Infectious Diseases

A torrent of blame has deluged the administration’s management of the pandemic. There is though one part of the government that deserves the praise of the nation for its response to this public health crisis—the federal health care system. In this column, we discuss the ways in which the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the US Public Health Service (PHS) Commissioned Corps especially have bravely and generously responded to the medical emergency of COVID-19 in the US.

Four missions drive the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Though the fourth of these missions usually is in the background, it has risen to the forefront during the pandemic. To put the fourth mission in its proper perspective, we first should review the other 3 charges given to the largest integrated health care system in the country.

The first mission is to provide the highest quality care possible for the more than 9 million veterans enrolled in that system at each of the 1,255 VHA locations. The second mission is to ensure that the Veterans Benefits Administration delivers the full range of benefits that veterans earned through their service. These including funding for education, loans for homes, and many other types of support that assist service men and women to be successful in their transition from military to civilian life. The third mission is to honor the commitment of those who fought for their country unto death. The National Cemeteries Administration oversees 142 national cemeteries where veterans are buried with dignity and remembered with gratitude for their uniformed service. The purpose of these 3 internally focused missions is to provide a safety net for eligible veterans from the day they separate from the military until the hour they pass from this earth.

The fourth mission is different. This mission looks outside the military family to the civilian world. Its goal is to bolster the ability of the nation as a whole to handle wars, terrorism, national emergencies, and natural disasters. It does this through emergency response plans that preserve the integrity of the 3 other missions to veterans while enhancing the capacity of local and state governments to manage the threat of these public health, safety, or security crises.¹

At the same time the VA was aggressively mounting a defense against the threat COVID-19 posed to the other missions, it also launched the fourth mission. In announcing these actions in April 2020, VA Secretary Robert Wilke succinctly summarized the need to balance the fourth mission with the other 3. “VA is committed to helping the nation in this effort to combat COVID-19. Helping veterans is our first mission, but in many locations across the country we’re helping states and local communities. VA is in this fight not only for the millions of veterans we serve each day; we’re in the fight for the people of the United States.”²

During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic I saw firsthand how VA disaster preparedness and emergency training were far superior to many academic and community health care systems. Given VA’s detailed and drilled crisis response plans, its specialized expertise in public health disasters, and its immense resources, it is no wonder that as the virus stretched civilian health care systems, some states turned to the VA for help. At my Albuquerque, New Mexico, VA medical center, 5 medical surgical beds and 3 intensive care beds were opened to the Indian Health Service overwhelmed with cases of COVID-19 in the hard-hit Navajo Nation. In New Jersey where Federal Practitioner is published, the fourth mission reached out to the state-run veterans homes as 90 VA nurses and gerontologists were deployed to 2 of its veterans facilities where close to 150 veterans have died.³ State veterans homes in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and many other states have received supplies, including direly needed testing and personal protective equipment, staff, technology, and training.⁴

In July, VA published an impressive summary of fourth mission activities, which I encourage you to read. When you are look at this site, remember with a moment of silent appreciation all the altruistic and courageous VA clinical and administrative staff who volunteered for these assignments many of which put them directly in harm’s way.⁵

The VA is not alone in answering the call of COVID-19. In March, despite the grave risk to their health, their life, and their families, the USNS Comfort was deployed to New York City to help with its COVID-19 response while the USNS Mercy assisted in the efforts in Los Angeles. More recently, the military deployed > 700 Military Health System medical and support professionals to support COVID-19 operations in both Texas and California. Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio has taken on a handful of civilian patients with COVID-19 and increase its level I trauma cases as local hospitals have strained under the caseload.⁶

For the PHS Commissioned Corps its first mission is to serve as “America’s health responders.”⁷ This pandemic has intensified the extant health inequities in our country and compounded them with racial injustice and economic disparity. Thus, it is important to recognize that the very purpose of the PHS is to “fight disease, conduct research, and care for patients in underserved communities across the nation.”⁸ More than 3,900 PHS officers have been deployed nationally and internationally in COVID-19 clinical strike teams. Early in the pandemic the clinical response teams were deployed to a long-term care facility in Kirkland, Washington; convention center-based hospitals in New York City, Detroit, Michigan, and Washington DC, and Navajo Nation facilities. PHS officers also are providing clinical guidance at Bureau of Prison facilities for infection control and personal protective equipment training.

We know that there are many more examples of heroic service by federal health care professionals and staff than we could locate or celebrate in this brief column. Readers of this journal are well aware of the near constant criticism of the VA and calls for privatization,⁹ the inadequate funding of the PHS,¹⁰ and the recent downsizing of DoD health care¹¹ that threatens to undermine its core functions. The pandemic has powerfully demonstrated that degrading the ability of federal health care to agilely and masterfully mobilize in the event of a public health disaster endangers not just veterans and the military but the health and well-being of a nation, particularly its most vulnerable citizens.

A torrent of blame has deluged the administration’s management of the pandemic. There is though one part of the government that deserves the praise of the nation for its response to this public health crisis—the federal health care system. In this column, we discuss the ways in which the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the US Public Health Service (PHS) Commissioned Corps especially have bravely and generously responded to the medical emergency of COVID-19 in the US.

Four missions drive the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Though the fourth of these missions usually is in the background, it has risen to the forefront during the pandemic. To put the fourth mission in its proper perspective, we first should review the other 3 charges given to the largest integrated health care system in the country.

The first mission is to provide the highest quality care possible for the more than 9 million veterans enrolled in that system at each of the 1,255 VHA locations. The second mission is to ensure that the Veterans Benefits Administration delivers the full range of benefits that veterans earned through their service. These including funding for education, loans for homes, and many other types of support that assist service men and women to be successful in their transition from military to civilian life. The third mission is to honor the commitment of those who fought for their country unto death. The National Cemeteries Administration oversees 142 national cemeteries where veterans are buried with dignity and remembered with gratitude for their uniformed service. The purpose of these 3 internally focused missions is to provide a safety net for eligible veterans from the day they separate from the military until the hour they pass from this earth.

The fourth mission is different. This mission looks outside the military family to the civilian world. Its goal is to bolster the ability of the nation as a whole to handle wars, terrorism, national emergencies, and natural disasters. It does this through emergency response plans that preserve the integrity of the 3 other missions to veterans while enhancing the capacity of local and state governments to manage the threat of these public health, safety, or security crises.¹

At the same time the VA was aggressively mounting a defense against the threat COVID-19 posed to the other missions, it also launched the fourth mission. In announcing these actions in April 2020, VA Secretary Robert Wilke succinctly summarized the need to balance the fourth mission with the other 3. “VA is committed to helping the nation in this effort to combat COVID-19. Helping veterans is our first mission, but in many locations across the country we’re helping states and local communities. VA is in this fight not only for the millions of veterans we serve each day; we’re in the fight for the people of the United States.”²

During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic I saw firsthand how VA disaster preparedness and emergency training were far superior to many academic and community health care systems. Given VA’s detailed and drilled crisis response plans, its specialized expertise in public health disasters, and its immense resources, it is no wonder that as the virus stretched civilian health care systems, some states turned to the VA for help. At my Albuquerque, New Mexico, VA medical center, 5 medical surgical beds and 3 intensive care beds were opened to the Indian Health Service overwhelmed with cases of COVID-19 in the hard-hit Navajo Nation. In New Jersey where Federal Practitioner is published, the fourth mission reached out to the state-run veterans homes as 90 VA nurses and gerontologists were deployed to 2 of its veterans facilities where close to 150 veterans have died.³ State veterans homes in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and many other states have received supplies, including direly needed testing and personal protective equipment, staff, technology, and training.⁴

In July, VA published an impressive summary of fourth mission activities, which I encourage you to read. When you are look at this site, remember with a moment of silent appreciation all the altruistic and courageous VA clinical and administrative staff who volunteered for these assignments many of which put them directly in harm’s way.⁵

The VA is not alone in answering the call of COVID-19. In March, despite the grave risk to their health, their life, and their families, the USNS Comfort was deployed to New York City to help with its COVID-19 response while the USNS Mercy assisted in the efforts in Los Angeles. More recently, the military deployed > 700 Military Health System medical and support professionals to support COVID-19 operations in both Texas and California. Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio has taken on a handful of civilian patients with COVID-19 and increase its level I trauma cases as local hospitals have strained under the caseload.⁶

For the PHS Commissioned Corps its first mission is to serve as “America’s health responders.”⁷ This pandemic has intensified the extant health inequities in our country and compounded them with racial injustice and economic disparity. Thus, it is important to recognize that the very purpose of the PHS is to “fight disease, conduct research, and care for patients in underserved communities across the nation.”⁸ More than 3,900 PHS officers have been deployed nationally and internationally in COVID-19 clinical strike teams. Early in the pandemic the clinical response teams were deployed to a long-term care facility in Kirkland, Washington; convention center-based hospitals in New York City, Detroit, Michigan, and Washington DC, and Navajo Nation facilities. PHS officers also are providing clinical guidance at Bureau of Prison facilities for infection control and personal protective equipment training.

We know that there are many more examples of heroic service by federal health care professionals and staff than we could locate or celebrate in this brief column. Readers of this journal are well aware of the near constant criticism of the VA and calls for privatization,⁹ the inadequate funding of the PHS,¹⁰ and the recent downsizing of DoD health care¹¹ that threatens to undermine its core functions. The pandemic has powerfully demonstrated that degrading the ability of federal health care to agilely and masterfully mobilize in the event of a public health disaster endangers not just veterans and the military but the health and well-being of a nation, particularly its most vulnerable citizens.

A torrent of blame has deluged the administration’s management of the pandemic. There is though one part of the government that deserves the praise of the nation for its response to this public health crisis—the federal health care system. In this column, we discuss the ways in which the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the US Public Health Service (PHS) Commissioned Corps especially have bravely and generously responded to the medical emergency of COVID-19 in the US.

Four missions drive the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Though the fourth of these missions usually is in the background, it has risen to the forefront during the pandemic. To put the fourth mission in its proper perspective, we first should review the other 3 charges given to the largest integrated health care system in the country.

The first mission is to provide the highest quality care possible for the more than 9 million veterans enrolled in that system at each of the 1,255 VHA locations. The second mission is to ensure that the Veterans Benefits Administration delivers the full range of benefits that veterans earned through their service. These including funding for education, loans for homes, and many other types of support that assist service men and women to be successful in their transition from military to civilian life. The third mission is to honor the commitment of those who fought for their country unto death. The National Cemeteries Administration oversees 142 national cemeteries where veterans are buried with dignity and remembered with gratitude for their uniformed service. The purpose of these 3 internally focused missions is to provide a safety net for eligible veterans from the day they separate from the military until the hour they pass from this earth.

The fourth mission is different. This mission looks outside the military family to the civilian world. Its goal is to bolster the ability of the nation as a whole to handle wars, terrorism, national emergencies, and natural disasters. It does this through emergency response plans that preserve the integrity of the 3 other missions to veterans while enhancing the capacity of local and state governments to manage the threat of these public health, safety, or security crises.¹

At the same time the VA was aggressively mounting a defense against the threat COVID-19 posed to the other missions, it also launched the fourth mission. In announcing these actions in April 2020, VA Secretary Robert Wilke succinctly summarized the need to balance the fourth mission with the other 3. “VA is committed to helping the nation in this effort to combat COVID-19. Helping veterans is our first mission, but in many locations across the country we’re helping states and local communities. VA is in this fight not only for the millions of veterans we serve each day; we’re in the fight for the people of the United States.”²

During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic I saw firsthand how VA disaster preparedness and emergency training were far superior to many academic and community health care systems. Given VA’s detailed and drilled crisis response plans, its specialized expertise in public health disasters, and its immense resources, it is no wonder that as the virus stretched civilian health care systems, some states turned to the VA for help. At my Albuquerque, New Mexico, VA medical center, 5 medical surgical beds and 3 intensive care beds were opened to the Indian Health Service overwhelmed with cases of COVID-19 in the hard-hit Navajo Nation. In New Jersey where Federal Practitioner is published, the fourth mission reached out to the state-run veterans homes as 90 VA nurses and gerontologists were deployed to 2 of its veterans facilities where close to 150 veterans have died.³ State veterans homes in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and many other states have received supplies, including direly needed testing and personal protective equipment, staff, technology, and training.⁴

In July, VA published an impressive summary of fourth mission activities, which I encourage you to read. When you are look at this site, remember with a moment of silent appreciation all the altruistic and courageous VA clinical and administrative staff who volunteered for these assignments many of which put them directly in harm’s way.⁵

The VA is not alone in answering the call of COVID-19. In March, despite the grave risk to their health, their life, and their families, the USNS Comfort was deployed to New York City to help with its COVID-19 response while the USNS Mercy assisted in the efforts in Los Angeles. More recently, the military deployed > 700 Military Health System medical and support professionals to support COVID-19 operations in both Texas and California. Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio has taken on a handful of civilian patients with COVID-19 and increase its level I trauma cases as local hospitals have strained under the caseload.⁶

For the PHS Commissioned Corps its first mission is to serve as “America’s health responders.”⁷ This pandemic has intensified the extant health inequities in our country and compounded them with racial injustice and economic disparity. Thus, it is important to recognize that the very purpose of the PHS is to “fight disease, conduct research, and care for patients in underserved communities across the nation.”⁸ More than 3,900 PHS officers have been deployed nationally and internationally in COVID-19 clinical strike teams. Early in the pandemic the clinical response teams were deployed to a long-term care facility in Kirkland, Washington; convention center-based hospitals in New York City, Detroit, Michigan, and Washington DC, and Navajo Nation facilities. PHS officers also are providing clinical guidance at Bureau of Prison facilities for infection control and personal protective equipment training.

We know that there are many more examples of heroic service by federal health care professionals and staff than we could locate or celebrate in this brief column. Readers of this journal are well aware of the near constant criticism of the VA and calls for privatization,⁹ the inadequate funding of the PHS,¹⁰ and the recent downsizing of DoD health care¹¹ that threatens to undermine its core functions. The pandemic has powerfully demonstrated that degrading the ability of federal health care to agilely and masterfully mobilize in the event of a public health disaster endangers not just veterans and the military but the health and well-being of a nation, particularly its most vulnerable citizens.

After learning about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the news, we were all aware that it would eventually affect our lives and our dermatology practices. However, once the COVID-19 pandemic arrived in the United States, we were under a shelter-in-place order, schools were shut, and most businesses were closed within a few weeks.

As dermatologists, we were considered essential workers, and our offices could remain open. However, as the numbers of cases accelerated in New York City—the global epicenter of the pandemic—and we approached our peak, I closed down my practice, except for emergencies.

One of the first medical challenges dermatologists faced in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic was the proper management of our psoriasis patients. The major concern was that patients on biologics and other immunomodulatory therapies might be at an increased risk for COVID-19 infection and increased morbidity if affected. I received a multitude of telephone calls from patients taking these therapies who expressed high levels of concern and anxiety and were looking for direction as to whether they should continue their medications.

Early on, several of our professional societies provided guidelines regarding the use of systemic immunosuppressive agents during the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 15, 2020, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) advised, “Dermatologists must delicately balance the risk of immunosuppression with the risk of disease flare requiring urgent intervention with patient-specific risks.”¹ The AAD strongly recommended that patients should not stop their ongoing systemic immunosuppressive therapy without consulting their physicians. The AAD’s guidance provided specific recommendations for the following groups: (1) patients on systemic immunosuppressive agents who have not tested positive or exhibited signs/symptoms of COVID-19, (2) patients on systemic immunosuppressive agents who have tested positive for COVID-19 or exhibit signs/symptoms of COVID-19, (3) patients who have halted systemic immunosuppressive therapy after testing positive for COVID-19 (in whom it recommended physicians could reinitiate treatment), and (4) patients being considered for systemic immunosuppressive agents.¹

The National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) also recognized the need for additional guidelines for health care providers and patients on managing psoriatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic. In June 2020, the NPF formed a COVID-19 Task Force, which released its own recommendations for adult and pediatric patients with psoriatic disease.² Similar to the AAD, the NPF COVID-19 Task Force recommended that patients do not stop biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis during the current health crisis, stating the following: “While some uncertainties remain, initial data suggest that the benefit of continuing treatments for psoriatic diseases outweighs the hypothetical risks associated with immune modulating treatment of poor COVID-19–related outcomes for most patients.” Individuals in high-risk groups were advised to consult their health care providers regarding whether they should continue or alter therapy during the pandemic, and the clinical decision would be guided by the specific treatment regimen; the patient’s age, disease characteristics, and underlying medical conditions; or any particular concerns. Additionally, the task force emphasized that patients with psoriatic disease should continue to follow common sense measures to lower the risk of becoming infected with COVID-19, including practicing physical distancing, wearing face coverings in public settings, and washing their hands regularly.²

We remain in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic with no true guidance as to the future course and impact of the infection. It is important to realize that our understanding of the coronavirus and its impact on our patients is constantly evolving. I encourage all providers to stay current with updates on clinical guidelines. In addition, we should pay attention to the myriad of clinical trials and registries now underway, as they may provide more insight into optimal clinical management in these challenging times.

Most importantly, stay safe!

After learning about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the news, we were all aware that it would eventually affect our lives and our dermatology practices. However, once the COVID-19 pandemic arrived in the United States, we were under a shelter-in-place order, schools were shut, and most businesses were closed within a few weeks.

As dermatologists, we were considered essential workers, and our offices could remain open. However, as the numbers of cases accelerated in New York City—the global epicenter of the pandemic—and we approached our peak, I closed down my practice, except for emergencies.

One of the first medical challenges dermatologists faced in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic was the proper management of our psoriasis patients. The major concern was that patients on biologics and other immunomodulatory therapies might be at an increased risk for COVID-19 infection and increased morbidity if affected. I received a multitude of telephone calls from patients taking these therapies who expressed high levels of concern and anxiety and were looking for direction as to whether they should continue their medications.

Early on, several of our professional societies provided guidelines regarding the use of systemic immunosuppressive agents during the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 15, 2020, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) advised, “Dermatologists must delicately balance the risk of immunosuppression with the risk of disease flare requiring urgent intervention with patient-specific risks.”¹ The AAD strongly recommended that patients should not stop their ongoing systemic immunosuppressive therapy without consulting their physicians. The AAD’s guidance provided specific recommendations for the following groups: (1) patients on systemic immunosuppressive agents who have not tested positive or exhibited signs/symptoms of COVID-19, (2) patients on systemic immunosuppressive agents who have tested positive for COVID-19 or exhibit signs/symptoms of COVID-19, (3) patients who have halted systemic immunosuppressive therapy after testing positive for COVID-19 (in whom it recommended physicians could reinitiate treatment), and (4) patients being considered for systemic immunosuppressive agents.¹

The National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) also recognized the need for additional guidelines for health care providers and patients on managing psoriatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic. In June 2020, the NPF formed a COVID-19 Task Force, which released its own recommendations for adult and pediatric patients with psoriatic disease.² Similar to the AAD, the NPF COVID-19 Task Force recommended that patients do not stop biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis during the current health crisis, stating the following: “While some uncertainties remain, initial data suggest that the benefit of continuing treatments for psoriatic diseases outweighs the hypothetical risks associated with immune modulating treatment of poor COVID-19–related outcomes for most patients.” Individuals in high-risk groups were advised to consult their health care providers regarding whether they should continue or alter therapy during the pandemic, and the clinical decision would be guided by the specific treatment regimen; the patient’s age, disease characteristics, and underlying medical conditions; or any particular concerns. Additionally, the task force emphasized that patients with psoriatic disease should continue to follow common sense measures to lower the risk of becoming infected with COVID-19, including practicing physical distancing, wearing face coverings in public settings, and washing their hands regularly.²

We remain in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic with no true guidance as to the future course and impact of the infection. It is important to realize that our understanding of the coronavirus and its impact on our patients is constantly evolving. I encourage all providers to stay current with updates on clinical guidelines. In addition, we should pay attention to the myriad of clinical trials and registries now underway, as they may provide more insight into optimal clinical management in these challenging times.

Most importantly, stay safe!

After learning about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the news, we were all aware that it would eventually affect our lives and our dermatology practices. However, once the COVID-19 pandemic arrived in the United States, we were under a shelter-in-place order, schools were shut, and most businesses were closed within a few weeks.

As dermatologists, we were considered essential workers, and our offices could remain open. However, as the numbers of cases accelerated in New York City—the global epicenter of the pandemic—and we approached our peak, I closed down my practice, except for emergencies.

One of the first medical challenges dermatologists faced in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic was the proper management of our psoriasis patients. The major concern was that patients on biologics and other immunomodulatory therapies might be at an increased risk for COVID-19 infection and increased morbidity if affected. I received a multitude of telephone calls from patients taking these therapies who expressed high levels of concern and anxiety and were looking for direction as to whether they should continue their medications.

Early on, several of our professional societies provided guidelines regarding the use of systemic immunosuppressive agents during the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 15, 2020, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) advised, “Dermatologists must delicately balance the risk of immunosuppression with the risk of disease flare requiring urgent intervention with patient-specific risks.”¹ The AAD strongly recommended that patients should not stop their ongoing systemic immunosuppressive therapy without consulting their physicians. The AAD’s guidance provided specific recommendations for the following groups: (1) patients on systemic immunosuppressive agents who have not tested positive or exhibited signs/symptoms of COVID-19, (2) patients on systemic immunosuppressive agents who have tested positive for COVID-19 or exhibit signs/symptoms of COVID-19, (3) patients who have halted systemic immunosuppressive therapy after testing positive for COVID-19 (in whom it recommended physicians could reinitiate treatment), and (4) patients being considered for systemic immunosuppressive agents.¹

The National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) also recognized the need for additional guidelines for health care providers and patients on managing psoriatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic. In June 2020, the NPF formed a COVID-19 Task Force, which released its own recommendations for adult and pediatric patients with psoriatic disease.² Similar to the AAD, the NPF COVID-19 Task Force recommended that patients do not stop biologic or oral therapies for psoriasis during the current health crisis, stating the following: “While some uncertainties remain, initial data suggest that the benefit of continuing treatments for psoriatic diseases outweighs the hypothetical risks associated with immune modulating treatment of poor COVID-19–related outcomes for most patients.” Individuals in high-risk groups were advised to consult their health care providers regarding whether they should continue or alter therapy during the pandemic, and the clinical decision would be guided by the specific treatment regimen; the patient’s age, disease characteristics, and underlying medical conditions; or any particular concerns. Additionally, the task force emphasized that patients with psoriatic disease should continue to follow common sense measures to lower the risk of becoming infected with COVID-19, including practicing physical distancing, wearing face coverings in public settings, and washing their hands regularly.²

We remain in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic with no true guidance as to the future course and impact of the infection. It is important to realize that our understanding of the coronavirus and its impact on our patients is constantly evolving. I encourage all providers to stay current with updates on clinical guidelines. In addition, we should pay attention to the myriad of clinical trials and registries now underway, as they may provide more insight into optimal clinical management in these challenging times.

Most importantly, stay safe!

In 2017, lawmakers and insurers in the state of Texas approved the use of telehealth services in times of crisis.¹ During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, our clinic has used telemedicine to provide remote care to dermatology patients. We posit that the quick introduction and implementation of telemedicine during this time of need will change the way we practice dermatology in the future.

At the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, Texas, we primarily have used 2 forms of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: live face-to-face video communication (our institution primarily uses FaceTime), and a combination of telephone calls with store-and-forward images. All dermatology services at our institution were converted to telemedicine visits, and in-person office visits were only done if deemed necessary after triage by telemedicine in April and May 2020. This strategy removed the necessity for patients to leave their homes for their appointments, which not only saved them travel costs and time but also reduced the potential spread of COVID-19. Since this time, the clinic has reopened for in-person visits; however, patients still have the option to schedule a telehealth appointment if they prefer. Many patients still select the telehealth option for the above reasons.

Although routine skin checks were not always possible by video and/or store-and-forward images, telemedicine worked very well for follow-up visits, especially isotretinoin follow-ups. During the COVID-19 outbreak, iPLEDGE (https://www.ipledgeprogram.com/iPledgeUI/home.u) rapidly adapted to the use of telemedicine and even began to allow home pregnancy tests to be entered into the iPLEDGE system by health care providers. Isotretinoin follow-ups are especially useful for patients who do not require laboratory monitoring at the visit. Patients are easily evaluated, screened for side effects, and continued on their treatment if no concerns are found during the telemedicine visit. Patients who require laboratory monitoring are still able to schedule tests at our clinics or at free-standing laboratories near their homes without having an in-office dermatology appointment. At-home pregnancy tests are still being utilized as an option for patients electing for telehealth follow-ups. This strategy is both health conscious by protecting the patient from exposure to COVID-19 at a testing center and cost-effective, especially for our uninsured patients, while still meeting the safety check for iPLEDGE.

Additionally, we utilized store-and-forward telemedicine for hospital consultations. If the patient’s condition can easily be diagnosed by viewing unedited clinical images remotely, the clinician can further decrease the risk of COVID-19 spread and exposure by providing the consultation and treatment recommendations by telephone. In cases in which a diagnosis could not be made by reviewing clinical photographs remotely, an in-person visit would be done. We continue to use this strategy for our confirmed COVID-positive hospital consultations to help protect our faculty and residents and decrease the use of personal protective equipment. We propose this model could be instituted for patients admitted to hospitals without access to dermatology consultations. Store-and-forward photographs of worrisome lesions and rashes also can be used to triage visits. For example, a patient with a new-onset keratoacanthoma and a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer contacted our clinic during the pandemic and sent store-and-forward images for review. The patient was triaged by a telemedicine visit and was then brought into the clinic for biopsy based on his clinical photographs and history. Patients also have requested prescriptions for bimatoprost and tretinoin via telehealth, a service that many medical spas and online telehealth companies provide already but was not offered at our practice until now.

Telemedicine also has potentially helped decrease the number of patients going to urgent care clinics for dermatology-related issues. Additionally, we have utilized one provider per day to be the “on-call” dermatologist who would be doing telemedicine appointments for patients with new-onset conditions. This strategy not only minimized possible patient exposure to COVID-19 but also helped preserve resources at urgent care clinics and emergency departments, which currently are inundated with patients. Since we have reopened for in-person visits, we have been unable to sustain an on-call dermatologist for telemedicine but may re-employ this strategy in the future.

The unique experience of practicing medicine during a pandemic has and will affect the way we practice moving forward. The way telemedicine has been quickly and easily implemented by the health care community during the COVID-19 pandemic has taught our dermatologists the value of this method of health care delivery. We will likely continue to use telemedicine after the pandemic has been contained. Telemedicine has the potential to expand access to care to rural and underserved areas, hospitals without on-call dermatologists, and homebound patients. We also may be better able to provide isotretinoin to our patients who have deferred treatment due to difficulty with transportation to the monthly visits. Store-and-forward images could help patients referred to dermatology avoid long wait times for obvious skin cancers that would benefit from early treatment. Telemedicine visits also could potentially improve attendance for patients who forget about their appointment by calling them after they miss their scheduled appointment time and complete a telehealth encounter on the same day instead, which could help recover costs of no-show appointments for clinics.

It is still unclear how private insurance companies will adapt to the new use of telemedicine, but we hope they follow the lead of Medicare, which released a statement on March 6, 2020, supporting the implementation of telehealth services.² Although Medicare has made adjustments to allow for equal reimbursement for telehealth appointments, private insurance companies still vary greatly. Many practices are struggling and some remained open despite shelter-in-place orders, but we propose telemedicine may be a safer alternative for patients and providers during the current health crisis that would keep billable services in place. It is still uncertain whether the laws enacted to make telemedicine accessible during this time will hold after COVID-19 is contained, but we are hopeful that living through the pandemic will bring some positive benefit to our practice and the patients we serve.

In 2017, lawmakers and insurers in the state of Texas approved the use of telehealth services in times of crisis.¹ During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, our clinic has used telemedicine to provide remote care to dermatology patients. We posit that the quick introduction and implementation of telemedicine during this time of need will change the way we practice dermatology in the future.

At the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, Texas, we primarily have used 2 forms of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: live face-to-face video communication (our institution primarily uses FaceTime), and a combination of telephone calls with store-and-forward images. All dermatology services at our institution were converted to telemedicine visits, and in-person office visits were only done if deemed necessary after triage by telemedicine in April and May 2020. This strategy removed the necessity for patients to leave their homes for their appointments, which not only saved them travel costs and time but also reduced the potential spread of COVID-19. Since this time, the clinic has reopened for in-person visits; however, patients still have the option to schedule a telehealth appointment if they prefer. Many patients still select the telehealth option for the above reasons.

Although routine skin checks were not always possible by video and/or store-and-forward images, telemedicine worked very well for follow-up visits, especially isotretinoin follow-ups. During the COVID-19 outbreak, iPLEDGE (https://www.ipledgeprogram.com/iPledgeUI/home.u) rapidly adapted to the use of telemedicine and even began to allow home pregnancy tests to be entered into the iPLEDGE system by health care providers. Isotretinoin follow-ups are especially useful for patients who do not require laboratory monitoring at the visit. Patients are easily evaluated, screened for side effects, and continued on their treatment if no concerns are found during the telemedicine visit. Patients who require laboratory monitoring are still able to schedule tests at our clinics or at free-standing laboratories near their homes without having an in-office dermatology appointment. At-home pregnancy tests are still being utilized as an option for patients electing for telehealth follow-ups. This strategy is both health conscious by protecting the patient from exposure to COVID-19 at a testing center and cost-effective, especially for our uninsured patients, while still meeting the safety check for iPLEDGE.

Additionally, we utilized store-and-forward telemedicine for hospital consultations. If the patient’s condition can easily be diagnosed by viewing unedited clinical images remotely, the clinician can further decrease the risk of COVID-19 spread and exposure by providing the consultation and treatment recommendations by telephone. In cases in which a diagnosis could not be made by reviewing clinical photographs remotely, an in-person visit would be done. We continue to use this strategy for our confirmed COVID-positive hospital consultations to help protect our faculty and residents and decrease the use of personal protective equipment. We propose this model could be instituted for patients admitted to hospitals without access to dermatology consultations. Store-and-forward photographs of worrisome lesions and rashes also can be used to triage visits. For example, a patient with a new-onset keratoacanthoma and a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer contacted our clinic during the pandemic and sent store-and-forward images for review. The patient was triaged by a telemedicine visit and was then brought into the clinic for biopsy based on his clinical photographs and history. Patients also have requested prescriptions for bimatoprost and tretinoin via telehealth, a service that many medical spas and online telehealth companies provide already but was not offered at our practice until now.

Telemedicine also has potentially helped decrease the number of patients going to urgent care clinics for dermatology-related issues. Additionally, we have utilized one provider per day to be the “on-call” dermatologist who would be doing telemedicine appointments for patients with new-onset conditions. This strategy not only minimized possible patient exposure to COVID-19 but also helped preserve resources at urgent care clinics and emergency departments, which currently are inundated with patients. Since we have reopened for in-person visits, we have been unable to sustain an on-call dermatologist for telemedicine but may re-employ this strategy in the future.

The unique experience of practicing medicine during a pandemic has and will affect the way we practice moving forward. The way telemedicine has been quickly and easily implemented by the health care community during the COVID-19 pandemic has taught our dermatologists the value of this method of health care delivery. We will likely continue to use telemedicine after the pandemic has been contained. Telemedicine has the potential to expand access to care to rural and underserved areas, hospitals without on-call dermatologists, and homebound patients. We also may be better able to provide isotretinoin to our patients who have deferred treatment due to difficulty with transportation to the monthly visits. Store-and-forward images could help patients referred to dermatology avoid long wait times for obvious skin cancers that would benefit from early treatment. Telemedicine visits also could potentially improve attendance for patients who forget about their appointment by calling them after they miss their scheduled appointment time and complete a telehealth encounter on the same day instead, which could help recover costs of no-show appointments for clinics.

It is still unclear how private insurance companies will adapt to the new use of telemedicine, but we hope they follow the lead of Medicare, which released a statement on March 6, 2020, supporting the implementation of telehealth services.² Although Medicare has made adjustments to allow for equal reimbursement for telehealth appointments, private insurance companies still vary greatly. Many practices are struggling and some remained open despite shelter-in-place orders, but we propose telemedicine may be a safer alternative for patients and providers during the current health crisis that would keep billable services in place. It is still uncertain whether the laws enacted to make telemedicine accessible during this time will hold after COVID-19 is contained, but we are hopeful that living through the pandemic will bring some positive benefit to our practice and the patients we serve.

In 2017, lawmakers and insurers in the state of Texas approved the use of telehealth services in times of crisis.¹ During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, our clinic has used telemedicine to provide remote care to dermatology patients. We posit that the quick introduction and implementation of telemedicine during this time of need will change the way we practice dermatology in the future.

At the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, Texas, we primarily have used 2 forms of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: live face-to-face video communication (our institution primarily uses FaceTime), and a combination of telephone calls with store-and-forward images. All dermatology services at our institution were converted to telemedicine visits, and in-person office visits were only done if deemed necessary after triage by telemedicine in April and May 2020. This strategy removed the necessity for patients to leave their homes for their appointments, which not only saved them travel costs and time but also reduced the potential spread of COVID-19. Since this time, the clinic has reopened for in-person visits; however, patients still have the option to schedule a telehealth appointment if they prefer. Many patients still select the telehealth option for the above reasons.

Although routine skin checks were not always possible by video and/or store-and-forward images, telemedicine worked very well for follow-up visits, especially isotretinoin follow-ups. During the COVID-19 outbreak, iPLEDGE (https://www.ipledgeprogram.com/iPledgeUI/home.u) rapidly adapted to the use of telemedicine and even began to allow home pregnancy tests to be entered into the iPLEDGE system by health care providers. Isotretinoin follow-ups are especially useful for patients who do not require laboratory monitoring at the visit. Patients are easily evaluated, screened for side effects, and continued on their treatment if no concerns are found during the telemedicine visit. Patients who require laboratory monitoring are still able to schedule tests at our clinics or at free-standing laboratories near their homes without having an in-office dermatology appointment. At-home pregnancy tests are still being utilized as an option for patients electing for telehealth follow-ups. This strategy is both health conscious by protecting the patient from exposure to COVID-19 at a testing center and cost-effective, especially for our uninsured patients, while still meeting the safety check for iPLEDGE.

Additionally, we utilized store-and-forward telemedicine for hospital consultations. If the patient’s condition can easily be diagnosed by viewing unedited clinical images remotely, the clinician can further decrease the risk of COVID-19 spread and exposure by providing the consultation and treatment recommendations by telephone. In cases in which a diagnosis could not be made by reviewing clinical photographs remotely, an in-person visit would be done. We continue to use this strategy for our confirmed COVID-positive hospital consultations to help protect our faculty and residents and decrease the use of personal protective equipment. We propose this model could be instituted for patients admitted to hospitals without access to dermatology consultations. Store-and-forward photographs of worrisome lesions and rashes also can be used to triage visits. For example, a patient with a new-onset keratoacanthoma and a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer contacted our clinic during the pandemic and sent store-and-forward images for review. The patient was triaged by a telemedicine visit and was then brought into the clinic for biopsy based on his clinical photographs and history. Patients also have requested prescriptions for bimatoprost and tretinoin via telehealth, a service that many medical spas and online telehealth companies provide already but was not offered at our practice until now.

Telemedicine also has potentially helped decrease the number of patients going to urgent care clinics for dermatology-related issues. Additionally, we have utilized one provider per day to be the “on-call” dermatologist who would be doing telemedicine appointments for patients with new-onset conditions. This strategy not only minimized possible patient exposure to COVID-19 but also helped preserve resources at urgent care clinics and emergency departments, which currently are inundated with patients. Since we have reopened for in-person visits, we have been unable to sustain an on-call dermatologist for telemedicine but may re-employ this strategy in the future.

The unique experience of practicing medicine during a pandemic has and will affect the way we practice moving forward. The way telemedicine has been quickly and easily implemented by the health care community during the COVID-19 pandemic has taught our dermatologists the value of this method of health care delivery. We will likely continue to use telemedicine after the pandemic has been contained. Telemedicine has the potential to expand access to care to rural and underserved areas, hospitals without on-call dermatologists, and homebound patients. We also may be better able to provide isotretinoin to our patients who have deferred treatment due to difficulty with transportation to the monthly visits. Store-and-forward images could help patients referred to dermatology avoid long wait times for obvious skin cancers that would benefit from early treatment. Telemedicine visits also could potentially improve attendance for patients who forget about their appointment by calling them after they miss their scheduled appointment time and complete a telehealth encounter on the same day instead, which could help recover costs of no-show appointments for clinics.

It is still unclear how private insurance companies will adapt to the new use of telemedicine, but we hope they follow the lead of Medicare, which released a statement on March 6, 2020, supporting the implementation of telehealth services.² Although Medicare has made adjustments to allow for equal reimbursement for telehealth appointments, private insurance companies still vary greatly. Many practices are struggling and some remained open despite shelter-in-place orders, but we propose telemedicine may be a safer alternative for patients and providers during the current health crisis that would keep billable services in place. It is still uncertain whether the laws enacted to make telemedicine accessible during this time will hold after COVID-19 is contained, but we are hopeful that living through the pandemic will bring some positive benefit to our practice and the patients we serve.

As hospitalists and other physicians at the University of Texas at Austin considered how to treat COVID-19 patients in the early weeks of the pandemic, one question they had to consider was: What about convalescent plasma?

All they had to go on were small case series in Ebola, SARS, and MERS and a few small, nonrandomized COVID-19 studies showing a possible benefit and minimal risk, but the evidence was only “toward the middle or bottom” of the evidence pyramid, said Johanna Busch, MD, of the department of internal medicine at Dell Medical Center at the university.

The center’s COVID-19 committee asked a few of its members – infectious disease and internal medicine physicians – to analyze the literature and other factors. In the end, the committee – which meets regularly and also includes pulmonology–critical care experts, nursing experts, and others – recommended using convalescent plasma because of the evidence and the available supply. But in subsequent meetings, as the pandemic surged in the South and the supply dwindled, the committee changed its recommendation for convalescent plasma to more limited use, she said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Dell’s experience with the therapy is one example of how the center had to quickly develop protocols for managing a pandemic with essentially no solid evidence for treatment and a system that had never been challenged before to the same degree.

“It’s all about teamwork,” said W. Michael Brode, MD, of the department of internal medicine at Dell. “The interprofessional team members know their roles and have shared expectations because they have a common understanding of the protocol.” It’s okay to deviate from the protocol, he said, as long as the language exists to communicate these deviations.

“Maybe the approach is more important than the actual content,” he said.

What Dr. Brode and Dr. Busch described was in large part a fine-tuning of communication – being available to communicate in real time and being aware of when certain specialists should be contacted – for instance, to determine at what oxygenation level internal medicine staff should get in touch with the pulmonary–critical care team.

Dr. Brode said that the groundwork is laid for productive meetings, with agendas announced ahead of time and readings assigned and presenters ready with near-finished products at meeting time, “with a clear path for operationalizing it.”

“We don’t want people kind of riffing off the top of their heads,” he said.

Committee members are encouraged to be as specific as possible when giving input into COVID-19 care decisions, he said.

“We’re so used to dealing with uncertainty, but that doesn’t really help when we’re trying to make tough decisions,” Dr. Brode said. They might be asked, “What are you going to write in your consult note template?” or “It’s 1:00 a.m. and your intern’s panicked and calling you – what are you going to tell them to do over the phone?”

The recommendations have to go into writing and are incorporated into the electronic medical record, a process that required some workarounds, he said. He also noted that the committee learned early on that they should assume that no one reads the e-mails – especially after being off for a period of time – so they likely won’t digest updates on an email-by-email basis.

“We quickly learned,” Dr. Brode said, “that this information needs to live on a Web site or [be] linked to the most up-to-date version in a cloud-sharing platform.”

In a question-and-answer discussion, session viewers expressed enthusiasm for the presenters’ one-page summary of protocols – much more, they said, and it could feel overwhelming.

Dr. Busch and Dr. Brode were asked how standardized order sets for COVID patients could be justified without comparison to a control group that didn’t use the standard order set.

Dr. Busch responded that, while there was no controlled trial, the order sets they use have evolved based on experience.

“At the beginning, we were following every inflammatory marker known to mankind, and then we realized as we gained more experience with COVID and COVID patients that some of those markers were not really informing any of our clinical decisions,” she said. “Obviously, as literature comes out we may reevaluate what goes into that standard order set and how frequently we follow labs.”

Dr. Brode said the context – a pandemic – has to be considered.

“In an ideal world, we could show that the intervention is superior through a randomized fashion with a control group, but really our thought process behind it is just, what is the default?” he said. “I looked at the order sets [as] not that they’re going to be dictating care, but it’s really like the guardrails of what’s reasonable. And when you’re in the middle of a surge, what is usually reasonable and easiest is what is going to be done.”

Dr. Busch and Dr. Brode reported no relevant financial relationships.

As hospitalists and other physicians at the University of Texas at Austin considered how to treat COVID-19 patients in the early weeks of the pandemic, one question they had to consider was: What about convalescent plasma?

All they had to go on were small case series in Ebola, SARS, and MERS and a few small, nonrandomized COVID-19 studies showing a possible benefit and minimal risk, but the evidence was only “toward the middle or bottom” of the evidence pyramid, said Johanna Busch, MD, of the department of internal medicine at Dell Medical Center at the university.

The center’s COVID-19 committee asked a few of its members – infectious disease and internal medicine physicians – to analyze the literature and other factors. In the end, the committee – which meets regularly and also includes pulmonology–critical care experts, nursing experts, and others – recommended using convalescent plasma because of the evidence and the available supply. But in subsequent meetings, as the pandemic surged in the South and the supply dwindled, the committee changed its recommendation for convalescent plasma to more limited use, she said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Dell’s experience with the therapy is one example of how the center had to quickly develop protocols for managing a pandemic with essentially no solid evidence for treatment and a system that had never been challenged before to the same degree.

“It’s all about teamwork,” said W. Michael Brode, MD, of the department of internal medicine at Dell. “The interprofessional team members know their roles and have shared expectations because they have a common understanding of the protocol.” It’s okay to deviate from the protocol, he said, as long as the language exists to communicate these deviations.

“Maybe the approach is more important than the actual content,” he said.

What Dr. Brode and Dr. Busch described was in large part a fine-tuning of communication – being available to communicate in real time and being aware of when certain specialists should be contacted – for instance, to determine at what oxygenation level internal medicine staff should get in touch with the pulmonary–critical care team.

Dr. Brode said that the groundwork is laid for productive meetings, with agendas announced ahead of time and readings assigned and presenters ready with near-finished products at meeting time, “with a clear path for operationalizing it.”

“We don’t want people kind of riffing off the top of their heads,” he said.

Committee members are encouraged to be as specific as possible when giving input into COVID-19 care decisions, he said.

“We’re so used to dealing with uncertainty, but that doesn’t really help when we’re trying to make tough decisions,” Dr. Brode said. They might be asked, “What are you going to write in your consult note template?” or “It’s 1:00 a.m. and your intern’s panicked and calling you – what are you going to tell them to do over the phone?”

The recommendations have to go into writing and are incorporated into the electronic medical record, a process that required some workarounds, he said. He also noted that the committee learned early on that they should assume that no one reads the e-mails – especially after being off for a period of time – so they likely won’t digest updates on an email-by-email basis.

“We quickly learned,” Dr. Brode said, “that this information needs to live on a Web site or [be] linked to the most up-to-date version in a cloud-sharing platform.”

In a question-and-answer discussion, session viewers expressed enthusiasm for the presenters’ one-page summary of protocols – much more, they said, and it could feel overwhelming.

Dr. Busch and Dr. Brode were asked how standardized order sets for COVID patients could be justified without comparison to a control group that didn’t use the standard order set.

Dr. Busch responded that, while there was no controlled trial, the order sets they use have evolved based on experience.

“At the beginning, we were following every inflammatory marker known to mankind, and then we realized as we gained more experience with COVID and COVID patients that some of those markers were not really informing any of our clinical decisions,” she said. “Obviously, as literature comes out we may reevaluate what goes into that standard order set and how frequently we follow labs.”

Dr. Brode said the context – a pandemic – has to be considered.

“In an ideal world, we could show that the intervention is superior through a randomized fashion with a control group, but really our thought process behind it is just, what is the default?” he said. “I looked at the order sets [as] not that they’re going to be dictating care, but it’s really like the guardrails of what’s reasonable. And when you’re in the middle of a surge, what is usually reasonable and easiest is what is going to be done.”

Dr. Busch and Dr. Brode reported no relevant financial relationships.

As hospitalists and other physicians at the University of Texas at Austin considered how to treat COVID-19 patients in the early weeks of the pandemic, one question they had to consider was: What about convalescent plasma?

All they had to go on were small case series in Ebola, SARS, and MERS and a few small, nonrandomized COVID-19 studies showing a possible benefit and minimal risk, but the evidence was only “toward the middle or bottom” of the evidence pyramid, said Johanna Busch, MD, of the department of internal medicine at Dell Medical Center at the university.

The center’s COVID-19 committee asked a few of its members – infectious disease and internal medicine physicians – to analyze the literature and other factors. In the end, the committee – which meets regularly and also includes pulmonology–critical care experts, nursing experts, and others – recommended using convalescent plasma because of the evidence and the available supply. But in subsequent meetings, as the pandemic surged in the South and the supply dwindled, the committee changed its recommendation for convalescent plasma to more limited use, she said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Dell’s experience with the therapy is one example of how the center had to quickly develop protocols for managing a pandemic with essentially no solid evidence for treatment and a system that had never been challenged before to the same degree.

“It’s all about teamwork,” said W. Michael Brode, MD, of the department of internal medicine at Dell. “The interprofessional team members know their roles and have shared expectations because they have a common understanding of the protocol.” It’s okay to deviate from the protocol, he said, as long as the language exists to communicate these deviations.

“Maybe the approach is more important than the actual content,” he said.

What Dr. Brode and Dr. Busch described was in large part a fine-tuning of communication – being available to communicate in real time and being aware of when certain specialists should be contacted – for instance, to determine at what oxygenation level internal medicine staff should get in touch with the pulmonary–critical care team.

Dr. Brode said that the groundwork is laid for productive meetings, with agendas announced ahead of time and readings assigned and presenters ready with near-finished products at meeting time, “with a clear path for operationalizing it.”

“We don’t want people kind of riffing off the top of their heads,” he said.

Committee members are encouraged to be as specific as possible when giving input into COVID-19 care decisions, he said.

“We’re so used to dealing with uncertainty, but that doesn’t really help when we’re trying to make tough decisions,” Dr. Brode said. They might be asked, “What are you going to write in your consult note template?” or “It’s 1:00 a.m. and your intern’s panicked and calling you – what are you going to tell them to do over the phone?”

The recommendations have to go into writing and are incorporated into the electronic medical record, a process that required some workarounds, he said. He also noted that the committee learned early on that they should assume that no one reads the e-mails – especially after being off for a period of time – so they likely won’t digest updates on an email-by-email basis.

“We quickly learned,” Dr. Brode said, “that this information needs to live on a Web site or [be] linked to the most up-to-date version in a cloud-sharing platform.”

In a question-and-answer discussion, session viewers expressed enthusiasm for the presenters’ one-page summary of protocols – much more, they said, and it could feel overwhelming.

Dr. Busch and Dr. Brode were asked how standardized order sets for COVID patients could be justified without comparison to a control group that didn’t use the standard order set.

Dr. Busch responded that, while there was no controlled trial, the order sets they use have evolved based on experience.

“At the beginning, we were following every inflammatory marker known to mankind, and then we realized as we gained more experience with COVID and COVID patients that some of those markers were not really informing any of our clinical decisions,” she said. “Obviously, as literature comes out we may reevaluate what goes into that standard order set and how frequently we follow labs.”

Dr. Brode said the context – a pandemic – has to be considered.

“In an ideal world, we could show that the intervention is superior through a randomized fashion with a control group, but really our thought process behind it is just, what is the default?” he said. “I looked at the order sets [as] not that they’re going to be dictating care, but it’s really like the guardrails of what’s reasonable. And when you’re in the middle of a surge, what is usually reasonable and easiest is what is going to be done.”

Dr. Busch and Dr. Brode reported no relevant financial relationships.

The cumulative number of new COVID-19 cases among children in the United States jumped by 90% during a recent 4-week period, according to a report that confirms children are not immune to the coronavirus.

“In areas with rapid community spread, it’s likely that more children will also be infected, and these data show that,” Sally Goza, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in a written statement. “I urge people to wear cloth face coverings and be diligent in social distancing and hand-washing. It is up to us to make the difference, community by community.”

The joint report from the AAP and the Children’s Hospital Association draws on data from state and local health departments in 49 states, New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in children as of Aug. 6, 2020, was 380,174, and that number is 90% higher – an increase of 179,990 cases – than the total on July 9, just 4 weeks earlier, the two organizations said in the report.

The total cases for children represented 9.1% of all 4,159,947 million U.S. cases as of Aug. 6, compared with just 2.0% as of April 16, and 27 states out of 47 with available data now report that over 10% of their cases were children, with Wyoming the highest at 16.5% and New Jersey the lowest at 2.9%, the report data show.

Alabama has a higher percentage of 22.5%, but the state has been reporting cases in individuals aged 0-24 years as child cases since May 7. The report’s findings are somewhat limited by differences in reporting among the states and by “gaps in the data they are reporting [that affect] how the data can be interpreted,” the AAP said in its statement.

The cumulative number of cases per 100,000 children has risen from 13.3 in mid-April, when the total number was 9,259 cases, to 500.7 per 100,000 as of Aug. 6, and there are now 21 states, along with the District of Columbia, reporting a rate of over 500 cases per 100,000 children. Arizona has the highest rate at 1,206.4, followed by South Carolina (1,074.4) and Tennessee (1,050.8), the AAP and the CHA said.

In New York City, the early epicenter of the pandemic, the 390.5 cases per 100,000 children have been reported, and in New Jersey, which joined New York in the initial surge of cases, the number is 269.5. As of Aug. 6, Hawaii had the fewest cases of any state at 91.2 per 100,000, according to the report.

Children continue to represent a very low proportion of COVID-19 deaths, “but as case counts rise across the board, that is likely to impact more children with severe illness as well,” Sean O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP’s committee on infectious diseases, said in the AAP statement.

It is possible that “some of the increase in numbers of cases in children could be due to more testing. Early in the pandemic, testing only occurred for the sickest individuals. Now that there is more testing capacity … the numbers reflect a broader slice of the population, including children who may have mild or few symptoms,” the AAP suggested.

[email protected]

This article was updated on 8/17/2020.

The cumulative number of new COVID-19 cases among children in the United States jumped by 90% during a recent 4-week period, according to a report that confirms children are not immune to the coronavirus.

“In areas with rapid community spread, it’s likely that more children will also be infected, and these data show that,” Sally Goza, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in a written statement. “I urge people to wear cloth face coverings and be diligent in social distancing and hand-washing. It is up to us to make the difference, community by community.”

The joint report from the AAP and the Children’s Hospital Association draws on data from state and local health departments in 49 states, New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in children as of Aug. 6, 2020, was 380,174, and that number is 90% higher – an increase of 179,990 cases – than the total on July 9, just 4 weeks earlier, the two organizations said in the report.

The total cases for children represented 9.1% of all 4,159,947 million U.S. cases as of Aug. 6, compared with just 2.0% as of April 16, and 27 states out of 47 with available data now report that over 10% of their cases were children, with Wyoming the highest at 16.5% and New Jersey the lowest at 2.9%, the report data show.

Alabama has a higher percentage of 22.5%, but the state has been reporting cases in individuals aged 0-24 years as child cases since May 7. The report’s findings are somewhat limited by differences in reporting among the states and by “gaps in the data they are reporting [that affect] how the data can be interpreted,” the AAP said in its statement.

The cumulative number of cases per 100,000 children has risen from 13.3 in mid-April, when the total number was 9,259 cases, to 500.7 per 100,000 as of Aug. 6, and there are now 21 states, along with the District of Columbia, reporting a rate of over 500 cases per 100,000 children. Arizona has the highest rate at 1,206.4, followed by South Carolina (1,074.4) and Tennessee (1,050.8), the AAP and the CHA said.

In New York City, the early epicenter of the pandemic, the 390.5 cases per 100,000 children have been reported, and in New Jersey, which joined New York in the initial surge of cases, the number is 269.5. As of Aug. 6, Hawaii had the fewest cases of any state at 91.2 per 100,000, according to the report.

Children continue to represent a very low proportion of COVID-19 deaths, “but as case counts rise across the board, that is likely to impact more children with severe illness as well,” Sean O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP’s committee on infectious diseases, said in the AAP statement.

It is possible that “some of the increase in numbers of cases in children could be due to more testing. Early in the pandemic, testing only occurred for the sickest individuals. Now that there is more testing capacity … the numbers reflect a broader slice of the population, including children who may have mild or few symptoms,” the AAP suggested.

[email protected]

This article was updated on 8/17/2020.

The cumulative number of new COVID-19 cases among children in the United States jumped by 90% during a recent 4-week period, according to a report that confirms children are not immune to the coronavirus.

“In areas with rapid community spread, it’s likely that more children will also be infected, and these data show that,” Sally Goza, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in a written statement. “I urge people to wear cloth face coverings and be diligent in social distancing and hand-washing. It is up to us to make the difference, community by community.”

The joint report from the AAP and the Children’s Hospital Association draws on data from state and local health departments in 49 states, New York City, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in children as of Aug. 6, 2020, was 380,174, and that number is 90% higher – an increase of 179,990 cases – than the total on July 9, just 4 weeks earlier, the two organizations said in the report.

The total cases for children represented 9.1% of all 4,159,947 million U.S. cases as of Aug. 6, compared with just 2.0% as of April 16, and 27 states out of 47 with available data now report that over 10% of their cases were children, with Wyoming the highest at 16.5% and New Jersey the lowest at 2.9%, the report data show.

Alabama has a higher percentage of 22.5%, but the state has been reporting cases in individuals aged 0-24 years as child cases since May 7. The report’s findings are somewhat limited by differences in reporting among the states and by “gaps in the data they are reporting [that affect] how the data can be interpreted,” the AAP said in its statement.

The cumulative number of cases per 100,000 children has risen from 13.3 in mid-April, when the total number was 9,259 cases, to 500.7 per 100,000 as of Aug. 6, and there are now 21 states, along with the District of Columbia, reporting a rate of over 500 cases per 100,000 children. Arizona has the highest rate at 1,206.4, followed by South Carolina (1,074.4) and Tennessee (1,050.8), the AAP and the CHA said.

In New York City, the early epicenter of the pandemic, the 390.5 cases per 100,000 children have been reported, and in New Jersey, which joined New York in the initial surge of cases, the number is 269.5. As of Aug. 6, Hawaii had the fewest cases of any state at 91.2 per 100,000, according to the report.

Children continue to represent a very low proportion of COVID-19 deaths, “but as case counts rise across the board, that is likely to impact more children with severe illness as well,” Sean O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP’s committee on infectious diseases, said in the AAP statement.

It is possible that “some of the increase in numbers of cases in children could be due to more testing. Early in the pandemic, testing only occurred for the sickest individuals. Now that there is more testing capacity … the numbers reflect a broader slice of the population, including children who may have mild or few symptoms,” the AAP suggested.

[email protected]

This article was updated on 8/17/2020.

The Diagnosis: Disseminated Mucormycosis  

Histopathologic examination of a 6-mm punch biopsy of the edge of the lesion revealed numerous intravascular, broad, nonseptate hyphae in the deep vessels and perivascular dermis that stained bright red with periodic acid-Schiff (Figure). Acid-fast bacilli and Gram stains were negative. Tissue culture grew Rhizopus species. Given the patient's overall poor prognosis, her family decided to pursue hospice care following this diagnosis. 

Mucormycosis (formerly zygomycosis) refers to infections from a variety of genera of fungi, most commonly Mucor and Rhizopus, that cause infections primarily in immunocompromised individuals.¹ Mucormycosis infections are characterized by tissue necrosis that results from invasion of the vasculature and subsequent thrombosis. The typical presentation of cutaneous mucormycosis is a necrotic eschar accompanied by surrounding erythema and induration.² Diagnosis is based on clinical suspicion, requiring additional testing with skin biopsy and tissue cultures for confirmation.  

Cutaneous infection is the third most common presentation of mucormycosis, following rhinocerebral and pulmonary involvement.¹ Although rhinocerebral and pulmonary infections normally are caused by inhalation of spores, cutaneous mucormycosis typically is caused by local inoculation, often following skin trauma.² The skin is the most common location of iatrogenic mucormycosis, often from skin injury related to surgery, catheters, and adhesive tape.³ Most patients with cutaneous mucormycosis have underlying conditions such as hematologic malignancies, diabetes mellitus, or immunosuppression.¹ However, outbreaks have occurred in immunocompetent patients following natural disasters.⁴ Cutaneous mucormycosis disseminates in 13% to 20% of cases in which mortality rates typically exceed 90%.¹ 

Treatment consists of prompt surgical debridement and antifungal agents such as amphotericin B, posaconazole, and isavuconazonium sulfate.¹ Our patient had multiple risk factors for infection, including hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, prolonged neutropenia, and treatment with eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody against C5 that blocks the terminal complement cascade. Eculizumab has been associated with increased risk for meningococcemia,⁵ but the association with mucormycosis is rare. We highlight the importance of recognizing and promptly diagnosing cutaneous mucormycosis given the difficulty of treating this disease and its poor prognosis.  

Disseminated aspergillosis demonstrates septate rather than nonseptate hyphae on biopsy. Disseminated intravascular coagulation and purpura fulminans may be associated with thrombocytopenia but demonstrate thrombotic microangiopathy on biopsy. Pyoderma gangrenosum demonstrates neutrophilic infiltrate on biopsy. 
 

The Diagnosis: Disseminated Mucormycosis  

Histopathologic examination of a 6-mm punch biopsy of the edge of the lesion revealed numerous intravascular, broad, nonseptate hyphae in the deep vessels and perivascular dermis that stained bright red with periodic acid-Schiff (Figure). Acid-fast bacilli and Gram stains were negative. Tissue culture grew Rhizopus species. Given the patient's overall poor prognosis, her family decided to pursue hospice care following this diagnosis. 

Mucormycosis (formerly zygomycosis) refers to infections from a variety of genera of fungi, most commonly Mucor and Rhizopus, that cause infections primarily in immunocompromised individuals.¹ Mucormycosis infections are characterized by tissue necrosis that results from invasion of the vasculature and subsequent thrombosis. The typical presentation of cutaneous mucormycosis is a necrotic eschar accompanied by surrounding erythema and induration.² Diagnosis is based on clinical suspicion, requiring additional testing with skin biopsy and tissue cultures for confirmation.  

Cutaneous infection is the third most common presentation of mucormycosis, following rhinocerebral and pulmonary involvement.¹ Although rhinocerebral and pulmonary infections normally are caused by inhalation of spores, cutaneous mucormycosis typically is caused by local inoculation, often following skin trauma.² The skin is the most common location of iatrogenic mucormycosis, often from skin injury related to surgery, catheters, and adhesive tape.³ Most patients with cutaneous mucormycosis have underlying conditions such as hematologic malignancies, diabetes mellitus, or immunosuppression.¹ However, outbreaks have occurred in immunocompetent patients following natural disasters.⁴ Cutaneous mucormycosis disseminates in 13% to 20% of cases in which mortality rates typically exceed 90%.¹ 

Treatment consists of prompt surgical debridement and antifungal agents such as amphotericin B, posaconazole, and isavuconazonium sulfate.¹ Our patient had multiple risk factors for infection, including hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, prolonged neutropenia, and treatment with eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody against C5 that blocks the terminal complement cascade. Eculizumab has been associated with increased risk for meningococcemia,⁵ but the association with mucormycosis is rare. We highlight the importance of recognizing and promptly diagnosing cutaneous mucormycosis given the difficulty of treating this disease and its poor prognosis.  

Disseminated aspergillosis demonstrates septate rather than nonseptate hyphae on biopsy. Disseminated intravascular coagulation and purpura fulminans may be associated with thrombocytopenia but demonstrate thrombotic microangiopathy on biopsy. Pyoderma gangrenosum demonstrates neutrophilic infiltrate on biopsy. 
 

The Diagnosis: Disseminated Mucormycosis  

Histopathologic examination of a 6-mm punch biopsy of the edge of the lesion revealed numerous intravascular, broad, nonseptate hyphae in the deep vessels and perivascular dermis that stained bright red with periodic acid-Schiff (Figure). Acid-fast bacilli and Gram stains were negative. Tissue culture grew Rhizopus species. Given the patient's overall poor prognosis, her family decided to pursue hospice care following this diagnosis. 

Mucormycosis (formerly zygomycosis) refers to infections from a variety of genera of fungi, most commonly Mucor and Rhizopus, that cause infections primarily in immunocompromised individuals.¹ Mucormycosis infections are characterized by tissue necrosis that results from invasion of the vasculature and subsequent thrombosis. The typical presentation of cutaneous mucormycosis is a necrotic eschar accompanied by surrounding erythema and induration.² Diagnosis is based on clinical suspicion, requiring additional testing with skin biopsy and tissue cultures for confirmation.  

Cutaneous infection is the third most common presentation of mucormycosis, following rhinocerebral and pulmonary involvement.¹ Although rhinocerebral and pulmonary infections normally are caused by inhalation of spores, cutaneous mucormycosis typically is caused by local inoculation, often following skin trauma.² The skin is the most common location of iatrogenic mucormycosis, often from skin injury related to surgery, catheters, and adhesive tape.³ Most patients with cutaneous mucormycosis have underlying conditions such as hematologic malignancies, diabetes mellitus, or immunosuppression.¹ However, outbreaks have occurred in immunocompetent patients following natural disasters.⁴ Cutaneous mucormycosis disseminates in 13% to 20% of cases in which mortality rates typically exceed 90%.¹ 

Treatment consists of prompt surgical debridement and antifungal agents such as amphotericin B, posaconazole, and isavuconazonium sulfate.¹ Our patient had multiple risk factors for infection, including hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, prolonged neutropenia, and treatment with eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody against C5 that blocks the terminal complement cascade. Eculizumab has been associated with increased risk for meningococcemia,⁵ but the association with mucormycosis is rare. We highlight the importance of recognizing and promptly diagnosing cutaneous mucormycosis given the difficulty of treating this disease and its poor prognosis.  

Disseminated aspergillosis demonstrates septate rather than nonseptate hyphae on biopsy. Disseminated intravascular coagulation and purpura fulminans may be associated with thrombocytopenia but demonstrate thrombotic microangiopathy on biopsy. Pyoderma gangrenosum demonstrates neutrophilic infiltrate on biopsy. 
 

Most primary care physicians agree that antibiotic resistance and inappropriate prescribing are problems in the United States, but they are much less inclined to recognize these issues in their own practices, according to the results of a nationwide survey.

“This lack of recognition of physicians’ own contributions to inappropriate prescribing presents a barrier to encouraging widespread stewardship uptake,” Rachel M. Zetts, MPH, of the Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, D.C., and associates wrote in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

Almost all (94%) of the 1,550 internists, family physicians, and pediatricians who responded to the survey said that antibiotic resistance is a national problem, and nearly that many (91%) agreed that “inappropriate antibiotic prescribing is a problem in outpatient health care settings,” the investigators acknowledged.

Narrowing the focus to their own practices, however, changed some opinions. At that level, only 55% of the respondents said that resistance was a problem for their practices, and just 37% said that there any sort of inappropriate prescribing going on, based on data from the survey, which was conducted from August to October 2018 by Pew and the American Medical Association.

Antibiotic stewardship, defined as activities meant to ensure appropriate prescribing of antibiotics, should include “staff and patient education, clinician-level antibiotic prescribing feedback, and communications training on how to discuss antibiotic prescribing with patients,” Ms. Zetts and associates explained.

The need for such stewardship in health care settings was acknowledged by 72% of respondents, but 53% of those surveyed also said that all they need to do to support such efforts “is to talk with their patients about the value of an antibiotic for their symptoms,” they noted.

The bacteria, it seems, are not the only ones with some resistance. Half of the primary care physicians believe that it would be difficult to fairly and accurately track the appropriate use of antibiotics, and 52% agreed with the statement that “practice-based reporting requirements for antibiotic use would be too onerous,” the researchers pointed out.

“Antibiotic resistance is an impending public health crisis. We are seeing today, as we respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, what our health system looks like with no or limited treatments available to tackle an outbreak. … We must all remain vigilant in combating the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria and be prudent when prescribing antibiotics,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a written statement.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zetts RM et al. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 July;7(7). doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa244.

Most primary care physicians agree that antibiotic resistance and inappropriate prescribing are problems in the United States, but they are much less inclined to recognize these issues in their own practices, according to the results of a nationwide survey.

“This lack of recognition of physicians’ own contributions to inappropriate prescribing presents a barrier to encouraging widespread stewardship uptake,” Rachel M. Zetts, MPH, of the Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, D.C., and associates wrote in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

Almost all (94%) of the 1,550 internists, family physicians, and pediatricians who responded to the survey said that antibiotic resistance is a national problem, and nearly that many (91%) agreed that “inappropriate antibiotic prescribing is a problem in outpatient health care settings,” the investigators acknowledged.

Narrowing the focus to their own practices, however, changed some opinions. At that level, only 55% of the respondents said that resistance was a problem for their practices, and just 37% said that there any sort of inappropriate prescribing going on, based on data from the survey, which was conducted from August to October 2018 by Pew and the American Medical Association.

Antibiotic stewardship, defined as activities meant to ensure appropriate prescribing of antibiotics, should include “staff and patient education, clinician-level antibiotic prescribing feedback, and communications training on how to discuss antibiotic prescribing with patients,” Ms. Zetts and associates explained.

The need for such stewardship in health care settings was acknowledged by 72% of respondents, but 53% of those surveyed also said that all they need to do to support such efforts “is to talk with their patients about the value of an antibiotic for their symptoms,” they noted.

The bacteria, it seems, are not the only ones with some resistance. Half of the primary care physicians believe that it would be difficult to fairly and accurately track the appropriate use of antibiotics, and 52% agreed with the statement that “practice-based reporting requirements for antibiotic use would be too onerous,” the researchers pointed out.

“Antibiotic resistance is an impending public health crisis. We are seeing today, as we respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, what our health system looks like with no or limited treatments available to tackle an outbreak. … We must all remain vigilant in combating the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria and be prudent when prescribing antibiotics,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a written statement.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zetts RM et al. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 July;7(7). doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa244.

Most primary care physicians agree that antibiotic resistance and inappropriate prescribing are problems in the United States, but they are much less inclined to recognize these issues in their own practices, according to the results of a nationwide survey.

“This lack of recognition of physicians’ own contributions to inappropriate prescribing presents a barrier to encouraging widespread stewardship uptake,” Rachel M. Zetts, MPH, of the Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, D.C., and associates wrote in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

Almost all (94%) of the 1,550 internists, family physicians, and pediatricians who responded to the survey said that antibiotic resistance is a national problem, and nearly that many (91%) agreed that “inappropriate antibiotic prescribing is a problem in outpatient health care settings,” the investigators acknowledged.

Narrowing the focus to their own practices, however, changed some opinions. At that level, only 55% of the respondents said that resistance was a problem for their practices, and just 37% said that there any sort of inappropriate prescribing going on, based on data from the survey, which was conducted from August to October 2018 by Pew and the American Medical Association.

Antibiotic stewardship, defined as activities meant to ensure appropriate prescribing of antibiotics, should include “staff and patient education, clinician-level antibiotic prescribing feedback, and communications training on how to discuss antibiotic prescribing with patients,” Ms. Zetts and associates explained.

The need for such stewardship in health care settings was acknowledged by 72% of respondents, but 53% of those surveyed also said that all they need to do to support such efforts “is to talk with their patients about the value of an antibiotic for their symptoms,” they noted.

The bacteria, it seems, are not the only ones with some resistance. Half of the primary care physicians believe that it would be difficult to fairly and accurately track the appropriate use of antibiotics, and 52% agreed with the statement that “practice-based reporting requirements for antibiotic use would be too onerous,” the researchers pointed out.

“Antibiotic resistance is an impending public health crisis. We are seeing today, as we respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, what our health system looks like with no or limited treatments available to tackle an outbreak. … We must all remain vigilant in combating the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria and be prudent when prescribing antibiotics,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a written statement.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zetts RM et al. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 July;7(7). doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa244.

New guidance from the U.K. National Diabetes COVID-19 Response Group addresses glucose management in patients with COVID-19 who are receiving dexamethasone therapy.

Although there are already guidelines that address inpatient management of steroid-induced hyperglycemia, the authors of the new document wrote that this new expert opinion paper was needed “given the ‘triple insult’ of dexamethasone-induced–impaired glucose metabolism, COVID-19–induced insulin resistance, and COVID-19–impaired insulin production.”

RECOVERY trial spurs response

The document, which is the latest in a series from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, was published online Aug. 2 in Diabetic Medicine. The group is chaired by Gerry Rayman, MD, consultant physician at the diabetes centre and diabetes research unit, East Suffolk (England) and North East NHS Foundation Trust.

The guidance was developed in response to the recent “breakthrough” Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, which showed that dexamethasone reduced deaths in patients with COVID-19 on ventilators or receiving oxygen therapy. The advice is not intended for critical care units but can be adapted for that use.

The dose used in RECOVERY – 6 mg daily for 10 days – is 400%-500% greater than the therapeutic glucocorticoid replacement dose. High glucocorticoid doses can exacerbate hyperglycemia in people with established diabetes, unmask undiagnosed diabetes, precipitate hyperglycemia or new-onset diabetes, and can also cause hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state (HHS), the authors explained.

They recommended a target glucose of 6.0-10.0 mmol/L (108-180 mg/dL), although they say up to 12 mmol/L (216 mg/dL) is “acceptable.” They then gave advice on frequency of monitoring for people with and without known diabetes, exclusion of diabetic ketoacidosis and HHS, correction of initial hyperglycemia and maintenance of glycemic control using subcutaneous insulin, and prevention of hypoglycemia at the end of dexamethasone therapy (day 10) with insulin down-titration, discharge, and follow-up.

The detailed insulin guidance covers dose escalation for both insulin-treated and insulin-naive patients. A table suggests increasing correction doses of rapid-acting insulin based on prior total daily dose or weight.

Use of once- or twice-daily NPH insulin is recommended for patients whose glucose has risen above 12 mmol/L, in some cases with the addition of a long-acting analog. A second chart gives dose adjustments for those insulins. Additional guidance addresses patients on insulin pumps.

Guidance useful for U.S. physicians

Francisco Pasquel, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview that he believes the guidance is “acceptable” for worldwide use, and that “it’s coherent and consistent with what we typically do.”

However, Dr. Pasquel, who founded COVID-in-Diabetes, an online repository of published guidance and shared experience – to which this new document has now been added – did take issue with one piece of advice. The guidance says that patients already taking premixed insulin formulations can continue using them while increasing the dose by 20%-40%. Given the risk of hypoglycemia associated with those formulations, Dr. Pasquel said he would switch those patients to NPH during the time that they’re on dexamethasone.

He also noted that the rapid-acting insulin dose range of 2-10 units provided in the first table, for correction of initial hyperglycemia, are more conservative than those used at his hospital, where correction doses of up to 14-16 units are sometimes necessary.

But Dr. Pasquel praised the group’s overall efforts since the pandemic began, noting that “they’re very organized and constantly updating their recommendations. They have a unified system in the [National Health Service], so it’s easier to standardize. They have a unique [electronic health record] which is far superior to what we do from a public health perspective.”

Dr. Rayman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pasquel reported receiving research funding from Dexcom, Merck, and the National Institutes of Health, and consulting for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

New guidance from the U.K. National Diabetes COVID-19 Response Group addresses glucose management in patients with COVID-19 who are receiving dexamethasone therapy.

Although there are already guidelines that address inpatient management of steroid-induced hyperglycemia, the authors of the new document wrote that this new expert opinion paper was needed “given the ‘triple insult’ of dexamethasone-induced–impaired glucose metabolism, COVID-19–induced insulin resistance, and COVID-19–impaired insulin production.”

RECOVERY trial spurs response

The document, which is the latest in a series from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, was published online Aug. 2 in Diabetic Medicine. The group is chaired by Gerry Rayman, MD, consultant physician at the diabetes centre and diabetes research unit, East Suffolk (England) and North East NHS Foundation Trust.

The guidance was developed in response to the recent “breakthrough” Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, which showed that dexamethasone reduced deaths in patients with COVID-19 on ventilators or receiving oxygen therapy. The advice is not intended for critical care units but can be adapted for that use.

The dose used in RECOVERY – 6 mg daily for 10 days – is 400%-500% greater than the therapeutic glucocorticoid replacement dose. High glucocorticoid doses can exacerbate hyperglycemia in people with established diabetes, unmask undiagnosed diabetes, precipitate hyperglycemia or new-onset diabetes, and can also cause hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state (HHS), the authors explained.

They recommended a target glucose of 6.0-10.0 mmol/L (108-180 mg/dL), although they say up to 12 mmol/L (216 mg/dL) is “acceptable.” They then gave advice on frequency of monitoring for people with and without known diabetes, exclusion of diabetic ketoacidosis and HHS, correction of initial hyperglycemia and maintenance of glycemic control using subcutaneous insulin, and prevention of hypoglycemia at the end of dexamethasone therapy (day 10) with insulin down-titration, discharge, and follow-up.

The detailed insulin guidance covers dose escalation for both insulin-treated and insulin-naive patients. A table suggests increasing correction doses of rapid-acting insulin based on prior total daily dose or weight.

Use of once- or twice-daily NPH insulin is recommended for patients whose glucose has risen above 12 mmol/L, in some cases with the addition of a long-acting analog. A second chart gives dose adjustments for those insulins. Additional guidance addresses patients on insulin pumps.

Guidance useful for U.S. physicians

Francisco Pasquel, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview that he believes the guidance is “acceptable” for worldwide use, and that “it’s coherent and consistent with what we typically do.”

However, Dr. Pasquel, who founded COVID-in-Diabetes, an online repository of published guidance and shared experience – to which this new document has now been added – did take issue with one piece of advice. The guidance says that patients already taking premixed insulin formulations can continue using them while increasing the dose by 20%-40%. Given the risk of hypoglycemia associated with those formulations, Dr. Pasquel said he would switch those patients to NPH during the time that they’re on dexamethasone.

He also noted that the rapid-acting insulin dose range of 2-10 units provided in the first table, for correction of initial hyperglycemia, are more conservative than those used at his hospital, where correction doses of up to 14-16 units are sometimes necessary.

But Dr. Pasquel praised the group’s overall efforts since the pandemic began, noting that “they’re very organized and constantly updating their recommendations. They have a unified system in the [National Health Service], so it’s easier to standardize. They have a unique [electronic health record] which is far superior to what we do from a public health perspective.”

Dr. Rayman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pasquel reported receiving research funding from Dexcom, Merck, and the National Institutes of Health, and consulting for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

New guidance from the U.K. National Diabetes COVID-19 Response Group addresses glucose management in patients with COVID-19 who are receiving dexamethasone therapy.

Although there are already guidelines that address inpatient management of steroid-induced hyperglycemia, the authors of the new document wrote that this new expert opinion paper was needed “given the ‘triple insult’ of dexamethasone-induced–impaired glucose metabolism, COVID-19–induced insulin resistance, and COVID-19–impaired insulin production.”

RECOVERY trial spurs response

The document, which is the latest in a series from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, was published online Aug. 2 in Diabetic Medicine. The group is chaired by Gerry Rayman, MD, consultant physician at the diabetes centre and diabetes research unit, East Suffolk (England) and North East NHS Foundation Trust.

The guidance was developed in response to the recent “breakthrough” Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, which showed that dexamethasone reduced deaths in patients with COVID-19 on ventilators or receiving oxygen therapy. The advice is not intended for critical care units but can be adapted for that use.

The dose used in RECOVERY – 6 mg daily for 10 days – is 400%-500% greater than the therapeutic glucocorticoid replacement dose. High glucocorticoid doses can exacerbate hyperglycemia in people with established diabetes, unmask undiagnosed diabetes, precipitate hyperglycemia or new-onset diabetes, and can also cause hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state (HHS), the authors explained.

They recommended a target glucose of 6.0-10.0 mmol/L (108-180 mg/dL), although they say up to 12 mmol/L (216 mg/dL) is “acceptable.” They then gave advice on frequency of monitoring for people with and without known diabetes, exclusion of diabetic ketoacidosis and HHS, correction of initial hyperglycemia and maintenance of glycemic control using subcutaneous insulin, and prevention of hypoglycemia at the end of dexamethasone therapy (day 10) with insulin down-titration, discharge, and follow-up.

The detailed insulin guidance covers dose escalation for both insulin-treated and insulin-naive patients. A table suggests increasing correction doses of rapid-acting insulin based on prior total daily dose or weight.

Use of once- or twice-daily NPH insulin is recommended for patients whose glucose has risen above 12 mmol/L, in some cases with the addition of a long-acting analog. A second chart gives dose adjustments for those insulins. Additional guidance addresses patients on insulin pumps.

Guidance useful for U.S. physicians

Francisco Pasquel, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview that he believes the guidance is “acceptable” for worldwide use, and that “it’s coherent and consistent with what we typically do.”

However, Dr. Pasquel, who founded COVID-in-Diabetes, an online repository of published guidance and shared experience – to which this new document has now been added – did take issue with one piece of advice. The guidance says that patients already taking premixed insulin formulations can continue using them while increasing the dose by 20%-40%. Given the risk of hypoglycemia associated with those formulations, Dr. Pasquel said he would switch those patients to NPH during the time that they’re on dexamethasone.

He also noted that the rapid-acting insulin dose range of 2-10 units provided in the first table, for correction of initial hyperglycemia, are more conservative than those used at his hospital, where correction doses of up to 14-16 units are sometimes necessary.

But Dr. Pasquel praised the group’s overall efforts since the pandemic began, noting that “they’re very organized and constantly updating their recommendations. They have a unified system in the [National Health Service], so it’s easier to standardize. They have a unique [electronic health record] which is far superior to what we do from a public health perspective.”

Dr. Rayman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pasquel reported receiving research funding from Dexcom, Merck, and the National Institutes of Health, and consulting for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

A clinician education program significantly reduced overall antibiotic prescribing during pediatric visits for acute respiratory tract infections, according to data from 57 clinicians who participated in an intervention.

sturti/Getty Images

In a study published in Pediatrics, Matthew P. Kronman, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and associates randomized 57 clinicians at 19 pediatric practices to a stepped-wedge clinical trial. The study included visits for acute otitis media, bronchitis, pharyngitis, sinusitis, and upper respiratory infections (defined as ARTI visits) for children aged 6 months to less than 11 years, for a total of 72,723 ARTI visits by 29,762 patients. The primary outcome was overall antibiotic prescribing for ARTI visits.

For the intervention, known as the Dialogue Around Respiratory Illness Treatment (DART) quality improvement (QI) program, clinicians received three program modules containing online tutorials and webinars. These professionally-produced modules included a combination of evidence-based communication strategies and antibiotic prescribing, booster video vignettes, and individualized antibiotic prescribing feedback reports over 11 months.

Overall, the probability of antibiotic prescribing for ARTI visits decreased by 7% (adjusted relative risk 0.93) from baseline to a 2- to 8-month postintervention in an adjusted intent-to-treat analysis.

Analysis of secondary outcomes revealed that prescribing any antibiotics for viral ARTI decreased by 40% during the postintervention period compared to baseline (aRR 0.60).

In addition, second-line antibiotic prescribing decreased from baseline by 34% for streptococcal pharyngitis (aRR 0.66), and by 41% for sinusitis (aRR 0.59); however there was no significant change in prescribing for acute otitis media, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential for biased results because of the randomization of clinicians from multiple practices and the potential for clinicians to change their prescribing habits after the start of the study, Dr. Kronman and colleagues noted.

In addition, the study did not include complete data on rapid streptococcal antigen testing, which might eliminate some children from the study population, and the relatively short postintervention period “may not represent the true long-term intervention durability may not represent the true long-term intervention durability,” they said.

However, the results support the potential of the DART program. “The 7% reduction in antibiotic prescribing for all ARTIs, if extrapolated to all ambulatory ARTI visits to pediatricians nationally, would represent 1.5 million fewer antibiotic prescriptions for children with ARTI annually,” they wrote.

“Providing online communication training and evidence-based antibiotic prescribing education in combination with individualized antibiotic prescribing feedback reports may help achieve national goals of reducing unnecessary outpatient antibiotic prescribing for children,” Dr. Kronman and associates concluded.

Combining interventions are key to reducing unnecessary antibiotics use in pediatric ambulatory care, Rana F. Hamdy, MD, MPH, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, , and Sophie E. Katz, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., wrote in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Aug 3. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-012922).

The researchers in the current study “seem to recognize that clinicians are adult learners, and they combine interventions to implement these adult learning theory tenets to improve appropriate antibiotic prescribing,” they wrote. The DART intervention combined best practices training, communications training, and individualized antibiotic prescribing feedback reports to improve communication between providers and families “especially when faced with a situation in which a parent or guardian might expect an antibiotic prescription but the provider does not think one is necessary,” Dr. Hamdy and Dr. Katz said.

Overall, the findings suggest that the interventions work best in combination vs. being used alone, although the study did not evaluate the separate contributions of each intervention, the editorialists wrote.

“In the current study, nonengaged physicians had an increase in second-line antibiotic prescribing, whereas the engaged physicians had a decrease in second-line antibiotic prescribing,” they noted. “This suggests that the addition of communications training could mitigate the undesirable effects that may result from solely using feedback reports.”

“Each year, U.S. children are prescribed as many as 10 million unnecessary antibiotic courses for acute respiratory tract infections,” Kristina A. Bryant, MD, of the University of Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “Some of these prescriptions result in side effects or allergic reactions, and they contribute to growing antibiotic resistance. We need effective interventions to reduce antibiotic prescribing.”

Although the DART modules are free and available online, busy clinicians might struggle to find time to view them consistently, said Dr. Bryant.

“One advantage of the study design was that information was pushed to clinicians along with communication booster videos,” she said. “We know that education and reinforcement over time works better than a one and done approach.

“Study participants also received feedback over time about their prescribing habits, which can be a powerful motivator for change, although not all clinicians may have easy access to these reports,” she noted.

To overcome some of the barriers to using the modules, clinicians who are “interested in improving their prescribing could work with their office managers to develop antibiotic prescribing reports and schedule reminders to review them,” said Dr. Bryant.

“An individual could commit to education and review of his or her own prescribing patterns, but support from one’s partners and shared accountability is likely to be even more effective,” she said. “Sharing data within a practice and exploring differences in prescribing patterns can drive improvement.

“Spaced education and regular feedback about prescribing patterns can improve antibiotic prescribing for pharyngitis and sinusitis, and reduce antibiotic prescriptions for ARTIs,” Dr. Bryant said. The take-home from the study is that it should prompt anyone who prescribes antibiotics for children to ask themselves how they can improve their own prescribing habits.

“In this study, prescribing for viral ARTIs was reduced but not eliminated. We need additional studies to further reduce unnecessary antibiotic use,” Dr. Bryant said.

In addition, areas for future research could include longer-term follow-up. “Study participants were followed for 2 to 8 months after the intervention ended in June 2018. It would be interesting to know about their prescribing practices now, and if the changes observed in the study were durable,” she concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, along with additional infrastructure funding from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Health Resources and Services Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Hamdy and Dr. Katz had no financial conflicts to disclose, but Dr. Katz disclosed grant support through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a recipient of the Leadership in Epidemiology, Antimicrobial Stewardship, and Public Health fellowship, sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society.

Dr. Bryant disclosed serving as an investigator on multicenter clinical vaccine trials funded by Pfizer (but not in the last year). She also serves as the current president of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, but the opinions expressed here are her own and do not necessarily reflect the views of PIDS.

SOURCE: Kronman MP et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Aug 3. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0038.

A clinician education program significantly reduced overall antibiotic prescribing during pediatric visits for acute respiratory tract infections, according to data from 57 clinicians who participated in an intervention.

sturti/Getty Images

In a study published in Pediatrics, Matthew P. Kronman, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and associates randomized 57 clinicians at 19 pediatric practices to a stepped-wedge clinical trial. The study included visits for acute otitis media, bronchitis, pharyngitis, sinusitis, and upper respiratory infections (defined as ARTI visits) for children aged 6 months to less than 11 years, for a total of 72,723 ARTI visits by 29,762 patients. The primary outcome was overall antibiotic prescribing for ARTI visits.

For the intervention, known as the Dialogue Around Respiratory Illness Treatment (DART) quality improvement (QI) program, clinicians received three program modules containing online tutorials and webinars. These professionally-produced modules included a combination of evidence-based communication strategies and antibiotic prescribing, booster video vignettes, and individualized antibiotic prescribing feedback reports over 11 months.

Overall, the probability of antibiotic prescribing for ARTI visits decreased by 7% (adjusted relative risk 0.93) from baseline to a 2- to 8-month postintervention in an adjusted intent-to-treat analysis.

Analysis of secondary outcomes revealed that prescribing any antibiotics for viral ARTI decreased by 40% during the postintervention period compared to baseline (aRR 0.60).

In addition, second-line antibiotic prescribing decreased from baseline by 34% for streptococcal pharyngitis (aRR 0.66), and by 41% for sinusitis (aRR 0.59); however there was no significant change in prescribing for acute otitis media, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential for biased results because of the randomization of clinicians from multiple practices and the potential for clinicians to change their prescribing habits after the start of the study, Dr. Kronman and colleagues noted.

In addition, the study did not include complete data on rapid streptococcal antigen testing, which might eliminate some children from the study population, and the relatively short postintervention period “may not represent the true long-term intervention durability may not represent the true long-term intervention durability,” they said.

However, the results support the potential of the DART program. “The 7% reduction in antibiotic prescribing for all ARTIs, if extrapolated to all ambulatory ARTI visits to pediatricians nationally, would represent 1.5 million fewer antibiotic prescriptions for children with ARTI annually,” they wrote.

“Providing online communication training and evidence-based antibiotic prescribing education in combination with individualized antibiotic prescribing feedback reports may help achieve national goals of reducing unnecessary outpatient antibiotic prescribing for children,” Dr. Kronman and associates concluded.

Combining interventions are key to reducing unnecessary antibiotics use in pediatric ambulatory care, Rana F. Hamdy, MD, MPH, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, , and Sophie E. Katz, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., wrote in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Aug 3. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-012922).

The researchers in the current study “seem to recognize that clinicians are adult learners, and they combine interventions to implement these adult learning theory tenets to improve appropriate antibiotic prescribing,” they wrote. The DART intervention combined best practices training, communications training, and individualized antibiotic prescribing feedback reports to improve communication between providers and families “especially when faced with a situation in which a parent or guardian might expect an antibiotic prescription but the provider does not think one is necessary,” Dr. Hamdy and Dr. Katz said.

Overall, the findings suggest that the interventions work best in combination vs. being used alone, although the study did not evaluate the separate contributions of each intervention, the editorialists wrote.

“In the current study, nonengaged physicians had an increase in second-line antibiotic prescribing, whereas the engaged physicians had a decrease in second-line antibiotic prescribing,” they noted. “This suggests that the addition of communications training could mitigate the undesirable effects that may result from solely using feedback reports.”

“Each year, U.S. children are prescribed as many as 10 million unnecessary antibiotic courses for acute respiratory tract infections,” Kristina A. Bryant, MD, of the University of Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “Some of these prescriptions result in side effects or allergic reactions, and they contribute to growing antibiotic resistance. We need effective interventions to reduce antibiotic prescribing.”

Although the DART modules are free and available online, busy clinicians might struggle to find time to view them consistently, said Dr. Bryant.

“One advantage of the study design was that information was pushed to clinicians along with communication booster videos,” she said. “We know that education and reinforcement over time works better than a one and done approach.

“Study participants also received feedback over time about their prescribing habits, which can be a powerful motivator for change, although not all clinicians may have easy access to these reports,” she noted.

To overcome some of the barriers to using the modules, clinicians who are “interested in improving their prescribing could work with their office managers to develop antibiotic prescribing reports and schedule reminders to review them,” said Dr. Bryant.

“An individual could commit to education and review of his or her own prescribing patterns, but support from one’s partners and shared accountability is likely to be even more effective,” she said. “Sharing data within a practice and exploring differences in prescribing patterns can drive improvement.

“Spaced education and regular feedback about prescribing patterns can improve antibiotic prescribing for pharyngitis and sinusitis, and reduce antibiotic prescriptions for ARTIs,” Dr. Bryant said. The take-home from the study is that it should prompt anyone who prescribes antibiotics for children to ask themselves how they can improve their own prescribing habits.

“In this study, prescribing for viral ARTIs was reduced but not eliminated. We need additional studies to further reduce unnecessary antibiotic use,” Dr. Bryant said.

In addition, areas for future research could include longer-term follow-up. “Study participants were followed for 2 to 8 months after the intervention ended in June 2018. It would be interesting to know about their prescribing practices now, and if the changes observed in the study were durable,” she concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, along with additional infrastructure funding from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Health Resources and Services Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Hamdy and Dr. Katz had no financial conflicts to disclose, but Dr. Katz disclosed grant support through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a recipient of the Leadership in Epidemiology, Antimicrobial Stewardship, and Public Health fellowship, sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society.

Dr. Bryant disclosed serving as an investigator on multicenter clinical vaccine trials funded by Pfizer (but not in the last year). She also serves as the current president of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, but the opinions expressed here are her own and do not necessarily reflect the views of PIDS.

SOURCE: Kronman MP et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Aug 3. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0038.

A clinician education program significantly reduced overall antibiotic prescribing during pediatric visits for acute respiratory tract infections, according to data from 57 clinicians who participated in an intervention.

sturti/Getty Images

In a study published in Pediatrics, Matthew P. Kronman, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and associates randomized 57 clinicians at 19 pediatric practices to a stepped-wedge clinical trial. The study included visits for acute otitis media, bronchitis, pharyngitis, sinusitis, and upper respiratory infections (defined as ARTI visits) for children aged 6 months to less than 11 years, for a total of 72,723 ARTI visits by 29,762 patients. The primary outcome was overall antibiotic prescribing for ARTI visits.

For the intervention, known as the Dialogue Around Respiratory Illness Treatment (DART) quality improvement (QI) program, clinicians received three program modules containing online tutorials and webinars. These professionally-produced modules included a combination of evidence-based communication strategies and antibiotic prescribing, booster video vignettes, and individualized antibiotic prescribing feedback reports over 11 months.

Overall, the probability of antibiotic prescribing for ARTI visits decreased by 7% (adjusted relative risk 0.93) from baseline to a 2- to 8-month postintervention in an adjusted intent-to-treat analysis.

Analysis of secondary outcomes revealed that prescribing any antibiotics for viral ARTI decreased by 40% during the postintervention period compared to baseline (aRR 0.60).

In addition, second-line antibiotic prescribing decreased from baseline by 34% for streptococcal pharyngitis (aRR 0.66), and by 41% for sinusitis (aRR 0.59); however there was no significant change in prescribing for acute otitis media, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential for biased results because of the randomization of clinicians from multiple practices and the potential for clinicians to change their prescribing habits after the start of the study, Dr. Kronman and colleagues noted.

In addition, the study did not include complete data on rapid streptococcal antigen testing, which might eliminate some children from the study population, and the relatively short postintervention period “may not represent the true long-term intervention durability may not represent the true long-term intervention durability,” they said.

However, the results support the potential of the DART program. “The 7% reduction in antibiotic prescribing for all ARTIs, if extrapolated to all ambulatory ARTI visits to pediatricians nationally, would represent 1.5 million fewer antibiotic prescriptions for children with ARTI annually,” they wrote.

“Providing online communication training and evidence-based antibiotic prescribing education in combination with individualized antibiotic prescribing feedback reports may help achieve national goals of reducing unnecessary outpatient antibiotic prescribing for children,” Dr. Kronman and associates concluded.

Combining interventions are key to reducing unnecessary antibiotics use in pediatric ambulatory care, Rana F. Hamdy, MD, MPH, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, , and Sophie E. Katz, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., wrote in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Aug 3. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-012922).

The researchers in the current study “seem to recognize that clinicians are adult learners, and they combine interventions to implement these adult learning theory tenets to improve appropriate antibiotic prescribing,” they wrote. The DART intervention combined best practices training, communications training, and individualized antibiotic prescribing feedback reports to improve communication between providers and families “especially when faced with a situation in which a parent or guardian might expect an antibiotic prescription but the provider does not think one is necessary,” Dr. Hamdy and Dr. Katz said.

Overall, the findings suggest that the interventions work best in combination vs. being used alone, although the study did not evaluate the separate contributions of each intervention, the editorialists wrote.

“In the current study, nonengaged physicians had an increase in second-line antibiotic prescribing, whereas the engaged physicians had a decrease in second-line antibiotic prescribing,” they noted. “This suggests that the addition of communications training could mitigate the undesirable effects that may result from solely using feedback reports.”

“Each year, U.S. children are prescribed as many as 10 million unnecessary antibiotic courses for acute respiratory tract infections,” Kristina A. Bryant, MD, of the University of Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “Some of these prescriptions result in side effects or allergic reactions, and they contribute to growing antibiotic resistance. We need effective interventions to reduce antibiotic prescribing.”

Although the DART modules are free and available online, busy clinicians might struggle to find time to view them consistently, said Dr. Bryant.

“One advantage of the study design was that information was pushed to clinicians along with communication booster videos,” she said. “We know that education and reinforcement over time works better than a one and done approach.

“Study participants also received feedback over time about their prescribing habits, which can be a powerful motivator for change, although not all clinicians may have easy access to these reports,” she noted.

To overcome some of the barriers to using the modules, clinicians who are “interested in improving their prescribing could work with their office managers to develop antibiotic prescribing reports and schedule reminders to review them,” said Dr. Bryant.

“An individual could commit to education and review of his or her own prescribing patterns, but support from one’s partners and shared accountability is likely to be even more effective,” she said. “Sharing data within a practice and exploring differences in prescribing patterns can drive improvement.

“Spaced education and regular feedback about prescribing patterns can improve antibiotic prescribing for pharyngitis and sinusitis, and reduce antibiotic prescriptions for ARTIs,” Dr. Bryant said. The take-home from the study is that it should prompt anyone who prescribes antibiotics for children to ask themselves how they can improve their own prescribing habits.

“In this study, prescribing for viral ARTIs was reduced but not eliminated. We need additional studies to further reduce unnecessary antibiotic use,” Dr. Bryant said.

In addition, areas for future research could include longer-term follow-up. “Study participants were followed for 2 to 8 months after the intervention ended in June 2018. It would be interesting to know about their prescribing practices now, and if the changes observed in the study were durable,” she concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, along with additional infrastructure funding from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Health Resources and Services Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Hamdy and Dr. Katz had no financial conflicts to disclose, but Dr. Katz disclosed grant support through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a recipient of the Leadership in Epidemiology, Antimicrobial Stewardship, and Public Health fellowship, sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society.

Dr. Bryant disclosed serving as an investigator on multicenter clinical vaccine trials funded by Pfizer (but not in the last year). She also serves as the current president of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, but the opinions expressed here are her own and do not necessarily reflect the views of PIDS.

SOURCE: Kronman MP et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Aug 3. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0038.

Information about COVID has evolved so quickly that it can be difficult for clinicians to feel confident that they are staying current. These summaries include links to our reference article on diagnosis of COVID-19, which is constantly updated to make sure you have the latest information.

Diagnostic testing for COVID-19 is critical. No one disputes that. But what is in dispute is whom to test, when to test, how to test, what to do while waiting for results, and how accurate those results are when you finally get them.

Here are the answers to those questions, based on the current information.

Whom to test. This is the (relatively) easy part. The ideal answer is that everyone should be tested. The Infectious Diseases Society of America issued tier-based recommendations way back in March, and they still apply. First priority continues to be patients who are ill, healthcare workers, and those with known exposure. But to truly figure out the amount of community spread in a given area, we need to test people who do not have a clear indication for testing. That is particularly true as more people return to work and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued guidelines for workplaces to establish testing programs. Universal testing is recommended for some high-risk settings, such as nursing homes.

One key change: CDC no longer recommends testing to determine whether someone with a known infection is still infectious.

When to test. People with any symptoms suggestive of COVID should be tested, ideally as soon as feasible. But given the ongoing shortages of tests, that may not be possible, particularly for those requiring only symptomatic care. Rather, these patients should be treated as probable cases, with appropriate instructions regarding quarantine. Testing of those with known exposures ideally should be done about 5 days after exposure.

How to test. Only viral nucleic acid or antigen tests should be used to diagnose acute illness. CDC does not currently recommend using serologic assays, now broadly available, for diagnosis of acute infection, though they obviously play an important role in understanding the transmission dynamic of the virus in the general population.

Testing strategies vary from state to state and even within communities in a single state. It is recommended that clinicians check with their own local or state health department for specifics on tests available, indications for testing, and processing details. While often forgotten, it is worth emphasizing that no diagnostic tests have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Rather, they are available under emergency use authorization (EUA), meaning that they have not been fully vetted by the FDA.

In late July, the FDA expanded authorization for real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) molecular assays, utilizing nasal or nasopharyngeal swabs, to permit testing of all persons, regardless of exposure history or symptoms. The FDA maintains a list of all approved diagnostic tests and corresponding labs. Current evidence suggests that no one test is better than any other — and most clinicians won›t have a choice anyway. Patients will have to get what is available via their health department or insurance plan.

Two point-of-care antigen tests using nasopharyngeal or nasal samples have been issued an EUA. These tests can be used only in settings with a valid CLIA certificate.

Several commercial laboratories have received approval to process diagnostic tests using patients’ self-collected saliva rather than swabs. One lab has now received authorization for in-home testing without any input from a clinician. These testing options can be a boon for patients who have symptoms or exposure and for whatever reason are unable to get to a diagnostic site. These samples are collected at home and mailed to a lab. Note that these tests are not yet widely available.

Waiting for results. If waiting for results meant a day or even a couple of days, the answer to this one would be easier. But if the wait extends to 1 and even sometimes 2 weeks, then the test is not able to meaningfully guide clinical decisions. The latest guidance from the CDC is that individuals with symptoms suggestive of COVID who do not require hospitalization should remain at home in self-quarantine for at least 10 days from symptom onset. Asymptomatic individuals with a known exposure to someone else with COVID, or participation in a high-risk event like an indoor gathering involving more than 10 persons, should self-quarantine either until they receive a negative test result or 14 days after the exposure.

Accuracy of results. A positive rRT-PCR antigen test is highly accurate, indicating presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. There appears to be no significant cross-reactivity with other respiratory viruses or even other coronaviruses. A small study conducted in Korea suggests that patients with persistent positive tests who are beyond 10 days from the initial positive test and are now symptom free are no longer infectious.

For patients with a high suspicion of COVID-19, a negative test should not rule out the infection. The number of false-negative results is not well known, though the resultant risk is “substantial.” A number of factors affect the likelihood of a false-negative test, including when the sample was collected relative to the timing of illness and the type of specimen collected; for example, nasopharyngeal swabs are more likely to be accurate vs nasal or throat specimens. Repeat or serial testing increases the sensitivity but may not always be available. Although rRT-PCR is the current criterion standard, more inclusive consensus-based criteria are likely to emerge because of the concern about these false-negative results.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Information about COVID has evolved so quickly that it can be difficult for clinicians to feel confident that they are staying current. These summaries include links to our reference article on diagnosis of COVID-19, which is constantly updated to make sure you have the latest information.

Diagnostic testing for COVID-19 is critical. No one disputes that. But what is in dispute is whom to test, when to test, how to test, what to do while waiting for results, and how accurate those results are when you finally get them.

Here are the answers to those questions, based on the current information.

Whom to test. This is the (relatively) easy part. The ideal answer is that everyone should be tested. The Infectious Diseases Society of America issued tier-based recommendations way back in March, and they still apply. First priority continues to be patients who are ill, healthcare workers, and those with known exposure. But to truly figure out the amount of community spread in a given area, we need to test people who do not have a clear indication for testing. That is particularly true as more people return to work and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued guidelines for workplaces to establish testing programs. Universal testing is recommended for some high-risk settings, such as nursing homes.

One key change: CDC no longer recommends testing to determine whether someone with a known infection is still infectious.

When to test. People with any symptoms suggestive of COVID should be tested, ideally as soon as feasible. But given the ongoing shortages of tests, that may not be possible, particularly for those requiring only symptomatic care. Rather, these patients should be treated as probable cases, with appropriate instructions regarding quarantine. Testing of those with known exposures ideally should be done about 5 days after exposure.

How to test. Only viral nucleic acid or antigen tests should be used to diagnose acute illness. CDC does not currently recommend using serologic assays, now broadly available, for diagnosis of acute infection, though they obviously play an important role in understanding the transmission dynamic of the virus in the general population.

Testing strategies vary from state to state and even within communities in a single state. It is recommended that clinicians check with their own local or state health department for specifics on tests available, indications for testing, and processing details. While often forgotten, it is worth emphasizing that no diagnostic tests have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Rather, they are available under emergency use authorization (EUA), meaning that they have not been fully vetted by the FDA.

In late July, the FDA expanded authorization for real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) molecular assays, utilizing nasal or nasopharyngeal swabs, to permit testing of all persons, regardless of exposure history or symptoms. The FDA maintains a list of all approved diagnostic tests and corresponding labs. Current evidence suggests that no one test is better than any other — and most clinicians won›t have a choice anyway. Patients will have to get what is available via their health department or insurance plan.

Two point-of-care antigen tests using nasopharyngeal or nasal samples have been issued an EUA. These tests can be used only in settings with a valid CLIA certificate.

Several commercial laboratories have received approval to process diagnostic tests using patients’ self-collected saliva rather than swabs. One lab has now received authorization for in-home testing without any input from a clinician. These testing options can be a boon for patients who have symptoms or exposure and for whatever reason are unable to get to a diagnostic site. These samples are collected at home and mailed to a lab. Note that these tests are not yet widely available.

Waiting for results. If waiting for results meant a day or even a couple of days, the answer to this one would be easier. But if the wait extends to 1 and even sometimes 2 weeks, then the test is not able to meaningfully guide clinical decisions. The latest guidance from the CDC is that individuals with symptoms suggestive of COVID who do not require hospitalization should remain at home in self-quarantine for at least 10 days from symptom onset. Asymptomatic individuals with a known exposure to someone else with COVID, or participation in a high-risk event like an indoor gathering involving more than 10 persons, should self-quarantine either until they receive a negative test result or 14 days after the exposure.

Accuracy of results. A positive rRT-PCR antigen test is highly accurate, indicating presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. There appears to be no significant cross-reactivity with other respiratory viruses or even other coronaviruses. A small study conducted in Korea suggests that patients with persistent positive tests who are beyond 10 days from the initial positive test and are now symptom free are no longer infectious.

For patients with a high suspicion of COVID-19, a negative test should not rule out the infection. The number of false-negative results is not well known, though the resultant risk is “substantial.” A number of factors affect the likelihood of a false-negative test, including when the sample was collected relative to the timing of illness and the type of specimen collected; for example, nasopharyngeal swabs are more likely to be accurate vs nasal or throat specimens. Repeat or serial testing increases the sensitivity but may not always be available. Although rRT-PCR is the current criterion standard, more inclusive consensus-based criteria are likely to emerge because of the concern about these false-negative results.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Information about COVID has evolved so quickly that it can be difficult for clinicians to feel confident that they are staying current. These summaries include links to our reference article on diagnosis of COVID-19, which is constantly updated to make sure you have the latest information.

Diagnostic testing for COVID-19 is critical. No one disputes that. But what is in dispute is whom to test, when to test, how to test, what to do while waiting for results, and how accurate those results are when you finally get them.

Here are the answers to those questions, based on the current information.

Whom to test. This is the (relatively) easy part. The ideal answer is that everyone should be tested. The Infectious Diseases Society of America issued tier-based recommendations way back in March, and they still apply. First priority continues to be patients who are ill, healthcare workers, and those with known exposure. But to truly figure out the amount of community spread in a given area, we need to test people who do not have a clear indication for testing. That is particularly true as more people return to work and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued guidelines for workplaces to establish testing programs. Universal testing is recommended for some high-risk settings, such as nursing homes.

One key change: CDC no longer recommends testing to determine whether someone with a known infection is still infectious.

When to test. People with any symptoms suggestive of COVID should be tested, ideally as soon as feasible. But given the ongoing shortages of tests, that may not be possible, particularly for those requiring only symptomatic care. Rather, these patients should be treated as probable cases, with appropriate instructions regarding quarantine. Testing of those with known exposures ideally should be done about 5 days after exposure.

How to test. Only viral nucleic acid or antigen tests should be used to diagnose acute illness. CDC does not currently recommend using serologic assays, now broadly available, for diagnosis of acute infection, though they obviously play an important role in understanding the transmission dynamic of the virus in the general population.

Testing strategies vary from state to state and even within communities in a single state. It is recommended that clinicians check with their own local or state health department for specifics on tests available, indications for testing, and processing details. While often forgotten, it is worth emphasizing that no diagnostic tests have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Rather, they are available under emergency use authorization (EUA), meaning that they have not been fully vetted by the FDA.

In late July, the FDA expanded authorization for real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) molecular assays, utilizing nasal or nasopharyngeal swabs, to permit testing of all persons, regardless of exposure history or symptoms. The FDA maintains a list of all approved diagnostic tests and corresponding labs. Current evidence suggests that no one test is better than any other — and most clinicians won›t have a choice anyway. Patients will have to get what is available via their health department or insurance plan.

Two point-of-care antigen tests using nasopharyngeal or nasal samples have been issued an EUA. These tests can be used only in settings with a valid CLIA certificate.

Several commercial laboratories have received approval to process diagnostic tests using patients’ self-collected saliva rather than swabs. One lab has now received authorization for in-home testing without any input from a clinician. These testing options can be a boon for patients who have symptoms or exposure and for whatever reason are unable to get to a diagnostic site. These samples are collected at home and mailed to a lab. Note that these tests are not yet widely available.

Waiting for results. If waiting for results meant a day or even a couple of days, the answer to this one would be easier. But if the wait extends to 1 and even sometimes 2 weeks, then the test is not able to meaningfully guide clinical decisions. The latest guidance from the CDC is that individuals with symptoms suggestive of COVID who do not require hospitalization should remain at home in self-quarantine for at least 10 days from symptom onset. Asymptomatic individuals with a known exposure to someone else with COVID, or participation in a high-risk event like an indoor gathering involving more than 10 persons, should self-quarantine either until they receive a negative test result or 14 days after the exposure.

Accuracy of results. A positive rRT-PCR antigen test is highly accurate, indicating presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. There appears to be no significant cross-reactivity with other respiratory viruses or even other coronaviruses. A small study conducted in Korea suggests that patients with persistent positive tests who are beyond 10 days from the initial positive test and are now symptom free are no longer infectious.

For patients with a high suspicion of COVID-19, a negative test should not rule out the infection. The number of false-negative results is not well known, though the resultant risk is “substantial.” A number of factors affect the likelihood of a false-negative test, including when the sample was collected relative to the timing of illness and the type of specimen collected; for example, nasopharyngeal swabs are more likely to be accurate vs nasal or throat specimens. Repeat or serial testing increases the sensitivity but may not always be available. Although rRT-PCR is the current criterion standard, more inclusive consensus-based criteria are likely to emerge because of the concern about these false-negative results.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.