of as the ‘stroke belt’ isn’t necessarily the case,” Dr. Boehme said, but is rather subject to local, county-by-county variations. “Looking at the data here in conjunction with what previous authors have found, it raises some questions as to whether or not state-level data is giving a completely accurate picture, and whether we need to start looking at the county level and adjust for populations and age.” Importantly, Dr. Boehme said, data collected in the Global Burden of Disease study tends to be exceptionally rigorous and systematic, adding weight to Dr. Feigin and colleagues’ suggestions that prevention efforts may be making a dent in stroke and dementia.
“More data is always needed before we start to say we’re seeing things change,” Dr. Boehme noted. “But any glimmer of optimism is welcome, especially with regard to interventions that have been put in place, to allow us to build on those interventions.”
Dr. Boehme disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.
, according to new findings derived from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease study.
The authors of the analysis, led by Valery Feigin, MD, PhD, of New Zealand’s National Institute for Stroke and Applied Neurosciences, and published in the February 2021 issue of JAMA Neurology, looked at prevalence, incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years for 14 neurological disorders across 50 states between 1990 and 2017. The diseases included in the analysis were stroke, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, headaches, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, brain and other nervous system cancers, meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus.
Tracking the burden of neurologic diseases
Dr. Feigin and colleagues estimated that a full 60% of the U.S. population lives with one or more of these disorders, a figure much greater than previous estimates for neurological disease burden nationwide. Tension-type headache and migraine were the most prevalent in the analysis by Dr. Feigin and colleagues. During the study period, they found, prevalence, incidence, and disability burden of nearly all the included disorders increased, with the exception of brain and spinal cord injuries, meningitis, and encephalitis.
The researchers attributed most of the rise in noncommunicable neurological diseases to population aging. An age-standardized analysis found trends for stroke and Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias to be declining or flat. Age-standardized stroke incidence dropped by 16% from 1990 to 2017, while stroke mortality declined by nearly a third, and stroke disability by a quarter. Age-standardized incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias dropped by 12%, and their prevalence by 13%, during the study period, though dementia mortality and disability were seen increasing.
The authors surmised that the age-standardized declines in stroke and dementias could reflect that “primary prevention of these disorders are beginning to show an influence.” With dementia, which is linked to cognitive reserve and education, “improving educational levels of cohort reaching the age groups at greatest risk of disease may also be contributing to a modest decline over time,” Dr. Feigin and his colleagues wrote.
Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis, meanwhile, were both seen rising in incidence, prevalence, and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) even with age-standardized figures. The United States saw comparatively more disability in 2017 from dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, and headache disorders, which together comprised 6.7% of DALYs, compared with 4.4% globally; these also accounted for a higher share of mortality in the U.S. than worldwide. The authors attributed at least some of the difference to better case ascertainment in the U.S.
Regional variations
The researchers also reported variations in disease burden by state and region. While previous studies have identified a “stroke belt” concentrated in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, the new findings point to stroke disability highest in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, and mortality highest in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The researchers noted increases in dementia mortality in these states, “likely attributable to the reciprocal association between stroke and dementia.”
Northern states saw higher burdens of multiple sclerosis compared with the rest of the country, while eastern states had higher rates of Parkinson’s disease.
Such regional and state-by state variations, Dr. Feigin and colleagues wrote in their analysis, “may be associated with differences in the case ascertainment, as well as access to health care; racial/ethnic, genetic, and socioeconomic diversity; quality and comprehensiveness of preventive strategies; and risk factor distribution.”
The researchers noted as a limitation of their study that the 14 diseases captured were not an exhaustive list of neurological conditions; chronic lower back pain, a condition included in a previous major study of the burden of neurological disease in the United States, was omitted, as were restless legs syndrome and peripheral neuropathy. The researchers cited changes to coding practice in the U.S. and accuracy of medical claims data as potential limitations of their analysis. The Global Burden of Disease study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and several of Dr. Feigin’s coauthors reported financial relationships with industry.
Time to adjust the stroke belt?
Amelia Boehme, PhD, a stroke epidemiologist at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York, said in an interview that the current study added to recent findings showing surprising local variability in stroke prevalence, incidence, and mortality. “What we had always conceptually thought of as the ‘stroke belt’ isn’t necessarily the case,” Dr. Boehme said, but is rather subject to local, county-by-county variations. “Looking at the data here in conjunction with what previous authors have found, it raises some questions as to whether or not state-level data is giving a completely accurate picture, and whether we need to start looking at the county level and adjust for populations and age.” Importantly, Dr. Boehme said, data collected in the Global Burden of Disease study tends to be exceptionally rigorous and systematic, adding weight to Dr. Feigin and colleagues’ suggestions that prevention efforts may be making a dent in stroke and dementia.
“More data is always needed before we start to say we’re seeing things change,” Dr. Boehme noted. “But any glimmer of optimism is welcome, especially with regard to interventions that have been put in place, to allow us to build on those interventions.”
Dr. Boehme disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
Decline in children’s COVID-19 cases slows
The number of new COVID-19 cases in children declined for the sixth consecutive week, but the drop was the smallest yet, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
That drop of almost 6,400 cases, or 9.0%, falls short of the declines recorded in any the previous 5 weeks, which ranged from 18,000 to 46,000 cases and 15.3% to 28.7%, based on data from the heath departments of 49 states (excluding New York), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
The total number of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is up to almost 3.17 million, which represents 13.1% of cases among all age groups. That cumulative proportion was unchanged from the previous week, which has occurred only three other times over the course of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
Despite the 6-week decline in new cases, however, the cumulative rate continued to climb, rising from 4,124 cases per 100,000 children to 4,209 for the week of Feb. 19-25. The states, not surprisingly, fall on both sides of that national tally. The lowest rates can be found in Hawaii (1,040 per 100,000 children), Vermont (2,111 per 100,000), and Maine (2,394), while the highest rates were recorded in North Dakota (8,580), Tennessee (7,851), and Rhode Island (7,223), the AAP and CHA said.
The number of new child deaths, nine, stayed in single digits for a second consecutive week, although it was up from six deaths reported a week earlier. Total COVID-19–related deaths in children now number 256, which represents just 0.06% of coronavirus deaths for all ages among the 43 states (along with New York City and Guam) reporting such data.
Among those jurisdictions, Texas (40), Arizona (27), and New York City (23) have reported the most deaths in children, while nine states and the District of Columbia have reported no deaths yet, the AAP and CHA noted.
The number of new COVID-19 cases in children declined for the sixth consecutive week, but the drop was the smallest yet, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
That drop of almost 6,400 cases, or 9.0%, falls short of the declines recorded in any the previous 5 weeks, which ranged from 18,000 to 46,000 cases and 15.3% to 28.7%, based on data from the heath departments of 49 states (excluding New York), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
The total number of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is up to almost 3.17 million, which represents 13.1% of cases among all age groups. That cumulative proportion was unchanged from the previous week, which has occurred only three other times over the course of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
Despite the 6-week decline in new cases, however, the cumulative rate continued to climb, rising from 4,124 cases per 100,000 children to 4,209 for the week of Feb. 19-25. The states, not surprisingly, fall on both sides of that national tally. The lowest rates can be found in Hawaii (1,040 per 100,000 children), Vermont (2,111 per 100,000), and Maine (2,394), while the highest rates were recorded in North Dakota (8,580), Tennessee (7,851), and Rhode Island (7,223), the AAP and CHA said.
The number of new child deaths, nine, stayed in single digits for a second consecutive week, although it was up from six deaths reported a week earlier. Total COVID-19–related deaths in children now number 256, which represents just 0.06% of coronavirus deaths for all ages among the 43 states (along with New York City and Guam) reporting such data.
Among those jurisdictions, Texas (40), Arizona (27), and New York City (23) have reported the most deaths in children, while nine states and the District of Columbia have reported no deaths yet, the AAP and CHA noted.
The number of new COVID-19 cases in children declined for the sixth consecutive week, but the drop was the smallest yet, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
That drop of almost 6,400 cases, or 9.0%, falls short of the declines recorded in any the previous 5 weeks, which ranged from 18,000 to 46,000 cases and 15.3% to 28.7%, based on data from the heath departments of 49 states (excluding New York), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
The total number of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is up to almost 3.17 million, which represents 13.1% of cases among all age groups. That cumulative proportion was unchanged from the previous week, which has occurred only three other times over the course of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
Despite the 6-week decline in new cases, however, the cumulative rate continued to climb, rising from 4,124 cases per 100,000 children to 4,209 for the week of Feb. 19-25. The states, not surprisingly, fall on both sides of that national tally. The lowest rates can be found in Hawaii (1,040 per 100,000 children), Vermont (2,111 per 100,000), and Maine (2,394), while the highest rates were recorded in North Dakota (8,580), Tennessee (7,851), and Rhode Island (7,223), the AAP and CHA said.
The number of new child deaths, nine, stayed in single digits for a second consecutive week, although it was up from six deaths reported a week earlier. Total COVID-19–related deaths in children now number 256, which represents just 0.06% of coronavirus deaths for all ages among the 43 states (along with New York City and Guam) reporting such data.
Among those jurisdictions, Texas (40), Arizona (27), and New York City (23) have reported the most deaths in children, while nine states and the District of Columbia have reported no deaths yet, the AAP and CHA noted.
Thirteen percent of patients with type 2 diabetes have major ECG abnormalities
Major ECG abnormalities were found in 13% of more than 8,000 unselected patients with type 2 diabetes, including a 9% prevalence in the subgroup of these patients without identified cardiovascular disease (CVD) in a community-based Dutch cohort. Minor ECG abnormalities were even more prevalent.
These prevalence rates were consistent with prior findings from patients with type 2 diabetes, but the current report is notable because “it provides the most thorough description of the prevalence of ECG abnormalities in people with type 2 diabetes,” and used an “unselected and large population with comprehensive measurements,” including many without a history of CVD, said Peter P. Harms, MSc, and associates noted in a recent report in the Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications.
The analysis also identified several parameters that significantly linked with the presence of a major ECG abnormality including hypertension, male sex, older age, and higher levels of hemoglobin A1c.
“Resting ECG abnormalities might be a useful tool for CVD screening in people with type 2 diabetes,” concluded Mr. Harms, a researcher at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, and coauthors.
Findings “not unexpected”
Patients with diabetes have a higher prevalence of ECG abnormalities “because of their higher likelihood of having hypertension and other CVD risk factors,” as well as potentially having subclinical CVD, said Fred M. Kusumoto, MD, so these findings are “not unexpected. The more risk factors a patient has for structural heart disease, atrial fibrillation (AFib), or stroke from AFib, the more a physician must consider whether a baseline ECG and future surveillance is appropriate,” Dr. Kusumoto said in an interview.
But he cautioned against seeing these findings as a rationale to routinely run a resting ECG examination on every adult with diabetes.
“Patients with diabetes are very heterogeneous,” which makes it “difficult to come up with a ‘one size fits all’ recommendation” for ECG screening of patients with diabetes, he said.
While a task force of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes set a class I level C guideline for resting ECG screening of patients with diabetes if they also have either hypertension or suspected CVD, the American Diabetes Association has no specific recommendations on which patients with diabetes should receive ECG screening.
“The current absence of U.S. recommendations is reasonable, as it allows patients and physicians to discuss the issues and decide on the utility of an ECG in their specific situation,” said Dr. Kusumoto, director of heart rhythm services at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. But he also suggested that “the more risk factors that a patient with diabetes has for structural heart disease, AFib, or stroke from AFib the more a physician must consider whether a baseline ECG and future surveillance is appropriate.”
Data from a Dutch prospective cohort
The new study used data collected from 8,068 patients with type 2 diabetes and enrolled in the prospective Hoorn Diabetes Care System cohort, which enrolled patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the West Friesland region of the Netherlands starting in 1996. The study includes most of these patients in the region who are under regular care of a general practitioner, and the study protocol calls for an annual resting ECG examination.
The investigators used standard, 12-lead ECG readings taken for each patient during 2018, and classified abnormalities by the Minnesota Code criteria. They divided the abnormalities into major or minor groups “in accordance with consensus between previous studies who categorised abnormalities according to perceived importance and/or severity.” The major subgroup included major QS pattern abnormalities, major ST-segment abnormalities, complete left bundle branch block or intraventricular block, or atrial fibrillation or flutter. Minor abnormalities included minor QS pattern abnormalities, minor ST-segment abnormalities, complete right bundle branch block, or premature atrial or ventricular contractions.
The prevalence of a major abnormality in the entire cohort examined was 13%, and another 16% had a minor abnormality. The most common types of abnormalities were ventricular conduction defects, in 14%; and arrhythmias, in 11%. In the subgroup of 6,494 of these patients with no history of CVD, 9% had a major abnormality and 15% a minor abnormality. Within this subgroup, 23% also had no hypertension, and their prevalence of a major abnormality was 4%, while 9% had a minor abnormality.
A multivariable analysis of potential risk factors among the entire study cohort showed that patients with hypertension had nearly triple the prevalence of a major ECG abnormality as those without hypertension, and men had double the prevalence of a major abnormality compared with women. Other markers that significantly linked with a higher rate of a major abnormality were older age, higher body mass index, higher A1c levels, and moderately depressed renal function.
“While the criteria the authors used for differentiating major and minor criteria are reasonable, in an asymptomatic patient even the presence of frequent premature atrial contractions on a baseline ECG has been associated with the development of AFib and a higher risk for stroke. The presence of left or right bundle branch block could spur additional evaluation with an echocardiogram,” said Dr. Kusumoto, president-elect of the Heart Rhythm Society.
“Generally an ECG abnormality is supplemental to clinical data in deciding the choice and timing of next therapeutic steps or additional testing. Physicians should have a fairly low threshold for obtaining ECG in patients with diabetes since it is inexpensive and can provide supplemental and potentially actionable information,” he said. “The presence of ECG abnormalities increases the possibility of underlying cardiovascular disease. When taking care of patients with diabetes at initial evaluation or without prior cardiac history or symptoms referable to the heart, two main issues are identifying the likelihood of coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation.”
Mr. Harms and coauthors, and Dr. Kusumoto, had no disclosures.
Major ECG abnormalities were found in 13% of more than 8,000 unselected patients with type 2 diabetes, including a 9% prevalence in the subgroup of these patients without identified cardiovascular disease (CVD) in a community-based Dutch cohort. Minor ECG abnormalities were even more prevalent.
These prevalence rates were consistent with prior findings from patients with type 2 diabetes, but the current report is notable because “it provides the most thorough description of the prevalence of ECG abnormalities in people with type 2 diabetes,” and used an “unselected and large population with comprehensive measurements,” including many without a history of CVD, said Peter P. Harms, MSc, and associates noted in a recent report in the Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications.
The analysis also identified several parameters that significantly linked with the presence of a major ECG abnormality including hypertension, male sex, older age, and higher levels of hemoglobin A1c.
“Resting ECG abnormalities might be a useful tool for CVD screening in people with type 2 diabetes,” concluded Mr. Harms, a researcher at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, and coauthors.
Findings “not unexpected”
Patients with diabetes have a higher prevalence of ECG abnormalities “because of their higher likelihood of having hypertension and other CVD risk factors,” as well as potentially having subclinical CVD, said Fred M. Kusumoto, MD, so these findings are “not unexpected. The more risk factors a patient has for structural heart disease, atrial fibrillation (AFib), or stroke from AFib, the more a physician must consider whether a baseline ECG and future surveillance is appropriate,” Dr. Kusumoto said in an interview.
But he cautioned against seeing these findings as a rationale to routinely run a resting ECG examination on every adult with diabetes.
“Patients with diabetes are very heterogeneous,” which makes it “difficult to come up with a ‘one size fits all’ recommendation” for ECG screening of patients with diabetes, he said.
While a task force of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes set a class I level C guideline for resting ECG screening of patients with diabetes if they also have either hypertension or suspected CVD, the American Diabetes Association has no specific recommendations on which patients with diabetes should receive ECG screening.
“The current absence of U.S. recommendations is reasonable, as it allows patients and physicians to discuss the issues and decide on the utility of an ECG in their specific situation,” said Dr. Kusumoto, director of heart rhythm services at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. But he also suggested that “the more risk factors that a patient with diabetes has for structural heart disease, AFib, or stroke from AFib the more a physician must consider whether a baseline ECG and future surveillance is appropriate.”
Data from a Dutch prospective cohort
The new study used data collected from 8,068 patients with type 2 diabetes and enrolled in the prospective Hoorn Diabetes Care System cohort, which enrolled patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the West Friesland region of the Netherlands starting in 1996. The study includes most of these patients in the region who are under regular care of a general practitioner, and the study protocol calls for an annual resting ECG examination.
The investigators used standard, 12-lead ECG readings taken for each patient during 2018, and classified abnormalities by the Minnesota Code criteria. They divided the abnormalities into major or minor groups “in accordance with consensus between previous studies who categorised abnormalities according to perceived importance and/or severity.” The major subgroup included major QS pattern abnormalities, major ST-segment abnormalities, complete left bundle branch block or intraventricular block, or atrial fibrillation or flutter. Minor abnormalities included minor QS pattern abnormalities, minor ST-segment abnormalities, complete right bundle branch block, or premature atrial or ventricular contractions.
The prevalence of a major abnormality in the entire cohort examined was 13%, and another 16% had a minor abnormality. The most common types of abnormalities were ventricular conduction defects, in 14%; and arrhythmias, in 11%. In the subgroup of 6,494 of these patients with no history of CVD, 9% had a major abnormality and 15% a minor abnormality. Within this subgroup, 23% also had no hypertension, and their prevalence of a major abnormality was 4%, while 9% had a minor abnormality.
A multivariable analysis of potential risk factors among the entire study cohort showed that patients with hypertension had nearly triple the prevalence of a major ECG abnormality as those without hypertension, and men had double the prevalence of a major abnormality compared with women. Other markers that significantly linked with a higher rate of a major abnormality were older age, higher body mass index, higher A1c levels, and moderately depressed renal function.
“While the criteria the authors used for differentiating major and minor criteria are reasonable, in an asymptomatic patient even the presence of frequent premature atrial contractions on a baseline ECG has been associated with the development of AFib and a higher risk for stroke. The presence of left or right bundle branch block could spur additional evaluation with an echocardiogram,” said Dr. Kusumoto, president-elect of the Heart Rhythm Society.
“Generally an ECG abnormality is supplemental to clinical data in deciding the choice and timing of next therapeutic steps or additional testing. Physicians should have a fairly low threshold for obtaining ECG in patients with diabetes since it is inexpensive and can provide supplemental and potentially actionable information,” he said. “The presence of ECG abnormalities increases the possibility of underlying cardiovascular disease. When taking care of patients with diabetes at initial evaluation or without prior cardiac history or symptoms referable to the heart, two main issues are identifying the likelihood of coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation.”
Mr. Harms and coauthors, and Dr. Kusumoto, had no disclosures.
Major ECG abnormalities were found in 13% of more than 8,000 unselected patients with type 2 diabetes, including a 9% prevalence in the subgroup of these patients without identified cardiovascular disease (CVD) in a community-based Dutch cohort. Minor ECG abnormalities were even more prevalent.
These prevalence rates were consistent with prior findings from patients with type 2 diabetes, but the current report is notable because “it provides the most thorough description of the prevalence of ECG abnormalities in people with type 2 diabetes,” and used an “unselected and large population with comprehensive measurements,” including many without a history of CVD, said Peter P. Harms, MSc, and associates noted in a recent report in the Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications.
The analysis also identified several parameters that significantly linked with the presence of a major ECG abnormality including hypertension, male sex, older age, and higher levels of hemoglobin A1c.
“Resting ECG abnormalities might be a useful tool for CVD screening in people with type 2 diabetes,” concluded Mr. Harms, a researcher at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, and coauthors.
Findings “not unexpected”
Patients with diabetes have a higher prevalence of ECG abnormalities “because of their higher likelihood of having hypertension and other CVD risk factors,” as well as potentially having subclinical CVD, said Fred M. Kusumoto, MD, so these findings are “not unexpected. The more risk factors a patient has for structural heart disease, atrial fibrillation (AFib), or stroke from AFib, the more a physician must consider whether a baseline ECG and future surveillance is appropriate,” Dr. Kusumoto said in an interview.
But he cautioned against seeing these findings as a rationale to routinely run a resting ECG examination on every adult with diabetes.
“Patients with diabetes are very heterogeneous,” which makes it “difficult to come up with a ‘one size fits all’ recommendation” for ECG screening of patients with diabetes, he said.
While a task force of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes set a class I level C guideline for resting ECG screening of patients with diabetes if they also have either hypertension or suspected CVD, the American Diabetes Association has no specific recommendations on which patients with diabetes should receive ECG screening.
“The current absence of U.S. recommendations is reasonable, as it allows patients and physicians to discuss the issues and decide on the utility of an ECG in their specific situation,” said Dr. Kusumoto, director of heart rhythm services at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. But he also suggested that “the more risk factors that a patient with diabetes has for structural heart disease, AFib, or stroke from AFib the more a physician must consider whether a baseline ECG and future surveillance is appropriate.”
Data from a Dutch prospective cohort
The new study used data collected from 8,068 patients with type 2 diabetes and enrolled in the prospective Hoorn Diabetes Care System cohort, which enrolled patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the West Friesland region of the Netherlands starting in 1996. The study includes most of these patients in the region who are under regular care of a general practitioner, and the study protocol calls for an annual resting ECG examination.
The investigators used standard, 12-lead ECG readings taken for each patient during 2018, and classified abnormalities by the Minnesota Code criteria. They divided the abnormalities into major or minor groups “in accordance with consensus between previous studies who categorised abnormalities according to perceived importance and/or severity.” The major subgroup included major QS pattern abnormalities, major ST-segment abnormalities, complete left bundle branch block or intraventricular block, or atrial fibrillation or flutter. Minor abnormalities included minor QS pattern abnormalities, minor ST-segment abnormalities, complete right bundle branch block, or premature atrial or ventricular contractions.
The prevalence of a major abnormality in the entire cohort examined was 13%, and another 16% had a minor abnormality. The most common types of abnormalities were ventricular conduction defects, in 14%; and arrhythmias, in 11%. In the subgroup of 6,494 of these patients with no history of CVD, 9% had a major abnormality and 15% a minor abnormality. Within this subgroup, 23% also had no hypertension, and their prevalence of a major abnormality was 4%, while 9% had a minor abnormality.
A multivariable analysis of potential risk factors among the entire study cohort showed that patients with hypertension had nearly triple the prevalence of a major ECG abnormality as those without hypertension, and men had double the prevalence of a major abnormality compared with women. Other markers that significantly linked with a higher rate of a major abnormality were older age, higher body mass index, higher A1c levels, and moderately depressed renal function.
“While the criteria the authors used for differentiating major and minor criteria are reasonable, in an asymptomatic patient even the presence of frequent premature atrial contractions on a baseline ECG has been associated with the development of AFib and a higher risk for stroke. The presence of left or right bundle branch block could spur additional evaluation with an echocardiogram,” said Dr. Kusumoto, president-elect of the Heart Rhythm Society.
“Generally an ECG abnormality is supplemental to clinical data in deciding the choice and timing of next therapeutic steps or additional testing. Physicians should have a fairly low threshold for obtaining ECG in patients with diabetes since it is inexpensive and can provide supplemental and potentially actionable information,” he said. “The presence of ECG abnormalities increases the possibility of underlying cardiovascular disease. When taking care of patients with diabetes at initial evaluation or without prior cardiac history or symptoms referable to the heart, two main issues are identifying the likelihood of coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation.”
Mr. Harms and coauthors, and Dr. Kusumoto, had no disclosures.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF DIABETES AND ITS COMPLICATIONS
COVID-19 vaccination linked to less mechanical ventilation
new evidence reveals.
Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.
“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.
The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.
Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.
The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.
Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.
Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.
Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new evidence reveals.
Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.
“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.
The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.
Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.
The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.
Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.
Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.
Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new evidence reveals.
Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.
“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.
The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.
Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.
The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.
Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.
Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.
Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hospitalist advisory board picks ‘must-see’ Converge sessions
With dozens and dozens of sessions on the SHM Converge program, picking what to go to can feel virtually impossible.
The editorial board of The Hospitalist is here to help. With knowledge in an array of subspecialties – and experience in attending many SHM annual conferences, they have pointed out sessions they consider “must see,” whether based on the importance of the topic, the entertainment aspect, or the dynamic qualities of the speakers.
Here are their selections:
Ilaria Gadalla, DMSc, PA-C, physician assistant department chair, South University, West Palm Beach, Fla.
What You Say, What They Hear: Conversations with Your Hospital C-suite (Tuesday, May 4, 1:40 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.)
“As a department leader, developing my communication skills is always an area I seek to improve,” Dr. Gadalla said. “Tips to help with interpreting the audience and tailoring presentations for receptive feedback are invaluable tools.”
Hiring the Right Hospitalist: The Other Kind of Choosing Wisely (Wednesday, May 5, 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.)
“[This] is also an interesting session – selection criteria in the age of virtual interviewing is challenging,” she said. “I look forward to benefiting from my colleagues’ experience to enhance my leadership style.”
Shyam Odeti, MD, SFHM, FAAFP, MBA, hospitalist at Ballad Health, Johnson City, Tenn.
Understanding High-Value Care: Cost, Rationing, Overuse, and Underuse: Workshop (Tuesday May 4, 1:40 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.)
“Health care in the U.S. is expensive, and we have to pay utmost attention to the cost while providing the highest-quality medical care and service to sustain the health care,” Dr. Odeti said. “I am excited about this workshop organized by Dr. Justin Glasgow, Dr. Sarah Baron, Dr. Mona Krouss, and Dr. Harry Cho. I have known these leaders in the health care quality and patient safety arena over several years and their immense contributions to their organizations and the quality improvement special interest group of SHM. This workshop will help us understand how to define value in health care, implement high-value care, and eliminate low-value care.”
Hospitalists Piloting the Twin Engines of the Mid-Revenue Cycle Ship: A Primer on Utilization Management and Clinical Documentation Improvement (Thursday, May 6, 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.)
“The business of running hospitals carries with it many financial challenges,” Dr. Odeti said. “The intersection of tremendous fixed overhead and the vagaries of payer behavior is the cause. The COVID-19 pandemic and its devastating impact have compounded the problem. Hospitalists are natural institution leaders who are fundamental in overcoming this impasse through taking command and piloting the twin-engine ship of utilization management and clinical documentation improvement. These two domains working in synergy with experienced pilots are critical to attaining both high-quality care and the long-term viability of our health care systems. Dr. Aziz Ansari has been an expert in this domain and a highly sought-after speaker at SHM annual conferences. His sessions are incredibly captivating and educational.”
Harry Cho, MD, FACP, SFHM, chief value officer at NYC Health+ Hospitals
Medical Jeopardy (Thursday, May 6, 2:30 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.)
“[I am] always looking forward to a fun-filled session for medical learning with this fantastic group of facilitators,” Dr. Cho said.
Back to the Future - Things I Wish I Knew Earlier in my Career (Wednesday, May 5, 3:50 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.)
“Listening to Brad Sharpe brings me back to the days in training, eagerly absorbing every pearl of wisdom from mentors,” he said.
Marina Farah, MD, MHA, performance improvement consultant, FarahMD Consulting, Corvallis, Ore.
“I am excited to learn more about best practices and lessons learned from adopting telehealth in the hospital setting,” Dr. Farah said.
The Biden Administration, the 117th Congress, and What We Might See in Healthcare (Friday, May 7, 3:30 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.)
“I am looking forward to learning more about upcoming legislation and policy changes that impact U.S. health care delivery and provider reimbursement,” she said.
James Kim, MD, associate professor of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta
Health Equity and Disparities in Hospitalized Patients (Tuesday, May 4, 3:30 p.m. to 4:10 p.m. )
“[Kimberly Manning, MD] is an amazing speaker, and I know that this is a topic that she can speak about both eloquently and passionately,” Dr. Kim said. “She has been advocating for her patients at Grady for years and so this is something that she has first-hand experience about.”
Top 5 Clinical Practice Guidelines Every Hospitalist Needs to Know: Workshop (Wednesday, May 5, 3:50 p.m. to 4:50 p.m. )
“This sounds like a high-yield session,” he said. “For busy clinicians, being able to know what guidelines should affect your daily practice is extremely important.”
Lonika Sood, MD, MHPE, FACP, FHM, clinical education director of internal medicine, Washington State University, Spokane
“This is an important conversation that has surfaced with the pandemic, and likely has caused a lot of confusion amongst frontline clinicians and patients,” Dr. Sood said. “I look forward to hearing about some strategies from the presenters.”
Behind the Curtain: How a Journal Works (Friday, May 7, 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.)
“The Journal of Hospital Medicine is on the forefront of providing high-quality scientific information relevant to hospital medicine, and it would be helpful to hear of the presenters’ successes and challenges.”
Anika Kumar, MD, FAAP, FHM, assistant professor of pediatrics, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine
Fireside Chat: Story-telling and the Nocturnist in Pediatrics (Tuesday, May 4, 3:30 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.)
“I look forward to their discussion about storytelling and the role narrative medicine plays in patient care, especially pediatrics,” Dr. Kumar said.
Febrile Infant Update (Thursday, May 6, 3:10 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.)
“This clinical update session with Dr. Russell McCulloh will be exciting, as caring for febrile infants is bread-and-butter pediatric hospital medicine,” she said. “And this update will help review new research in this diagnosis.”
Kranthi Sitammagari, MD, FACP, CHCQM-PHYADV, director of clinical operations, quality, and patient experience, Atrium Health Hospitalist Group, Monroe, N.C.
Any session in the “Clinical Updates” and “Quality” tracks
“I would recommend ‘Clinical Updates’ and ‘Quality’ sessions, as they are so close to my practice and I look forward to those sessions,” Dr. Sitammagari said. “Clinical Updates provide the latest updates in clinical practice which is very useful for everyday patient management for hospitalists. Quality sessions discuss innovative ways to improve the quality of hospitalist practice.”
Raman Palabindala, MD, SFHM, medical director of utilization management, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson
Medical Jeopardy (Thursday, May 6, 2:30 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.)
“I will always promote my fun event, Medical Jeopardy (Dr. Palabindala is a moderator). It is going to be a challenge between three great attendings from three great organizations across the country to win the national Jeopardy competition. Not only will you learn a lot, but you also will have a lot of fun. I am sure it is going to be more entertaining this time, given virtual play.”
LAMA’s DRAMA: Left AMA – Documentation & Rules of AMA (Friday, May 7, 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.)
“I also recommend the talk by Dr. Medarametla not just for the title LAMA DRAMA (for ‘left against medical advice’),” he said. “We all need to learn this one to the core and I am sure he will deliver the most engaging presentation.”
With dozens and dozens of sessions on the SHM Converge program, picking what to go to can feel virtually impossible.
The editorial board of The Hospitalist is here to help. With knowledge in an array of subspecialties – and experience in attending many SHM annual conferences, they have pointed out sessions they consider “must see,” whether based on the importance of the topic, the entertainment aspect, or the dynamic qualities of the speakers.
Here are their selections:
Ilaria Gadalla, DMSc, PA-C, physician assistant department chair, South University, West Palm Beach, Fla.
What You Say, What They Hear: Conversations with Your Hospital C-suite (Tuesday, May 4, 1:40 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.)
“As a department leader, developing my communication skills is always an area I seek to improve,” Dr. Gadalla said. “Tips to help with interpreting the audience and tailoring presentations for receptive feedback are invaluable tools.”
Hiring the Right Hospitalist: The Other Kind of Choosing Wisely (Wednesday, May 5, 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.)
“[This] is also an interesting session – selection criteria in the age of virtual interviewing is challenging,” she said. “I look forward to benefiting from my colleagues’ experience to enhance my leadership style.”
Shyam Odeti, MD, SFHM, FAAFP, MBA, hospitalist at Ballad Health, Johnson City, Tenn.
Understanding High-Value Care: Cost, Rationing, Overuse, and Underuse: Workshop (Tuesday May 4, 1:40 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.)
“Health care in the U.S. is expensive, and we have to pay utmost attention to the cost while providing the highest-quality medical care and service to sustain the health care,” Dr. Odeti said. “I am excited about this workshop organized by Dr. Justin Glasgow, Dr. Sarah Baron, Dr. Mona Krouss, and Dr. Harry Cho. I have known these leaders in the health care quality and patient safety arena over several years and their immense contributions to their organizations and the quality improvement special interest group of SHM. This workshop will help us understand how to define value in health care, implement high-value care, and eliminate low-value care.”
Hospitalists Piloting the Twin Engines of the Mid-Revenue Cycle Ship: A Primer on Utilization Management and Clinical Documentation Improvement (Thursday, May 6, 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.)
“The business of running hospitals carries with it many financial challenges,” Dr. Odeti said. “The intersection of tremendous fixed overhead and the vagaries of payer behavior is the cause. The COVID-19 pandemic and its devastating impact have compounded the problem. Hospitalists are natural institution leaders who are fundamental in overcoming this impasse through taking command and piloting the twin-engine ship of utilization management and clinical documentation improvement. These two domains working in synergy with experienced pilots are critical to attaining both high-quality care and the long-term viability of our health care systems. Dr. Aziz Ansari has been an expert in this domain and a highly sought-after speaker at SHM annual conferences. His sessions are incredibly captivating and educational.”
Harry Cho, MD, FACP, SFHM, chief value officer at NYC Health+ Hospitals
Medical Jeopardy (Thursday, May 6, 2:30 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.)
“[I am] always looking forward to a fun-filled session for medical learning with this fantastic group of facilitators,” Dr. Cho said.
Back to the Future - Things I Wish I Knew Earlier in my Career (Wednesday, May 5, 3:50 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.)
“Listening to Brad Sharpe brings me back to the days in training, eagerly absorbing every pearl of wisdom from mentors,” he said.
Marina Farah, MD, MHA, performance improvement consultant, FarahMD Consulting, Corvallis, Ore.
“I am excited to learn more about best practices and lessons learned from adopting telehealth in the hospital setting,” Dr. Farah said.
The Biden Administration, the 117th Congress, and What We Might See in Healthcare (Friday, May 7, 3:30 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.)
“I am looking forward to learning more about upcoming legislation and policy changes that impact U.S. health care delivery and provider reimbursement,” she said.
James Kim, MD, associate professor of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta
Health Equity and Disparities in Hospitalized Patients (Tuesday, May 4, 3:30 p.m. to 4:10 p.m. )
“[Kimberly Manning, MD] is an amazing speaker, and I know that this is a topic that she can speak about both eloquently and passionately,” Dr. Kim said. “She has been advocating for her patients at Grady for years and so this is something that she has first-hand experience about.”
Top 5 Clinical Practice Guidelines Every Hospitalist Needs to Know: Workshop (Wednesday, May 5, 3:50 p.m. to 4:50 p.m. )
“This sounds like a high-yield session,” he said. “For busy clinicians, being able to know what guidelines should affect your daily practice is extremely important.”
Lonika Sood, MD, MHPE, FACP, FHM, clinical education director of internal medicine, Washington State University, Spokane
“This is an important conversation that has surfaced with the pandemic, and likely has caused a lot of confusion amongst frontline clinicians and patients,” Dr. Sood said. “I look forward to hearing about some strategies from the presenters.”
Behind the Curtain: How a Journal Works (Friday, May 7, 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.)
“The Journal of Hospital Medicine is on the forefront of providing high-quality scientific information relevant to hospital medicine, and it would be helpful to hear of the presenters’ successes and challenges.”
Anika Kumar, MD, FAAP, FHM, assistant professor of pediatrics, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine
Fireside Chat: Story-telling and the Nocturnist in Pediatrics (Tuesday, May 4, 3:30 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.)
“I look forward to their discussion about storytelling and the role narrative medicine plays in patient care, especially pediatrics,” Dr. Kumar said.
Febrile Infant Update (Thursday, May 6, 3:10 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.)
“This clinical update session with Dr. Russell McCulloh will be exciting, as caring for febrile infants is bread-and-butter pediatric hospital medicine,” she said. “And this update will help review new research in this diagnosis.”
Kranthi Sitammagari, MD, FACP, CHCQM-PHYADV, director of clinical operations, quality, and patient experience, Atrium Health Hospitalist Group, Monroe, N.C.
Any session in the “Clinical Updates” and “Quality” tracks
“I would recommend ‘Clinical Updates’ and ‘Quality’ sessions, as they are so close to my practice and I look forward to those sessions,” Dr. Sitammagari said. “Clinical Updates provide the latest updates in clinical practice which is very useful for everyday patient management for hospitalists. Quality sessions discuss innovative ways to improve the quality of hospitalist practice.”
Raman Palabindala, MD, SFHM, medical director of utilization management, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson
Medical Jeopardy (Thursday, May 6, 2:30 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.)
“I will always promote my fun event, Medical Jeopardy (Dr. Palabindala is a moderator). It is going to be a challenge between three great attendings from three great organizations across the country to win the national Jeopardy competition. Not only will you learn a lot, but you also will have a lot of fun. I am sure it is going to be more entertaining this time, given virtual play.”
LAMA’s DRAMA: Left AMA – Documentation & Rules of AMA (Friday, May 7, 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.)
“I also recommend the talk by Dr. Medarametla not just for the title LAMA DRAMA (for ‘left against medical advice’),” he said. “We all need to learn this one to the core and I am sure he will deliver the most engaging presentation.”
With dozens and dozens of sessions on the SHM Converge program, picking what to go to can feel virtually impossible.
The editorial board of The Hospitalist is here to help. With knowledge in an array of subspecialties – and experience in attending many SHM annual conferences, they have pointed out sessions they consider “must see,” whether based on the importance of the topic, the entertainment aspect, or the dynamic qualities of the speakers.
Here are their selections:
Ilaria Gadalla, DMSc, PA-C, physician assistant department chair, South University, West Palm Beach, Fla.
What You Say, What They Hear: Conversations with Your Hospital C-suite (Tuesday, May 4, 1:40 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.)
“As a department leader, developing my communication skills is always an area I seek to improve,” Dr. Gadalla said. “Tips to help with interpreting the audience and tailoring presentations for receptive feedback are invaluable tools.”
Hiring the Right Hospitalist: The Other Kind of Choosing Wisely (Wednesday, May 5, 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.)
“[This] is also an interesting session – selection criteria in the age of virtual interviewing is challenging,” she said. “I look forward to benefiting from my colleagues’ experience to enhance my leadership style.”
Shyam Odeti, MD, SFHM, FAAFP, MBA, hospitalist at Ballad Health, Johnson City, Tenn.
Understanding High-Value Care: Cost, Rationing, Overuse, and Underuse: Workshop (Tuesday May 4, 1:40 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.)
“Health care in the U.S. is expensive, and we have to pay utmost attention to the cost while providing the highest-quality medical care and service to sustain the health care,” Dr. Odeti said. “I am excited about this workshop organized by Dr. Justin Glasgow, Dr. Sarah Baron, Dr. Mona Krouss, and Dr. Harry Cho. I have known these leaders in the health care quality and patient safety arena over several years and their immense contributions to their organizations and the quality improvement special interest group of SHM. This workshop will help us understand how to define value in health care, implement high-value care, and eliminate low-value care.”
Hospitalists Piloting the Twin Engines of the Mid-Revenue Cycle Ship: A Primer on Utilization Management and Clinical Documentation Improvement (Thursday, May 6, 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.)
“The business of running hospitals carries with it many financial challenges,” Dr. Odeti said. “The intersection of tremendous fixed overhead and the vagaries of payer behavior is the cause. The COVID-19 pandemic and its devastating impact have compounded the problem. Hospitalists are natural institution leaders who are fundamental in overcoming this impasse through taking command and piloting the twin-engine ship of utilization management and clinical documentation improvement. These two domains working in synergy with experienced pilots are critical to attaining both high-quality care and the long-term viability of our health care systems. Dr. Aziz Ansari has been an expert in this domain and a highly sought-after speaker at SHM annual conferences. His sessions are incredibly captivating and educational.”
Harry Cho, MD, FACP, SFHM, chief value officer at NYC Health+ Hospitals
Medical Jeopardy (Thursday, May 6, 2:30 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.)
“[I am] always looking forward to a fun-filled session for medical learning with this fantastic group of facilitators,” Dr. Cho said.
Back to the Future - Things I Wish I Knew Earlier in my Career (Wednesday, May 5, 3:50 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.)
“Listening to Brad Sharpe brings me back to the days in training, eagerly absorbing every pearl of wisdom from mentors,” he said.
Marina Farah, MD, MHA, performance improvement consultant, FarahMD Consulting, Corvallis, Ore.
“I am excited to learn more about best practices and lessons learned from adopting telehealth in the hospital setting,” Dr. Farah said.
The Biden Administration, the 117th Congress, and What We Might See in Healthcare (Friday, May 7, 3:30 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.)
“I am looking forward to learning more about upcoming legislation and policy changes that impact U.S. health care delivery and provider reimbursement,” she said.
James Kim, MD, associate professor of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta
Health Equity and Disparities in Hospitalized Patients (Tuesday, May 4, 3:30 p.m. to 4:10 p.m. )
“[Kimberly Manning, MD] is an amazing speaker, and I know that this is a topic that she can speak about both eloquently and passionately,” Dr. Kim said. “She has been advocating for her patients at Grady for years and so this is something that she has first-hand experience about.”
Top 5 Clinical Practice Guidelines Every Hospitalist Needs to Know: Workshop (Wednesday, May 5, 3:50 p.m. to 4:50 p.m. )
“This sounds like a high-yield session,” he said. “For busy clinicians, being able to know what guidelines should affect your daily practice is extremely important.”
Lonika Sood, MD, MHPE, FACP, FHM, clinical education director of internal medicine, Washington State University, Spokane
“This is an important conversation that has surfaced with the pandemic, and likely has caused a lot of confusion amongst frontline clinicians and patients,” Dr. Sood said. “I look forward to hearing about some strategies from the presenters.”
Behind the Curtain: How a Journal Works (Friday, May 7, 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.)
“The Journal of Hospital Medicine is on the forefront of providing high-quality scientific information relevant to hospital medicine, and it would be helpful to hear of the presenters’ successes and challenges.”
Anika Kumar, MD, FAAP, FHM, assistant professor of pediatrics, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine
Fireside Chat: Story-telling and the Nocturnist in Pediatrics (Tuesday, May 4, 3:30 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.)
“I look forward to their discussion about storytelling and the role narrative medicine plays in patient care, especially pediatrics,” Dr. Kumar said.
Febrile Infant Update (Thursday, May 6, 3:10 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.)
“This clinical update session with Dr. Russell McCulloh will be exciting, as caring for febrile infants is bread-and-butter pediatric hospital medicine,” she said. “And this update will help review new research in this diagnosis.”
Kranthi Sitammagari, MD, FACP, CHCQM-PHYADV, director of clinical operations, quality, and patient experience, Atrium Health Hospitalist Group, Monroe, N.C.
Any session in the “Clinical Updates” and “Quality” tracks
“I would recommend ‘Clinical Updates’ and ‘Quality’ sessions, as they are so close to my practice and I look forward to those sessions,” Dr. Sitammagari said. “Clinical Updates provide the latest updates in clinical practice which is very useful for everyday patient management for hospitalists. Quality sessions discuss innovative ways to improve the quality of hospitalist practice.”
Raman Palabindala, MD, SFHM, medical director of utilization management, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson
Medical Jeopardy (Thursday, May 6, 2:30 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.)
“I will always promote my fun event, Medical Jeopardy (Dr. Palabindala is a moderator). It is going to be a challenge between three great attendings from three great organizations across the country to win the national Jeopardy competition. Not only will you learn a lot, but you also will have a lot of fun. I am sure it is going to be more entertaining this time, given virtual play.”
LAMA’s DRAMA: Left AMA – Documentation & Rules of AMA (Friday, May 7, 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.)
“I also recommend the talk by Dr. Medarametla not just for the title LAMA DRAMA (for ‘left against medical advice’),” he said. “We all need to learn this one to the core and I am sure he will deliver the most engaging presentation.”