Covid ICYMI

Darth Vader is, to me, one of the most intimidating villains in movie history. I was 11 when Star Wars came out. I even cleaned my room so my mother would take me to see it.

When Darth Vader first walked on screen, it was striking. A tall, imposing figure in black, with harsh mechanical respirations. There was no question of who the bad guy was. As the movie progressed his darkness became more frightening until, in the first lightsaber battle any of us had seen, he cut down the benevolent Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Last year my family went to Disneyland. While browsing the park’s stores we saw numerous Darth Vader items ... with him now available as a teddy bear, and on T-shirts riding carousels and the Dumbo ride.

From terrifying villain to cutesy toy in 43 years.* Quite the fall from glory.

Diseases are often (and hopefully) like that. Syphilis, once the most common, feared, and incurable neurologic disease is now, for most, just a nuisance. The butt of jokes and sexual innuendos, rendered harmless by Alexander Fleming’s discoveries.

Bit by bit we see other diseases tamed. Multiple sclerosis, though still serious, becomes better controlled every year as new agents come out. The cure for Parkinson’s disease remains elusive, but agents to control the symptoms and improve quality of life are available. Even HIV, the most feared disease of the 80s and 90s, has been beaten back from a terrible death sentence to one where patients lead normal lives with antiviral therapy.

Today we face a new enemy, the COVID-19 pandemic. So far we have no definite treatments, nor shortage of ideas. Many companies are racing to develop a vaccine, and will likely, at some point, find one, but what and when are still in the future. Hopefully, like previously devastating illnesses, COVID-19 will be brought under control, too.

Alzheimer’s disease, for all practical purposes, remains untreatable and rightfully feared. Perhaps the only ones more terrifying are those we’ve reduced to just three letters: ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and GBM (glioblastoma multiforme). Both have terrible courses and, in spite of years of research, nothing even close to an effective treatment.

I hope that changes, and soon, for all those affected by these (and many other) terrible disorders.

Like the Darth Vader teddy bear, I’ll be happy to see them become shells of their former selves, with the dread they bring now reduced to the lesser trepidation seen when facing a serious, but treatable, illness.

*Correction, 8/11/20: An earlier version of this column misstated the number of years since Star Wars debuted.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Darth Vader is, to me, one of the most intimidating villains in movie history. I was 11 when Star Wars came out. I even cleaned my room so my mother would take me to see it.

When Darth Vader first walked on screen, it was striking. A tall, imposing figure in black, with harsh mechanical respirations. There was no question of who the bad guy was. As the movie progressed his darkness became more frightening until, in the first lightsaber battle any of us had seen, he cut down the benevolent Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Last year my family went to Disneyland. While browsing the park’s stores we saw numerous Darth Vader items ... with him now available as a teddy bear, and on T-shirts riding carousels and the Dumbo ride.

From terrifying villain to cutesy toy in 43 years.* Quite the fall from glory.

Diseases are often (and hopefully) like that. Syphilis, once the most common, feared, and incurable neurologic disease is now, for most, just a nuisance. The butt of jokes and sexual innuendos, rendered harmless by Alexander Fleming’s discoveries.

Bit by bit we see other diseases tamed. Multiple sclerosis, though still serious, becomes better controlled every year as new agents come out. The cure for Parkinson’s disease remains elusive, but agents to control the symptoms and improve quality of life are available. Even HIV, the most feared disease of the 80s and 90s, has been beaten back from a terrible death sentence to one where patients lead normal lives with antiviral therapy.

Today we face a new enemy, the COVID-19 pandemic. So far we have no definite treatments, nor shortage of ideas. Many companies are racing to develop a vaccine, and will likely, at some point, find one, but what and when are still in the future. Hopefully, like previously devastating illnesses, COVID-19 will be brought under control, too.

Alzheimer’s disease, for all practical purposes, remains untreatable and rightfully feared. Perhaps the only ones more terrifying are those we’ve reduced to just three letters: ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and GBM (glioblastoma multiforme). Both have terrible courses and, in spite of years of research, nothing even close to an effective treatment.

I hope that changes, and soon, for all those affected by these (and many other) terrible disorders.

Like the Darth Vader teddy bear, I’ll be happy to see them become shells of their former selves, with the dread they bring now reduced to the lesser trepidation seen when facing a serious, but treatable, illness.

*Correction, 8/11/20: An earlier version of this column misstated the number of years since Star Wars debuted.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Darth Vader is, to me, one of the most intimidating villains in movie history. I was 11 when Star Wars came out. I even cleaned my room so my mother would take me to see it.

When Darth Vader first walked on screen, it was striking. A tall, imposing figure in black, with harsh mechanical respirations. There was no question of who the bad guy was. As the movie progressed his darkness became more frightening until, in the first lightsaber battle any of us had seen, he cut down the benevolent Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Last year my family went to Disneyland. While browsing the park’s stores we saw numerous Darth Vader items ... with him now available as a teddy bear, and on T-shirts riding carousels and the Dumbo ride.

From terrifying villain to cutesy toy in 43 years.* Quite the fall from glory.

Diseases are often (and hopefully) like that. Syphilis, once the most common, feared, and incurable neurologic disease is now, for most, just a nuisance. The butt of jokes and sexual innuendos, rendered harmless by Alexander Fleming’s discoveries.

Bit by bit we see other diseases tamed. Multiple sclerosis, though still serious, becomes better controlled every year as new agents come out. The cure for Parkinson’s disease remains elusive, but agents to control the symptoms and improve quality of life are available. Even HIV, the most feared disease of the 80s and 90s, has been beaten back from a terrible death sentence to one where patients lead normal lives with antiviral therapy.

Today we face a new enemy, the COVID-19 pandemic. So far we have no definite treatments, nor shortage of ideas. Many companies are racing to develop a vaccine, and will likely, at some point, find one, but what and when are still in the future. Hopefully, like previously devastating illnesses, COVID-19 will be brought under control, too.

Alzheimer’s disease, for all practical purposes, remains untreatable and rightfully feared. Perhaps the only ones more terrifying are those we’ve reduced to just three letters: ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and GBM (glioblastoma multiforme). Both have terrible courses and, in spite of years of research, nothing even close to an effective treatment.

I hope that changes, and soon, for all those affected by these (and many other) terrible disorders.

Like the Darth Vader teddy bear, I’ll be happy to see them become shells of their former selves, with the dread they bring now reduced to the lesser trepidation seen when facing a serious, but treatable, illness.

*Correction, 8/11/20: An earlier version of this column misstated the number of years since Star Wars debuted.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

When officials closed U.S. schools in March to limit the spread of COVID-19, they may have prevented more than 1 million cases over a 26-day period, a new estimate published online July 29 in JAMA suggests.

But school closures also left blind spots in understanding how children and schools affect disease transmission.

“School closures early in pandemic responses thwarted larger-scale investigations of schools as a source of community transmission,” researchers noted in a separate study, published online July 30 in JAMA Pediatrics, that examined levels of viral RNA in children and adults with COVID-19.

“Our analyses suggest children younger than 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 have high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in their nasopharynx, compared with older children and adults,” reported Taylor Heald-Sargent, MD, PhD, and colleagues. “Thus, young children can potentially be important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the general population, as has been demonstrated with respiratory syncytial virus, where children with high viral loads are more likely to transmit.”

Although the study “was not designed to prove that younger children spread COVID-19 as much as adults,” it is a possibility, Dr. Heald-Sargent, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in a related news release. “We need to take that into account in efforts to reduce transmission as we continue to learn more about this virus.”.

The study included 145 patients with mild or moderate illness who were within 1 week of symptom onset. The researchers used reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs collected at inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, or drive-through testing sites to measure SARS-CoV-2 levels. The investigators compared PCR amplification cycle threshold (CT) values for children younger than 5 years (n = 46), children aged 5-17 years (n = 51), and adults aged 18-65 years (n = 48); lower CT values indicate higher amounts of viral nucleic acid.

Median CT values for older children and adults were similar (about 11), whereas the median CT value for young children was significantly lower (6.5). The differences between young children and adults “approximate a 10-fold to 100-fold greater amount of SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract of young children,” the researchers wrote.

“Behavioral habits of young children and close quarters in school and day care settings raise concern for SARS-CoV-2 amplification in this population as public health restrictions are eased,” they write.
 

Modeling the impact of school closures

In the JAMA study, Katherine A. Auger, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues examined at the U.S. population level whether closing schools, as all 50 states did in March, was associated with relative decreases in COVID-19 incidence and mortality.

To isolate the effect of school closures, the researchers used an interrupted time series analysis and included other state-level nonpharmaceutical interventions and variables in their regression models.

“Per week, the incidence was estimated to have been 39% of what it would have been had schools remained open,” Dr. Auger and colleagues wrote. “Extrapolating the absolute differences of 423.9 cases and 12.6 deaths per 100,000 to 322.2 million residents nationally suggests that school closure may have been associated with approximately 1.37 million fewer cases of COVID-19 over a 26-day period and 40,600 fewer deaths over a 16-day period; however, these figures do not account for uncertainty in the model assumptions and the resulting estimates.”

Relative reductions in incidence and mortality were largest in states that closed schools when the incidence of COVID-19 was low, the authors found.
 

Decisions with high stakes

In an accompanying editorial, Julie M. Donohue, PhD, and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, both affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh, emphasized that the results are estimates. “School closures were enacted in close proximity ... to other physical distancing measures, such as nonessential business closures and stay-at-home orders, making it difficult to disentangle the potential effect of each intervention.”

Although the findings “suggest a role for school closures in virus mitigation, school and health officials must balance this with academic, health, and economic consequences,” Dr. Donohue and Dr. Miller added. “Given the strong connection between education, income, and life expectancy, school closures could have long-term deleterious consequences for child health, likely reaching into adulthood.” Schools provide “meals and nutrition, health care including behavioral health supports, physical activity, social interaction, supports for students with special education needs and disabilities, and other vital resources for healthy development.”

In a viewpoint article also published in JAMA, authors involved in the creation of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported on the reopening of schools recommend that districts “make every effort to prioritize reopening with an emphasis on providing in-person instruction for students in kindergarten through grade 5 as well as those students with special needs who might be best served by in-person instruction.

“To reopen safely, school districts are encouraged to ensure ventilation and air filtration, clean surfaces frequently, provide facilities for regular handwashing, and provide space for physical distancing,” write Kenne A. Dibner, PhD, of the NASEM in Washington, D.C., and coauthors.

Furthermore, districts “need to consider transparent communication of the reality that while measures can be implemented to lower the risk of transmitting COVID-19 when schools reopen, there is no way to eliminate that risk entirely. It is critical to share both the risks and benefits of different scenarios,” they wrote.

The JAMA modeling study received funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. The NASEM report was funded by the Brady Education Foundation and the Spencer Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When officials closed U.S. schools in March to limit the spread of COVID-19, they may have prevented more than 1 million cases over a 26-day period, a new estimate published online July 29 in JAMA suggests.

But school closures also left blind spots in understanding how children and schools affect disease transmission.

“School closures early in pandemic responses thwarted larger-scale investigations of schools as a source of community transmission,” researchers noted in a separate study, published online July 30 in JAMA Pediatrics, that examined levels of viral RNA in children and adults with COVID-19.

“Our analyses suggest children younger than 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 have high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in their nasopharynx, compared with older children and adults,” reported Taylor Heald-Sargent, MD, PhD, and colleagues. “Thus, young children can potentially be important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the general population, as has been demonstrated with respiratory syncytial virus, where children with high viral loads are more likely to transmit.”

Although the study “was not designed to prove that younger children spread COVID-19 as much as adults,” it is a possibility, Dr. Heald-Sargent, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in a related news release. “We need to take that into account in efforts to reduce transmission as we continue to learn more about this virus.”.

The study included 145 patients with mild or moderate illness who were within 1 week of symptom onset. The researchers used reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs collected at inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, or drive-through testing sites to measure SARS-CoV-2 levels. The investigators compared PCR amplification cycle threshold (CT) values for children younger than 5 years (n = 46), children aged 5-17 years (n = 51), and adults aged 18-65 years (n = 48); lower CT values indicate higher amounts of viral nucleic acid.

Median CT values for older children and adults were similar (about 11), whereas the median CT value for young children was significantly lower (6.5). The differences between young children and adults “approximate a 10-fold to 100-fold greater amount of SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract of young children,” the researchers wrote.

“Behavioral habits of young children and close quarters in school and day care settings raise concern for SARS-CoV-2 amplification in this population as public health restrictions are eased,” they write.
 

Modeling the impact of school closures

In the JAMA study, Katherine A. Auger, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues examined at the U.S. population level whether closing schools, as all 50 states did in March, was associated with relative decreases in COVID-19 incidence and mortality.

To isolate the effect of school closures, the researchers used an interrupted time series analysis and included other state-level nonpharmaceutical interventions and variables in their regression models.

“Per week, the incidence was estimated to have been 39% of what it would have been had schools remained open,” Dr. Auger and colleagues wrote. “Extrapolating the absolute differences of 423.9 cases and 12.6 deaths per 100,000 to 322.2 million residents nationally suggests that school closure may have been associated with approximately 1.37 million fewer cases of COVID-19 over a 26-day period and 40,600 fewer deaths over a 16-day period; however, these figures do not account for uncertainty in the model assumptions and the resulting estimates.”

Relative reductions in incidence and mortality were largest in states that closed schools when the incidence of COVID-19 was low, the authors found.
 

Decisions with high stakes

In an accompanying editorial, Julie M. Donohue, PhD, and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, both affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh, emphasized that the results are estimates. “School closures were enacted in close proximity ... to other physical distancing measures, such as nonessential business closures and stay-at-home orders, making it difficult to disentangle the potential effect of each intervention.”

Although the findings “suggest a role for school closures in virus mitigation, school and health officials must balance this with academic, health, and economic consequences,” Dr. Donohue and Dr. Miller added. “Given the strong connection between education, income, and life expectancy, school closures could have long-term deleterious consequences for child health, likely reaching into adulthood.” Schools provide “meals and nutrition, health care including behavioral health supports, physical activity, social interaction, supports for students with special education needs and disabilities, and other vital resources for healthy development.”

In a viewpoint article also published in JAMA, authors involved in the creation of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported on the reopening of schools recommend that districts “make every effort to prioritize reopening with an emphasis on providing in-person instruction for students in kindergarten through grade 5 as well as those students with special needs who might be best served by in-person instruction.

“To reopen safely, school districts are encouraged to ensure ventilation and air filtration, clean surfaces frequently, provide facilities for regular handwashing, and provide space for physical distancing,” write Kenne A. Dibner, PhD, of the NASEM in Washington, D.C., and coauthors.

Furthermore, districts “need to consider transparent communication of the reality that while measures can be implemented to lower the risk of transmitting COVID-19 when schools reopen, there is no way to eliminate that risk entirely. It is critical to share both the risks and benefits of different scenarios,” they wrote.

The JAMA modeling study received funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. The NASEM report was funded by the Brady Education Foundation and the Spencer Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When officials closed U.S. schools in March to limit the spread of COVID-19, they may have prevented more than 1 million cases over a 26-day period, a new estimate published online July 29 in JAMA suggests.

But school closures also left blind spots in understanding how children and schools affect disease transmission.

“School closures early in pandemic responses thwarted larger-scale investigations of schools as a source of community transmission,” researchers noted in a separate study, published online July 30 in JAMA Pediatrics, that examined levels of viral RNA in children and adults with COVID-19.

“Our analyses suggest children younger than 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 have high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in their nasopharynx, compared with older children and adults,” reported Taylor Heald-Sargent, MD, PhD, and colleagues. “Thus, young children can potentially be important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the general population, as has been demonstrated with respiratory syncytial virus, where children with high viral loads are more likely to transmit.”

Although the study “was not designed to prove that younger children spread COVID-19 as much as adults,” it is a possibility, Dr. Heald-Sargent, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in a related news release. “We need to take that into account in efforts to reduce transmission as we continue to learn more about this virus.”.

The study included 145 patients with mild or moderate illness who were within 1 week of symptom onset. The researchers used reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs collected at inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, or drive-through testing sites to measure SARS-CoV-2 levels. The investigators compared PCR amplification cycle threshold (CT) values for children younger than 5 years (n = 46), children aged 5-17 years (n = 51), and adults aged 18-65 years (n = 48); lower CT values indicate higher amounts of viral nucleic acid.

Median CT values for older children and adults were similar (about 11), whereas the median CT value for young children was significantly lower (6.5). The differences between young children and adults “approximate a 10-fold to 100-fold greater amount of SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract of young children,” the researchers wrote.

“Behavioral habits of young children and close quarters in school and day care settings raise concern for SARS-CoV-2 amplification in this population as public health restrictions are eased,” they write.
 

Modeling the impact of school closures

In the JAMA study, Katherine A. Auger, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues examined at the U.S. population level whether closing schools, as all 50 states did in March, was associated with relative decreases in COVID-19 incidence and mortality.

To isolate the effect of school closures, the researchers used an interrupted time series analysis and included other state-level nonpharmaceutical interventions and variables in their regression models.

“Per week, the incidence was estimated to have been 39% of what it would have been had schools remained open,” Dr. Auger and colleagues wrote. “Extrapolating the absolute differences of 423.9 cases and 12.6 deaths per 100,000 to 322.2 million residents nationally suggests that school closure may have been associated with approximately 1.37 million fewer cases of COVID-19 over a 26-day period and 40,600 fewer deaths over a 16-day period; however, these figures do not account for uncertainty in the model assumptions and the resulting estimates.”

Relative reductions in incidence and mortality were largest in states that closed schools when the incidence of COVID-19 was low, the authors found.
 

Decisions with high stakes

In an accompanying editorial, Julie M. Donohue, PhD, and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, both affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh, emphasized that the results are estimates. “School closures were enacted in close proximity ... to other physical distancing measures, such as nonessential business closures and stay-at-home orders, making it difficult to disentangle the potential effect of each intervention.”

Although the findings “suggest a role for school closures in virus mitigation, school and health officials must balance this with academic, health, and economic consequences,” Dr. Donohue and Dr. Miller added. “Given the strong connection between education, income, and life expectancy, school closures could have long-term deleterious consequences for child health, likely reaching into adulthood.” Schools provide “meals and nutrition, health care including behavioral health supports, physical activity, social interaction, supports for students with special education needs and disabilities, and other vital resources for healthy development.”

In a viewpoint article also published in JAMA, authors involved in the creation of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported on the reopening of schools recommend that districts “make every effort to prioritize reopening with an emphasis on providing in-person instruction for students in kindergarten through grade 5 as well as those students with special needs who might be best served by in-person instruction.

“To reopen safely, school districts are encouraged to ensure ventilation and air filtration, clean surfaces frequently, provide facilities for regular handwashing, and provide space for physical distancing,” write Kenne A. Dibner, PhD, of the NASEM in Washington, D.C., and coauthors.

Furthermore, districts “need to consider transparent communication of the reality that while measures can be implemented to lower the risk of transmitting COVID-19 when schools reopen, there is no way to eliminate that risk entirely. It is critical to share both the risks and benefits of different scenarios,” they wrote.

The JAMA modeling study received funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health. The NASEM report was funded by the Brady Education Foundation and the Spencer Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

By now it is well known that the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted primary care. Office visits and revenues have precipitously dropped as physicians and patients alike fear in-person visits may increase their risks of contracting the virus. However, telemedicine has emerged as a lifeline of sorts for many practices, enabling them to conduct visits and maintain contact with patients.

Telemedicine is likely to continue to serve as a tool for primary care providers to improve access to convenient, cost-effective, high-quality care after the pandemic. Another benefit of telemedicine is it can help maintain a portion of a practice’s revenue stream for physicians during uncertain times.

Indeed, the nation has seen recent progress toward telemedicine parity, which refers to the concept of reimbursing providers’ telehealth visits at the same rates as similar in-person visits.

A challenge to adopting telemedicine is that it calls for adjusting established workflows for in-person encounters. A practice cannot simply replicate in-person processes to work for telehealth. While both in-person and virtual visits require adherence to HIPAA, for example, how you actually protect patient privacy will call for different measures. Harking back to the early days of EMR implementation, one does not need to like the telemedicine platform or process, but come to terms with the fact that it is a tool that is here to stay to deliver patient care.

Following are a few tips for primary care practices to help mitigate disruption while embracing telemedicine.

Treat your practice like a laboratory

Adoption may vary between practices depending on many factors, including clinicians’ comfort with technology, clinical tolerance and triage rules for nontouch encounters, state regulations, and more. Every provider group should begin experimenting with telemedicine in specific ways that make sense for them.

One physician may practice telemedicine full-time while the rest abstain, or perhaps the practice prefers to offer telemedicine services during specific hours on specific days. Don’t be afraid to start slowly when you’re trying something new – but do get started with telehealth. It will increasingly be a mainstream medium and more patients will come to expect it.

Train the entire team

Many primary care practices do not enjoy the resources of an information technology team, so all team members essentially need to learn the new skill of telemedicine usage, in addition to assisting patients. That can’t happen without staff buy-in, so it is essential that everyone from the office manager to medical assistants have the training they need to make the technology work. Juggling schedules for telehealth and in-office, activating an account through email, starting and joining a telehealth meeting, and preparing a patient for a visit are just a handful of basic tasks your staff should be trained to do to contribute to the successful integration of telehealth.

Educate and encourage patients to use telehealth

While unfamiliarity with technology may represent a roadblock for some patients, others resist telemedicine simply because no one has explained to them why it’s so important and the benefits it can hold for them. Education and communication are critical, including the sometimes painstaking work of slowly walking patients through the process of performing important functions on the telemedicine app. By providing them with some friendly coaching, patients won’t feel lost or abandoned during what for some may be an unfamiliar and frustrating process.

Manage more behavioral health

Different states and health plans incentivize primary practices for integrating behavioral health into their offerings. Rather than dismiss this addition to your own practice as too cumbersome to take on, I would recommend using telehealth to expand behavioral health care services.

If your practice is working toward a team-based, interdisciplinary approach to care delivery, behavioral health is a critical component. While other elements of this “whole person” health care may be better suited for an office visit, the vast majority of behavioral health services can be delivered virtually.

To decide if your patient may benefit from behavioral health care, the primary care provider (PCP) can conduct a screening via telehealth. Once the screening is complete, the PCP can discuss results and refer the patient to a mental health professional – all via telehealth. While patients may be reluctant to receive behavioral health treatment, perhaps because of stigma or inexperience, they may appreciate the telemedicine option as they can remain in the comfort and familiarity of their homes.

Collaborative Care is both an in-person and virtual model that allows PCP practices to offer behavioral health services in a cost effective way by utilizing a psychiatrist as a “consultant” to the practice as opposed to hiring a full-time psychiatrist. All services within the Collaborative Care Model can be offered via telehealth, and all major insurance providers reimburse primary care providers for delivering Collaborative Care.

When PCPs provide behavioral health treatment as an “extension” of the primary care service offerings, the stigma is reduced and more patients are willing to accept the care they need.

Many areas of the country suffer from a lack of access to behavioral health specialists. In rural counties, for example, the nearest therapist may be located over an hour away. By integrating behavioral telehealth services into your practice’s offerings, you can remove geographic and transportation obstacles to care for your patient population.

Doing this can lead to providing more culturally competent care. It’s important that you’re able to offer mental health services to your patients from a professional with a similar ethnic or racial background. Language barriers and cultural differences may limit a provider’s ability to treat a patient, particularly if the patient faces health disparities related to race or ethnicity. If your practice needs to look outside of your community to tap into a more diverse pool of providers to better meet your patients’ needs, telehealth makes it easier to do that.

Adopting telemedicine for consultative patient visits offers primary care a path toward restoring patient volume and hope for a postpandemic future.
 

Mark Stephan, MD, is chief medical officer at Equality Health, a whole-health delivery system. He practiced family medicine for 19 years, including hospital medicine and obstetrics in rural and urban settings. Dr. Stephan has no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

By now it is well known that the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted primary care. Office visits and revenues have precipitously dropped as physicians and patients alike fear in-person visits may increase their risks of contracting the virus. However, telemedicine has emerged as a lifeline of sorts for many practices, enabling them to conduct visits and maintain contact with patients.

Telemedicine is likely to continue to serve as a tool for primary care providers to improve access to convenient, cost-effective, high-quality care after the pandemic. Another benefit of telemedicine is it can help maintain a portion of a practice’s revenue stream for physicians during uncertain times.

Indeed, the nation has seen recent progress toward telemedicine parity, which refers to the concept of reimbursing providers’ telehealth visits at the same rates as similar in-person visits.

A challenge to adopting telemedicine is that it calls for adjusting established workflows for in-person encounters. A practice cannot simply replicate in-person processes to work for telehealth. While both in-person and virtual visits require adherence to HIPAA, for example, how you actually protect patient privacy will call for different measures. Harking back to the early days of EMR implementation, one does not need to like the telemedicine platform or process, but come to terms with the fact that it is a tool that is here to stay to deliver patient care.

Following are a few tips for primary care practices to help mitigate disruption while embracing telemedicine.

Treat your practice like a laboratory

Adoption may vary between practices depending on many factors, including clinicians’ comfort with technology, clinical tolerance and triage rules for nontouch encounters, state regulations, and more. Every provider group should begin experimenting with telemedicine in specific ways that make sense for them.

One physician may practice telemedicine full-time while the rest abstain, or perhaps the practice prefers to offer telemedicine services during specific hours on specific days. Don’t be afraid to start slowly when you’re trying something new – but do get started with telehealth. It will increasingly be a mainstream medium and more patients will come to expect it.

Train the entire team

Many primary care practices do not enjoy the resources of an information technology team, so all team members essentially need to learn the new skill of telemedicine usage, in addition to assisting patients. That can’t happen without staff buy-in, so it is essential that everyone from the office manager to medical assistants have the training they need to make the technology work. Juggling schedules for telehealth and in-office, activating an account through email, starting and joining a telehealth meeting, and preparing a patient for a visit are just a handful of basic tasks your staff should be trained to do to contribute to the successful integration of telehealth.

Educate and encourage patients to use telehealth

While unfamiliarity with technology may represent a roadblock for some patients, others resist telemedicine simply because no one has explained to them why it’s so important and the benefits it can hold for them. Education and communication are critical, including the sometimes painstaking work of slowly walking patients through the process of performing important functions on the telemedicine app. By providing them with some friendly coaching, patients won’t feel lost or abandoned during what for some may be an unfamiliar and frustrating process.

Manage more behavioral health

Different states and health plans incentivize primary practices for integrating behavioral health into their offerings. Rather than dismiss this addition to your own practice as too cumbersome to take on, I would recommend using telehealth to expand behavioral health care services.

If your practice is working toward a team-based, interdisciplinary approach to care delivery, behavioral health is a critical component. While other elements of this “whole person” health care may be better suited for an office visit, the vast majority of behavioral health services can be delivered virtually.

To decide if your patient may benefit from behavioral health care, the primary care provider (PCP) can conduct a screening via telehealth. Once the screening is complete, the PCP can discuss results and refer the patient to a mental health professional – all via telehealth. While patients may be reluctant to receive behavioral health treatment, perhaps because of stigma or inexperience, they may appreciate the telemedicine option as they can remain in the comfort and familiarity of their homes.

Collaborative Care is both an in-person and virtual model that allows PCP practices to offer behavioral health services in a cost effective way by utilizing a psychiatrist as a “consultant” to the practice as opposed to hiring a full-time psychiatrist. All services within the Collaborative Care Model can be offered via telehealth, and all major insurance providers reimburse primary care providers for delivering Collaborative Care.

When PCPs provide behavioral health treatment as an “extension” of the primary care service offerings, the stigma is reduced and more patients are willing to accept the care they need.

Many areas of the country suffer from a lack of access to behavioral health specialists. In rural counties, for example, the nearest therapist may be located over an hour away. By integrating behavioral telehealth services into your practice’s offerings, you can remove geographic and transportation obstacles to care for your patient population.

Doing this can lead to providing more culturally competent care. It’s important that you’re able to offer mental health services to your patients from a professional with a similar ethnic or racial background. Language barriers and cultural differences may limit a provider’s ability to treat a patient, particularly if the patient faces health disparities related to race or ethnicity. If your practice needs to look outside of your community to tap into a more diverse pool of providers to better meet your patients’ needs, telehealth makes it easier to do that.

Adopting telemedicine for consultative patient visits offers primary care a path toward restoring patient volume and hope for a postpandemic future.
 

Mark Stephan, MD, is chief medical officer at Equality Health, a whole-health delivery system. He practiced family medicine for 19 years, including hospital medicine and obstetrics in rural and urban settings. Dr. Stephan has no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

By now it is well known that the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted primary care. Office visits and revenues have precipitously dropped as physicians and patients alike fear in-person visits may increase their risks of contracting the virus. However, telemedicine has emerged as a lifeline of sorts for many practices, enabling them to conduct visits and maintain contact with patients.

Telemedicine is likely to continue to serve as a tool for primary care providers to improve access to convenient, cost-effective, high-quality care after the pandemic. Another benefit of telemedicine is it can help maintain a portion of a practice’s revenue stream for physicians during uncertain times.

Indeed, the nation has seen recent progress toward telemedicine parity, which refers to the concept of reimbursing providers’ telehealth visits at the same rates as similar in-person visits.

A challenge to adopting telemedicine is that it calls for adjusting established workflows for in-person encounters. A practice cannot simply replicate in-person processes to work for telehealth. While both in-person and virtual visits require adherence to HIPAA, for example, how you actually protect patient privacy will call for different measures. Harking back to the early days of EMR implementation, one does not need to like the telemedicine platform or process, but come to terms with the fact that it is a tool that is here to stay to deliver patient care.

Following are a few tips for primary care practices to help mitigate disruption while embracing telemedicine.

Treat your practice like a laboratory

Adoption may vary between practices depending on many factors, including clinicians’ comfort with technology, clinical tolerance and triage rules for nontouch encounters, state regulations, and more. Every provider group should begin experimenting with telemedicine in specific ways that make sense for them.

One physician may practice telemedicine full-time while the rest abstain, or perhaps the practice prefers to offer telemedicine services during specific hours on specific days. Don’t be afraid to start slowly when you’re trying something new – but do get started with telehealth. It will increasingly be a mainstream medium and more patients will come to expect it.

Train the entire team

Many primary care practices do not enjoy the resources of an information technology team, so all team members essentially need to learn the new skill of telemedicine usage, in addition to assisting patients. That can’t happen without staff buy-in, so it is essential that everyone from the office manager to medical assistants have the training they need to make the technology work. Juggling schedules for telehealth and in-office, activating an account through email, starting and joining a telehealth meeting, and preparing a patient for a visit are just a handful of basic tasks your staff should be trained to do to contribute to the successful integration of telehealth.

Educate and encourage patients to use telehealth

While unfamiliarity with technology may represent a roadblock for some patients, others resist telemedicine simply because no one has explained to them why it’s so important and the benefits it can hold for them. Education and communication are critical, including the sometimes painstaking work of slowly walking patients through the process of performing important functions on the telemedicine app. By providing them with some friendly coaching, patients won’t feel lost or abandoned during what for some may be an unfamiliar and frustrating process.

Manage more behavioral health

Different states and health plans incentivize primary practices for integrating behavioral health into their offerings. Rather than dismiss this addition to your own practice as too cumbersome to take on, I would recommend using telehealth to expand behavioral health care services.

If your practice is working toward a team-based, interdisciplinary approach to care delivery, behavioral health is a critical component. While other elements of this “whole person” health care may be better suited for an office visit, the vast majority of behavioral health services can be delivered virtually.

To decide if your patient may benefit from behavioral health care, the primary care provider (PCP) can conduct a screening via telehealth. Once the screening is complete, the PCP can discuss results and refer the patient to a mental health professional – all via telehealth. While patients may be reluctant to receive behavioral health treatment, perhaps because of stigma or inexperience, they may appreciate the telemedicine option as they can remain in the comfort and familiarity of their homes.

Collaborative Care is both an in-person and virtual model that allows PCP practices to offer behavioral health services in a cost effective way by utilizing a psychiatrist as a “consultant” to the practice as opposed to hiring a full-time psychiatrist. All services within the Collaborative Care Model can be offered via telehealth, and all major insurance providers reimburse primary care providers for delivering Collaborative Care.

When PCPs provide behavioral health treatment as an “extension” of the primary care service offerings, the stigma is reduced and more patients are willing to accept the care they need.

Many areas of the country suffer from a lack of access to behavioral health specialists. In rural counties, for example, the nearest therapist may be located over an hour away. By integrating behavioral telehealth services into your practice’s offerings, you can remove geographic and transportation obstacles to care for your patient population.

Doing this can lead to providing more culturally competent care. It’s important that you’re able to offer mental health services to your patients from a professional with a similar ethnic or racial background. Language barriers and cultural differences may limit a provider’s ability to treat a patient, particularly if the patient faces health disparities related to race or ethnicity. If your practice needs to look outside of your community to tap into a more diverse pool of providers to better meet your patients’ needs, telehealth makes it easier to do that.

Adopting telemedicine for consultative patient visits offers primary care a path toward restoring patient volume and hope for a postpandemic future.
 

Mark Stephan, MD, is chief medical officer at Equality Health, a whole-health delivery system. He practiced family medicine for 19 years, including hospital medicine and obstetrics in rural and urban settings. Dr. Stephan has no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Researchers from the Royal Wolverhampton (England) Hospitals National Health Service Trust say shielding – or taking extra steps to protect oneself against COVID-19 if at high risk – has had little effect on the incidence of COVID-19 in rheumatology patients.

In Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the team present data from a large rheumatology cohort in the United Kingdom between Feb. 1, 2020, and May 1, 2020. Patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed on April 24, 2020, using the Short Form–12 to assess Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) on a 0-100 scale (0 being the lowest score).

Of 1,693 participants, at the time, there were 61 (3.6%) reported COVID-19 infections (eight had confirmatory swab results; three had clinical diagnoses with “false-negative” swab; 50 had clinical diagnosis but were not swabbed in line with U.K. policy at that time).

Seven of the 61 (11.5%) patients were hospitalized, two requiring intensive care. Of this group, 24 were shielding, a similar proportion to the non-COVID cohort (24/61 vs. 768/1,632; P = .24). There was no significant effect of treatment on self-reported COVID-19 incidence.

There were significantly lower MCSs in the infected group, compared with control participants (38.9 vs. 42.2; mean difference: −3.3; 95% CI, −5.2 to 1.4; P < .001). There was no difference in PCS (−0.4; 95% CI, −2.1 to 1.3).

In patients without COVID-19, the ‘shielding’ group had significantly lower MCS (−2.1; 95% CI, −2.9 to 1.4; P < .001) and PCS (−2.2; 95% CI, −3.8 to 2.5; P < .001) than those not shielding.

There were no differences in MCSs between patients on non–biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic DMARDs (0.6; 95% CI, 0.1-2.4).

The findings suggest that overall strict social isolation had little effect on the incidence of COVID-19 infection. Patients who had suffered from the virus had reduced mental but not physical HRQoL scores.

There was an adverse effect on both MCS and PCS reported by patients undergoing shielding,n compared with those not. This has also been shown in previous work from India.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

Researchers from the Royal Wolverhampton (England) Hospitals National Health Service Trust say shielding – or taking extra steps to protect oneself against COVID-19 if at high risk – has had little effect on the incidence of COVID-19 in rheumatology patients.

In Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the team present data from a large rheumatology cohort in the United Kingdom between Feb. 1, 2020, and May 1, 2020. Patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed on April 24, 2020, using the Short Form–12 to assess Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) on a 0-100 scale (0 being the lowest score).

Of 1,693 participants, at the time, there were 61 (3.6%) reported COVID-19 infections (eight had confirmatory swab results; three had clinical diagnoses with “false-negative” swab; 50 had clinical diagnosis but were not swabbed in line with U.K. policy at that time).

Seven of the 61 (11.5%) patients were hospitalized, two requiring intensive care. Of this group, 24 were shielding, a similar proportion to the non-COVID cohort (24/61 vs. 768/1,632; P = .24). There was no significant effect of treatment on self-reported COVID-19 incidence.

There were significantly lower MCSs in the infected group, compared with control participants (38.9 vs. 42.2; mean difference: −3.3; 95% CI, −5.2 to 1.4; P < .001). There was no difference in PCS (−0.4; 95% CI, −2.1 to 1.3).

In patients without COVID-19, the ‘shielding’ group had significantly lower MCS (−2.1; 95% CI, −2.9 to 1.4; P < .001) and PCS (−2.2; 95% CI, −3.8 to 2.5; P < .001) than those not shielding.

There were no differences in MCSs between patients on non–biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic DMARDs (0.6; 95% CI, 0.1-2.4).

The findings suggest that overall strict social isolation had little effect on the incidence of COVID-19 infection. Patients who had suffered from the virus had reduced mental but not physical HRQoL scores.

There was an adverse effect on both MCS and PCS reported by patients undergoing shielding,n compared with those not. This has also been shown in previous work from India.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

Researchers from the Royal Wolverhampton (England) Hospitals National Health Service Trust say shielding – or taking extra steps to protect oneself against COVID-19 if at high risk – has had little effect on the incidence of COVID-19 in rheumatology patients.

In Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the team present data from a large rheumatology cohort in the United Kingdom between Feb. 1, 2020, and May 1, 2020. Patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed on April 24, 2020, using the Short Form–12 to assess Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) on a 0-100 scale (0 being the lowest score).

Of 1,693 participants, at the time, there were 61 (3.6%) reported COVID-19 infections (eight had confirmatory swab results; three had clinical diagnoses with “false-negative” swab; 50 had clinical diagnosis but were not swabbed in line with U.K. policy at that time).

Seven of the 61 (11.5%) patients were hospitalized, two requiring intensive care. Of this group, 24 were shielding, a similar proportion to the non-COVID cohort (24/61 vs. 768/1,632; P = .24). There was no significant effect of treatment on self-reported COVID-19 incidence.

There were significantly lower MCSs in the infected group, compared with control participants (38.9 vs. 42.2; mean difference: −3.3; 95% CI, −5.2 to 1.4; P < .001). There was no difference in PCS (−0.4; 95% CI, −2.1 to 1.3).

In patients without COVID-19, the ‘shielding’ group had significantly lower MCS (−2.1; 95% CI, −2.9 to 1.4; P < .001) and PCS (−2.2; 95% CI, −3.8 to 2.5; P < .001) than those not shielding.

There were no differences in MCSs between patients on non–biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic DMARDs (0.6; 95% CI, 0.1-2.4).

The findings suggest that overall strict social isolation had little effect on the incidence of COVID-19 infection. Patients who had suffered from the virus had reduced mental but not physical HRQoL scores.

There was an adverse effect on both MCS and PCS reported by patients undergoing shielding,n compared with those not. This has also been shown in previous work from India.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

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.

The memories I have from the few nights spent in the adult pop-up cardiac intensive care unit are pouring in as I sit down to tell this story. I am a pediatric hospitalist at Columbia University NewYork-Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital. I usually take care of sick, hospitalized children. However, in these extraordinary times, I have joined an army of colleagues taking care of adult patients with COVID-19.

Almost all these patients had tracheostomies connected to ventilators, as well as acute-on-chronic cardiac issues. They were often delirious and unable to speak, and always alone. I was happy to help our adult colleagues, but I was also afraid. I was scared to make a mistake that could be detrimental to my patient, even though I knew well that ICU residents, fellows, and attendings were just a phone call away.

I felt like Alice in Wonderland, initially too small compared with her environment, and the next minute hunched, giant, and still clearly displaced. Except I was not dreaming or watching a movie. There was no white rabbit to chase. The situation was serious and emotionally challenging. I imagined that each patient was the dearest member of my family: my mother, my father, my aunt or uncle. I took pleasure in sharing smiles while asking the patients how they were feeling, and I touched their hands, even though much of my face was covered and there were gloves on my hands.

The year 2020 has been surreal. People have had to find their own way of pushing through the unknown and unexpected. For a start, I would never in a million years have imagined using phrases like pop-up ICU.¹ I was signing an admission note for a 90-year-old lady with acute-on-chronic congestive heart failure and acute respiratory hypoxemic failure and there, at the bottom of the note, was my name, followed by an odd remark: “pediatric hospital medicine.” That is what happened in New York City in 2020: Many unexpected events took place.

This article represents a virtual conversation with three other pediatric hospitalists who, under different sets of circumstances, did the same thing: took care of adult patients. I hope that the answers to the questions I asked make you pause, reflect, and learn from the experiences described.
 

Would you describe the usual environment where you practice pediatric hospital medicine?

Julie Dunbar, MD: I am a full-time pediatric hospitalist at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, a tertiary care academic children’s hospital in the Bronx. A typical day on service involves staffing up to 14 patients, up to 21 years old, on a teaching service with residents and physician assistants. We normally staff the hospital in two shifts – day and evening – until 11:00 at night. We are situated at the heart of a medically underserved area, and our hospital system cares for about one-third of the total population of the Bronx.



L. Nell Hodo, MD: I work at Kravis Children’s Hospital at the Mount Sinai Hospital, in Manhattan at the juncture of the Upper East Side and Harlem. Our usual hospital medicine environment is the general ward/floor in a nested children’s hospital within an adult hospital. We have about 32 non-ICU beds, and the patients are managed by a combination of hospitalists, general pediatricians, and specialist attendings. All patients are on resident teams. We have a comanagement model in which the primary attending for surgical patients is always a pediatric attending (hospitalist or specialist).



Avital M. Fischer, MD: NewYork-Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital is a quaternary care center – where children from the area receive subspecialty care – as well as, functionally, a community hospital for the Washington Heights area. Therefore, we always have an interesting mix of general pediatric inpatient medicine including patients with complex medical conditions, rare diseases, postoperative conditions, and undiagnosed illnesses on our wards. We are a children’s hospital, connected to a larger adult hospital system. Pediatric hospitalists cover two pediatric wards, team-staffed by residents, and a progressive care unit, staffed by nurse practitioners. There is usually evening coverage until 11 p.m.

How did this change when New York became the U.S. epicenter of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic? Was the transition to taking care of adult patients gradual or sudden? Were you deployed to a different hospital or part of the hospital? How prepared did you feel?

Dr. Dunbar: We experienced the COVID-19 pandemic like much of the rest of New York City – it started as a slow and uncertain process, and then it hit us all at once. In initial conversations, like everyone else, we did not know exactly what was coming. We started with small changes like working from home on nonclinical days and canceling family-centered rounds to conserve personal protective equipment (PPE). In mid-March, we were still expecting that redeployment to adult floors was a highly unlikely scenario. We made work-from-home schedules and planned projects we would work on while social distancing. We planned journal clubs about emerging evidence on COVID-19. However, things happened fast, and many of these plans were scrapped.

On Saturday, March 28, we closed the main floor of the children’s hospital because so few pediatric patients were being admitted. Two days later, we admitted our first cohort of adult COVID-19 patients, all more than 30 years old. They were transferred en masse from an outside hospital emergency department that desperately needed our beds. They arrived all at once, and they all required respiratory support. At the last hospitalist division meeting before the adults arrived, we had time for only one priority set of information, and so we chose end-of-life care. We reviewed scripts for advance care planning and logistics of death certificates. As fast as things changed for us, they changed even faster for the patients. Most were relatively healthy people who rather suddenly found themselves isolated, on oxygen, dictating their final wishes to pediatricians in full protective gear. Many, many patients got better, and of course, several spent their last moments with us. One physician assistant, who works closely with the hospitalists, spent the last 5 hours of an elderly patient’s life holding her hand and helping her FaceTime with family.

For the most part, the patients came to us. We worked with our own colleagues and our own nurses, on our own territory. A few of my colleagues were briefly redeployed to a series of conference rooms that were used for several weeks as overflow space for more stable COVID-19 patients. Staffing by the pediatrics teams was so robust, with willing volunteers from every corner of the children’s hospital, that we were not needed for long.

During the early days, there was no clinical pathway to follow to care for COVID-19 patients – it didn’t exist for this novel and variable disease. We created a platform to share documents and resources in real time as they became available to us. We used group texts and emails to learn from our experiences and encourage one another. Importantly, no one was afraid to ask for help, and we relied on our adult colleagues when patients started to decompensate. Adult critical care came to our aid for all rapid responses for patients older than 30. Pediatric critical care, in their infinite flexibility, was responsible for anyone younger.
 

Dr. Hodo: We had a variety of changes. The first thing was the deployment of many of our attendings (hospital medicine, ICU, outpatient, and subspecialists) and residents to the adult side to work on medical COVID-19 units or in the many ICUs (some new “pop-up” units in former medical units, postanesthesia care units, and so on).² On the adult floor we had “COVID teams,” which had an attending and two frontline providers; one of these three people was an internal medicine faculty member or resident. Residents from other specialties (emergency medicine, family medicine) were pulled off pediatric assignments in pediatric wards, PICUs, and EDs, so pediatric residents not originally assigned to inpatient rotations were sent to cover these core pediatric areas. The remaining pediatric faculty backfilled the pediatric services – so the remaining ICU docs did more shifts to cover ICU; the undeployed specialists took more inpatient service or clinic time, and so on. Outpatient pediatrics covered the inpatient pediatric service for the 3 weeks when most of the hospitalists were deployed.

We had one pediatric unit, which was a unit with equipment that made it capable of having ICU patients or floor patients, that was designated a COVID-19 unit. Most COVID-19 patients were there. Some were also in negative-pressure rooms on other floors or in the unit directly above the COVID-19 unit. Some adult patients came to the unit in the pediatric hospital but not as many as initially expected, and most were young adults in their 20s. So rather than adult patients coming to pediatrics, our experience was more that pediatricians went to the adult side.

The transition to adult care for physicians was variable in its suddenness. Most people had at least 48 hours’ notice, whereas some had as much as a week. Most of our department members deployed within the hospital complex of which we are a part, though a few went to other sites in the health system. Some were deployed into administrative or support roles in the system, rather than patient-facing roles. I felt, I would say, reasonably prepared. I trained in family medicine, though I have been exclusively in pediatrics for the past 7 years. I felt rusty, for sure, but perhaps not quite as out of my element as others. In preparation, I read a lot about COVID, reviewed some adult medicine topics provided by the medicine department, used the resources on the Pediatric Overflow Planning Contingency Response Network (POPCoRN), including an Advanced Cardiac Life Support review, and was able to shadow on a COVID-19 unit before I actually started – that was incredibly helpful. I also had the opportunity to speak about that shadowing experience in a department meeting, which I hope was helpful for others.
 

Dr. Fischer: Our whole focus for a relatively short time shifted to how to take care of adults within the children’s hospital. Although we had some time to prepare – the ICU was the first unit to take adults, so we knew they would come to the floor – it still felt quick. We took adult patients onto the general pediatrics floor from both the emergency department and the ICU. We took adults mostly with COVID-19, but we did have some young adults admitted for other reasons too. Those of us who were on service during this time collaborated closely, sharing what we learned and even joining one another on rounds to provide support. We basically would “teach it forward” as we learned. We also had adult providers available by phone for questions, and our pediatric subspecialists were readily available for consults and would reach out to their adult counterparts for support. Some of the hospitalists were reaching out to POPCoRN, and some were attending an ACLS crash course prior to getting on service.

What was hardest about this experience for you?

Dr. Dunbar: For me, one of the hardest aspects of dealing with COVID-19 was the unknown. In every aspect of professional life and clinical care, there were unanswered questions. What’s the best way to care for these patients? What prognoses can we give their loved ones? How can I help when it seems like there’s so little I can offer? Will we run out of PPE? As doctors, what behaviors most endanger our friends and family when we go home after work? When will things start to get better?

Dr. Hodo: For me, the week or two before being notified of the deployment was the worst and hardest time. The uncertainty about if I would be called or no, and to do what? And where? I was trying to read everything there was on management, what little was known about treatment, and so on. Once I received notification of a start date, that allowed me to focus on very clear endpoints and knowledge items (for example, reviewing ACLS algorithms) and to do things I knew would help me settle and be more effective (like shadowing).

Dr. Fischer: It was a lot of new. Not only were we taking care of a population that we hadn’t cared for since medical school (adults), but we were facing a disease process that was also new to everyone. We were learning on our feet, while at the same time providing guidance to our house staff.

What have you learned about yourself that you did not know before?

Dr. Dunbar: I was surprised to learn how much I liked caring for adult patients. The fear I felt immediately before they arrived dissipated fairly quickly after they arrived. The opportunity to address their chronic conditions while supporting them in an acute illness took me back to many of the fundamentals of medicine that I hadn’t thought much about since medical school. I liked that they could speak up to tell us how they were feeling, both physically and emotionally, so that we could address their needs and allow them to participate in their own care. Some of my favorite patients kept detailed histories of their own C-reactive protein values and oxygen levels to show they were active participants in their own recovery.

I was worried that these adult patients would be offended or scared to learn that they were being cared for by pediatricians, but at no point did anyone ask me why they were not assigned to an adult hospitalist. They saw us only as doctors and nurses, and they were grateful for our care. One 65-year-old U.S. Army veteran told me that his nurse had told him to take a shower and make his bed. “She treated me just like a 5-year-old kid. And I loved it!” he said.
 

Dr. Hodo: I don’t know that I was totally unaware of these things, but I will say that I had partially forgotten them: I really like adult medicine, and I love geriatrics. I like high-energy and high-stress situations … at least occasionally! I feel very comfortable discussing end-of-life decisions and death. I cope with personal stress by helping and supporting others – patients, team members, colleagues, neighbors. I risk not taking enough time for myself and have to remind myself to do so.

Dr. Fischer: I actually loved taking care of adults. It felt like there was a different kind of patient-doctor relationship to be had, and it was interesting to get to know people who had jobs and families of their own – essentially a different type of story than you typically hear taking care of children.

Were there any silver linings in this situation? How did you grow personally through this experience? What do we need to do better going forward as a profession and a community?

Dr. Dunbar: The part that I hope will stay with me is the memory of how we came together as clinicians to fight a common invisible enemy. The teamwork was unprecedented. Our day-to-day goals were simple and straightforward: do what needed to be done to help as many New Yorkers as possible. Our team made themselves available for last-minute meetings and shift changes without complaint. We practiced a type of medicine that prioritized patient comfort, flexibility, and compassionate care. We ordered methadone and insulin and antihypertensives – brand new experiences for us, but we figured it out. We worked through novel clinical problems together because there was no textbook to read.

Our colleagues from other specialties and different levels of experience stepped up to join us on overnight shifts, and we welcomed them. With the help of an ad hoc palliative care team, we improved how we listened to patients’ own self-directed needs. We reached across the aisle to our internal medicine and adult hospitalist colleagues to refresh our memories on chronic conditions, and they always answered the phone. I hope we always remember who we were during this crisis, because we were ourselves at our most generous.
 

Dr. Hodo: This was an unexpected but great opportunity to meet physicians, nurses, and staff in different departments and sections of the hospital from my own. I am hopeful that this experience will help us in the future with multidisciplinary work and breaking down silos that isolate specialties and units in the hospital.

I feel (and this is probably weird) invigorated by this experience. It feels good to have been able to help when I was needed. Even though there are a lot of things in adult hospital medicine I do not know, I know I did my best, asked for help when I needed it, and asked for feedback regularly from the medicine residents and nurses I worked with. I know I supported my team and my colleagues to the best of my ability through stressful and sometimes upsetting and emotionally draining times.

As a profession, we can continue to remember the value of the multidisciplinary team and the value of listening to, and making space for, different voices to be heard. We can reconsider the traditional, rigid hierarchy in medicine and medical education that can stifle creative thought and innovative ideas. We can remember that the people “at the top” of the pyramid can always learn something from those “at the bottom.” We can see the ways that department and discipline and specialty can help us but also sometimes hinder, and seek involvement in programs and discussions that unite and pool resources and skills. And, most of all, we can try, every day we are at work, to put the patients’ and families’ needs first – and when we leave work, to turn that around, and put ourselves and our loved ones in that prime position.

As a community, we also can work on thinking communally – that, after all, is the entire point of the wearing of masks in public and social distancing. It is as much about you as about me! We can try to hold on to some of this perspective of the greater good and appreciation for the work others do that makes our lives better and easier. It is not only health care workers who deserve a round of applause every day; it is every person who did something today that benefited someone else, be that giving extra space in a line, wearing a mask in a store, delivering food to an elder, teaching a class over Zoom, or simply minimizing time outside the house. It is every person who thought about the community at or near the same level of priority that they thought about themselves.

Dr. Fischer: It was a very challenging situation, but because our adult patients in the children’s hospital were relatively young with fewer comorbidities, we got to see people get well. I took care of one man with renal failure who we thought would be on dialysis for the rest of his life. By the end of my first week on service, he had begun to regain kidney function. It was amazing. I think most frontline providers caring for adults in this pandemic have had to face significant morbidity and mortality. I felt lucky that we were able to care for patients who generally got better.

I recently read the article published in the Journal of Pediatrics laying out how the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore adapted an entire pediatric floor to caring for adults.³ This example of recognition of need, quick preparation, and collaboration both within the children’s hospital and with the adult hospital was admirable. I also feel that at the beginning of this pandemic, there was a glimmer that the failure of our health care system to cover everyone and the repercussions of this failure would be drawn into sharp relief. I hope that this understanding of the importance of universal coverage persists beyond the pandemic.

Dr. Giordano is assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University and a pediatric hospitalist at NewYork-Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital with an interest in surgical comanagement. She serves on the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Pediatric Special Interest Group Executive Committee and is the chair of the Education Subcommittee. She is also an advisory board member for the New York/Westchester SHM Chapter.
 

References

1. Kumaraiah D et al. Innovative ICU physician care models: Covid-19 pandemic at NewYork-Presbyterian. NEJM Catal. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1056/CAT.20.0158.

2. Kim MK et al. A primer for clinician deployment to the medicine floors from an epicenter of Covid-19. NEJM Catal. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1056/CAT.20.0180.

3. Philips K, et al. Rapid Implementation of an Adult COVID-19 Unit in a Children’s Hospital. J Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.04.060.

The memories I have from the few nights spent in the adult pop-up cardiac intensive care unit are pouring in as I sit down to tell this story. I am a pediatric hospitalist at Columbia University NewYork-Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital. I usually take care of sick, hospitalized children. However, in these extraordinary times, I have joined an army of colleagues taking care of adult patients with COVID-19.

Almost all these patients had tracheostomies connected to ventilators, as well as acute-on-chronic cardiac issues. They were often delirious and unable to speak, and always alone. I was happy to help our adult colleagues, but I was also afraid. I was scared to make a mistake that could be detrimental to my patient, even though I knew well that ICU residents, fellows, and attendings were just a phone call away.

I felt like Alice in Wonderland, initially too small compared with her environment, and the next minute hunched, giant, and still clearly displaced. Except I was not dreaming or watching a movie. There was no white rabbit to chase. The situation was serious and emotionally challenging. I imagined that each patient was the dearest member of my family: my mother, my father, my aunt or uncle. I took pleasure in sharing smiles while asking the patients how they were feeling, and I touched their hands, even though much of my face was covered and there were gloves on my hands.

The year 2020 has been surreal. People have had to find their own way of pushing through the unknown and unexpected. For a start, I would never in a million years have imagined using phrases like pop-up ICU.¹ I was signing an admission note for a 90-year-old lady with acute-on-chronic congestive heart failure and acute respiratory hypoxemic failure and there, at the bottom of the note, was my name, followed by an odd remark: “pediatric hospital medicine.” That is what happened in New York City in 2020: Many unexpected events took place.

This article represents a virtual conversation with three other pediatric hospitalists who, under different sets of circumstances, did the same thing: took care of adult patients. I hope that the answers to the questions I asked make you pause, reflect, and learn from the experiences described.
 

Would you describe the usual environment where you practice pediatric hospital medicine?

Julie Dunbar, MD: I am a full-time pediatric hospitalist at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, a tertiary care academic children’s hospital in the Bronx. A typical day on service involves staffing up to 14 patients, up to 21 years old, on a teaching service with residents and physician assistants. We normally staff the hospital in two shifts – day and evening – until 11:00 at night. We are situated at the heart of a medically underserved area, and our hospital system cares for about one-third of the total population of the Bronx.



L. Nell Hodo, MD: I work at Kravis Children’s Hospital at the Mount Sinai Hospital, in Manhattan at the juncture of the Upper East Side and Harlem. Our usual hospital medicine environment is the general ward/floor in a nested children’s hospital within an adult hospital. We have about 32 non-ICU beds, and the patients are managed by a combination of hospitalists, general pediatricians, and specialist attendings. All patients are on resident teams. We have a comanagement model in which the primary attending for surgical patients is always a pediatric attending (hospitalist or specialist).



Avital M. Fischer, MD: NewYork-Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital is a quaternary care center – where children from the area receive subspecialty care – as well as, functionally, a community hospital for the Washington Heights area. Therefore, we always have an interesting mix of general pediatric inpatient medicine including patients with complex medical conditions, rare diseases, postoperative conditions, and undiagnosed illnesses on our wards. We are a children’s hospital, connected to a larger adult hospital system. Pediatric hospitalists cover two pediatric wards, team-staffed by residents, and a progressive care unit, staffed by nurse practitioners. There is usually evening coverage until 11 p.m.

How did this change when New York became the U.S. epicenter of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic? Was the transition to taking care of adult patients gradual or sudden? Were you deployed to a different hospital or part of the hospital? How prepared did you feel?

Dr. Dunbar: We experienced the COVID-19 pandemic like much of the rest of New York City – it started as a slow and uncertain process, and then it hit us all at once. In initial conversations, like everyone else, we did not know exactly what was coming. We started with small changes like working from home on nonclinical days and canceling family-centered rounds to conserve personal protective equipment (PPE). In mid-March, we were still expecting that redeployment to adult floors was a highly unlikely scenario. We made work-from-home schedules and planned projects we would work on while social distancing. We planned journal clubs about emerging evidence on COVID-19. However, things happened fast, and many of these plans were scrapped.

On Saturday, March 28, we closed the main floor of the children’s hospital because so few pediatric patients were being admitted. Two days later, we admitted our first cohort of adult COVID-19 patients, all more than 30 years old. They were transferred en masse from an outside hospital emergency department that desperately needed our beds. They arrived all at once, and they all required respiratory support. At the last hospitalist division meeting before the adults arrived, we had time for only one priority set of information, and so we chose end-of-life care. We reviewed scripts for advance care planning and logistics of death certificates. As fast as things changed for us, they changed even faster for the patients. Most were relatively healthy people who rather suddenly found themselves isolated, on oxygen, dictating their final wishes to pediatricians in full protective gear. Many, many patients got better, and of course, several spent their last moments with us. One physician assistant, who works closely with the hospitalists, spent the last 5 hours of an elderly patient’s life holding her hand and helping her FaceTime with family.

For the most part, the patients came to us. We worked with our own colleagues and our own nurses, on our own territory. A few of my colleagues were briefly redeployed to a series of conference rooms that were used for several weeks as overflow space for more stable COVID-19 patients. Staffing by the pediatrics teams was so robust, with willing volunteers from every corner of the children’s hospital, that we were not needed for long.

During the early days, there was no clinical pathway to follow to care for COVID-19 patients – it didn’t exist for this novel and variable disease. We created a platform to share documents and resources in real time as they became available to us. We used group texts and emails to learn from our experiences and encourage one another. Importantly, no one was afraid to ask for help, and we relied on our adult colleagues when patients started to decompensate. Adult critical care came to our aid for all rapid responses for patients older than 30. Pediatric critical care, in their infinite flexibility, was responsible for anyone younger.
 

Dr. Hodo: We had a variety of changes. The first thing was the deployment of many of our attendings (hospital medicine, ICU, outpatient, and subspecialists) and residents to the adult side to work on medical COVID-19 units or in the many ICUs (some new “pop-up” units in former medical units, postanesthesia care units, and so on).² On the adult floor we had “COVID teams,” which had an attending and two frontline providers; one of these three people was an internal medicine faculty member or resident. Residents from other specialties (emergency medicine, family medicine) were pulled off pediatric assignments in pediatric wards, PICUs, and EDs, so pediatric residents not originally assigned to inpatient rotations were sent to cover these core pediatric areas. The remaining pediatric faculty backfilled the pediatric services – so the remaining ICU docs did more shifts to cover ICU; the undeployed specialists took more inpatient service or clinic time, and so on. Outpatient pediatrics covered the inpatient pediatric service for the 3 weeks when most of the hospitalists were deployed.

We had one pediatric unit, which was a unit with equipment that made it capable of having ICU patients or floor patients, that was designated a COVID-19 unit. Most COVID-19 patients were there. Some were also in negative-pressure rooms on other floors or in the unit directly above the COVID-19 unit. Some adult patients came to the unit in the pediatric hospital but not as many as initially expected, and most were young adults in their 20s. So rather than adult patients coming to pediatrics, our experience was more that pediatricians went to the adult side.

The transition to adult care for physicians was variable in its suddenness. Most people had at least 48 hours’ notice, whereas some had as much as a week. Most of our department members deployed within the hospital complex of which we are a part, though a few went to other sites in the health system. Some were deployed into administrative or support roles in the system, rather than patient-facing roles. I felt, I would say, reasonably prepared. I trained in family medicine, though I have been exclusively in pediatrics for the past 7 years. I felt rusty, for sure, but perhaps not quite as out of my element as others. In preparation, I read a lot about COVID, reviewed some adult medicine topics provided by the medicine department, used the resources on the Pediatric Overflow Planning Contingency Response Network (POPCoRN), including an Advanced Cardiac Life Support review, and was able to shadow on a COVID-19 unit before I actually started – that was incredibly helpful. I also had the opportunity to speak about that shadowing experience in a department meeting, which I hope was helpful for others.
 

Dr. Fischer: Our whole focus for a relatively short time shifted to how to take care of adults within the children’s hospital. Although we had some time to prepare – the ICU was the first unit to take adults, so we knew they would come to the floor – it still felt quick. We took adult patients onto the general pediatrics floor from both the emergency department and the ICU. We took adults mostly with COVID-19, but we did have some young adults admitted for other reasons too. Those of us who were on service during this time collaborated closely, sharing what we learned and even joining one another on rounds to provide support. We basically would “teach it forward” as we learned. We also had adult providers available by phone for questions, and our pediatric subspecialists were readily available for consults and would reach out to their adult counterparts for support. Some of the hospitalists were reaching out to POPCoRN, and some were attending an ACLS crash course prior to getting on service.

What was hardest about this experience for you?

Dr. Dunbar: For me, one of the hardest aspects of dealing with COVID-19 was the unknown. In every aspect of professional life and clinical care, there were unanswered questions. What’s the best way to care for these patients? What prognoses can we give their loved ones? How can I help when it seems like there’s so little I can offer? Will we run out of PPE? As doctors, what behaviors most endanger our friends and family when we go home after work? When will things start to get better?

Dr. Hodo: For me, the week or two before being notified of the deployment was the worst and hardest time. The uncertainty about if I would be called or no, and to do what? And where? I was trying to read everything there was on management, what little was known about treatment, and so on. Once I received notification of a start date, that allowed me to focus on very clear endpoints and knowledge items (for example, reviewing ACLS algorithms) and to do things I knew would help me settle and be more effective (like shadowing).

Dr. Fischer: It was a lot of new. Not only were we taking care of a population that we hadn’t cared for since medical school (adults), but we were facing a disease process that was also new to everyone. We were learning on our feet, while at the same time providing guidance to our house staff.

What have you learned about yourself that you did not know before?

Dr. Dunbar: I was surprised to learn how much I liked caring for adult patients. The fear I felt immediately before they arrived dissipated fairly quickly after they arrived. The opportunity to address their chronic conditions while supporting them in an acute illness took me back to many of the fundamentals of medicine that I hadn’t thought much about since medical school. I liked that they could speak up to tell us how they were feeling, both physically and emotionally, so that we could address their needs and allow them to participate in their own care. Some of my favorite patients kept detailed histories of their own C-reactive protein values and oxygen levels to show they were active participants in their own recovery.

I was worried that these adult patients would be offended or scared to learn that they were being cared for by pediatricians, but at no point did anyone ask me why they were not assigned to an adult hospitalist. They saw us only as doctors and nurses, and they were grateful for our care. One 65-year-old U.S. Army veteran told me that his nurse had told him to take a shower and make his bed. “She treated me just like a 5-year-old kid. And I loved it!” he said.
 

Dr. Hodo: I don’t know that I was totally unaware of these things, but I will say that I had partially forgotten them: I really like adult medicine, and I love geriatrics. I like high-energy and high-stress situations … at least occasionally! I feel very comfortable discussing end-of-life decisions and death. I cope with personal stress by helping and supporting others – patients, team members, colleagues, neighbors. I risk not taking enough time for myself and have to remind myself to do so.

Dr. Fischer: I actually loved taking care of adults. It felt like there was a different kind of patient-doctor relationship to be had, and it was interesting to get to know people who had jobs and families of their own – essentially a different type of story than you typically hear taking care of children.

Were there any silver linings in this situation? How did you grow personally through this experience? What do we need to do better going forward as a profession and a community?

Dr. Dunbar: The part that I hope will stay with me is the memory of how we came together as clinicians to fight a common invisible enemy. The teamwork was unprecedented. Our day-to-day goals were simple and straightforward: do what needed to be done to help as many New Yorkers as possible. Our team made themselves available for last-minute meetings and shift changes without complaint. We practiced a type of medicine that prioritized patient comfort, flexibility, and compassionate care. We ordered methadone and insulin and antihypertensives – brand new experiences for us, but we figured it out. We worked through novel clinical problems together because there was no textbook to read.

Our colleagues from other specialties and different levels of experience stepped up to join us on overnight shifts, and we welcomed them. With the help of an ad hoc palliative care team, we improved how we listened to patients’ own self-directed needs. We reached across the aisle to our internal medicine and adult hospitalist colleagues to refresh our memories on chronic conditions, and they always answered the phone. I hope we always remember who we were during this crisis, because we were ourselves at our most generous.
 

Dr. Hodo: This was an unexpected but great opportunity to meet physicians, nurses, and staff in different departments and sections of the hospital from my own. I am hopeful that this experience will help us in the future with multidisciplinary work and breaking down silos that isolate specialties and units in the hospital.

I feel (and this is probably weird) invigorated by this experience. It feels good to have been able to help when I was needed. Even though there are a lot of things in adult hospital medicine I do not know, I know I did my best, asked for help when I needed it, and asked for feedback regularly from the medicine residents and nurses I worked with. I know I supported my team and my colleagues to the best of my ability through stressful and sometimes upsetting and emotionally draining times.

As a profession, we can continue to remember the value of the multidisciplinary team and the value of listening to, and making space for, different voices to be heard. We can reconsider the traditional, rigid hierarchy in medicine and medical education that can stifle creative thought and innovative ideas. We can remember that the people “at the top” of the pyramid can always learn something from those “at the bottom.” We can see the ways that department and discipline and specialty can help us but also sometimes hinder, and seek involvement in programs and discussions that unite and pool resources and skills. And, most of all, we can try, every day we are at work, to put the patients’ and families’ needs first – and when we leave work, to turn that around, and put ourselves and our loved ones in that prime position.

As a community, we also can work on thinking communally – that, after all, is the entire point of the wearing of masks in public and social distancing. It is as much about you as about me! We can try to hold on to some of this perspective of the greater good and appreciation for the work others do that makes our lives better and easier. It is not only health care workers who deserve a round of applause every day; it is every person who did something today that benefited someone else, be that giving extra space in a line, wearing a mask in a store, delivering food to an elder, teaching a class over Zoom, or simply minimizing time outside the house. It is every person who thought about the community at or near the same level of priority that they thought about themselves.

Dr. Fischer: It was a very challenging situation, but because our adult patients in the children’s hospital were relatively young with fewer comorbidities, we got to see people get well. I took care of one man with renal failure who we thought would be on dialysis for the rest of his life. By the end of my first week on service, he had begun to regain kidney function. It was amazing. I think most frontline providers caring for adults in this pandemic have had to face significant morbidity and mortality. I felt lucky that we were able to care for patients who generally got better.

I recently read the article published in the Journal of Pediatrics laying out how the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore adapted an entire pediatric floor to caring for adults.³ This example of recognition of need, quick preparation, and collaboration both within the children’s hospital and with the adult hospital was admirable. I also feel that at the beginning of this pandemic, there was a glimmer that the failure of our health care system to cover everyone and the repercussions of this failure would be drawn into sharp relief. I hope that this understanding of the importance of universal coverage persists beyond the pandemic.

Dr. Giordano is assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University and a pediatric hospitalist at NewYork-Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital with an interest in surgical comanagement. She serves on the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Pediatric Special Interest Group Executive Committee and is the chair of the Education Subcommittee. She is also an advisory board member for the New York/Westchester SHM Chapter.
 

References

1. Kumaraiah D et al. Innovative ICU physician care models: Covid-19 pandemic at NewYork-Presbyterian. NEJM Catal. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1056/CAT.20.0158.

2. Kim MK et al. A primer for clinician deployment to the medicine floors from an epicenter of Covid-19. NEJM Catal. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1056/CAT.20.0180.

3. Philips K, et al. Rapid Implementation of an Adult COVID-19 Unit in a Children’s Hospital. J Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.04.060.

The memories I have from the few nights spent in the adult pop-up cardiac intensive care unit are pouring in as I sit down to tell this story. I am a pediatric hospitalist at Columbia University NewYork-Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital. I usually take care of sick, hospitalized children. However, in these extraordinary times, I have joined an army of colleagues taking care of adult patients with COVID-19.

Almost all these patients had tracheostomies connected to ventilators, as well as acute-on-chronic cardiac issues. They were often delirious and unable to speak, and always alone. I was happy to help our adult colleagues, but I was also afraid. I was scared to make a mistake that could be detrimental to my patient, even though I knew well that ICU residents, fellows, and attendings were just a phone call away.

I felt like Alice in Wonderland, initially too small compared with her environment, and the next minute hunched, giant, and still clearly displaced. Except I was not dreaming or watching a movie. There was no white rabbit to chase. The situation was serious and emotionally challenging. I imagined that each patient was the dearest member of my family: my mother, my father, my aunt or uncle. I took pleasure in sharing smiles while asking the patients how they were feeling, and I touched their hands, even though much of my face was covered and there were gloves on my hands.

The year 2020 has been surreal. People have had to find their own way of pushing through the unknown and unexpected. For a start, I would never in a million years have imagined using phrases like pop-up ICU.¹ I was signing an admission note for a 90-year-old lady with acute-on-chronic congestive heart failure and acute respiratory hypoxemic failure and there, at the bottom of the note, was my name, followed by an odd remark: “pediatric hospital medicine.” That is what happened in New York City in 2020: Many unexpected events took place.

This article represents a virtual conversation with three other pediatric hospitalists who, under different sets of circumstances, did the same thing: took care of adult patients. I hope that the answers to the questions I asked make you pause, reflect, and learn from the experiences described.
 

Would you describe the usual environment where you practice pediatric hospital medicine?

Julie Dunbar, MD: I am a full-time pediatric hospitalist at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, a tertiary care academic children’s hospital in the Bronx. A typical day on service involves staffing up to 14 patients, up to 21 years old, on a teaching service with residents and physician assistants. We normally staff the hospital in two shifts – day and evening – until 11:00 at night. We are situated at the heart of a medically underserved area, and our hospital system cares for about one-third of the total population of the Bronx.



L. Nell Hodo, MD: I work at Kravis Children’s Hospital at the Mount Sinai Hospital, in Manhattan at the juncture of the Upper East Side and Harlem. Our usual hospital medicine environment is the general ward/floor in a nested children’s hospital within an adult hospital. We have about 32 non-ICU beds, and the patients are managed by a combination of hospitalists, general pediatricians, and specialist attendings. All patients are on resident teams. We have a comanagement model in which the primary attending for surgical patients is always a pediatric attending (hospitalist or specialist).



Avital M. Fischer, MD: NewYork-Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital is a quaternary care center – where children from the area receive subspecialty care – as well as, functionally, a community hospital for the Washington Heights area. Therefore, we always have an interesting mix of general pediatric inpatient medicine including patients with complex medical conditions, rare diseases, postoperative conditions, and undiagnosed illnesses on our wards. We are a children’s hospital, connected to a larger adult hospital system. Pediatric hospitalists cover two pediatric wards, team-staffed by residents, and a progressive care unit, staffed by nurse practitioners. There is usually evening coverage until 11 p.m.

How did this change when New York became the U.S. epicenter of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic? Was the transition to taking care of adult patients gradual or sudden? Were you deployed to a different hospital or part of the hospital? How prepared did you feel?

Dr. Dunbar: We experienced the COVID-19 pandemic like much of the rest of New York City – it started as a slow and uncertain process, and then it hit us all at once. In initial conversations, like everyone else, we did not know exactly what was coming. We started with small changes like working from home on nonclinical days and canceling family-centered rounds to conserve personal protective equipment (PPE). In mid-March, we were still expecting that redeployment to adult floors was a highly unlikely scenario. We made work-from-home schedules and planned projects we would work on while social distancing. We planned journal clubs about emerging evidence on COVID-19. However, things happened fast, and many of these plans were scrapped.

On Saturday, March 28, we closed the main floor of the children’s hospital because so few pediatric patients were being admitted. Two days later, we admitted our first cohort of adult COVID-19 patients, all more than 30 years old. They were transferred en masse from an outside hospital emergency department that desperately needed our beds. They arrived all at once, and they all required respiratory support. At the last hospitalist division meeting before the adults arrived, we had time for only one priority set of information, and so we chose end-of-life care. We reviewed scripts for advance care planning and logistics of death certificates. As fast as things changed for us, they changed even faster for the patients. Most were relatively healthy people who rather suddenly found themselves isolated, on oxygen, dictating their final wishes to pediatricians in full protective gear. Many, many patients got better, and of course, several spent their last moments with us. One physician assistant, who works closely with the hospitalists, spent the last 5 hours of an elderly patient’s life holding her hand and helping her FaceTime with family.

For the most part, the patients came to us. We worked with our own colleagues and our own nurses, on our own territory. A few of my colleagues were briefly redeployed to a series of conference rooms that were used for several weeks as overflow space for more stable COVID-19 patients. Staffing by the pediatrics teams was so robust, with willing volunteers from every corner of the children’s hospital, that we were not needed for long.

During the early days, there was no clinical pathway to follow to care for COVID-19 patients – it didn’t exist for this novel and variable disease. We created a platform to share documents and resources in real time as they became available to us. We used group texts and emails to learn from our experiences and encourage one another. Importantly, no one was afraid to ask for help, and we relied on our adult colleagues when patients started to decompensate. Adult critical care came to our aid for all rapid responses for patients older than 30. Pediatric critical care, in their infinite flexibility, was responsible for anyone younger.
 

Dr. Hodo: We had a variety of changes. The first thing was the deployment of many of our attendings (hospital medicine, ICU, outpatient, and subspecialists) and residents to the adult side to work on medical COVID-19 units or in the many ICUs (some new “pop-up” units in former medical units, postanesthesia care units, and so on).² On the adult floor we had “COVID teams,” which had an attending and two frontline providers; one of these three people was an internal medicine faculty member or resident. Residents from other specialties (emergency medicine, family medicine) were pulled off pediatric assignments in pediatric wards, PICUs, and EDs, so pediatric residents not originally assigned to inpatient rotations were sent to cover these core pediatric areas. The remaining pediatric faculty backfilled the pediatric services – so the remaining ICU docs did more shifts to cover ICU; the undeployed specialists took more inpatient service or clinic time, and so on. Outpatient pediatrics covered the inpatient pediatric service for the 3 weeks when most of the hospitalists were deployed.

We had one pediatric unit, which was a unit with equipment that made it capable of having ICU patients or floor patients, that was designated a COVID-19 unit. Most COVID-19 patients were there. Some were also in negative-pressure rooms on other floors or in the unit directly above the COVID-19 unit. Some adult patients came to the unit in the pediatric hospital but not as many as initially expected, and most were young adults in their 20s. So rather than adult patients coming to pediatrics, our experience was more that pediatricians went to the adult side.

The transition to adult care for physicians was variable in its suddenness. Most people had at least 48 hours’ notice, whereas some had as much as a week. Most of our department members deployed within the hospital complex of which we are a part, though a few went to other sites in the health system. Some were deployed into administrative or support roles in the system, rather than patient-facing roles. I felt, I would say, reasonably prepared. I trained in family medicine, though I have been exclusively in pediatrics for the past 7 years. I felt rusty, for sure, but perhaps not quite as out of my element as others. In preparation, I read a lot about COVID, reviewed some adult medicine topics provided by the medicine department, used the resources on the Pediatric Overflow Planning Contingency Response Network (POPCoRN), including an Advanced Cardiac Life Support review, and was able to shadow on a COVID-19 unit before I actually started – that was incredibly helpful. I also had the opportunity to speak about that shadowing experience in a department meeting, which I hope was helpful for others.
 

Dr. Fischer: Our whole focus for a relatively short time shifted to how to take care of adults within the children’s hospital. Although we had some time to prepare – the ICU was the first unit to take adults, so we knew they would come to the floor – it still felt quick. We took adult patients onto the general pediatrics floor from both the emergency department and the ICU. We took adults mostly with COVID-19, but we did have some young adults admitted for other reasons too. Those of us who were on service during this time collaborated closely, sharing what we learned and even joining one another on rounds to provide support. We basically would “teach it forward” as we learned. We also had adult providers available by phone for questions, and our pediatric subspecialists were readily available for consults and would reach out to their adult counterparts for support. Some of the hospitalists were reaching out to POPCoRN, and some were attending an ACLS crash course prior to getting on service.

What was hardest about this experience for you?

Dr. Dunbar: For me, one of the hardest aspects of dealing with COVID-19 was the unknown. In every aspect of professional life and clinical care, there were unanswered questions. What’s the best way to care for these patients? What prognoses can we give their loved ones? How can I help when it seems like there’s so little I can offer? Will we run out of PPE? As doctors, what behaviors most endanger our friends and family when we go home after work? When will things start to get better?

Dr. Hodo: For me, the week or two before being notified of the deployment was the worst and hardest time. The uncertainty about if I would be called or no, and to do what? And where? I was trying to read everything there was on management, what little was known about treatment, and so on. Once I received notification of a start date, that allowed me to focus on very clear endpoints and knowledge items (for example, reviewing ACLS algorithms) and to do things I knew would help me settle and be more effective (like shadowing).

Dr. Fischer: It was a lot of new. Not only were we taking care of a population that we hadn’t cared for since medical school (adults), but we were facing a disease process that was also new to everyone. We were learning on our feet, while at the same time providing guidance to our house staff.

What have you learned about yourself that you did not know before?

Dr. Dunbar: I was surprised to learn how much I liked caring for adult patients. The fear I felt immediately before they arrived dissipated fairly quickly after they arrived. The opportunity to address their chronic conditions while supporting them in an acute illness took me back to many of the fundamentals of medicine that I hadn’t thought much about since medical school. I liked that they could speak up to tell us how they were feeling, both physically and emotionally, so that we could address their needs and allow them to participate in their own care. Some of my favorite patients kept detailed histories of their own C-reactive protein values and oxygen levels to show they were active participants in their own recovery.

I was worried that these adult patients would be offended or scared to learn that they were being cared for by pediatricians, but at no point did anyone ask me why they were not assigned to an adult hospitalist. They saw us only as doctors and nurses, and they were grateful for our care. One 65-year-old U.S. Army veteran told me that his nurse had told him to take a shower and make his bed. “She treated me just like a 5-year-old kid. And I loved it!” he said.
 

Dr. Hodo: I don’t know that I was totally unaware of these things, but I will say that I had partially forgotten them: I really like adult medicine, and I love geriatrics. I like high-energy and high-stress situations … at least occasionally! I feel very comfortable discussing end-of-life decisions and death. I cope with personal stress by helping and supporting others – patients, team members, colleagues, neighbors. I risk not taking enough time for myself and have to remind myself to do so.

Dr. Fischer: I actually loved taking care of adults. It felt like there was a different kind of patient-doctor relationship to be had, and it was interesting to get to know people who had jobs and families of their own – essentially a different type of story than you typically hear taking care of children.

Were there any silver linings in this situation? How did you grow personally through this experience? What do we need to do better going forward as a profession and a community?

Dr. Dunbar: The part that I hope will stay with me is the memory of how we came together as clinicians to fight a common invisible enemy. The teamwork was unprecedented. Our day-to-day goals were simple and straightforward: do what needed to be done to help as many New Yorkers as possible. Our team made themselves available for last-minute meetings and shift changes without complaint. We practiced a type of medicine that prioritized patient comfort, flexibility, and compassionate care. We ordered methadone and insulin and antihypertensives – brand new experiences for us, but we figured it out. We worked through novel clinical problems together because there was no textbook to read.

Our colleagues from other specialties and different levels of experience stepped up to join us on overnight shifts, and we welcomed them. With the help of an ad hoc palliative care team, we improved how we listened to patients’ own self-directed needs. We reached across the aisle to our internal medicine and adult hospitalist colleagues to refresh our memories on chronic conditions, and they always answered the phone. I hope we always remember who we were during this crisis, because we were ourselves at our most generous.
 

Dr. Hodo: This was an unexpected but great opportunity to meet physicians, nurses, and staff in different departments and sections of the hospital from my own. I am hopeful that this experience will help us in the future with multidisciplinary work and breaking down silos that isolate specialties and units in the hospital.

I feel (and this is probably weird) invigorated by this experience. It feels good to have been able to help when I was needed. Even though there are a lot of things in adult hospital medicine I do not know, I know I did my best, asked for help when I needed it, and asked for feedback regularly from the medicine residents and nurses I worked with. I know I supported my team and my colleagues to the best of my ability through stressful and sometimes upsetting and emotionally draining times.

As a profession, we can continue to remember the value of the multidisciplinary team and the value of listening to, and making space for, different voices to be heard. We can reconsider the traditional, rigid hierarchy in medicine and medical education that can stifle creative thought and innovative ideas. We can remember that the people “at the top” of the pyramid can always learn something from those “at the bottom.” We can see the ways that department and discipline and specialty can help us but also sometimes hinder, and seek involvement in programs and discussions that unite and pool resources and skills. And, most of all, we can try, every day we are at work, to put the patients’ and families’ needs first – and when we leave work, to turn that around, and put ourselves and our loved ones in that prime position.

As a community, we also can work on thinking communally – that, after all, is the entire point of the wearing of masks in public and social distancing. It is as much about you as about me! We can try to hold on to some of this perspective of the greater good and appreciation for the work others do that makes our lives better and easier. It is not only health care workers who deserve a round of applause every day; it is every person who did something today that benefited someone else, be that giving extra space in a line, wearing a mask in a store, delivering food to an elder, teaching a class over Zoom, or simply minimizing time outside the house. It is every person who thought about the community at or near the same level of priority that they thought about themselves.

Dr. Fischer: It was a very challenging situation, but because our adult patients in the children’s hospital were relatively young with fewer comorbidities, we got to see people get well. I took care of one man with renal failure who we thought would be on dialysis for the rest of his life. By the end of my first week on service, he had begun to regain kidney function. It was amazing. I think most frontline providers caring for adults in this pandemic have had to face significant morbidity and mortality. I felt lucky that we were able to care for patients who generally got better.

I recently read the article published in the Journal of Pediatrics laying out how the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore adapted an entire pediatric floor to caring for adults.³ This example of recognition of need, quick preparation, and collaboration both within the children’s hospital and with the adult hospital was admirable. I also feel that at the beginning of this pandemic, there was a glimmer that the failure of our health care system to cover everyone and the repercussions of this failure would be drawn into sharp relief. I hope that this understanding of the importance of universal coverage persists beyond the pandemic.

Dr. Giordano is assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University and a pediatric hospitalist at NewYork-Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital with an interest in surgical comanagement. She serves on the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Pediatric Special Interest Group Executive Committee and is the chair of the Education Subcommittee. She is also an advisory board member for the New York/Westchester SHM Chapter.
 

References

1. Kumaraiah D et al. Innovative ICU physician care models: Covid-19 pandemic at NewYork-Presbyterian. NEJM Catal. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1056/CAT.20.0158.

2. Kim MK et al. A primer for clinician deployment to the medicine floors from an epicenter of Covid-19. NEJM Catal. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1056/CAT.20.0180.

3. Philips K, et al. Rapid Implementation of an Adult COVID-19 Unit in a Children’s Hospital. J Pediatr. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.04.060.

Most children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 had no respiratory illness, according to data from a retrospective study of 22 patients at a single center.

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

To date, children account for less than 5% of COVID-19 cases in the United States, but details of the clinical presentations in children are limited, wrote Rabia Agha, MD, and colleagues of Maimonides Children’s Hospital, Brooklyn, N.Y.

In a study published in Hospital Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 22 children aged 0-18 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and were admitted to a single hospital over a 4-week period from March 18, 2020, to April 15, 2020.

Overall, 9 patients (41%) presented with a respiratory illness, and 7 (32%) required respiratory support. Of four patients requiring mechanical ventilation, two had underlying pulmonary disease. The other two patients who required intubation were one with cerebral palsy and status epilepticus and one who presented in a state of cardiac arrest.

The study population ranged from 11 days to 18 years of age, but 45% were infants younger than 1 year. None of the children had a travel history that might increase their risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection; 27% had confirmed exposure to the virus.

Most of the children (82%) were hospitalized within 3 days of the onset of symptoms, and no deaths occurred during the study period. The most common symptom was fever without a source in five (23%) otherwise healthy infants aged 11-35 days. All five of these children underwent a sepsis evaluation, received empiric antibiotics, and were discharged home with negative bacterial cultures within 48-72 hours. Another 10 children had fever in combination with other symptoms.

Other presenting symptoms were respiratory (9), fatigue (6), seizures (2), and headache (1).

Most children with respiratory illness were treated with supportive therapy and antibiotics, but three of those on mechanical ventilation also were treated with remdesivir; all three were ultimately extubated.

Neurological abnormalities occurred in two patients: an 11-year-old otherwise healthy boy who presented with fever, headache, confusion, and seizure but ultimately improved without short-term sequelae; and a 12-year-old girl with cerebral palsy who developed new onset seizures and required mechanical ventilation, but ultimately improved to baseline.

Positive PCR results were identified in seven patients (32%) during the second half of the study period who were initially hospitalized for non-COVID related symptoms; four with bacterial infections, two with illnesses of unknown etiology, and one with cardiac arrest. Another two children were completely asymptomatic at the time of admission but then tested positive by PCR; one child had been admitted for routine chemotherapy and the other for social reasons, Dr. Agha and associates said.

The study findings contrast with early data from China in which respiratory illness of varying severity was the major presentation in children with COVID-19, but support a more recent meta-analysis of 551 cases, the researchers noted. The findings also highlight the value of universal testing for children.

“Our initial testing strategy was according to the federal and local guidelines that recommended PCR testing for the symptoms of fever, cough and shortness of breath, or travel to certain countries or close contact with a confirmed case,” Dr. Agha and colleagues said.

“With the implementation of our universal screening strategy of all admitted pediatric patients, we identified 9 (41%) patients with COVID-19 that would have been missed, as they did not meet the then-recommended criteria for testing,” they wrote.

The results suggest the need for broader guidelines to test pediatric patients because children presenting with other illnesses may be positive for SARS-CoV-2 as well, the researchers said.

“Testing of all hospitalized patients will not only identify cases early in the course of their admission process, but will also help prevent inadvertent exposure of other patients and health care workers, assist in cohorting infected patients, and aid in conservation of personal protective equipment,” Dr. Agha and associates concluded.

The current study is important as clinicians continue to learn about how infection with SARS-CoV-2 presents in different populations, Diana Lee, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“Understanding how it can present in the pediatric population is important in identifying children who may have the infection and developing strategies for testing,” she said.

“I was not surprised by the finding that most children did not present with the classic symptoms of COVID-19 in adults based on other published studies and my personal clinical experience taking care of hospitalized children in New York City,” said Dr. Lee. “Studies from the U.S. and other countries have reported that fewer children experience fever, cough, and shortness of breath [compared with] adults, and that most children have a milder clinical course, though there is a small percentage of children who can have severe or critical illness,” she said.

“A multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children associated with COVID-19 has also emerged and appears to be a postinfectious process with a presentation that often differs from classic COVID-19 infection in adults,” she added.

The take-home message for clinicians is the reminder that SARS-CoV-2 infection often presents differently in children than in adults, said Dr. Lee.

“Children who present to the hospital with non-classic COVID-19 symptoms or with other diagnoses may be positive for SARS-CoV-2 on testing. Broadly testing hospitalized children for SARS-CoV-2 and instituting appropriate isolation precautions may help to protect other individuals from being exposed to the virus,” she said.  

“Further research is needed to understand which individuals are contagious and how to accurately distinguish those who are infectious versus those who are not,” said Dr. Lee. “There have been individuals who persistently test positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (the genetic material of the virus), but were not found to have virus in their bodies that can replicate and thereby infect others,” she emphasized. “Further study is needed regarding the likelihood of household exposures in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection given that this study was done early in the epidemic in New York City when testing and contact tracing was less established,” she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lee had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Agha R et al. Hosp Pediatr. 2020 July. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2020-000257.

Most children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 had no respiratory illness, according to data from a retrospective study of 22 patients at a single center.

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

To date, children account for less than 5% of COVID-19 cases in the United States, but details of the clinical presentations in children are limited, wrote Rabia Agha, MD, and colleagues of Maimonides Children’s Hospital, Brooklyn, N.Y.

In a study published in Hospital Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 22 children aged 0-18 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and were admitted to a single hospital over a 4-week period from March 18, 2020, to April 15, 2020.

Overall, 9 patients (41%) presented with a respiratory illness, and 7 (32%) required respiratory support. Of four patients requiring mechanical ventilation, two had underlying pulmonary disease. The other two patients who required intubation were one with cerebral palsy and status epilepticus and one who presented in a state of cardiac arrest.

The study population ranged from 11 days to 18 years of age, but 45% were infants younger than 1 year. None of the children had a travel history that might increase their risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection; 27% had confirmed exposure to the virus.

Most of the children (82%) were hospitalized within 3 days of the onset of symptoms, and no deaths occurred during the study period. The most common symptom was fever without a source in five (23%) otherwise healthy infants aged 11-35 days. All five of these children underwent a sepsis evaluation, received empiric antibiotics, and were discharged home with negative bacterial cultures within 48-72 hours. Another 10 children had fever in combination with other symptoms.

Other presenting symptoms were respiratory (9), fatigue (6), seizures (2), and headache (1).

Most children with respiratory illness were treated with supportive therapy and antibiotics, but three of those on mechanical ventilation also were treated with remdesivir; all three were ultimately extubated.

Neurological abnormalities occurred in two patients: an 11-year-old otherwise healthy boy who presented with fever, headache, confusion, and seizure but ultimately improved without short-term sequelae; and a 12-year-old girl with cerebral palsy who developed new onset seizures and required mechanical ventilation, but ultimately improved to baseline.

Positive PCR results were identified in seven patients (32%) during the second half of the study period who were initially hospitalized for non-COVID related symptoms; four with bacterial infections, two with illnesses of unknown etiology, and one with cardiac arrest. Another two children were completely asymptomatic at the time of admission but then tested positive by PCR; one child had been admitted for routine chemotherapy and the other for social reasons, Dr. Agha and associates said.

The study findings contrast with early data from China in which respiratory illness of varying severity was the major presentation in children with COVID-19, but support a more recent meta-analysis of 551 cases, the researchers noted. The findings also highlight the value of universal testing for children.

“Our initial testing strategy was according to the federal and local guidelines that recommended PCR testing for the symptoms of fever, cough and shortness of breath, or travel to certain countries or close contact with a confirmed case,” Dr. Agha and colleagues said.

“With the implementation of our universal screening strategy of all admitted pediatric patients, we identified 9 (41%) patients with COVID-19 that would have been missed, as they did not meet the then-recommended criteria for testing,” they wrote.

The results suggest the need for broader guidelines to test pediatric patients because children presenting with other illnesses may be positive for SARS-CoV-2 as well, the researchers said.

“Testing of all hospitalized patients will not only identify cases early in the course of their admission process, but will also help prevent inadvertent exposure of other patients and health care workers, assist in cohorting infected patients, and aid in conservation of personal protective equipment,” Dr. Agha and associates concluded.

The current study is important as clinicians continue to learn about how infection with SARS-CoV-2 presents in different populations, Diana Lee, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“Understanding how it can present in the pediatric population is important in identifying children who may have the infection and developing strategies for testing,” she said.

“I was not surprised by the finding that most children did not present with the classic symptoms of COVID-19 in adults based on other published studies and my personal clinical experience taking care of hospitalized children in New York City,” said Dr. Lee. “Studies from the U.S. and other countries have reported that fewer children experience fever, cough, and shortness of breath [compared with] adults, and that most children have a milder clinical course, though there is a small percentage of children who can have severe or critical illness,” she said.

“A multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children associated with COVID-19 has also emerged and appears to be a postinfectious process with a presentation that often differs from classic COVID-19 infection in adults,” she added.

The take-home message for clinicians is the reminder that SARS-CoV-2 infection often presents differently in children than in adults, said Dr. Lee.

“Children who present to the hospital with non-classic COVID-19 symptoms or with other diagnoses may be positive for SARS-CoV-2 on testing. Broadly testing hospitalized children for SARS-CoV-2 and instituting appropriate isolation precautions may help to protect other individuals from being exposed to the virus,” she said.  

“Further research is needed to understand which individuals are contagious and how to accurately distinguish those who are infectious versus those who are not,” said Dr. Lee. “There have been individuals who persistently test positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (the genetic material of the virus), but were not found to have virus in their bodies that can replicate and thereby infect others,” she emphasized. “Further study is needed regarding the likelihood of household exposures in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection given that this study was done early in the epidemic in New York City when testing and contact tracing was less established,” she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lee had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Agha R et al. Hosp Pediatr. 2020 July. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2020-000257.

Most children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 had no respiratory illness, according to data from a retrospective study of 22 patients at a single center.

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

To date, children account for less than 5% of COVID-19 cases in the United States, but details of the clinical presentations in children are limited, wrote Rabia Agha, MD, and colleagues of Maimonides Children’s Hospital, Brooklyn, N.Y.

In a study published in Hospital Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 22 children aged 0-18 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and were admitted to a single hospital over a 4-week period from March 18, 2020, to April 15, 2020.

Overall, 9 patients (41%) presented with a respiratory illness, and 7 (32%) required respiratory support. Of four patients requiring mechanical ventilation, two had underlying pulmonary disease. The other two patients who required intubation were one with cerebral palsy and status epilepticus and one who presented in a state of cardiac arrest.

The study population ranged from 11 days to 18 years of age, but 45% were infants younger than 1 year. None of the children had a travel history that might increase their risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection; 27% had confirmed exposure to the virus.

Most of the children (82%) were hospitalized within 3 days of the onset of symptoms, and no deaths occurred during the study period. The most common symptom was fever without a source in five (23%) otherwise healthy infants aged 11-35 days. All five of these children underwent a sepsis evaluation, received empiric antibiotics, and were discharged home with negative bacterial cultures within 48-72 hours. Another 10 children had fever in combination with other symptoms.

Other presenting symptoms were respiratory (9), fatigue (6), seizures (2), and headache (1).

Most children with respiratory illness were treated with supportive therapy and antibiotics, but three of those on mechanical ventilation also were treated with remdesivir; all three were ultimately extubated.

Neurological abnormalities occurred in two patients: an 11-year-old otherwise healthy boy who presented with fever, headache, confusion, and seizure but ultimately improved without short-term sequelae; and a 12-year-old girl with cerebral palsy who developed new onset seizures and required mechanical ventilation, but ultimately improved to baseline.

Positive PCR results were identified in seven patients (32%) during the second half of the study period who were initially hospitalized for non-COVID related symptoms; four with bacterial infections, two with illnesses of unknown etiology, and one with cardiac arrest. Another two children were completely asymptomatic at the time of admission but then tested positive by PCR; one child had been admitted for routine chemotherapy and the other for social reasons, Dr. Agha and associates said.

The study findings contrast with early data from China in which respiratory illness of varying severity was the major presentation in children with COVID-19, but support a more recent meta-analysis of 551 cases, the researchers noted. The findings also highlight the value of universal testing for children.

“Our initial testing strategy was according to the federal and local guidelines that recommended PCR testing for the symptoms of fever, cough and shortness of breath, or travel to certain countries or close contact with a confirmed case,” Dr. Agha and colleagues said.

“With the implementation of our universal screening strategy of all admitted pediatric patients, we identified 9 (41%) patients with COVID-19 that would have been missed, as they did not meet the then-recommended criteria for testing,” they wrote.

The results suggest the need for broader guidelines to test pediatric patients because children presenting with other illnesses may be positive for SARS-CoV-2 as well, the researchers said.

“Testing of all hospitalized patients will not only identify cases early in the course of their admission process, but will also help prevent inadvertent exposure of other patients and health care workers, assist in cohorting infected patients, and aid in conservation of personal protective equipment,” Dr. Agha and associates concluded.

The current study is important as clinicians continue to learn about how infection with SARS-CoV-2 presents in different populations, Diana Lee, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“Understanding how it can present in the pediatric population is important in identifying children who may have the infection and developing strategies for testing,” she said.

“I was not surprised by the finding that most children did not present with the classic symptoms of COVID-19 in adults based on other published studies and my personal clinical experience taking care of hospitalized children in New York City,” said Dr. Lee. “Studies from the U.S. and other countries have reported that fewer children experience fever, cough, and shortness of breath [compared with] adults, and that most children have a milder clinical course, though there is a small percentage of children who can have severe or critical illness,” she said.

“A multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children associated with COVID-19 has also emerged and appears to be a postinfectious process with a presentation that often differs from classic COVID-19 infection in adults,” she added.

The take-home message for clinicians is the reminder that SARS-CoV-2 infection often presents differently in children than in adults, said Dr. Lee.

“Children who present to the hospital with non-classic COVID-19 symptoms or with other diagnoses may be positive for SARS-CoV-2 on testing. Broadly testing hospitalized children for SARS-CoV-2 and instituting appropriate isolation precautions may help to protect other individuals from being exposed to the virus,” she said.  

“Further research is needed to understand which individuals are contagious and how to accurately distinguish those who are infectious versus those who are not,” said Dr. Lee. “There have been individuals who persistently test positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (the genetic material of the virus), but were not found to have virus in their bodies that can replicate and thereby infect others,” she emphasized. “Further study is needed regarding the likelihood of household exposures in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection given that this study was done early in the epidemic in New York City when testing and contact tracing was less established,” she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lee had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Agha R et al. Hosp Pediatr. 2020 July. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2020-000257.

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.

The rapid decline in pediatric hospital visits that came quickly after COVID-19 has emerged as a major public health threat, creating the need for adaptations among those offering hospital-based care, according to an objective look at patient numbers that was presented at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine.

“Pre-COVID, operating margins had already taken a significant decline – and there are lots of different reasons for why this was happening – but a lot of hospitals in the United States were going from seeing about a 5% operating margin to closer to 2% to 3%,” said Magna Dias, MD, medical director, pediatric inpatient services, at Yale New Haven Children’s Hospital, Bridgeport, Conn.

This nearly 50% decline “was already putting pressure on us in the community hospital setting where pediatrics is not necessarily generating a ton of revenue to justify our programs, but post COVID, our operating revenue – and this is a report from May – was down 282%,” Dr. Dias reported.

Dr. Dias said that hundreds of hospitals have furloughed workers in the United States since the pandemic began. Although the job losses are not confined to pediatric care, statistics show that pediatrics is one of the hardest hit specialties.

“Looking specifically at ED [emergency department] visits under age 14, one study showed a 71% to 72% decrease post COVID,” Dr. Dias said. This included a 97% reduction in ED visits for flu and more than an 80% reduction in visits for asthma, otitis media, and nausea or vomiting.

It is not clear when children will return to the hospital in pre-COVID-19 numbers, but it might not be soon if the a second wave of infections follows the first, according to Dr. Dias. She suggested that pediatric hospitalists should be thinking about how to expand their services.

“One thing we are really good at in terms of working in the community hospital is diversification. We are used to working in more than one area and being flexible,” Dr. Dias said. Quoting Charles Darwin, who concluded that adaption to change predicts species survival, Dr. Dias advised pediatric hospitalists to look for new opportunities.

Taking on a broader range of responsibilities will not be a significant leap for many pediatric hospitalists. In a survey conducted several years ago by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), hospital staff pediatricians were associated with activities ranging from work in the neonatal intensive care unit to primary ED coverage, according to Dr. Dias. Now with declining patient volumes on pediatric floors, she foresees an even greater expansion, including the care of young adults.

One organization formed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, called the Pediatric Overflow Planning Contingency Response Network (POPCoRN) has been taking a lead in guiding the delivery of adult care in a pediatric environment. As a cochair of a community hospital special interest group within POPCoRN, Dr. Dias said she has participated in these discussions.

“At some centers, they have gone from age 18 to 21, some have gone up to age 25, some have gone up to 30 years,” she said.

Many centers are working to leverage telemedicine to reach pediatric patients no longer coming to the hospital, according to Dr. Dias.

“There are a lot of people being very creative in telemedicine,” she said. While it is considered as one way “to keep children at your institution,” Dr. Dias said others are considering how telemedicine might provide new opportunities. For one example, telemedicine might be an opportunity to deliver care in rural hospitals without pediatric services.

In an AAP survey of pediatric hospitalists conducted several years ago, justifying services was listed as the second most important concern right after access to subspecialty support. Due to COVID-19, Dr. Dias expects the order of these concerns to flip. Indeed, she predicted that many pediatric hospitalists are going to need to reassess their programs.

“We have started looking at what are our opportunities for building back revenue as well as how to recession-proof our practices should there be another surge and another decrease in pediatric volume,” Dr. Dias said.

The changes in pediatric care are not confined to the hospital setting. According to Amy H. Porter, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, Calif., COVID-19 has “changed the way pediatric medicine is being practiced.”

Although she works in outpatient pediatric care, she said that routine care “is way down” in this setting as well. Like Dr. Dias, she has witnessed a major increase in the use of telemedicine to reach pediatric patients, but she is very concerned about the large proportion of children who are missing routine care, including vaccinations.

“We were already seeing outbreaks of whooping cough and measles pre COVID, so we are quite worried that we will see more,” Dr. Porter said.

A reduction in demand for care does not have the same immediate effect on revenue at a large health maintenance organization like Kaiser Permanente, but growing unemployment in the general population will mean fewer HMO members. In turn, this could have an impact on the entire system.

“When membership goes down, then it will have implications for how we can provide services,” Dr. Porter said.

In the meantime, social workers at Kaiser Permanente “are tirelessly working” to help parents losing benefits to obtain medicines for sick children with chronic diseases, according to Dr. Porter. She echoed the comments of Dr. Dias in predicting major changes in pediatric care if the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic consequences persist.

The conference was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

The rapid decline in pediatric hospital visits that came quickly after COVID-19 has emerged as a major public health threat, creating the need for adaptations among those offering hospital-based care, according to an objective look at patient numbers that was presented at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine.

“Pre-COVID, operating margins had already taken a significant decline – and there are lots of different reasons for why this was happening – but a lot of hospitals in the United States were going from seeing about a 5% operating margin to closer to 2% to 3%,” said Magna Dias, MD, medical director, pediatric inpatient services, at Yale New Haven Children’s Hospital, Bridgeport, Conn.

This nearly 50% decline “was already putting pressure on us in the community hospital setting where pediatrics is not necessarily generating a ton of revenue to justify our programs, but post COVID, our operating revenue – and this is a report from May – was down 282%,” Dr. Dias reported.

Dr. Dias said that hundreds of hospitals have furloughed workers in the United States since the pandemic began. Although the job losses are not confined to pediatric care, statistics show that pediatrics is one of the hardest hit specialties.

“Looking specifically at ED [emergency department] visits under age 14, one study showed a 71% to 72% decrease post COVID,” Dr. Dias said. This included a 97% reduction in ED visits for flu and more than an 80% reduction in visits for asthma, otitis media, and nausea or vomiting.

It is not clear when children will return to the hospital in pre-COVID-19 numbers, but it might not be soon if the a second wave of infections follows the first, according to Dr. Dias. She suggested that pediatric hospitalists should be thinking about how to expand their services.

“One thing we are really good at in terms of working in the community hospital is diversification. We are used to working in more than one area and being flexible,” Dr. Dias said. Quoting Charles Darwin, who concluded that adaption to change predicts species survival, Dr. Dias advised pediatric hospitalists to look for new opportunities.

Taking on a broader range of responsibilities will not be a significant leap for many pediatric hospitalists. In a survey conducted several years ago by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), hospital staff pediatricians were associated with activities ranging from work in the neonatal intensive care unit to primary ED coverage, according to Dr. Dias. Now with declining patient volumes on pediatric floors, she foresees an even greater expansion, including the care of young adults.

One organization formed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, called the Pediatric Overflow Planning Contingency Response Network (POPCoRN) has been taking a lead in guiding the delivery of adult care in a pediatric environment. As a cochair of a community hospital special interest group within POPCoRN, Dr. Dias said she has participated in these discussions.

“At some centers, they have gone from age 18 to 21, some have gone up to age 25, some have gone up to 30 years,” she said.

Many centers are working to leverage telemedicine to reach pediatric patients no longer coming to the hospital, according to Dr. Dias.

“There are a lot of people being very creative in telemedicine,” she said. While it is considered as one way “to keep children at your institution,” Dr. Dias said others are considering how telemedicine might provide new opportunities. For one example, telemedicine might be an opportunity to deliver care in rural hospitals without pediatric services.

In an AAP survey of pediatric hospitalists conducted several years ago, justifying services was listed as the second most important concern right after access to subspecialty support. Due to COVID-19, Dr. Dias expects the order of these concerns to flip. Indeed, she predicted that many pediatric hospitalists are going to need to reassess their programs.

“We have started looking at what are our opportunities for building back revenue as well as how to recession-proof our practices should there be another surge and another decrease in pediatric volume,” Dr. Dias said.

The changes in pediatric care are not confined to the hospital setting. According to Amy H. Porter, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, Calif., COVID-19 has “changed the way pediatric medicine is being practiced.”

Although she works in outpatient pediatric care, she said that routine care “is way down” in this setting as well. Like Dr. Dias, she has witnessed a major increase in the use of telemedicine to reach pediatric patients, but she is very concerned about the large proportion of children who are missing routine care, including vaccinations.

“We were already seeing outbreaks of whooping cough and measles pre COVID, so we are quite worried that we will see more,” Dr. Porter said.

A reduction in demand for care does not have the same immediate effect on revenue at a large health maintenance organization like Kaiser Permanente, but growing unemployment in the general population will mean fewer HMO members. In turn, this could have an impact on the entire system.

“When membership goes down, then it will have implications for how we can provide services,” Dr. Porter said.

In the meantime, social workers at Kaiser Permanente “are tirelessly working” to help parents losing benefits to obtain medicines for sick children with chronic diseases, according to Dr. Porter. She echoed the comments of Dr. Dias in predicting major changes in pediatric care if the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic consequences persist.

The conference was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

The rapid decline in pediatric hospital visits that came quickly after COVID-19 has emerged as a major public health threat, creating the need for adaptations among those offering hospital-based care, according to an objective look at patient numbers that was presented at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine.

“Pre-COVID, operating margins had already taken a significant decline – and there are lots of different reasons for why this was happening – but a lot of hospitals in the United States were going from seeing about a 5% operating margin to closer to 2% to 3%,” said Magna Dias, MD, medical director, pediatric inpatient services, at Yale New Haven Children’s Hospital, Bridgeport, Conn.

This nearly 50% decline “was already putting pressure on us in the community hospital setting where pediatrics is not necessarily generating a ton of revenue to justify our programs, but post COVID, our operating revenue – and this is a report from May – was down 282%,” Dr. Dias reported.

Dr. Dias said that hundreds of hospitals have furloughed workers in the United States since the pandemic began. Although the job losses are not confined to pediatric care, statistics show that pediatrics is one of the hardest hit specialties.

“Looking specifically at ED [emergency department] visits under age 14, one study showed a 71% to 72% decrease post COVID,” Dr. Dias said. This included a 97% reduction in ED visits for flu and more than an 80% reduction in visits for asthma, otitis media, and nausea or vomiting.

It is not clear when children will return to the hospital in pre-COVID-19 numbers, but it might not be soon if the a second wave of infections follows the first, according to Dr. Dias. She suggested that pediatric hospitalists should be thinking about how to expand their services.

“One thing we are really good at in terms of working in the community hospital is diversification. We are used to working in more than one area and being flexible,” Dr. Dias said. Quoting Charles Darwin, who concluded that adaption to change predicts species survival, Dr. Dias advised pediatric hospitalists to look for new opportunities.

Taking on a broader range of responsibilities will not be a significant leap for many pediatric hospitalists. In a survey conducted several years ago by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), hospital staff pediatricians were associated with activities ranging from work in the neonatal intensive care unit to primary ED coverage, according to Dr. Dias. Now with declining patient volumes on pediatric floors, she foresees an even greater expansion, including the care of young adults.

One organization formed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, called the Pediatric Overflow Planning Contingency Response Network (POPCoRN) has been taking a lead in guiding the delivery of adult care in a pediatric environment. As a cochair of a community hospital special interest group within POPCoRN, Dr. Dias said she has participated in these discussions.

“At some centers, they have gone from age 18 to 21, some have gone up to age 25, some have gone up to 30 years,” she said.

Many centers are working to leverage telemedicine to reach pediatric patients no longer coming to the hospital, according to Dr. Dias.

“There are a lot of people being very creative in telemedicine,” she said. While it is considered as one way “to keep children at your institution,” Dr. Dias said others are considering how telemedicine might provide new opportunities. For one example, telemedicine might be an opportunity to deliver care in rural hospitals without pediatric services.

In an AAP survey of pediatric hospitalists conducted several years ago, justifying services was listed as the second most important concern right after access to subspecialty support. Due to COVID-19, Dr. Dias expects the order of these concerns to flip. Indeed, she predicted that many pediatric hospitalists are going to need to reassess their programs.

“We have started looking at what are our opportunities for building back revenue as well as how to recession-proof our practices should there be another surge and another decrease in pediatric volume,” Dr. Dias said.

The changes in pediatric care are not confined to the hospital setting. According to Amy H. Porter, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, Calif., COVID-19 has “changed the way pediatric medicine is being practiced.”

Although she works in outpatient pediatric care, she said that routine care “is way down” in this setting as well. Like Dr. Dias, she has witnessed a major increase in the use of telemedicine to reach pediatric patients, but she is very concerned about the large proportion of children who are missing routine care, including vaccinations.

“We were already seeing outbreaks of whooping cough and measles pre COVID, so we are quite worried that we will see more,” Dr. Porter said.

A reduction in demand for care does not have the same immediate effect on revenue at a large health maintenance organization like Kaiser Permanente, but growing unemployment in the general population will mean fewer HMO members. In turn, this could have an impact on the entire system.

“When membership goes down, then it will have implications for how we can provide services,” Dr. Porter said.

In the meantime, social workers at Kaiser Permanente “are tirelessly working” to help parents losing benefits to obtain medicines for sick children with chronic diseases, according to Dr. Porter. She echoed the comments of Dr. Dias in predicting major changes in pediatric care if the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic consequences persist.

The conference was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

Immune checkpoint inhibition was not associated with an increased mortality risk from COVID-19 in patients with cancer in an international observational study.

The study included 113 cancer patients who had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 within 12 months of receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The patients did not receive chemotherapy within 3 months of testing positive for COVID-19.

In all, 33 patients were admitted to the hospital, including 6 who were admitted to the ICU, and 9 patients died.

“Nine out of 113 patients is a mortality rate of 8%, which is in the middle of the earlier reported rates for cancer patients in general [7.6%-12%],” said Aljosja Rogiers, MD, PhD, of the Melanoma Institute Australia in Sydney.

COVID-19 was the primary cause of death in seven of the patients, including three of those who were admitted to the ICU, Dr. Rogiers noted.

He reported these results during the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Study details

Patients in this study were treated at 19 hospitals in North America, Europe, and Australia, and the data cutoff was May 15, 2020. Most patients (64%) were treated in Europe, which was the epicenter for the COVID-19 pandemic at the time of data collection, Dr. Rogiers noted. A third of patients were in North America, and 3% were in Australia.

The patients’ median age was 63 years (range, 27-86 years). Most patients were men (65%), and most had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 0-1 (90%).

The most common malignancies were melanoma (57%), non–small cell lung cancer (17%), and renal cell carcinoma (9%). Treatment was for early cancer in 26% of patients and for advanced cancer in 74%. Comorbidities included cardiovascular disease in 27% of patients, diabetes in 15%, pulmonary disease in 12%, and renal disease in 5%.

Immunosuppressive therapy equivalent to a prednisone dose of 10 mg or greater daily was given in 13% of patients, and other immunosuppressive therapies, such as infliximab, were given in 3%.

Among the 60% of patients with COVID-19 symptoms, 68% had fever, 59% had cough, 34% had dyspnea, and 15% had myalgia. Most of the 40% of asymptomatic patients were tested because they had COVID-19–positive contact, Dr. Rogiers noted.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment included monotherapy with a programmed death–1/PD–ligand 1 inhibitor in 82% of patients, combination anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA4 therapy in 13%, and other therapy – usually a checkpoint inhibitor combined with a different type of targeted agent – in 5%.

At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, 30% of patients had achieved a partial response, complete response, or had no evidence of disease, 18% had stable disease, and 15% had progression. Response data were not available in 37% of cases, usually because treatment was only recently started prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, Dr. Rogiers said.

Treatments administered for COVID-19 included antibiotic therapy in 25% of patients, oxygen therapy in 20%, glucocorticoids in 10%, antiviral drugs in 6%, and intravenous immunoglobulin or anti–interleukin-6 in 2% each.

Among patients admitted to the ICU, 3% required mechanical ventilation, 2% had vasopressin, and 1% received renal replacement therapy.

At the data cutoff, 20 of 33 hospitalized patients (61%) had been discharged, and 4 (12%) were still in the hospital.
 

Mortality results

Nine patients died. The rate of death was 8% overall and 27% among hospitalized patients.

“The mortality rate of COVID-19 in the general population without comorbidities is about 1.4%,” Dr. Rogiers said. “For cancer patients, this is reported to be in the range of 7.6%-12%. To what extent patients on immune checkpoint inhibition are at a higher risk of mortality is currently unknown.”

Theoretically, immune checkpoint inhibition could either mitigate or exacerbate COVID-19 infection. It has been hypothesized that immune checkpoint inhibitors could increase the risk of severe acute lung injury or other complications of COVID-19, Dr. Rogiers said, explaining the rationale for the study.

The study shows that the patients who died had a median age of 72 years (range, 49-81 years), which is slightly higher than the median overall age of 63 years. Six patients were from North America, and three were from Italy.

“Two melanoma patients and two non–small cell lung cancer patients died,” Dr. Rogiers said. He noted that two other deaths were in patients with renal cell carcinoma, and three deaths were in other cancer types. All patients had advanced or metastatic disease.

Given that 57% of patients in the study had melanoma and 17% had NSCLC, this finding may indicate that COVID-19 has a slightly higher mortality rate in NSCLC patients than in melanoma patients, but the numbers are small, Dr. Rogiers said.

Notably, six of the patients who died were not admitted to the ICU. In four cases, this was because of underlying malignancy; in the other two cases, it was because of a constrained health care system, Dr. Rogiers said.

Overall, the findings show that the mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 and cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors is similar to the mortality rate reported in the general cancer population, Dr. Rogiers said.

“Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition does not seem to pose an additional mortality risk for cancer patients with COVID-19,” he concluded.

Dr. Rogiers reported having no conflicts of interest. There was no funding disclosed for the study.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rogiers A et al. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S02-01.

Immune checkpoint inhibition was not associated with an increased mortality risk from COVID-19 in patients with cancer in an international observational study.

The study included 113 cancer patients who had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 within 12 months of receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The patients did not receive chemotherapy within 3 months of testing positive for COVID-19.

In all, 33 patients were admitted to the hospital, including 6 who were admitted to the ICU, and 9 patients died.

“Nine out of 113 patients is a mortality rate of 8%, which is in the middle of the earlier reported rates for cancer patients in general [7.6%-12%],” said Aljosja Rogiers, MD, PhD, of the Melanoma Institute Australia in Sydney.

COVID-19 was the primary cause of death in seven of the patients, including three of those who were admitted to the ICU, Dr. Rogiers noted.

He reported these results during the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Study details

Patients in this study were treated at 19 hospitals in North America, Europe, and Australia, and the data cutoff was May 15, 2020. Most patients (64%) were treated in Europe, which was the epicenter for the COVID-19 pandemic at the time of data collection, Dr. Rogiers noted. A third of patients were in North America, and 3% were in Australia.

The patients’ median age was 63 years (range, 27-86 years). Most patients were men (65%), and most had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 0-1 (90%).

The most common malignancies were melanoma (57%), non–small cell lung cancer (17%), and renal cell carcinoma (9%). Treatment was for early cancer in 26% of patients and for advanced cancer in 74%. Comorbidities included cardiovascular disease in 27% of patients, diabetes in 15%, pulmonary disease in 12%, and renal disease in 5%.

Immunosuppressive therapy equivalent to a prednisone dose of 10 mg or greater daily was given in 13% of patients, and other immunosuppressive therapies, such as infliximab, were given in 3%.

Among the 60% of patients with COVID-19 symptoms, 68% had fever, 59% had cough, 34% had dyspnea, and 15% had myalgia. Most of the 40% of asymptomatic patients were tested because they had COVID-19–positive contact, Dr. Rogiers noted.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment included monotherapy with a programmed death–1/PD–ligand 1 inhibitor in 82% of patients, combination anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA4 therapy in 13%, and other therapy – usually a checkpoint inhibitor combined with a different type of targeted agent – in 5%.

At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, 30% of patients had achieved a partial response, complete response, or had no evidence of disease, 18% had stable disease, and 15% had progression. Response data were not available in 37% of cases, usually because treatment was only recently started prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, Dr. Rogiers said.

Treatments administered for COVID-19 included antibiotic therapy in 25% of patients, oxygen therapy in 20%, glucocorticoids in 10%, antiviral drugs in 6%, and intravenous immunoglobulin or anti–interleukin-6 in 2% each.

Among patients admitted to the ICU, 3% required mechanical ventilation, 2% had vasopressin, and 1% received renal replacement therapy.

At the data cutoff, 20 of 33 hospitalized patients (61%) had been discharged, and 4 (12%) were still in the hospital.
 

Mortality results

Nine patients died. The rate of death was 8% overall and 27% among hospitalized patients.

“The mortality rate of COVID-19 in the general population without comorbidities is about 1.4%,” Dr. Rogiers said. “For cancer patients, this is reported to be in the range of 7.6%-12%. To what extent patients on immune checkpoint inhibition are at a higher risk of mortality is currently unknown.”

Theoretically, immune checkpoint inhibition could either mitigate or exacerbate COVID-19 infection. It has been hypothesized that immune checkpoint inhibitors could increase the risk of severe acute lung injury or other complications of COVID-19, Dr. Rogiers said, explaining the rationale for the study.

The study shows that the patients who died had a median age of 72 years (range, 49-81 years), which is slightly higher than the median overall age of 63 years. Six patients were from North America, and three were from Italy.

“Two melanoma patients and two non–small cell lung cancer patients died,” Dr. Rogiers said. He noted that two other deaths were in patients with renal cell carcinoma, and three deaths were in other cancer types. All patients had advanced or metastatic disease.

Given that 57% of patients in the study had melanoma and 17% had NSCLC, this finding may indicate that COVID-19 has a slightly higher mortality rate in NSCLC patients than in melanoma patients, but the numbers are small, Dr. Rogiers said.

Notably, six of the patients who died were not admitted to the ICU. In four cases, this was because of underlying malignancy; in the other two cases, it was because of a constrained health care system, Dr. Rogiers said.

Overall, the findings show that the mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 and cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors is similar to the mortality rate reported in the general cancer population, Dr. Rogiers said.

“Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition does not seem to pose an additional mortality risk for cancer patients with COVID-19,” he concluded.

Dr. Rogiers reported having no conflicts of interest. There was no funding disclosed for the study.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rogiers A et al. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S02-01.

Immune checkpoint inhibition was not associated with an increased mortality risk from COVID-19 in patients with cancer in an international observational study.

The study included 113 cancer patients who had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 within 12 months of receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The patients did not receive chemotherapy within 3 months of testing positive for COVID-19.

In all, 33 patients were admitted to the hospital, including 6 who were admitted to the ICU, and 9 patients died.

“Nine out of 113 patients is a mortality rate of 8%, which is in the middle of the earlier reported rates for cancer patients in general [7.6%-12%],” said Aljosja Rogiers, MD, PhD, of the Melanoma Institute Australia in Sydney.

COVID-19 was the primary cause of death in seven of the patients, including three of those who were admitted to the ICU, Dr. Rogiers noted.

He reported these results during the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Study details

Patients in this study were treated at 19 hospitals in North America, Europe, and Australia, and the data cutoff was May 15, 2020. Most patients (64%) were treated in Europe, which was the epicenter for the COVID-19 pandemic at the time of data collection, Dr. Rogiers noted. A third of patients were in North America, and 3% were in Australia.

The patients’ median age was 63 years (range, 27-86 years). Most patients were men (65%), and most had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance scores of 0-1 (90%).

The most common malignancies were melanoma (57%), non–small cell lung cancer (17%), and renal cell carcinoma (9%). Treatment was for early cancer in 26% of patients and for advanced cancer in 74%. Comorbidities included cardiovascular disease in 27% of patients, diabetes in 15%, pulmonary disease in 12%, and renal disease in 5%.

Immunosuppressive therapy equivalent to a prednisone dose of 10 mg or greater daily was given in 13% of patients, and other immunosuppressive therapies, such as infliximab, were given in 3%.

Among the 60% of patients with COVID-19 symptoms, 68% had fever, 59% had cough, 34% had dyspnea, and 15% had myalgia. Most of the 40% of asymptomatic patients were tested because they had COVID-19–positive contact, Dr. Rogiers noted.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment included monotherapy with a programmed death–1/PD–ligand 1 inhibitor in 82% of patients, combination anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA4 therapy in 13%, and other therapy – usually a checkpoint inhibitor combined with a different type of targeted agent – in 5%.

At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, 30% of patients had achieved a partial response, complete response, or had no evidence of disease, 18% had stable disease, and 15% had progression. Response data were not available in 37% of cases, usually because treatment was only recently started prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, Dr. Rogiers said.

Treatments administered for COVID-19 included antibiotic therapy in 25% of patients, oxygen therapy in 20%, glucocorticoids in 10%, antiviral drugs in 6%, and intravenous immunoglobulin or anti–interleukin-6 in 2% each.

Among patients admitted to the ICU, 3% required mechanical ventilation, 2% had vasopressin, and 1% received renal replacement therapy.

At the data cutoff, 20 of 33 hospitalized patients (61%) had been discharged, and 4 (12%) were still in the hospital.
 

Mortality results

Nine patients died. The rate of death was 8% overall and 27% among hospitalized patients.

“The mortality rate of COVID-19 in the general population without comorbidities is about 1.4%,” Dr. Rogiers said. “For cancer patients, this is reported to be in the range of 7.6%-12%. To what extent patients on immune checkpoint inhibition are at a higher risk of mortality is currently unknown.”

Theoretically, immune checkpoint inhibition could either mitigate or exacerbate COVID-19 infection. It has been hypothesized that immune checkpoint inhibitors could increase the risk of severe acute lung injury or other complications of COVID-19, Dr. Rogiers said, explaining the rationale for the study.

The study shows that the patients who died had a median age of 72 years (range, 49-81 years), which is slightly higher than the median overall age of 63 years. Six patients were from North America, and three were from Italy.

“Two melanoma patients and two non–small cell lung cancer patients died,” Dr. Rogiers said. He noted that two other deaths were in patients with renal cell carcinoma, and three deaths were in other cancer types. All patients had advanced or metastatic disease.

Given that 57% of patients in the study had melanoma and 17% had NSCLC, this finding may indicate that COVID-19 has a slightly higher mortality rate in NSCLC patients than in melanoma patients, but the numbers are small, Dr. Rogiers said.

Notably, six of the patients who died were not admitted to the ICU. In four cases, this was because of underlying malignancy; in the other two cases, it was because of a constrained health care system, Dr. Rogiers said.

Overall, the findings show that the mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 and cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors is similar to the mortality rate reported in the general cancer population, Dr. Rogiers said.

“Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibition does not seem to pose an additional mortality risk for cancer patients with COVID-19,” he concluded.

Dr. Rogiers reported having no conflicts of interest. There was no funding disclosed for the study.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rogiers A et al. AACR: COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S02-01.