“To journey for the sake of saving our own lives is little by little to cease to live in any sense that really matters, even to ourselves, because it is only by journeying for the world’s sake—even when the world bores and sickens and scares you half to death—that little by little we start to come alive.”

—Frederick Buechner

On February 29, 2020, I find out by text from my intern when the first patient at our hospital in Seattle tests positive for COVID-19. He learns of it from his fellow intern who is caring for the patient. The news quickly spreads through the hospital like the virus itself, going from person to person while official communication channels remain initially silent. The news comes on the heels of a friend’s text that her daughter’s high school is closing for disinfection after a classmate also tested positive for COVID-19. I know the cataclysmic significance of these two events: Public health efforts to contain the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus have failed, and there is ongoing community spread of the infection in Washington state. I text my intern back with the emoji of The Scream by Edvard Munch.

Could I be asymptomatically infected with the coronavirus? I work in close quarters with my colleagues who cared for the COVID-19–positive patient before he was placed in infection precautions. Social distancing has yet to enter our lexicon and our lives. In our crowded office, shared surfaces abound. Suddenly, every hard surface seems suspect—chairs, phones, dictaphone handsets, code pagers, printers, keypads, and door handles. All can be vectors of viral transmission. Normally insouciant about cleanliness, my coworkers and I start swabbing down every surface with disinfectant wipes. I ponder my likelihood of infection and decide it is possible but not probable.

In the next few days, I have a trip to Sedona, Arizona, planned with my extended family. Originally conceived as a celebration for my mom’s 80th birthday, we repurposed it as a time to grieve together after she unexpectedly passed away. I debate back and forth whether to go on the trip. If there is a chance I am infected with the coronavirus, it feels irresponsible to board an airplane with hundreds of other people. Yet the trip carries such high value for me. My family holds out hope I can get tested for the coronavirus, but I know just how limited testing capability is. It cuts me to the heart, but I cancel my flight. The deciding factor is that my sister has an autoimmune disease and is immunosuppressed. I don’t want to jeopardize her health. The world has truly gone topsy-turvy when the greatest thoughtfulness you can show to someone you love is to stay the hell away from her.

After my work stretch, I hunker down at home to monitor myself. I have a mild sore throat but convince myself it is psychosomatic. My plausible deniability of illness dies when I develop a cough and fatigue. Based on my symptoms, it is impossible to tell if I have the coronavirus or a common cold. I place myself on home quarantine. I don’t pursue coronavirus testing because there are hospitalized patients who need it much more than I do. I diligently monitor my temperature twice daily and it remains normal. My sore throat and fatigue go away, but my cough and some mild shortness of breath persists. I attribute it to my asthma, but the possibility of COVID-19 always lurks in the back of my mind. COVID-19 patients often don’t worsen until their second week of infection. Ordinarily, I would start using my steroid inhaler, but I hold off since steroids are thought to prolong viral replication. 

When I tire of staying in the house, I go outside to work in the yard. I get on a low ladder to pull down the English ivy climbing up and smothering a tree. The ivy strand I’m tugging on suddenly breaks and I fall hard onto my back. Like a slap in the face, the accident shocks me into a new state of mental clarity. As a hospitalist, I’m a precious resource to my community right now. I can’t knock myself out of commission for dumb reasons. I ban myself from climbing any more ladders. 

As my time in quarantine draws to a close, I put my legal and financial affairs in order and pack a just-in-case backpack. The emergency room doctor hospitalized at a nearby hospital with severe COVID-19 is about my age. I am still coughing so I check in with the head of Infection Control to see if I need to be tested before returning to work. He tells me no. As I start working, I realize that coughing is the new leprosy. Even though I wear a mask, I get tense looks from others who carefully keep their distance from me. I tell everyone I have cough variant asthma, but what they all want to know is if I have been tested for the coronavirus. I haven’t been.

When my hospital sets up a new dedicated Employee Health screening phone line, I call right away. The nurse tells me I don’t meet criteria for coronavirus testing even though I am working on the COVID-19 rule-out unit with patients who have tested positive. While I agree with her from a medical standpoint, I don’t from a social or psychological perspective. This is a particularly unpropitious time in history to be a Chinese American doctor who can’t stop coughing. A negative test will reassure my patients and coworkers I am not a risk to them. A positive test, which is a possibility because of known prolonged viral shedding of the coronavirus, will reassure me I’m likely on my way to developing serologic immunity. I don’t get a test. When I tell my colleague, he suggests I resort to lying, but I won’t do it. As I’ve watched how power, wealth, and privilege play out in access to testing, I refuse to manipulate the system. But my experience is pointed commentary on the abysmal failure of testing in the United States when a frontline symptomatic doctor taking care of COVID-19 patients in one of the epicenters of the pandemic can’t get a coronavirus test. During a meeting, the head of Infection Control bluntly states he hopes we know that all of us are going to get the coronavirus at some point, but hopefully it won’t take us out of commission all at once. I feel better hearing him acknowledge that because it confirms my own sense of reality. 

While the ongoing pandemic definitely increases stress and anxiety levels in the hospital, there also continues to be caring and kindness. As I don my personal protective equipment (PPE), a nurse notices an exposed gap in the back of my gown and fixes it for me. He has my back, literally and figuratively. Our unit clerk, hearing my persistent cough, braves the 6-foot danger zone to hand me cough drops. Another nurse asks when the last time was I drank anything, and I give her a blank look because I can’t remember. I’m trying to minimize my use of masks, so I have kept my current one on all day. The front of the mask may be contaminated, but as long as I don’t touch that surface, it is still protecting me. She hands me a cup of water and I consider the benefit of staying hydrated versus using up another mask. Having previously landed in the emergency room with a kidney stone from not properly hydrating, I take off the mask, throw it away, wash my hands, and drink the water. But in my mind, I’m acutely aware of our shrinking supply of PPE. 

On our time off work, my coworkers and I reach out to everyone we know to ask for mask donations. One friend tells me her husband is fashioning a mask for her from their furnace filter. She considers it the most romantic thing he’s ever done for her. The two of us agree that if we run out of PPE, we will go on caring for our patients anyway. We are doctors and caring for others is not only what we do, but an intrinsic part of who we are. Our journey amid the coronavirus pandemic may at times scare us half to death, but in caring for others “little by little we start to come alive.”

“To journey for the sake of saving our own lives is little by little to cease to live in any sense that really matters, even to ourselves, because it is only by journeying for the world’s sake—even when the world bores and sickens and scares you half to death—that little by little we start to come alive.”

—Frederick Buechner

On February 29, 2020, I find out by text from my intern when the first patient at our hospital in Seattle tests positive for COVID-19. He learns of it from his fellow intern who is caring for the patient. The news quickly spreads through the hospital like the virus itself, going from person to person while official communication channels remain initially silent. The news comes on the heels of a friend’s text that her daughter’s high school is closing for disinfection after a classmate also tested positive for COVID-19. I know the cataclysmic significance of these two events: Public health efforts to contain the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus have failed, and there is ongoing community spread of the infection in Washington state. I text my intern back with the emoji of The Scream by Edvard Munch.

Could I be asymptomatically infected with the coronavirus? I work in close quarters with my colleagues who cared for the COVID-19–positive patient before he was placed in infection precautions. Social distancing has yet to enter our lexicon and our lives. In our crowded office, shared surfaces abound. Suddenly, every hard surface seems suspect—chairs, phones, dictaphone handsets, code pagers, printers, keypads, and door handles. All can be vectors of viral transmission. Normally insouciant about cleanliness, my coworkers and I start swabbing down every surface with disinfectant wipes. I ponder my likelihood of infection and decide it is possible but not probable.

In the next few days, I have a trip to Sedona, Arizona, planned with my extended family. Originally conceived as a celebration for my mom’s 80th birthday, we repurposed it as a time to grieve together after she unexpectedly passed away. I debate back and forth whether to go on the trip. If there is a chance I am infected with the coronavirus, it feels irresponsible to board an airplane with hundreds of other people. Yet the trip carries such high value for me. My family holds out hope I can get tested for the coronavirus, but I know just how limited testing capability is. It cuts me to the heart, but I cancel my flight. The deciding factor is that my sister has an autoimmune disease and is immunosuppressed. I don’t want to jeopardize her health. The world has truly gone topsy-turvy when the greatest thoughtfulness you can show to someone you love is to stay the hell away from her.

After my work stretch, I hunker down at home to monitor myself. I have a mild sore throat but convince myself it is psychosomatic. My plausible deniability of illness dies when I develop a cough and fatigue. Based on my symptoms, it is impossible to tell if I have the coronavirus or a common cold. I place myself on home quarantine. I don’t pursue coronavirus testing because there are hospitalized patients who need it much more than I do. I diligently monitor my temperature twice daily and it remains normal. My sore throat and fatigue go away, but my cough and some mild shortness of breath persists. I attribute it to my asthma, but the possibility of COVID-19 always lurks in the back of my mind. COVID-19 patients often don’t worsen until their second week of infection. Ordinarily, I would start using my steroid inhaler, but I hold off since steroids are thought to prolong viral replication. 

When I tire of staying in the house, I go outside to work in the yard. I get on a low ladder to pull down the English ivy climbing up and smothering a tree. The ivy strand I’m tugging on suddenly breaks and I fall hard onto my back. Like a slap in the face, the accident shocks me into a new state of mental clarity. As a hospitalist, I’m a precious resource to my community right now. I can’t knock myself out of commission for dumb reasons. I ban myself from climbing any more ladders. 

As my time in quarantine draws to a close, I put my legal and financial affairs in order and pack a just-in-case backpack. The emergency room doctor hospitalized at a nearby hospital with severe COVID-19 is about my age. I am still coughing so I check in with the head of Infection Control to see if I need to be tested before returning to work. He tells me no. As I start working, I realize that coughing is the new leprosy. Even though I wear a mask, I get tense looks from others who carefully keep their distance from me. I tell everyone I have cough variant asthma, but what they all want to know is if I have been tested for the coronavirus. I haven’t been.

When my hospital sets up a new dedicated Employee Health screening phone line, I call right away. The nurse tells me I don’t meet criteria for coronavirus testing even though I am working on the COVID-19 rule-out unit with patients who have tested positive. While I agree with her from a medical standpoint, I don’t from a social or psychological perspective. This is a particularly unpropitious time in history to be a Chinese American doctor who can’t stop coughing. A negative test will reassure my patients and coworkers I am not a risk to them. A positive test, which is a possibility because of known prolonged viral shedding of the coronavirus, will reassure me I’m likely on my way to developing serologic immunity. I don’t get a test. When I tell my colleague, he suggests I resort to lying, but I won’t do it. As I’ve watched how power, wealth, and privilege play out in access to testing, I refuse to manipulate the system. But my experience is pointed commentary on the abysmal failure of testing in the United States when a frontline symptomatic doctor taking care of COVID-19 patients in one of the epicenters of the pandemic can’t get a coronavirus test. During a meeting, the head of Infection Control bluntly states he hopes we know that all of us are going to get the coronavirus at some point, but hopefully it won’t take us out of commission all at once. I feel better hearing him acknowledge that because it confirms my own sense of reality. 

While the ongoing pandemic definitely increases stress and anxiety levels in the hospital, there also continues to be caring and kindness. As I don my personal protective equipment (PPE), a nurse notices an exposed gap in the back of my gown and fixes it for me. He has my back, literally and figuratively. Our unit clerk, hearing my persistent cough, braves the 6-foot danger zone to hand me cough drops. Another nurse asks when the last time was I drank anything, and I give her a blank look because I can’t remember. I’m trying to minimize my use of masks, so I have kept my current one on all day. The front of the mask may be contaminated, but as long as I don’t touch that surface, it is still protecting me. She hands me a cup of water and I consider the benefit of staying hydrated versus using up another mask. Having previously landed in the emergency room with a kidney stone from not properly hydrating, I take off the mask, throw it away, wash my hands, and drink the water. But in my mind, I’m acutely aware of our shrinking supply of PPE. 

On our time off work, my coworkers and I reach out to everyone we know to ask for mask donations. One friend tells me her husband is fashioning a mask for her from their furnace filter. She considers it the most romantic thing he’s ever done for her. The two of us agree that if we run out of PPE, we will go on caring for our patients anyway. We are doctors and caring for others is not only what we do, but an intrinsic part of who we are. Our journey amid the coronavirus pandemic may at times scare us half to death, but in caring for others “little by little we start to come alive.”

“To journey for the sake of saving our own lives is little by little to cease to live in any sense that really matters, even to ourselves, because it is only by journeying for the world’s sake—even when the world bores and sickens and scares you half to death—that little by little we start to come alive.”

—Frederick Buechner

On February 29, 2020, I find out by text from my intern when the first patient at our hospital in Seattle tests positive for COVID-19. He learns of it from his fellow intern who is caring for the patient. The news quickly spreads through the hospital like the virus itself, going from person to person while official communication channels remain initially silent. The news comes on the heels of a friend’s text that her daughter’s high school is closing for disinfection after a classmate also tested positive for COVID-19. I know the cataclysmic significance of these two events: Public health efforts to contain the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus have failed, and there is ongoing community spread of the infection in Washington state. I text my intern back with the emoji of The Scream by Edvard Munch.

Could I be asymptomatically infected with the coronavirus? I work in close quarters with my colleagues who cared for the COVID-19–positive patient before he was placed in infection precautions. Social distancing has yet to enter our lexicon and our lives. In our crowded office, shared surfaces abound. Suddenly, every hard surface seems suspect—chairs, phones, dictaphone handsets, code pagers, printers, keypads, and door handles. All can be vectors of viral transmission. Normally insouciant about cleanliness, my coworkers and I start swabbing down every surface with disinfectant wipes. I ponder my likelihood of infection and decide it is possible but not probable.

In the next few days, I have a trip to Sedona, Arizona, planned with my extended family. Originally conceived as a celebration for my mom’s 80th birthday, we repurposed it as a time to grieve together after she unexpectedly passed away. I debate back and forth whether to go on the trip. If there is a chance I am infected with the coronavirus, it feels irresponsible to board an airplane with hundreds of other people. Yet the trip carries such high value for me. My family holds out hope I can get tested for the coronavirus, but I know just how limited testing capability is. It cuts me to the heart, but I cancel my flight. The deciding factor is that my sister has an autoimmune disease and is immunosuppressed. I don’t want to jeopardize her health. The world has truly gone topsy-turvy when the greatest thoughtfulness you can show to someone you love is to stay the hell away from her.

After my work stretch, I hunker down at home to monitor myself. I have a mild sore throat but convince myself it is psychosomatic. My plausible deniability of illness dies when I develop a cough and fatigue. Based on my symptoms, it is impossible to tell if I have the coronavirus or a common cold. I place myself on home quarantine. I don’t pursue coronavirus testing because there are hospitalized patients who need it much more than I do. I diligently monitor my temperature twice daily and it remains normal. My sore throat and fatigue go away, but my cough and some mild shortness of breath persists. I attribute it to my asthma, but the possibility of COVID-19 always lurks in the back of my mind. COVID-19 patients often don’t worsen until their second week of infection. Ordinarily, I would start using my steroid inhaler, but I hold off since steroids are thought to prolong viral replication. 

When I tire of staying in the house, I go outside to work in the yard. I get on a low ladder to pull down the English ivy climbing up and smothering a tree. The ivy strand I’m tugging on suddenly breaks and I fall hard onto my back. Like a slap in the face, the accident shocks me into a new state of mental clarity. As a hospitalist, I’m a precious resource to my community right now. I can’t knock myself out of commission for dumb reasons. I ban myself from climbing any more ladders. 

As my time in quarantine draws to a close, I put my legal and financial affairs in order and pack a just-in-case backpack. The emergency room doctor hospitalized at a nearby hospital with severe COVID-19 is about my age. I am still coughing so I check in with the head of Infection Control to see if I need to be tested before returning to work. He tells me no. As I start working, I realize that coughing is the new leprosy. Even though I wear a mask, I get tense looks from others who carefully keep their distance from me. I tell everyone I have cough variant asthma, but what they all want to know is if I have been tested for the coronavirus. I haven’t been.

When my hospital sets up a new dedicated Employee Health screening phone line, I call right away. The nurse tells me I don’t meet criteria for coronavirus testing even though I am working on the COVID-19 rule-out unit with patients who have tested positive. While I agree with her from a medical standpoint, I don’t from a social or psychological perspective. This is a particularly unpropitious time in history to be a Chinese American doctor who can’t stop coughing. A negative test will reassure my patients and coworkers I am not a risk to them. A positive test, which is a possibility because of known prolonged viral shedding of the coronavirus, will reassure me I’m likely on my way to developing serologic immunity. I don’t get a test. When I tell my colleague, he suggests I resort to lying, but I won’t do it. As I’ve watched how power, wealth, and privilege play out in access to testing, I refuse to manipulate the system. But my experience is pointed commentary on the abysmal failure of testing in the United States when a frontline symptomatic doctor taking care of COVID-19 patients in one of the epicenters of the pandemic can’t get a coronavirus test. During a meeting, the head of Infection Control bluntly states he hopes we know that all of us are going to get the coronavirus at some point, but hopefully it won’t take us out of commission all at once. I feel better hearing him acknowledge that because it confirms my own sense of reality. 

While the ongoing pandemic definitely increases stress and anxiety levels in the hospital, there also continues to be caring and kindness. As I don my personal protective equipment (PPE), a nurse notices an exposed gap in the back of my gown and fixes it for me. He has my back, literally and figuratively. Our unit clerk, hearing my persistent cough, braves the 6-foot danger zone to hand me cough drops. Another nurse asks when the last time was I drank anything, and I give her a blank look because I can’t remember. I’m trying to minimize my use of masks, so I have kept my current one on all day. The front of the mask may be contaminated, but as long as I don’t touch that surface, it is still protecting me. She hands me a cup of water and I consider the benefit of staying hydrated versus using up another mask. Having previously landed in the emergency room with a kidney stone from not properly hydrating, I take off the mask, throw it away, wash my hands, and drink the water. But in my mind, I’m acutely aware of our shrinking supply of PPE. 

On our time off work, my coworkers and I reach out to everyone we know to ask for mask donations. One friend tells me her husband is fashioning a mask for her from their furnace filter. She considers it the most romantic thing he’s ever done for her. The two of us agree that if we run out of PPE, we will go on caring for our patients anyway. We are doctors and caring for others is not only what we do, but an intrinsic part of who we are. Our journey amid the coronavirus pandemic may at times scare us half to death, but in caring for others “little by little we start to come alive.”

For Luanne Freer, MD, an expert in high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and founder and director of Everest ER, a nonprofit seasonal clinic at the Mt. Everest base camp in Nepal (elevation, 17,600 ft), a sudden flurry of messages and questions she received about a possible COVID-19/HAPE link was startling.

Courtesy Rowie Ververis

“That’s why it kind of poked me in the eye,” she said, referencing her extensive experience treating HAPE, which she described as a pressure-related phenomenon. “My goodness, they are so completely different.”

Dr. Freer, an emergency physician, reached out to several pulmonary intensivists with experience treating both HAPE and COVID-19 to gauge their reactions, and within 36 hours, they had drafted their response. In the commentary, published in High Altitude Medicine & Biology, the clinicians note that the comparison between HAPE and COVID-19 is potentially risky.

“As a group of physicians who have in some cases cared for patients with COVID-19 and in all cases cared for patients with HAPE and studied its pathophysiology and management, we feel it important to correct this misconception, as continued amplification of this message could have adverse effects on management of these patients,” they wrote.

The suggestion that COVID-19 lung injury sometimes looks more like HAPE than like acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) appeared in a journal review article in late March and was put forth by medical professionals on social media where it gained traction in recent weeks and was amplified in multiple media outlets, including this one.

“With COVID, we don’t understand everything that’s going on, but we know for sure it’s an inflammatory process – not a pressure-related problem,” Dr. Freer said. “I thought ... this could be so dangerous to load the medicines that we use when we’re treating HAPE onto patients with COVID-19.”

The pathophysiological mechanisms in HAPE are different than those in other respiratory syndromes, including those associated with COVID-19, said Andrew M. Luks, MD, of the UW Medicine, Seattle, and the first author on the commentary.

“HAPE is a noncardiogenic form of pulmonary edema, as are ARDS due to bacteria or viral pneumonia, re-expansion pulmonary edema, immersion pulmonary edema, negative pressure pulmonary edema, and neurogenic pulmonary edema,” Dr. Luks, Dr. Freer, and colleagues wrote in the commentary, explaining that all of these entities cause varying degrees of hypoxemia and diffuse bilateral opacities on chest imaging. “Importantly, in all of these cases, edema accumulates in the interstitial and alveolar spaces of the lung as a result of imbalance in Starling forces.”

A difference between these entities, however, is “the mechanism by which that imbalance develops,” they noted.

The excessive and uneven hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction that leads to a marked increase in pulmonary artery pressure, subsequent lung overperfusion, increased pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, and leakage of fluid from the vascular space into the alveolar space as seen in HAPE, is a “fundamentally different phenomenon than what is seen in COVID-19-related ARDS, which involves viral-mediated inflammatory responses as the primary pathophysiological mechanism,” they added.

The authors described several other differences between the conditions, ultimately noting that “understanding the distinction between the pathophysiological mechanisms of these entities is critical for patient management.”

In HAPE, supplemental oxygen alone may be sufficient; in COVID-19, it may improve hypoxemia but won’t resolve the underlying inflammation or injury, they explained, adding that “only good supportive care including mechanical ventilation, quite often for long periods of time, allows some patients to survive until their disease resolves.”

Further, HAPE can be prevented or treated with pulmonary vasodilators such a nifedipine or sildenafil, which decrease pulmonary artery pressure and, as a result lower pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, they said.

Use of such medications for COVID-19 might decrease pulmonary artery pressure and improve right ventricular function in COVID-19, but “by releasing hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and increasing perfusion to nonventilated regions of the lung, they could also worsen ventilation-perfusion mismatch” and thereby worsen hypoxemia, they explained, adding that the treatments can also cause or worsen hypotension.

Efforts to share observations and experience are important in medicine, but sometimes, as in this circumstance, “they get out there, spread around – like a brushfire almost – and get [unwarranted] face validity,” Dr. Luks said, noting that in response to information circulating about COVID-19 and HAPE, he has already heard medical professionals floating the idea of treating COVID-19 with treatments used for HAPE.

It’s true that some COVID-19 lung injury cases are behaving differently than typical ARDS, he said, adding that presentation can vary.

“But trying to equate HAPE and COVID-19 is just wrong,” he said. “HAPE and COVID-19 may share several features ...but those are features that are shared by a lot of different forms of respiratory failure.”

In a recent video interview, WebMD’s chief medical officer John Whyte, MD, spoke with a New York City physician trained in critical care and emergency medicine, Cameron Kyle-Sidell, MD, who raised the need to consider different respiratory protocols for COVID-19, noting that standard protocols were falling short in many cases.

“What we’re seeing ... is something unusual, it’s something that we are not used to,” Dr. Kyle-Sidell of Maimonides Medical Center said in that interview, stressing that the presentation differed from that seen in typical ARDS. “The patterns I was seeing did not make sense.”

Like others, he noted that COVID-19 patients were presenting with illness that clinically looked more like HAPE, but that the pathophysiology is not necessary similar to HAPE.

At around the same time, Luciano Gattinoni, MD, of the Medical University of Göttingen in Germany and colleagues, published a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine stressing that the ARDS presentation in COVID-19 patients is atypical and requires a patient physiology–driven treatment approach, rather than a standard protocol–driven approach. Dr. Gattinoni and colleagues suggested that instead of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), physicians should consider the lowest possible PEEP and gentle ventilation.

Dr. Luks agreed that “some patients with COVID-19 do not have the same physiologic derangements that we see in a lot of other people with ARDS.”

“[Dr. Gattinoni] is making the point that we need to treat these people differently ... and I think that’s a valid point, and honestly, that’s a point that applied even before COVID-19,” he said. “Most of the things that we see in clinical practice – there’s a lot of heterogeneity between patients, and you have to be prepared to tailor your therapy in light of the differences that you’re picking up from your observations at the bedside and other data that you’re getting on the patient.”

The main concern Dr. Luks and his coauthors wanted to convey, they said, is making sure that the anecdotal experiences and observations of clinicians struggling to find answers don’t spiral out of control without proper vetting, thereby leading to patient harm.

“In this challenging time, we must identify the best means to care for these critically ill patients. That approach should be grounded in sound pulmonary physiology, clinical experience and, when available, evidence from clinical studies,” they concluded.

Dr. Luks and Dr. Freer reported having no financial disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

For Luanne Freer, MD, an expert in high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and founder and director of Everest ER, a nonprofit seasonal clinic at the Mt. Everest base camp in Nepal (elevation, 17,600 ft), a sudden flurry of messages and questions she received about a possible COVID-19/HAPE link was startling.

Courtesy Rowie Ververis

“That’s why it kind of poked me in the eye,” she said, referencing her extensive experience treating HAPE, which she described as a pressure-related phenomenon. “My goodness, they are so completely different.”

Dr. Freer, an emergency physician, reached out to several pulmonary intensivists with experience treating both HAPE and COVID-19 to gauge their reactions, and within 36 hours, they had drafted their response. In the commentary, published in High Altitude Medicine & Biology, the clinicians note that the comparison between HAPE and COVID-19 is potentially risky.

“As a group of physicians who have in some cases cared for patients with COVID-19 and in all cases cared for patients with HAPE and studied its pathophysiology and management, we feel it important to correct this misconception, as continued amplification of this message could have adverse effects on management of these patients,” they wrote.

The suggestion that COVID-19 lung injury sometimes looks more like HAPE than like acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) appeared in a journal review article in late March and was put forth by medical professionals on social media where it gained traction in recent weeks and was amplified in multiple media outlets, including this one.

“With COVID, we don’t understand everything that’s going on, but we know for sure it’s an inflammatory process – not a pressure-related problem,” Dr. Freer said. “I thought ... this could be so dangerous to load the medicines that we use when we’re treating HAPE onto patients with COVID-19.”

The pathophysiological mechanisms in HAPE are different than those in other respiratory syndromes, including those associated with COVID-19, said Andrew M. Luks, MD, of the UW Medicine, Seattle, and the first author on the commentary.

“HAPE is a noncardiogenic form of pulmonary edema, as are ARDS due to bacteria or viral pneumonia, re-expansion pulmonary edema, immersion pulmonary edema, negative pressure pulmonary edema, and neurogenic pulmonary edema,” Dr. Luks, Dr. Freer, and colleagues wrote in the commentary, explaining that all of these entities cause varying degrees of hypoxemia and diffuse bilateral opacities on chest imaging. “Importantly, in all of these cases, edema accumulates in the interstitial and alveolar spaces of the lung as a result of imbalance in Starling forces.”

A difference between these entities, however, is “the mechanism by which that imbalance develops,” they noted.

The excessive and uneven hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction that leads to a marked increase in pulmonary artery pressure, subsequent lung overperfusion, increased pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, and leakage of fluid from the vascular space into the alveolar space as seen in HAPE, is a “fundamentally different phenomenon than what is seen in COVID-19-related ARDS, which involves viral-mediated inflammatory responses as the primary pathophysiological mechanism,” they added.

The authors described several other differences between the conditions, ultimately noting that “understanding the distinction between the pathophysiological mechanisms of these entities is critical for patient management.”

In HAPE, supplemental oxygen alone may be sufficient; in COVID-19, it may improve hypoxemia but won’t resolve the underlying inflammation or injury, they explained, adding that “only good supportive care including mechanical ventilation, quite often for long periods of time, allows some patients to survive until their disease resolves.”

Further, HAPE can be prevented or treated with pulmonary vasodilators such a nifedipine or sildenafil, which decrease pulmonary artery pressure and, as a result lower pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, they said.

Use of such medications for COVID-19 might decrease pulmonary artery pressure and improve right ventricular function in COVID-19, but “by releasing hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and increasing perfusion to nonventilated regions of the lung, they could also worsen ventilation-perfusion mismatch” and thereby worsen hypoxemia, they explained, adding that the treatments can also cause or worsen hypotension.

Efforts to share observations and experience are important in medicine, but sometimes, as in this circumstance, “they get out there, spread around – like a brushfire almost – and get [unwarranted] face validity,” Dr. Luks said, noting that in response to information circulating about COVID-19 and HAPE, he has already heard medical professionals floating the idea of treating COVID-19 with treatments used for HAPE.

It’s true that some COVID-19 lung injury cases are behaving differently than typical ARDS, he said, adding that presentation can vary.

“But trying to equate HAPE and COVID-19 is just wrong,” he said. “HAPE and COVID-19 may share several features ...but those are features that are shared by a lot of different forms of respiratory failure.”

In a recent video interview, WebMD’s chief medical officer John Whyte, MD, spoke with a New York City physician trained in critical care and emergency medicine, Cameron Kyle-Sidell, MD, who raised the need to consider different respiratory protocols for COVID-19, noting that standard protocols were falling short in many cases.

“What we’re seeing ... is something unusual, it’s something that we are not used to,” Dr. Kyle-Sidell of Maimonides Medical Center said in that interview, stressing that the presentation differed from that seen in typical ARDS. “The patterns I was seeing did not make sense.”

Like others, he noted that COVID-19 patients were presenting with illness that clinically looked more like HAPE, but that the pathophysiology is not necessary similar to HAPE.

At around the same time, Luciano Gattinoni, MD, of the Medical University of Göttingen in Germany and colleagues, published a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine stressing that the ARDS presentation in COVID-19 patients is atypical and requires a patient physiology–driven treatment approach, rather than a standard protocol–driven approach. Dr. Gattinoni and colleagues suggested that instead of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), physicians should consider the lowest possible PEEP and gentle ventilation.

Dr. Luks agreed that “some patients with COVID-19 do not have the same physiologic derangements that we see in a lot of other people with ARDS.”

“[Dr. Gattinoni] is making the point that we need to treat these people differently ... and I think that’s a valid point, and honestly, that’s a point that applied even before COVID-19,” he said. “Most of the things that we see in clinical practice – there’s a lot of heterogeneity between patients, and you have to be prepared to tailor your therapy in light of the differences that you’re picking up from your observations at the bedside and other data that you’re getting on the patient.”

The main concern Dr. Luks and his coauthors wanted to convey, they said, is making sure that the anecdotal experiences and observations of clinicians struggling to find answers don’t spiral out of control without proper vetting, thereby leading to patient harm.

“In this challenging time, we must identify the best means to care for these critically ill patients. That approach should be grounded in sound pulmonary physiology, clinical experience and, when available, evidence from clinical studies,” they concluded.

Dr. Luks and Dr. Freer reported having no financial disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

For Luanne Freer, MD, an expert in high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and founder and director of Everest ER, a nonprofit seasonal clinic at the Mt. Everest base camp in Nepal (elevation, 17,600 ft), a sudden flurry of messages and questions she received about a possible COVID-19/HAPE link was startling.

Courtesy Rowie Ververis

“That’s why it kind of poked me in the eye,” she said, referencing her extensive experience treating HAPE, which she described as a pressure-related phenomenon. “My goodness, they are so completely different.”

Dr. Freer, an emergency physician, reached out to several pulmonary intensivists with experience treating both HAPE and COVID-19 to gauge their reactions, and within 36 hours, they had drafted their response. In the commentary, published in High Altitude Medicine & Biology, the clinicians note that the comparison between HAPE and COVID-19 is potentially risky.

“As a group of physicians who have in some cases cared for patients with COVID-19 and in all cases cared for patients with HAPE and studied its pathophysiology and management, we feel it important to correct this misconception, as continued amplification of this message could have adverse effects on management of these patients,” they wrote.

The suggestion that COVID-19 lung injury sometimes looks more like HAPE than like acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) appeared in a journal review article in late March and was put forth by medical professionals on social media where it gained traction in recent weeks and was amplified in multiple media outlets, including this one.

“With COVID, we don’t understand everything that’s going on, but we know for sure it’s an inflammatory process – not a pressure-related problem,” Dr. Freer said. “I thought ... this could be so dangerous to load the medicines that we use when we’re treating HAPE onto patients with COVID-19.”

The pathophysiological mechanisms in HAPE are different than those in other respiratory syndromes, including those associated with COVID-19, said Andrew M. Luks, MD, of the UW Medicine, Seattle, and the first author on the commentary.

“HAPE is a noncardiogenic form of pulmonary edema, as are ARDS due to bacteria or viral pneumonia, re-expansion pulmonary edema, immersion pulmonary edema, negative pressure pulmonary edema, and neurogenic pulmonary edema,” Dr. Luks, Dr. Freer, and colleagues wrote in the commentary, explaining that all of these entities cause varying degrees of hypoxemia and diffuse bilateral opacities on chest imaging. “Importantly, in all of these cases, edema accumulates in the interstitial and alveolar spaces of the lung as a result of imbalance in Starling forces.”

A difference between these entities, however, is “the mechanism by which that imbalance develops,” they noted.

The excessive and uneven hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction that leads to a marked increase in pulmonary artery pressure, subsequent lung overperfusion, increased pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, and leakage of fluid from the vascular space into the alveolar space as seen in HAPE, is a “fundamentally different phenomenon than what is seen in COVID-19-related ARDS, which involves viral-mediated inflammatory responses as the primary pathophysiological mechanism,” they added.

The authors described several other differences between the conditions, ultimately noting that “understanding the distinction between the pathophysiological mechanisms of these entities is critical for patient management.”

In HAPE, supplemental oxygen alone may be sufficient; in COVID-19, it may improve hypoxemia but won’t resolve the underlying inflammation or injury, they explained, adding that “only good supportive care including mechanical ventilation, quite often for long periods of time, allows some patients to survive until their disease resolves.”

Further, HAPE can be prevented or treated with pulmonary vasodilators such a nifedipine or sildenafil, which decrease pulmonary artery pressure and, as a result lower pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, they said.

Use of such medications for COVID-19 might decrease pulmonary artery pressure and improve right ventricular function in COVID-19, but “by releasing hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and increasing perfusion to nonventilated regions of the lung, they could also worsen ventilation-perfusion mismatch” and thereby worsen hypoxemia, they explained, adding that the treatments can also cause or worsen hypotension.

Efforts to share observations and experience are important in medicine, but sometimes, as in this circumstance, “they get out there, spread around – like a brushfire almost – and get [unwarranted] face validity,” Dr. Luks said, noting that in response to information circulating about COVID-19 and HAPE, he has already heard medical professionals floating the idea of treating COVID-19 with treatments used for HAPE.

It’s true that some COVID-19 lung injury cases are behaving differently than typical ARDS, he said, adding that presentation can vary.

“But trying to equate HAPE and COVID-19 is just wrong,” he said. “HAPE and COVID-19 may share several features ...but those are features that are shared by a lot of different forms of respiratory failure.”

In a recent video interview, WebMD’s chief medical officer John Whyte, MD, spoke with a New York City physician trained in critical care and emergency medicine, Cameron Kyle-Sidell, MD, who raised the need to consider different respiratory protocols for COVID-19, noting that standard protocols were falling short in many cases.

“What we’re seeing ... is something unusual, it’s something that we are not used to,” Dr. Kyle-Sidell of Maimonides Medical Center said in that interview, stressing that the presentation differed from that seen in typical ARDS. “The patterns I was seeing did not make sense.”

Like others, he noted that COVID-19 patients were presenting with illness that clinically looked more like HAPE, but that the pathophysiology is not necessary similar to HAPE.

At around the same time, Luciano Gattinoni, MD, of the Medical University of Göttingen in Germany and colleagues, published a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine stressing that the ARDS presentation in COVID-19 patients is atypical and requires a patient physiology–driven treatment approach, rather than a standard protocol–driven approach. Dr. Gattinoni and colleagues suggested that instead of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), physicians should consider the lowest possible PEEP and gentle ventilation.

Dr. Luks agreed that “some patients with COVID-19 do not have the same physiologic derangements that we see in a lot of other people with ARDS.”

“[Dr. Gattinoni] is making the point that we need to treat these people differently ... and I think that’s a valid point, and honestly, that’s a point that applied even before COVID-19,” he said. “Most of the things that we see in clinical practice – there’s a lot of heterogeneity between patients, and you have to be prepared to tailor your therapy in light of the differences that you’re picking up from your observations at the bedside and other data that you’re getting on the patient.”

The main concern Dr. Luks and his coauthors wanted to convey, they said, is making sure that the anecdotal experiences and observations of clinicians struggling to find answers don’t spiral out of control without proper vetting, thereby leading to patient harm.

“In this challenging time, we must identify the best means to care for these critically ill patients. That approach should be grounded in sound pulmonary physiology, clinical experience and, when available, evidence from clinical studies,” they concluded.

Dr. Luks and Dr. Freer reported having no financial disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) has issued a statement on protecting patients and echocardiography service providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Given the risk for cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19, echocardiographic services will likely be needed for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, meaning echo providers will be exposed to SARS-CoV-2, write the statement authors, led by James N. Kirkpatrick, MD, director of the echocardiography laboratory at University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle.

The statement was published online April 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors say the statement is intended to help guide the practice of echocardiography in this “challenging time.” It was developed with input from a variety of echocardiography providers and institutions who have experience with the COVID-19, or have been “actively and thoughtfully preparing for it.”

Who, When, Where, and How

The statement covers triaging and decision pathways for handling requests for echocardiography, as well as indications and recommended procedures, in cases of suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

Among the recommendations:

• Only perform transthoracic echocardiograms (TTE), stress echocardiograms, and transesophageal echocardiograms (TEE) if they are expected to provide clinical benefit. Appropriate-use criteria represent the first decision point as to whether an echocardiographic test should be performed.
• Determine which studies are “elective” and reschedule them, performing all others. Identify “nonelective” (urgent/emergent) indications and defer all others.
• Determine the clinical benefit of echocardiography for symptomatic patients whose SARS-CoV-2 status is unknown.
• Cautiously consider the benefit of a TEE examination weighed against the risk for exposure of healthcare personnel to aerosolization in a patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
• Postpone or cancel TEEs if an alternative imaging modality can provide the necessary information.
• Note that treadmill or bicycle stress echo tests in patients with COVID-19 may lead to exposure because of deep breathing and/or coughing during exercise. These tests should generally be deferred or converted to a pharmacologic stress echo.
   

   

The ASE statement also provides advice on safe imaging protocol and adequate personal protection measures.

“In addition to limiting the number of echocardiography practitioners involved in scanning, consideration should be given to limiting the exposure of staff who may be particularly susceptible to severe complications of COVID-19,” the ASE advises.

Staff who are older than 60 years, who have chronic conditions, are immunocompromised or are pregnant may wish to avoid contact with patients suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19.

It’s also important to realize the risk for transmission in reading rooms. “Keyboards, monitors, mice, chairs, phones, desktops, and door knobs should be frequently cleaned, and ventilation provided wherever possible,” the ASE advises. When the echo lab reading room is located in a high-traffic area, remote review of images or via webinar might be advisable, they suggest.

Summing up, Kirkland and colleagues say providing echocardiographic service “remains crucial in this difficult time of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Working together, we can continue to provide high-quality care while minimizing risk to ourselves, our patients, and the public at large. Carefully considering ‘Whom to Image’, ‘Where to Image’ and ‘How to Image’ has the potential to reduce the risks of transmission.”

The authors note that the statements and recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion rather than on scientifically verified data and are subject to change as the COVID-19 outbreak continues to evolve and new data emerges.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) has issued a statement on protecting patients and echocardiography service providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Given the risk for cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19, echocardiographic services will likely be needed for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, meaning echo providers will be exposed to SARS-CoV-2, write the statement authors, led by James N. Kirkpatrick, MD, director of the echocardiography laboratory at University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle.

The statement was published online April 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors say the statement is intended to help guide the practice of echocardiography in this “challenging time.” It was developed with input from a variety of echocardiography providers and institutions who have experience with the COVID-19, or have been “actively and thoughtfully preparing for it.”

Who, When, Where, and How

The statement covers triaging and decision pathways for handling requests for echocardiography, as well as indications and recommended procedures, in cases of suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

Among the recommendations:

• Only perform transthoracic echocardiograms (TTE), stress echocardiograms, and transesophageal echocardiograms (TEE) if they are expected to provide clinical benefit. Appropriate-use criteria represent the first decision point as to whether an echocardiographic test should be performed.
• Determine which studies are “elective” and reschedule them, performing all others. Identify “nonelective” (urgent/emergent) indications and defer all others.
• Determine the clinical benefit of echocardiography for symptomatic patients whose SARS-CoV-2 status is unknown.
• Cautiously consider the benefit of a TEE examination weighed against the risk for exposure of healthcare personnel to aerosolization in a patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
• Postpone or cancel TEEs if an alternative imaging modality can provide the necessary information.
• Note that treadmill or bicycle stress echo tests in patients with COVID-19 may lead to exposure because of deep breathing and/or coughing during exercise. These tests should generally be deferred or converted to a pharmacologic stress echo.
   

   

The ASE statement also provides advice on safe imaging protocol and adequate personal protection measures.

“In addition to limiting the number of echocardiography practitioners involved in scanning, consideration should be given to limiting the exposure of staff who may be particularly susceptible to severe complications of COVID-19,” the ASE advises.

Staff who are older than 60 years, who have chronic conditions, are immunocompromised or are pregnant may wish to avoid contact with patients suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19.

It’s also important to realize the risk for transmission in reading rooms. “Keyboards, monitors, mice, chairs, phones, desktops, and door knobs should be frequently cleaned, and ventilation provided wherever possible,” the ASE advises. When the echo lab reading room is located in a high-traffic area, remote review of images or via webinar might be advisable, they suggest.

Summing up, Kirkland and colleagues say providing echocardiographic service “remains crucial in this difficult time of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Working together, we can continue to provide high-quality care while minimizing risk to ourselves, our patients, and the public at large. Carefully considering ‘Whom to Image’, ‘Where to Image’ and ‘How to Image’ has the potential to reduce the risks of transmission.”

The authors note that the statements and recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion rather than on scientifically verified data and are subject to change as the COVID-19 outbreak continues to evolve and new data emerges.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) has issued a statement on protecting patients and echocardiography service providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Given the risk for cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19, echocardiographic services will likely be needed for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, meaning echo providers will be exposed to SARS-CoV-2, write the statement authors, led by James N. Kirkpatrick, MD, director of the echocardiography laboratory at University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle.

The statement was published online April 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors say the statement is intended to help guide the practice of echocardiography in this “challenging time.” It was developed with input from a variety of echocardiography providers and institutions who have experience with the COVID-19, or have been “actively and thoughtfully preparing for it.”

Who, When, Where, and How

The statement covers triaging and decision pathways for handling requests for echocardiography, as well as indications and recommended procedures, in cases of suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

Among the recommendations:

• Only perform transthoracic echocardiograms (TTE), stress echocardiograms, and transesophageal echocardiograms (TEE) if they are expected to provide clinical benefit. Appropriate-use criteria represent the first decision point as to whether an echocardiographic test should be performed.
• Determine which studies are “elective” and reschedule them, performing all others. Identify “nonelective” (urgent/emergent) indications and defer all others.
• Determine the clinical benefit of echocardiography for symptomatic patients whose SARS-CoV-2 status is unknown.
• Cautiously consider the benefit of a TEE examination weighed against the risk for exposure of healthcare personnel to aerosolization in a patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
• Postpone or cancel TEEs if an alternative imaging modality can provide the necessary information.
• Note that treadmill or bicycle stress echo tests in patients with COVID-19 may lead to exposure because of deep breathing and/or coughing during exercise. These tests should generally be deferred or converted to a pharmacologic stress echo.
   

   

The ASE statement also provides advice on safe imaging protocol and adequate personal protection measures.

“In addition to limiting the number of echocardiography practitioners involved in scanning, consideration should be given to limiting the exposure of staff who may be particularly susceptible to severe complications of COVID-19,” the ASE advises.

Staff who are older than 60 years, who have chronic conditions, are immunocompromised or are pregnant may wish to avoid contact with patients suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19.

It’s also important to realize the risk for transmission in reading rooms. “Keyboards, monitors, mice, chairs, phones, desktops, and door knobs should be frequently cleaned, and ventilation provided wherever possible,” the ASE advises. When the echo lab reading room is located in a high-traffic area, remote review of images or via webinar might be advisable, they suggest.

Summing up, Kirkland and colleagues say providing echocardiographic service “remains crucial in this difficult time of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Working together, we can continue to provide high-quality care while minimizing risk to ourselves, our patients, and the public at large. Carefully considering ‘Whom to Image’, ‘Where to Image’ and ‘How to Image’ has the potential to reduce the risks of transmission.”

The authors note that the statements and recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion rather than on scientifically verified data and are subject to change as the COVID-19 outbreak continues to evolve and new data emerges.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Family physician Frank Maselli, MD, saw approximately 30 patients a day in his office in the Bronx before COVID-19. But New York City has become a hot spot for the virus that has claimed the lives of the lives of more than 40,000 people nationwide.

Now Maselli and the other 10 physicians in the practice each treat only eight or nine patients a day via telemedicine. He spends most of his time on the phone answering patients’ questions about COVID-19 symptoms and potential exposure. Although he tries to bill for telemedicine and phone calls, he says many commercial payers reject the claims because their processing systems aren’t updated to reflect new coverage policies. He has enough cash in reserve to cover two payrolls, but he knows he needs a backup plan if patient volumes continue to decrease indefinitely.

“Our doctors will take a pay cut before we let people go,” says Maselli. “So far we’re OK because we’re getting paid for things we did two months ago before all of this happened.”

Ninety-seven percent of medical practices have experienced a negative financial impact directly or indirectly related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to new data from the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA). On average, practices report a 60% decrease in patient volume and a 55% decrease in revenue since the beginning of the public health emergency.
 

Four options for financial assistance

However, there are ways to offset revenue loss and remain financially viable during the economic uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic. Options include the US Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program; the SBA’s Emergency Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL); Medicare’s advanced payment program; and an SBA Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act (CESA) loan. These are in addition to several other strategies aimed at reducing costs and improving revenue.

1. Maselli, for example, applied for the Paycheck Protection Program, a short-term loan that helps small businesses (i.e., for physician offices, those with an annual revenue of under $12 million) keep staff employed during the COVID-19 crisis. The loan covers a variety of costs, including payroll, rent, utilities, mortgage interest, and interest on any other debt obligations incurred before February 15 of this year.

“We have no idea if this is coming and when, but it would be a big help,” he adds.

(As of press time, the Paycheck Protection Program had stopped accepting applications, having reached the limit of its $349 billion budget. Congress must now agree on legislation to add additional funding to assist small businesses.)

Practices can take out a loan of up to 2.5 times the average monthly payroll (excluding payroll for those making more than $100,000 annually) with a cap of $10 million. For example, if the average monthly payroll is $10,000 – and no employees earn more than $100,000 annually – the maximum loan amount is $25,000.

Practices approved for this loan can expect to receive the funds from their SBA-approved lender within 10 calendar days of the date of loan approval. Although it’s technically a loan, the good news is that it doesn’t need to be repaid if the practice complies with all of the loan requirements – particularly these two: The practice uses at least 75% of the loan specifically for payroll, and the practice keeps employees on the payroll (or rehire, when necessary) for 8 weeks after the loan origination date.

Forgiveness is reduced if full-time headcount declines, or if salaries and wages decrease. If a practice does need to repay all or a portion of the loan, it must do so within 2 years at an interest rate of 1%, and payments are deferred for 6 months.

Andrew D. McDonald, FACHE, practice leader of health care consulting at LBMC Healthcare, says it behooves practices to apply for this loan because it’s essentially free money during a time when revenue may be at an all-time low. “While the devil is in the details, on the surface, the paycheck protection funds appear to be a no-brainer. However, each practice will need to confirm with their lender that it’s a solid decision.”

One challenge with this loan is that some banks weren’t necessarily ready to accept applications on April 3, and many continue to lag behind in processing these applications.

2. A second option is the SBA’s EIDL, a low-interest, long-term loan (capped at 3.75% for small businesses) that practices with 500 or fewer employees can use to pay fixed debts, payrolls, accounts payable, and other bills that could have been paid had the disaster not occurred. Borrowers can ask for up to $2 million, and the maximum term of this loan is 30 years, though the overall process for obtaining these loans will depend on the lender.

Practices have until December 16 to apply for this loan. They can also apply for an expedited disbursement (i.e., an Economic Injury Disaster Advance) of up to $10,000 that’s paid within 3 days of the request.

3. A third option is Medicare’s COVID-19 advanced payment program. Under this program, eligible physicians are those who:

• Billed Medicare for claims within 180 days prior to the date of the request
• Are financially solvent (i.e., aren’t in bankruptcy)
• Are free from any active medical review or program integrity investigations
• Are in good standing with Medicare (i.e., don’t have an outstanding delinquent Medicare overpayment)

If physicians meet this criteria, they can ask their Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) to provide an advanced payment of up to 100% of the Medicare payment amount based on a 3-month lookback period.

Once requested, MACs will issue payment within 7 calendar days from the date of the request. Repayment will occur in the form of automatic recoupments beginning 120 days after the advanced payment is received. Medicare has already approved more than 21,000 requests totaling more than $51 billion. CMS has provided a fact sheet to learn more about how to request an accelerated payment.

“The key is that you need to repay this, so you want to set a reasonable goal,” says Sarah Hostetter, senior consultant at Advisory Board, a health care research & data consulting firm. She says practices should consider what they’ll realistically be able to repay within 120 days.

4. A fourth option – specifically for mid-size practices – is a CESA loan, the details of which have yet to be announced, that will enable practices to access funds with an annualized rate no greater than 2% and with no principal or interest due for at least 6 months. The CARES Act, signed into law 3 weeks ago, provides $454 billion for this program.
 

Selecting the right option for your practice

Which singular option – or combination of options – is best for your practice? McDonald says to ask these questions:

• How well are patient volumes holding up?
• How well are physicians pivoting to telehealth?
• What is the overall economic loss?
• What are the available liquid assets, and how long can the practice maintain its financial viability over the next couple of months and beyond?

Cheryl Mongillo, MBA, administrative director of two independent family practices in Delaware, applied for both the Paycheck Protection Program and Medicare advanced payments because she’s worried about being able to pay staff while also covering costs related to personal protective equipment, medical waste, and cleaning, all of which have tripled since the pandemic began. One of the practices includes one physician and four nurse practitioners. The other includes five physicians and three nurse practitioners. In total, both practices employ 35 additional staff.

“I want our staff to know how much we care about them. My hope is that after this is over, our business will pick back up pretty quickly,” she adds. “However, until I can get the business back, I needed something to keep us afloat.”

Others are being more cautious. Crystal Bruning, practice manager at an Ob/Gyn clinic in Orlando, Florida, says her practice applied for the Paycheck Protection Program but is waiting another month or so before deciding whether it will also take advantage of Medicare advanced payments.

The practice is still trying to assess the true financial impact of its 30% reduction in patient volume. Bruning says the advanced payments wouldn’t amount to much anyway because only 10% of the practice’s patients have Medicare.
 

Making tough financial decisions while awaiting assistance

Kansas-based family physician Jennifer Bacani McKenney, MD, says she hasn’t paid herself a salary in weeks because of the revenue loss her practice has incurred.

“I want to make sure we can pay [all 12] employees,” she says. “In my family, we have two incomes, and we’re pretty good at saving money. However, I know not every physician can afford to do this.”

Although McKenney’s practice has seen a 75% reduction in patient volume, staff continue to provide virtual visits – including Zoom-based nursing home visits – phone visits, and in-person visits for acute illnesses. They also provide curbside immunizations. Still, long-term revenue loss is a concern. “I have a threshold in mind based on what we have in reserves,” she says. “If we hit that point, we would need to talk about a loan or Medicare advanced payments.”

Arkansas-based family physician Lonnie S. Robinson, MD, says he immediately applied for the Paycheck Protection Program after it was announced. “We also made sure we had a line of credit with our local bank during the very first discussions about what the pandemic would mean for our revenue streams,” he says.

However, because he’s in a rural area of the state, he continues to struggle with telemedicine due to broadband and connectivity challenges. Cash flow is another challenge because a lot of insurance companies are waiving copayments.

“I didn’t realize the amount of money we collect immediately from the patient,” he says. “This was a substantial revenue stream, and it was immediate revenue – not revenue waiting on a claim to be paid.”

Illinois-based family physician Deborah L. Winiger, MD, says she also applied for the Paycheck Protection Program but in the meantime had to reduce staff hours by a third because her patient volume dropped by more than half. She will also encourage staff to pursue temporary positions at a local hospital if the federal funds don’t materialize.

Kelly Shackleton, practice manager at a New York-based internal medicine practice, says she laid off 7 of her 16 staff members (including lab technicians, licensed practical nurses, billers, a referral specialist, and a file clerk) due to a 70% decrease in patient volume.

“I didn’t lay them all off at once,” she says. “I kept them until things were all caught up in each department. I plan to get them all back when the time is right, but I want to be sure to keep the practice afloat so they have a place to return to.” If the Paycheck Protection Program for which she applied comes through, then she will rehire them. She also applied for Medicare advanced payments and increased the practice’s line of credit.
 

Bill properly – and for everything you are still doing

Accurate and complete coding is critical during this time of financial instability, says Maselli. “I keep telling doctors to bill for everything they do,” he says. This includes phone calls between patients and physicians or other qualified healthcare providers (CPT codes 99441-99443). Note that these are time-based codes, requiring a minimum of five minutes of medical discussion.

Remote physiologic monitoring (including monitoring a patient’s oxygen saturation levels using pulse oximetry), virtual check-ins, and online digital evaluation and management services are also covered by Medicare and some commercial payers.

Other good news is that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services added more than 80 additional services that providers can furnish using telehealth, including new patient office visits, home visits, prolonged office visits, smoking and tobacco cessation counseling, annual depression and alcohol screenings, advanced care planning, and much more.

Mongillo, the family practice administrator in Delaware, agrees that physicians need to bill for as many services as possible. At one of the family medicine practices she manages, physicians perform wellness visits, when appropriate, if patients are already coming into the office for another ailment.

Also look for ways to cut costs. For example, Mongillo was able to renegotiate the practice’s telemedicine contract after she received several proposals from other vendors offering three months of complimentary service. Shackleton discontinued provider dictation services to save money.

Physicians need to take a hard look at what’s going on to help them sustain their business through times of uncertainty, says Advisory Board’s Hostetter. “Now is the time to evaluate options and figure out what’s right for your practice,” she adds.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Family physician Frank Maselli, MD, saw approximately 30 patients a day in his office in the Bronx before COVID-19. But New York City has become a hot spot for the virus that has claimed the lives of the lives of more than 40,000 people nationwide.

Now Maselli and the other 10 physicians in the practice each treat only eight or nine patients a day via telemedicine. He spends most of his time on the phone answering patients’ questions about COVID-19 symptoms and potential exposure. Although he tries to bill for telemedicine and phone calls, he says many commercial payers reject the claims because their processing systems aren’t updated to reflect new coverage policies. He has enough cash in reserve to cover two payrolls, but he knows he needs a backup plan if patient volumes continue to decrease indefinitely.

“Our doctors will take a pay cut before we let people go,” says Maselli. “So far we’re OK because we’re getting paid for things we did two months ago before all of this happened.”

Ninety-seven percent of medical practices have experienced a negative financial impact directly or indirectly related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to new data from the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA). On average, practices report a 60% decrease in patient volume and a 55% decrease in revenue since the beginning of the public health emergency.
 

Four options for financial assistance

However, there are ways to offset revenue loss and remain financially viable during the economic uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic. Options include the US Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program; the SBA’s Emergency Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL); Medicare’s advanced payment program; and an SBA Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act (CESA) loan. These are in addition to several other strategies aimed at reducing costs and improving revenue.

1. Maselli, for example, applied for the Paycheck Protection Program, a short-term loan that helps small businesses (i.e., for physician offices, those with an annual revenue of under $12 million) keep staff employed during the COVID-19 crisis. The loan covers a variety of costs, including payroll, rent, utilities, mortgage interest, and interest on any other debt obligations incurred before February 15 of this year.

“We have no idea if this is coming and when, but it would be a big help,” he adds.

(As of press time, the Paycheck Protection Program had stopped accepting applications, having reached the limit of its $349 billion budget. Congress must now agree on legislation to add additional funding to assist small businesses.)

Practices can take out a loan of up to 2.5 times the average monthly payroll (excluding payroll for those making more than $100,000 annually) with a cap of $10 million. For example, if the average monthly payroll is $10,000 – and no employees earn more than $100,000 annually – the maximum loan amount is $25,000.

Practices approved for this loan can expect to receive the funds from their SBA-approved lender within 10 calendar days of the date of loan approval. Although it’s technically a loan, the good news is that it doesn’t need to be repaid if the practice complies with all of the loan requirements – particularly these two: The practice uses at least 75% of the loan specifically for payroll, and the practice keeps employees on the payroll (or rehire, when necessary) for 8 weeks after the loan origination date.

Forgiveness is reduced if full-time headcount declines, or if salaries and wages decrease. If a practice does need to repay all or a portion of the loan, it must do so within 2 years at an interest rate of 1%, and payments are deferred for 6 months.

Andrew D. McDonald, FACHE, practice leader of health care consulting at LBMC Healthcare, says it behooves practices to apply for this loan because it’s essentially free money during a time when revenue may be at an all-time low. “While the devil is in the details, on the surface, the paycheck protection funds appear to be a no-brainer. However, each practice will need to confirm with their lender that it’s a solid decision.”

One challenge with this loan is that some banks weren’t necessarily ready to accept applications on April 3, and many continue to lag behind in processing these applications.

2. A second option is the SBA’s EIDL, a low-interest, long-term loan (capped at 3.75% for small businesses) that practices with 500 or fewer employees can use to pay fixed debts, payrolls, accounts payable, and other bills that could have been paid had the disaster not occurred. Borrowers can ask for up to $2 million, and the maximum term of this loan is 30 years, though the overall process for obtaining these loans will depend on the lender.

Practices have until December 16 to apply for this loan. They can also apply for an expedited disbursement (i.e., an Economic Injury Disaster Advance) of up to $10,000 that’s paid within 3 days of the request.

3. A third option is Medicare’s COVID-19 advanced payment program. Under this program, eligible physicians are those who:

• Billed Medicare for claims within 180 days prior to the date of the request
• Are financially solvent (i.e., aren’t in bankruptcy)
• Are free from any active medical review or program integrity investigations
• Are in good standing with Medicare (i.e., don’t have an outstanding delinquent Medicare overpayment)

If physicians meet this criteria, they can ask their Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) to provide an advanced payment of up to 100% of the Medicare payment amount based on a 3-month lookback period.

Once requested, MACs will issue payment within 7 calendar days from the date of the request. Repayment will occur in the form of automatic recoupments beginning 120 days after the advanced payment is received. Medicare has already approved more than 21,000 requests totaling more than $51 billion. CMS has provided a fact sheet to learn more about how to request an accelerated payment.

“The key is that you need to repay this, so you want to set a reasonable goal,” says Sarah Hostetter, senior consultant at Advisory Board, a health care research & data consulting firm. She says practices should consider what they’ll realistically be able to repay within 120 days.

4. A fourth option – specifically for mid-size practices – is a CESA loan, the details of which have yet to be announced, that will enable practices to access funds with an annualized rate no greater than 2% and with no principal or interest due for at least 6 months. The CARES Act, signed into law 3 weeks ago, provides $454 billion for this program.
 

Selecting the right option for your practice

Which singular option – or combination of options – is best for your practice? McDonald says to ask these questions:

• How well are patient volumes holding up?
• How well are physicians pivoting to telehealth?
• What is the overall economic loss?
• What are the available liquid assets, and how long can the practice maintain its financial viability over the next couple of months and beyond?

Cheryl Mongillo, MBA, administrative director of two independent family practices in Delaware, applied for both the Paycheck Protection Program and Medicare advanced payments because she’s worried about being able to pay staff while also covering costs related to personal protective equipment, medical waste, and cleaning, all of which have tripled since the pandemic began. One of the practices includes one physician and four nurse practitioners. The other includes five physicians and three nurse practitioners. In total, both practices employ 35 additional staff.

“I want our staff to know how much we care about them. My hope is that after this is over, our business will pick back up pretty quickly,” she adds. “However, until I can get the business back, I needed something to keep us afloat.”

Others are being more cautious. Crystal Bruning, practice manager at an Ob/Gyn clinic in Orlando, Florida, says her practice applied for the Paycheck Protection Program but is waiting another month or so before deciding whether it will also take advantage of Medicare advanced payments.

The practice is still trying to assess the true financial impact of its 30% reduction in patient volume. Bruning says the advanced payments wouldn’t amount to much anyway because only 10% of the practice’s patients have Medicare.
 

Making tough financial decisions while awaiting assistance

Kansas-based family physician Jennifer Bacani McKenney, MD, says she hasn’t paid herself a salary in weeks because of the revenue loss her practice has incurred.

“I want to make sure we can pay [all 12] employees,” she says. “In my family, we have two incomes, and we’re pretty good at saving money. However, I know not every physician can afford to do this.”

Although McKenney’s practice has seen a 75% reduction in patient volume, staff continue to provide virtual visits – including Zoom-based nursing home visits – phone visits, and in-person visits for acute illnesses. They also provide curbside immunizations. Still, long-term revenue loss is a concern. “I have a threshold in mind based on what we have in reserves,” she says. “If we hit that point, we would need to talk about a loan or Medicare advanced payments.”

Arkansas-based family physician Lonnie S. Robinson, MD, says he immediately applied for the Paycheck Protection Program after it was announced. “We also made sure we had a line of credit with our local bank during the very first discussions about what the pandemic would mean for our revenue streams,” he says.

However, because he’s in a rural area of the state, he continues to struggle with telemedicine due to broadband and connectivity challenges. Cash flow is another challenge because a lot of insurance companies are waiving copayments.

“I didn’t realize the amount of money we collect immediately from the patient,” he says. “This was a substantial revenue stream, and it was immediate revenue – not revenue waiting on a claim to be paid.”

Illinois-based family physician Deborah L. Winiger, MD, says she also applied for the Paycheck Protection Program but in the meantime had to reduce staff hours by a third because her patient volume dropped by more than half. She will also encourage staff to pursue temporary positions at a local hospital if the federal funds don’t materialize.

Kelly Shackleton, practice manager at a New York-based internal medicine practice, says she laid off 7 of her 16 staff members (including lab technicians, licensed practical nurses, billers, a referral specialist, and a file clerk) due to a 70% decrease in patient volume.

“I didn’t lay them all off at once,” she says. “I kept them until things were all caught up in each department. I plan to get them all back when the time is right, but I want to be sure to keep the practice afloat so they have a place to return to.” If the Paycheck Protection Program for which she applied comes through, then she will rehire them. She also applied for Medicare advanced payments and increased the practice’s line of credit.
 

Bill properly – and for everything you are still doing

Accurate and complete coding is critical during this time of financial instability, says Maselli. “I keep telling doctors to bill for everything they do,” he says. This includes phone calls between patients and physicians or other qualified healthcare providers (CPT codes 99441-99443). Note that these are time-based codes, requiring a minimum of five minutes of medical discussion.

Remote physiologic monitoring (including monitoring a patient’s oxygen saturation levels using pulse oximetry), virtual check-ins, and online digital evaluation and management services are also covered by Medicare and some commercial payers.

Other good news is that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services added more than 80 additional services that providers can furnish using telehealth, including new patient office visits, home visits, prolonged office visits, smoking and tobacco cessation counseling, annual depression and alcohol screenings, advanced care planning, and much more.

Mongillo, the family practice administrator in Delaware, agrees that physicians need to bill for as many services as possible. At one of the family medicine practices she manages, physicians perform wellness visits, when appropriate, if patients are already coming into the office for another ailment.

Also look for ways to cut costs. For example, Mongillo was able to renegotiate the practice’s telemedicine contract after she received several proposals from other vendors offering three months of complimentary service. Shackleton discontinued provider dictation services to save money.

Physicians need to take a hard look at what’s going on to help them sustain their business through times of uncertainty, says Advisory Board’s Hostetter. “Now is the time to evaluate options and figure out what’s right for your practice,” she adds.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Family physician Frank Maselli, MD, saw approximately 30 patients a day in his office in the Bronx before COVID-19. But New York City has become a hot spot for the virus that has claimed the lives of the lives of more than 40,000 people nationwide.

Now Maselli and the other 10 physicians in the practice each treat only eight or nine patients a day via telemedicine. He spends most of his time on the phone answering patients’ questions about COVID-19 symptoms and potential exposure. Although he tries to bill for telemedicine and phone calls, he says many commercial payers reject the claims because their processing systems aren’t updated to reflect new coverage policies. He has enough cash in reserve to cover two payrolls, but he knows he needs a backup plan if patient volumes continue to decrease indefinitely.

“Our doctors will take a pay cut before we let people go,” says Maselli. “So far we’re OK because we’re getting paid for things we did two months ago before all of this happened.”

Ninety-seven percent of medical practices have experienced a negative financial impact directly or indirectly related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to new data from the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA). On average, practices report a 60% decrease in patient volume and a 55% decrease in revenue since the beginning of the public health emergency.
 

Four options for financial assistance

However, there are ways to offset revenue loss and remain financially viable during the economic uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic. Options include the US Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program; the SBA’s Emergency Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL); Medicare’s advanced payment program; and an SBA Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act (CESA) loan. These are in addition to several other strategies aimed at reducing costs and improving revenue.

1. Maselli, for example, applied for the Paycheck Protection Program, a short-term loan that helps small businesses (i.e., for physician offices, those with an annual revenue of under $12 million) keep staff employed during the COVID-19 crisis. The loan covers a variety of costs, including payroll, rent, utilities, mortgage interest, and interest on any other debt obligations incurred before February 15 of this year.

“We have no idea if this is coming and when, but it would be a big help,” he adds.

(As of press time, the Paycheck Protection Program had stopped accepting applications, having reached the limit of its $349 billion budget. Congress must now agree on legislation to add additional funding to assist small businesses.)

Practices can take out a loan of up to 2.5 times the average monthly payroll (excluding payroll for those making more than $100,000 annually) with a cap of $10 million. For example, if the average monthly payroll is $10,000 – and no employees earn more than $100,000 annually – the maximum loan amount is $25,000.

Practices approved for this loan can expect to receive the funds from their SBA-approved lender within 10 calendar days of the date of loan approval. Although it’s technically a loan, the good news is that it doesn’t need to be repaid if the practice complies with all of the loan requirements – particularly these two: The practice uses at least 75% of the loan specifically for payroll, and the practice keeps employees on the payroll (or rehire, when necessary) for 8 weeks after the loan origination date.

Forgiveness is reduced if full-time headcount declines, or if salaries and wages decrease. If a practice does need to repay all or a portion of the loan, it must do so within 2 years at an interest rate of 1%, and payments are deferred for 6 months.

Andrew D. McDonald, FACHE, practice leader of health care consulting at LBMC Healthcare, says it behooves practices to apply for this loan because it’s essentially free money during a time when revenue may be at an all-time low. “While the devil is in the details, on the surface, the paycheck protection funds appear to be a no-brainer. However, each practice will need to confirm with their lender that it’s a solid decision.”

One challenge with this loan is that some banks weren’t necessarily ready to accept applications on April 3, and many continue to lag behind in processing these applications.

2. A second option is the SBA’s EIDL, a low-interest, long-term loan (capped at 3.75% for small businesses) that practices with 500 or fewer employees can use to pay fixed debts, payrolls, accounts payable, and other bills that could have been paid had the disaster not occurred. Borrowers can ask for up to $2 million, and the maximum term of this loan is 30 years, though the overall process for obtaining these loans will depend on the lender.

Practices have until December 16 to apply for this loan. They can also apply for an expedited disbursement (i.e., an Economic Injury Disaster Advance) of up to $10,000 that’s paid within 3 days of the request.

3. A third option is Medicare’s COVID-19 advanced payment program. Under this program, eligible physicians are those who:

• Billed Medicare for claims within 180 days prior to the date of the request
• Are financially solvent (i.e., aren’t in bankruptcy)
• Are free from any active medical review or program integrity investigations
• Are in good standing with Medicare (i.e., don’t have an outstanding delinquent Medicare overpayment)

If physicians meet this criteria, they can ask their Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) to provide an advanced payment of up to 100% of the Medicare payment amount based on a 3-month lookback period.

Once requested, MACs will issue payment within 7 calendar days from the date of the request. Repayment will occur in the form of automatic recoupments beginning 120 days after the advanced payment is received. Medicare has already approved more than 21,000 requests totaling more than $51 billion. CMS has provided a fact sheet to learn more about how to request an accelerated payment.

“The key is that you need to repay this, so you want to set a reasonable goal,” says Sarah Hostetter, senior consultant at Advisory Board, a health care research & data consulting firm. She says practices should consider what they’ll realistically be able to repay within 120 days.

4. A fourth option – specifically for mid-size practices – is a CESA loan, the details of which have yet to be announced, that will enable practices to access funds with an annualized rate no greater than 2% and with no principal or interest due for at least 6 months. The CARES Act, signed into law 3 weeks ago, provides $454 billion for this program.
 

Selecting the right option for your practice

Which singular option – or combination of options – is best for your practice? McDonald says to ask these questions:

• How well are patient volumes holding up?
• How well are physicians pivoting to telehealth?
• What is the overall economic loss?
• What are the available liquid assets, and how long can the practice maintain its financial viability over the next couple of months and beyond?

Cheryl Mongillo, MBA, administrative director of two independent family practices in Delaware, applied for both the Paycheck Protection Program and Medicare advanced payments because she’s worried about being able to pay staff while also covering costs related to personal protective equipment, medical waste, and cleaning, all of which have tripled since the pandemic began. One of the practices includes one physician and four nurse practitioners. The other includes five physicians and three nurse practitioners. In total, both practices employ 35 additional staff.

“I want our staff to know how much we care about them. My hope is that after this is over, our business will pick back up pretty quickly,” she adds. “However, until I can get the business back, I needed something to keep us afloat.”

Others are being more cautious. Crystal Bruning, practice manager at an Ob/Gyn clinic in Orlando, Florida, says her practice applied for the Paycheck Protection Program but is waiting another month or so before deciding whether it will also take advantage of Medicare advanced payments.

The practice is still trying to assess the true financial impact of its 30% reduction in patient volume. Bruning says the advanced payments wouldn’t amount to much anyway because only 10% of the practice’s patients have Medicare.
 

Making tough financial decisions while awaiting assistance

Kansas-based family physician Jennifer Bacani McKenney, MD, says she hasn’t paid herself a salary in weeks because of the revenue loss her practice has incurred.

“I want to make sure we can pay [all 12] employees,” she says. “In my family, we have two incomes, and we’re pretty good at saving money. However, I know not every physician can afford to do this.”

Although McKenney’s practice has seen a 75% reduction in patient volume, staff continue to provide virtual visits – including Zoom-based nursing home visits – phone visits, and in-person visits for acute illnesses. They also provide curbside immunizations. Still, long-term revenue loss is a concern. “I have a threshold in mind based on what we have in reserves,” she says. “If we hit that point, we would need to talk about a loan or Medicare advanced payments.”

Arkansas-based family physician Lonnie S. Robinson, MD, says he immediately applied for the Paycheck Protection Program after it was announced. “We also made sure we had a line of credit with our local bank during the very first discussions about what the pandemic would mean for our revenue streams,” he says.

However, because he’s in a rural area of the state, he continues to struggle with telemedicine due to broadband and connectivity challenges. Cash flow is another challenge because a lot of insurance companies are waiving copayments.

“I didn’t realize the amount of money we collect immediately from the patient,” he says. “This was a substantial revenue stream, and it was immediate revenue – not revenue waiting on a claim to be paid.”

Illinois-based family physician Deborah L. Winiger, MD, says she also applied for the Paycheck Protection Program but in the meantime had to reduce staff hours by a third because her patient volume dropped by more than half. She will also encourage staff to pursue temporary positions at a local hospital if the federal funds don’t materialize.

Kelly Shackleton, practice manager at a New York-based internal medicine practice, says she laid off 7 of her 16 staff members (including lab technicians, licensed practical nurses, billers, a referral specialist, and a file clerk) due to a 70% decrease in patient volume.

“I didn’t lay them all off at once,” she says. “I kept them until things were all caught up in each department. I plan to get them all back when the time is right, but I want to be sure to keep the practice afloat so they have a place to return to.” If the Paycheck Protection Program for which she applied comes through, then she will rehire them. She also applied for Medicare advanced payments and increased the practice’s line of credit.
 

Bill properly – and for everything you are still doing

Accurate and complete coding is critical during this time of financial instability, says Maselli. “I keep telling doctors to bill for everything they do,” he says. This includes phone calls between patients and physicians or other qualified healthcare providers (CPT codes 99441-99443). Note that these are time-based codes, requiring a minimum of five minutes of medical discussion.

Remote physiologic monitoring (including monitoring a patient’s oxygen saturation levels using pulse oximetry), virtual check-ins, and online digital evaluation and management services are also covered by Medicare and some commercial payers.

Other good news is that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services added more than 80 additional services that providers can furnish using telehealth, including new patient office visits, home visits, prolonged office visits, smoking and tobacco cessation counseling, annual depression and alcohol screenings, advanced care planning, and much more.

Mongillo, the family practice administrator in Delaware, agrees that physicians need to bill for as many services as possible. At one of the family medicine practices she manages, physicians perform wellness visits, when appropriate, if patients are already coming into the office for another ailment.

Also look for ways to cut costs. For example, Mongillo was able to renegotiate the practice’s telemedicine contract after she received several proposals from other vendors offering three months of complimentary service. Shackleton discontinued provider dictation services to save money.

Physicians need to take a hard look at what’s going on to help them sustain their business through times of uncertainty, says Advisory Board’s Hostetter. “Now is the time to evaluate options and figure out what’s right for your practice,” she adds.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The monoclonal antibody omalizumab, already approved to treat allergic asthma and urticaria, has been shown to improve symptoms of patients who have chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps (CRSwNP), according to recent research released as an abstract from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology annual meeting. The AAAAI canceled the meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

“When you give this drug to patients who have nasal polyposis and concomitant asthma, you are effectively treating both the upper and lower airway disease components,” Jonathan Corren, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “Typically, people with nasal polyp disease have worse nasal disease than people without asthma. In addition, asthma is also generally worse in patients with nasal polyposis,” he added.

Dr. Corren reported results of a subset of patients with corticosteroid-refractory CRSwNP and comorbid asthma enrolled in phase III, placebo-controlled, 24-week, trials of omalizumab, POLYP1 (n = 74) and POLYP2 (n = 77). The analysis excluded patients who were on oral steroids or high-dose steroid inhaler therapy so the effectiveness of omalizumab could be evaluated without interfering factors, Dr. Corren explained. As a result, the study population consisted of patients with mild to moderate asthma. Dr. Corren is also principal investigator of the POLYP1 trial.

The analysis compared changes in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT-22) measures after 24 weeks of treatment with those seen with placebo.

“With regard to asthma outcomes, we found there was a significant increase in the odds ratio that patients who received omalizumab would achieve a minimal, clinically important improvement in their asthma quality of life,” Dr. Corren said .

The study estimated the odds ratio for minimal clinically important difference in AQLQ at 24 weeks was 3.9 (95% confidence interval, 1.5-9.7; P = .0043), which Dr. Corren called “quite significant.” SNOT-22 scores showed a mean improvement of 23.3 from baseline to week 24, compared with a worsening of 8.4 in placebo (P = .0001).

Omalizumab is approved for treatment of perennial allergies and urticaria. Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps would be a third indication if the Food and Drug Administration approves it, Dr. Corren noted.

Genentech sponsored the subset analysis. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech’s parent company, is sponsor of the POLYP1 and POLYP2 trials. Dr. Corren disclosed financial relationships with Genentech.

SOURCE: Corren J et al. AAAAI, Session 4608, Abstract 813.

The monoclonal antibody omalizumab, already approved to treat allergic asthma and urticaria, has been shown to improve symptoms of patients who have chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps (CRSwNP), according to recent research released as an abstract from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology annual meeting. The AAAAI canceled the meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

“When you give this drug to patients who have nasal polyposis and concomitant asthma, you are effectively treating both the upper and lower airway disease components,” Jonathan Corren, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “Typically, people with nasal polyp disease have worse nasal disease than people without asthma. In addition, asthma is also generally worse in patients with nasal polyposis,” he added.

Dr. Corren reported results of a subset of patients with corticosteroid-refractory CRSwNP and comorbid asthma enrolled in phase III, placebo-controlled, 24-week, trials of omalizumab, POLYP1 (n = 74) and POLYP2 (n = 77). The analysis excluded patients who were on oral steroids or high-dose steroid inhaler therapy so the effectiveness of omalizumab could be evaluated without interfering factors, Dr. Corren explained. As a result, the study population consisted of patients with mild to moderate asthma. Dr. Corren is also principal investigator of the POLYP1 trial.

The analysis compared changes in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT-22) measures after 24 weeks of treatment with those seen with placebo.

“With regard to asthma outcomes, we found there was a significant increase in the odds ratio that patients who received omalizumab would achieve a minimal, clinically important improvement in their asthma quality of life,” Dr. Corren said .

The study estimated the odds ratio for minimal clinically important difference in AQLQ at 24 weeks was 3.9 (95% confidence interval, 1.5-9.7; P = .0043), which Dr. Corren called “quite significant.” SNOT-22 scores showed a mean improvement of 23.3 from baseline to week 24, compared with a worsening of 8.4 in placebo (P = .0001).

Omalizumab is approved for treatment of perennial allergies and urticaria. Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps would be a third indication if the Food and Drug Administration approves it, Dr. Corren noted.

Genentech sponsored the subset analysis. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech’s parent company, is sponsor of the POLYP1 and POLYP2 trials. Dr. Corren disclosed financial relationships with Genentech.

SOURCE: Corren J et al. AAAAI, Session 4608, Abstract 813.

The monoclonal antibody omalizumab, already approved to treat allergic asthma and urticaria, has been shown to improve symptoms of patients who have chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps (CRSwNP), according to recent research released as an abstract from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology annual meeting. The AAAAI canceled the meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

“When you give this drug to patients who have nasal polyposis and concomitant asthma, you are effectively treating both the upper and lower airway disease components,” Jonathan Corren, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “Typically, people with nasal polyp disease have worse nasal disease than people without asthma. In addition, asthma is also generally worse in patients with nasal polyposis,” he added.

Dr. Corren reported results of a subset of patients with corticosteroid-refractory CRSwNP and comorbid asthma enrolled in phase III, placebo-controlled, 24-week, trials of omalizumab, POLYP1 (n = 74) and POLYP2 (n = 77). The analysis excluded patients who were on oral steroids or high-dose steroid inhaler therapy so the effectiveness of omalizumab could be evaluated without interfering factors, Dr. Corren explained. As a result, the study population consisted of patients with mild to moderate asthma. Dr. Corren is also principal investigator of the POLYP1 trial.

The analysis compared changes in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT-22) measures after 24 weeks of treatment with those seen with placebo.

“With regard to asthma outcomes, we found there was a significant increase in the odds ratio that patients who received omalizumab would achieve a minimal, clinically important improvement in their asthma quality of life,” Dr. Corren said .

The study estimated the odds ratio for minimal clinically important difference in AQLQ at 24 weeks was 3.9 (95% confidence interval, 1.5-9.7; P = .0043), which Dr. Corren called “quite significant.” SNOT-22 scores showed a mean improvement of 23.3 from baseline to week 24, compared with a worsening of 8.4 in placebo (P = .0001).

Omalizumab is approved for treatment of perennial allergies and urticaria. Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps would be a third indication if the Food and Drug Administration approves it, Dr. Corren noted.

Genentech sponsored the subset analysis. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech’s parent company, is sponsor of the POLYP1 and POLYP2 trials. Dr. Corren disclosed financial relationships with Genentech.

SOURCE: Corren J et al. AAAAI, Session 4608, Abstract 813.

As a department chief managing during this crisis, everyone greets me sympathetically: “This must be so stressful for you! Are you doing OK?” “Um, I’m great,” I answer contritely. Yes, this is hard, yet I feel fine. But why? Shouldn’t I be fretting the damage done by the COVID cyclone? Our operations are smashed and our staff scrambled, my family and friends are out of work; these are difficult times. But a harmful effect on my health or yours is not inevitable. There are things we can do to inoculate ourselves.

karandaev/iStock/Getty Images

No doubt, exercise (if you can find weights!), eating well, sleeping, and meditating help, but they are secondary. None of these protect much if you still believe stress is killing you. You must first reframe what is happening. Health psychologist Kelly McGonigal, PhD, from Stanford (Calif.) University, is a world expert on this topic. If you’ve not seen her TED talk about stress, then watch it now. She teaches how stress is indeed harmful to your health – but only if you believe it to be so. Many studies have borne this out. One showed that people who reported high stress in the previous year were 43% more likely to die than those who did not. But that risk held only when they believed stress was harmful to them. Those who did not think that stress was harmful not only fared better but also had the lowest likelihood of death, lower even than those who reported little stress! So it wasn’t the stress that mattered, it was the physiologic response to it. And that you can control.

Changing your beliefs is no easy feat. There is work to be done, Dr. McGonigal would argue. You must not only reframe our stress as healthful, but also act in ways to make this true. This is easier for us as physicians. First, we understand better than most that difficulty is a normal part of life. We have countless stories of hardship, tragedy, pain and suffering from the work we do. The pandemic may be extraordinary in breadth, but not in depth. We’ve seen worse happen to patients. Second, we have firsthand experience that suffering ends and often leads to strength and resilience. Even in our own lives, it was by traveling through the extraordinary stress of medical school and residency that we arrived here. That trying period in your life forged the strength, courage, which serves you today. It also made you more compassionate. Here lies the biggest take-away for COVID survival.

Cortisol increases when we are under duress. So does oxytocin. The former gets most of the press, the latter is more interesting. That oxytocin release during stress conferred survival benefits to us as a species: When a threat arrived, we not only ran, but also grabbed the kids, too! Oxytocin is the “tend and befriend” compliment to cortisol’s “fight or flight.” Focusing on this priming to strengthen social ties, listen, spend (Zoom) time together, and provide emotional support is key to our recovery. Even small acts of giving for our staff, friends, family, and strangers can significantly shift consequences of this stress from harmful to beneficial.

Last year, my uncle died in a tragic accident. My aunt, who is alone, is now also isolated. She’s lost her partner, her guardian, and she is afraid. Rather than succumb to the stress, she imagined something she could do to wrest some control. Last week, she filled her minivan with pink and yellow tulips bunched in bouquets and tied with handwritten notes of encouragement. She then drove up and down the streets in her North Attleboro, Mass., neighborhood and left the flowers on doorsteps until her van was empty. She did so to share with them the bit of joy that spring brings, she says, and to encourage people to stay inside!

This is a difficult time for us, and yet even more difficult for others. Perhaps the best we can do is to find ways to bring a bit of joy or comfort to others.


“In some ways suffering ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning, such as the meaning of a sacrifice.” – Viktor Frankl

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. He had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

As a department chief managing during this crisis, everyone greets me sympathetically: “This must be so stressful for you! Are you doing OK?” “Um, I’m great,” I answer contritely. Yes, this is hard, yet I feel fine. But why? Shouldn’t I be fretting the damage done by the COVID cyclone? Our operations are smashed and our staff scrambled, my family and friends are out of work; these are difficult times. But a harmful effect on my health or yours is not inevitable. There are things we can do to inoculate ourselves.

karandaev/iStock/Getty Images

No doubt, exercise (if you can find weights!), eating well, sleeping, and meditating help, but they are secondary. None of these protect much if you still believe stress is killing you. You must first reframe what is happening. Health psychologist Kelly McGonigal, PhD, from Stanford (Calif.) University, is a world expert on this topic. If you’ve not seen her TED talk about stress, then watch it now. She teaches how stress is indeed harmful to your health – but only if you believe it to be so. Many studies have borne this out. One showed that people who reported high stress in the previous year were 43% more likely to die than those who did not. But that risk held only when they believed stress was harmful to them. Those who did not think that stress was harmful not only fared better but also had the lowest likelihood of death, lower even than those who reported little stress! So it wasn’t the stress that mattered, it was the physiologic response to it. And that you can control.

Changing your beliefs is no easy feat. There is work to be done, Dr. McGonigal would argue. You must not only reframe our stress as healthful, but also act in ways to make this true. This is easier for us as physicians. First, we understand better than most that difficulty is a normal part of life. We have countless stories of hardship, tragedy, pain and suffering from the work we do. The pandemic may be extraordinary in breadth, but not in depth. We’ve seen worse happen to patients. Second, we have firsthand experience that suffering ends and often leads to strength and resilience. Even in our own lives, it was by traveling through the extraordinary stress of medical school and residency that we arrived here. That trying period in your life forged the strength, courage, which serves you today. It also made you more compassionate. Here lies the biggest take-away for COVID survival.

Cortisol increases when we are under duress. So does oxytocin. The former gets most of the press, the latter is more interesting. That oxytocin release during stress conferred survival benefits to us as a species: When a threat arrived, we not only ran, but also grabbed the kids, too! Oxytocin is the “tend and befriend” compliment to cortisol’s “fight or flight.” Focusing on this priming to strengthen social ties, listen, spend (Zoom) time together, and provide emotional support is key to our recovery. Even small acts of giving for our staff, friends, family, and strangers can significantly shift consequences of this stress from harmful to beneficial.

Last year, my uncle died in a tragic accident. My aunt, who is alone, is now also isolated. She’s lost her partner, her guardian, and she is afraid. Rather than succumb to the stress, she imagined something she could do to wrest some control. Last week, she filled her minivan with pink and yellow tulips bunched in bouquets and tied with handwritten notes of encouragement. She then drove up and down the streets in her North Attleboro, Mass., neighborhood and left the flowers on doorsteps until her van was empty. She did so to share with them the bit of joy that spring brings, she says, and to encourage people to stay inside!

This is a difficult time for us, and yet even more difficult for others. Perhaps the best we can do is to find ways to bring a bit of joy or comfort to others.


“In some ways suffering ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning, such as the meaning of a sacrifice.” – Viktor Frankl

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. He had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

As a department chief managing during this crisis, everyone greets me sympathetically: “This must be so stressful for you! Are you doing OK?” “Um, I’m great,” I answer contritely. Yes, this is hard, yet I feel fine. But why? Shouldn’t I be fretting the damage done by the COVID cyclone? Our operations are smashed and our staff scrambled, my family and friends are out of work; these are difficult times. But a harmful effect on my health or yours is not inevitable. There are things we can do to inoculate ourselves.

karandaev/iStock/Getty Images

No doubt, exercise (if you can find weights!), eating well, sleeping, and meditating help, but they are secondary. None of these protect much if you still believe stress is killing you. You must first reframe what is happening. Health psychologist Kelly McGonigal, PhD, from Stanford (Calif.) University, is a world expert on this topic. If you’ve not seen her TED talk about stress, then watch it now. She teaches how stress is indeed harmful to your health – but only if you believe it to be so. Many studies have borne this out. One showed that people who reported high stress in the previous year were 43% more likely to die than those who did not. But that risk held only when they believed stress was harmful to them. Those who did not think that stress was harmful not only fared better but also had the lowest likelihood of death, lower even than those who reported little stress! So it wasn’t the stress that mattered, it was the physiologic response to it. And that you can control.

Changing your beliefs is no easy feat. There is work to be done, Dr. McGonigal would argue. You must not only reframe our stress as healthful, but also act in ways to make this true. This is easier for us as physicians. First, we understand better than most that difficulty is a normal part of life. We have countless stories of hardship, tragedy, pain and suffering from the work we do. The pandemic may be extraordinary in breadth, but not in depth. We’ve seen worse happen to patients. Second, we have firsthand experience that suffering ends and often leads to strength and resilience. Even in our own lives, it was by traveling through the extraordinary stress of medical school and residency that we arrived here. That trying period in your life forged the strength, courage, which serves you today. It also made you more compassionate. Here lies the biggest take-away for COVID survival.

Cortisol increases when we are under duress. So does oxytocin. The former gets most of the press, the latter is more interesting. That oxytocin release during stress conferred survival benefits to us as a species: When a threat arrived, we not only ran, but also grabbed the kids, too! Oxytocin is the “tend and befriend” compliment to cortisol’s “fight or flight.” Focusing on this priming to strengthen social ties, listen, spend (Zoom) time together, and provide emotional support is key to our recovery. Even small acts of giving for our staff, friends, family, and strangers can significantly shift consequences of this stress from harmful to beneficial.

Last year, my uncle died in a tragic accident. My aunt, who is alone, is now also isolated. She’s lost her partner, her guardian, and she is afraid. Rather than succumb to the stress, she imagined something she could do to wrest some control. Last week, she filled her minivan with pink and yellow tulips bunched in bouquets and tied with handwritten notes of encouragement. She then drove up and down the streets in her North Attleboro, Mass., neighborhood and left the flowers on doorsteps until her van was empty. She did so to share with them the bit of joy that spring brings, she says, and to encourage people to stay inside!

This is a difficult time for us, and yet even more difficult for others. Perhaps the best we can do is to find ways to bring a bit of joy or comfort to others.


“In some ways suffering ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning, such as the meaning of a sacrifice.” – Viktor Frankl

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. He had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized the first diagnostic test with a home collection option for COVID-19, a reissue of the emergency use authorization allowing for testing of samples self-collected by patients at home with the Pixel by LabCorp COVID-19 RT-PCR Test.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The reissued authorization allows for testing of a sample taken from the nose by way of a self-collection kit that contains nasal swabs and saline, according to the FDA press release. After self-swabbing, users should send the samples in an insulated package to a LabCorp laboratory for testing. LabCorp intends to make the Pixel test available to consumers in most states, accessible through doctors’ orders.

The Pixel test includes a specific Q-tip–style cotton swab for patients to use to collect their samples, the FDA noted. Because of concerns with sterility and cross-reactivity caused by inherent genetic material in cotton swabs, generic cotton swabs should not be used as a substitute. The FDA will work with test developers to determine if generic cotton swabs can be used safely and effectively with other tests.

“Throughout this pandemic we have been facilitating test development to ensure patients’ access to accurate diagnostics, which includes supporting the development of reliable and accurate at-home sample collection options. ... [The FDA] worked with LabCorp to ensure the data demonstrated from at-home patient sample collection is as safe and accurate as sample collection at a doctor’s office, hospital, or other testing site. With this action, there is now a convenient and reliable option for patient sample collection from the comfort and safety of their home,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in the press release.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized the first diagnostic test with a home collection option for COVID-19, a reissue of the emergency use authorization allowing for testing of samples self-collected by patients at home with the Pixel by LabCorp COVID-19 RT-PCR Test.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The reissued authorization allows for testing of a sample taken from the nose by way of a self-collection kit that contains nasal swabs and saline, according to the FDA press release. After self-swabbing, users should send the samples in an insulated package to a LabCorp laboratory for testing. LabCorp intends to make the Pixel test available to consumers in most states, accessible through doctors’ orders.

The Pixel test includes a specific Q-tip–style cotton swab for patients to use to collect their samples, the FDA noted. Because of concerns with sterility and cross-reactivity caused by inherent genetic material in cotton swabs, generic cotton swabs should not be used as a substitute. The FDA will work with test developers to determine if generic cotton swabs can be used safely and effectively with other tests.

“Throughout this pandemic we have been facilitating test development to ensure patients’ access to accurate diagnostics, which includes supporting the development of reliable and accurate at-home sample collection options. ... [The FDA] worked with LabCorp to ensure the data demonstrated from at-home patient sample collection is as safe and accurate as sample collection at a doctor’s office, hospital, or other testing site. With this action, there is now a convenient and reliable option for patient sample collection from the comfort and safety of their home,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in the press release.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized the first diagnostic test with a home collection option for COVID-19, a reissue of the emergency use authorization allowing for testing of samples self-collected by patients at home with the Pixel by LabCorp COVID-19 RT-PCR Test.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The reissued authorization allows for testing of a sample taken from the nose by way of a self-collection kit that contains nasal swabs and saline, according to the FDA press release. After self-swabbing, users should send the samples in an insulated package to a LabCorp laboratory for testing. LabCorp intends to make the Pixel test available to consumers in most states, accessible through doctors’ orders.

The Pixel test includes a specific Q-tip–style cotton swab for patients to use to collect their samples, the FDA noted. Because of concerns with sterility and cross-reactivity caused by inherent genetic material in cotton swabs, generic cotton swabs should not be used as a substitute. The FDA will work with test developers to determine if generic cotton swabs can be used safely and effectively with other tests.

“Throughout this pandemic we have been facilitating test development to ensure patients’ access to accurate diagnostics, which includes supporting the development of reliable and accurate at-home sample collection options. ... [The FDA] worked with LabCorp to ensure the data demonstrated from at-home patient sample collection is as safe and accurate as sample collection at a doctor’s office, hospital, or other testing site. With this action, there is now a convenient and reliable option for patient sample collection from the comfort and safety of their home,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in the press release.

lfranki@mdedge.com

Patients with a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) who are exposed to blue light experience less depression and fewer cognitive and other concussion-related symptoms than those exposed to a placebo light, a new study has found. Exposure to blue light in the morning through a special device may be a “critical factor” in resetting the circadian rhythm and helping people who have suffered a concussion, author William D. “Scott” Killgore, MD, professor of psychiatry, psychology, and medical imaging, the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, told Medscape Medical News.

“This is very new, so I wouldn’t say it’s the treatment of choice, but we should start looking at using this system as a nonpharmacologic way to perhaps help patients recover faster from a concussion,” he said.

The findings were released March 2 ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. The AAN canceled the meeting and released abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

About half of patients with a concussion experience sleep problems, including problems falling asleep, staying asleep, and waking up in the middle of the night, said Dr. Killgore.

Poor sleep interrupts the brain’s repair mechanism. “Sleep is important for cleaning out the neurotoxins that build up in your brain during the day. Sleep also helps build oligodendrocyte precursor cells that provide insulation around nerve cells,” he said.
 

Master clock

Blue light stimulates receptors in the back of the retina that respond only to this wavelength of light, said Dr. Killgore. “It specifically projects to an area in the hypothalamus – essentially the brain’s master clock – that regulates your sleep-wake schedules. So exposure to that bright light essentially resets your circadian rhythm.”

That master clock involves regulating the brain’s production of melatonin. Morning exposure to blue light shifts that production to facilitate sleep at the appropriate time.

The ideal time to be exposed to blue light is from about 8:00 to 11:00 AM. “Timing is critical,” said Dr. Killgore. “If you get light at the wrong time, it will reset your circadian rhythm in the wrong direction.”

Previous research has shown that exposure to blue light leads to improved sleep, which is widely believed to lead to improved mood.

A separate study conducted by Dr. Killgore and colleagues that involved another group of mTBI patients was recently published in Neurobiology of Disease. That study showed that the participants who received blue light experienced a shift in circadian timing of about an hour. “They were going to sleep an hour earlier and waking up an hour earlier,” said Dr. Killgore.

The blue light also appeared to change brain structure and brain function, among other things, he said.

The current study included 35 patients who had suffered an mTBI within the previous 18 months. Most injuries were sports related and occurred while playing football or soccer or riding a bike.

Participants were randomly assigned to use a device fitted with a blue LED light (peak wavelength, 469 nm) or one fitted with an amber-colored LED light. They were instructed to use the device every morning for 30 minutes within 2 hours of waking.

The blue-light group comprised five men and 12 women (mean age, 25.5 years). The amber-light group comprised eight men and 10 women (mean age, 26.3 years).

Researchers told participants only that the study was exploring various aspects of light. “Subjects didn’t know if they were getting a control or active device,” said Dr. Killgore.

Researchers used the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) to evaluate depression symptoms and the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptom Questionnaire (RPCSQ). This 16-item questionnaire assesses symptoms in the acute stage as well as those that are more chronic.

After 6 weeks, the blue-light group had lower scores on the BDI compared to the amber-light group (P = .005).

“We found that in the amber-light group, there was essentially no change in terms of depression,” said Dr. Killgore. “But those who got the blue light showed a significant reduction in depressive symptoms, about a 22% decline overall relative to baseline, so a nice drop in overall depression.”

Changes in BDI scores were significantly positively associated with changes in the total chronic symptom score (P = .002) in the blue-light group but not the amber-light group. “Those who got blue light showed a significant reduction in the number of symptoms associated with concussion whereas those who got the amber light stayed the same,” said Dr. Killgore.

There were similar findings for somatic symptoms, such as headache and pain (P = .031), and for cognitive symptoms (P = .014) in the blue-light group.

“These subjects were having fewer problems remembering and paying attention, so their concentration seemed to be improving, at least subjectively,” commented Dr. Killgore.

There was no significant benefit from the blue light for emotional symptoms. “There was a decline, but it wasn’t statistically significant, even though there was a decline in depression,” said Dr. Killgore.

This, he explained, could be due to the small sample size and the greater sensitivity of the BDI for emotional symptoms relative to the RPCSQ. “The BDI has 21 items that are all focused on aspects of depression, whereas the RPCSQ only asks one item for depression and one item for irritability/anger.”

Less daytime sleepiness

The researchers also found a significant improvement in daytime sleepiness. “Subjects were much less sleepy by the end of the study if they got blue light than if they got amber light,” said Dr. Killgore.

Participants wore an actigraphy device that took sleep measurements. Early results indicate that blue-light recipients were getting more sleep by the end of the study.

Researchers are now analyzing additional data to see whether the improvements in depression and post-concussion symptoms are linked to improved sleep. They also gathered data from brain imaging that will be analyzed at a later date.

Dr. Killgore and his colleagues aim to determine what distinguishes people who respond to blue-light therapy from those who don’t. “We want to know what it is that would allow some people to be more responsive than others, so we’re going to be exploring skin color, eye color, genetic factors, and other factors,” he said.

They’re also conducting a study of blue-light therapy in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder, 90% of whom have sleep problems.

“This is quite fascinating,” said Dr. Killgore. “It looks like if you get blue light after your treatment, the treatment sticks better than if you didn’t get the blue light. We think that sleep is probably playing an important role in that.”

Several light devices are available, ranging in price from about $100 to $200.

Commenting on the research, concussion expert Frank Conidi, MD, director of the Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology, Port St. Lucie, said the study is interesting from a number of perspectives.

For one thing, it shows that blue-light therapy “provides an inexpensive and minimally invasive way to treat concussion,” he said.

Dr. Conidi said he would recommend blue-light therapy for concussion patients. “I could see neurology practices offering the device to patients as an in-office treatment or to take home for a small fee. I think athletes would be quite receptive to this, as they’re always looking for nonpharmacological ways to treat concussion.”

Dr. Conidi noted that the new results are consistent with other studies that show that decreased depression and improved sleep help with somatic symptoms.

From a research perspective, the study provides a “stepping stone” for larger trials, said Dr. Conidi. He would like to see more studies of acute concussion, such as studies as to whether the therapy shortens the duration of symptoms.

“I would also like to see controlled studies on headache and vestibular symptoms, which are the two most common,” he said.

The study was funded by the US Department of Defense. Killgore and Conidi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) who are exposed to blue light experience less depression and fewer cognitive and other concussion-related symptoms than those exposed to a placebo light, a new study has found. Exposure to blue light in the morning through a special device may be a “critical factor” in resetting the circadian rhythm and helping people who have suffered a concussion, author William D. “Scott” Killgore, MD, professor of psychiatry, psychology, and medical imaging, the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, told Medscape Medical News.

“This is very new, so I wouldn’t say it’s the treatment of choice, but we should start looking at using this system as a nonpharmacologic way to perhaps help patients recover faster from a concussion,” he said.

The findings were released March 2 ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. The AAN canceled the meeting and released abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

About half of patients with a concussion experience sleep problems, including problems falling asleep, staying asleep, and waking up in the middle of the night, said Dr. Killgore.

Poor sleep interrupts the brain’s repair mechanism. “Sleep is important for cleaning out the neurotoxins that build up in your brain during the day. Sleep also helps build oligodendrocyte precursor cells that provide insulation around nerve cells,” he said.
 

Master clock

Blue light stimulates receptors in the back of the retina that respond only to this wavelength of light, said Dr. Killgore. “It specifically projects to an area in the hypothalamus – essentially the brain’s master clock – that regulates your sleep-wake schedules. So exposure to that bright light essentially resets your circadian rhythm.”

That master clock involves regulating the brain’s production of melatonin. Morning exposure to blue light shifts that production to facilitate sleep at the appropriate time.

The ideal time to be exposed to blue light is from about 8:00 to 11:00 AM. “Timing is critical,” said Dr. Killgore. “If you get light at the wrong time, it will reset your circadian rhythm in the wrong direction.”

Previous research has shown that exposure to blue light leads to improved sleep, which is widely believed to lead to improved mood.

A separate study conducted by Dr. Killgore and colleagues that involved another group of mTBI patients was recently published in Neurobiology of Disease. That study showed that the participants who received blue light experienced a shift in circadian timing of about an hour. “They were going to sleep an hour earlier and waking up an hour earlier,” said Dr. Killgore.

The blue light also appeared to change brain structure and brain function, among other things, he said.

The current study included 35 patients who had suffered an mTBI within the previous 18 months. Most injuries were sports related and occurred while playing football or soccer or riding a bike.

Participants were randomly assigned to use a device fitted with a blue LED light (peak wavelength, 469 nm) or one fitted with an amber-colored LED light. They were instructed to use the device every morning for 30 minutes within 2 hours of waking.

The blue-light group comprised five men and 12 women (mean age, 25.5 years). The amber-light group comprised eight men and 10 women (mean age, 26.3 years).

Researchers told participants only that the study was exploring various aspects of light. “Subjects didn’t know if they were getting a control or active device,” said Dr. Killgore.

Researchers used the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) to evaluate depression symptoms and the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptom Questionnaire (RPCSQ). This 16-item questionnaire assesses symptoms in the acute stage as well as those that are more chronic.

After 6 weeks, the blue-light group had lower scores on the BDI compared to the amber-light group (P = .005).

“We found that in the amber-light group, there was essentially no change in terms of depression,” said Dr. Killgore. “But those who got the blue light showed a significant reduction in depressive symptoms, about a 22% decline overall relative to baseline, so a nice drop in overall depression.”

Changes in BDI scores were significantly positively associated with changes in the total chronic symptom score (P = .002) in the blue-light group but not the amber-light group. “Those who got blue light showed a significant reduction in the number of symptoms associated with concussion whereas those who got the amber light stayed the same,” said Dr. Killgore.

There were similar findings for somatic symptoms, such as headache and pain (P = .031), and for cognitive symptoms (P = .014) in the blue-light group.

“These subjects were having fewer problems remembering and paying attention, so their concentration seemed to be improving, at least subjectively,” commented Dr. Killgore.

There was no significant benefit from the blue light for emotional symptoms. “There was a decline, but it wasn’t statistically significant, even though there was a decline in depression,” said Dr. Killgore.

This, he explained, could be due to the small sample size and the greater sensitivity of the BDI for emotional symptoms relative to the RPCSQ. “The BDI has 21 items that are all focused on aspects of depression, whereas the RPCSQ only asks one item for depression and one item for irritability/anger.”

Less daytime sleepiness

The researchers also found a significant improvement in daytime sleepiness. “Subjects were much less sleepy by the end of the study if they got blue light than if they got amber light,” said Dr. Killgore.

Participants wore an actigraphy device that took sleep measurements. Early results indicate that blue-light recipients were getting more sleep by the end of the study.

Researchers are now analyzing additional data to see whether the improvements in depression and post-concussion symptoms are linked to improved sleep. They also gathered data from brain imaging that will be analyzed at a later date.

Dr. Killgore and his colleagues aim to determine what distinguishes people who respond to blue-light therapy from those who don’t. “We want to know what it is that would allow some people to be more responsive than others, so we’re going to be exploring skin color, eye color, genetic factors, and other factors,” he said.

They’re also conducting a study of blue-light therapy in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder, 90% of whom have sleep problems.

“This is quite fascinating,” said Dr. Killgore. “It looks like if you get blue light after your treatment, the treatment sticks better than if you didn’t get the blue light. We think that sleep is probably playing an important role in that.”

Several light devices are available, ranging in price from about $100 to $200.

Commenting on the research, concussion expert Frank Conidi, MD, director of the Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology, Port St. Lucie, said the study is interesting from a number of perspectives.

For one thing, it shows that blue-light therapy “provides an inexpensive and minimally invasive way to treat concussion,” he said.

Dr. Conidi said he would recommend blue-light therapy for concussion patients. “I could see neurology practices offering the device to patients as an in-office treatment or to take home for a small fee. I think athletes would be quite receptive to this, as they’re always looking for nonpharmacological ways to treat concussion.”

Dr. Conidi noted that the new results are consistent with other studies that show that decreased depression and improved sleep help with somatic symptoms.

From a research perspective, the study provides a “stepping stone” for larger trials, said Dr. Conidi. He would like to see more studies of acute concussion, such as studies as to whether the therapy shortens the duration of symptoms.

“I would also like to see controlled studies on headache and vestibular symptoms, which are the two most common,” he said.

The study was funded by the US Department of Defense. Killgore and Conidi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) who are exposed to blue light experience less depression and fewer cognitive and other concussion-related symptoms than those exposed to a placebo light, a new study has found. Exposure to blue light in the morning through a special device may be a “critical factor” in resetting the circadian rhythm and helping people who have suffered a concussion, author William D. “Scott” Killgore, MD, professor of psychiatry, psychology, and medical imaging, the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, told Medscape Medical News.

“This is very new, so I wouldn’t say it’s the treatment of choice, but we should start looking at using this system as a nonpharmacologic way to perhaps help patients recover faster from a concussion,” he said.

The findings were released March 2 ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. The AAN canceled the meeting and released abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

About half of patients with a concussion experience sleep problems, including problems falling asleep, staying asleep, and waking up in the middle of the night, said Dr. Killgore.

Poor sleep interrupts the brain’s repair mechanism. “Sleep is important for cleaning out the neurotoxins that build up in your brain during the day. Sleep also helps build oligodendrocyte precursor cells that provide insulation around nerve cells,” he said.
 

Master clock

Blue light stimulates receptors in the back of the retina that respond only to this wavelength of light, said Dr. Killgore. “It specifically projects to an area in the hypothalamus – essentially the brain’s master clock – that regulates your sleep-wake schedules. So exposure to that bright light essentially resets your circadian rhythm.”

That master clock involves regulating the brain’s production of melatonin. Morning exposure to blue light shifts that production to facilitate sleep at the appropriate time.

The ideal time to be exposed to blue light is from about 8:00 to 11:00 AM. “Timing is critical,” said Dr. Killgore. “If you get light at the wrong time, it will reset your circadian rhythm in the wrong direction.”

Previous research has shown that exposure to blue light leads to improved sleep, which is widely believed to lead to improved mood.

A separate study conducted by Dr. Killgore and colleagues that involved another group of mTBI patients was recently published in Neurobiology of Disease. That study showed that the participants who received blue light experienced a shift in circadian timing of about an hour. “They were going to sleep an hour earlier and waking up an hour earlier,” said Dr. Killgore.

The blue light also appeared to change brain structure and brain function, among other things, he said.

The current study included 35 patients who had suffered an mTBI within the previous 18 months. Most injuries were sports related and occurred while playing football or soccer or riding a bike.

Participants were randomly assigned to use a device fitted with a blue LED light (peak wavelength, 469 nm) or one fitted with an amber-colored LED light. They were instructed to use the device every morning for 30 minutes within 2 hours of waking.

The blue-light group comprised five men and 12 women (mean age, 25.5 years). The amber-light group comprised eight men and 10 women (mean age, 26.3 years).

Researchers told participants only that the study was exploring various aspects of light. “Subjects didn’t know if they were getting a control or active device,” said Dr. Killgore.

Researchers used the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) to evaluate depression symptoms and the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptom Questionnaire (RPCSQ). This 16-item questionnaire assesses symptoms in the acute stage as well as those that are more chronic.

After 6 weeks, the blue-light group had lower scores on the BDI compared to the amber-light group (P = .005).

“We found that in the amber-light group, there was essentially no change in terms of depression,” said Dr. Killgore. “But those who got the blue light showed a significant reduction in depressive symptoms, about a 22% decline overall relative to baseline, so a nice drop in overall depression.”

Changes in BDI scores were significantly positively associated with changes in the total chronic symptom score (P = .002) in the blue-light group but not the amber-light group. “Those who got blue light showed a significant reduction in the number of symptoms associated with concussion whereas those who got the amber light stayed the same,” said Dr. Killgore.

There were similar findings for somatic symptoms, such as headache and pain (P = .031), and for cognitive symptoms (P = .014) in the blue-light group.

“These subjects were having fewer problems remembering and paying attention, so their concentration seemed to be improving, at least subjectively,” commented Dr. Killgore.

There was no significant benefit from the blue light for emotional symptoms. “There was a decline, but it wasn’t statistically significant, even though there was a decline in depression,” said Dr. Killgore.

This, he explained, could be due to the small sample size and the greater sensitivity of the BDI for emotional symptoms relative to the RPCSQ. “The BDI has 21 items that are all focused on aspects of depression, whereas the RPCSQ only asks one item for depression and one item for irritability/anger.”

Less daytime sleepiness

The researchers also found a significant improvement in daytime sleepiness. “Subjects were much less sleepy by the end of the study if they got blue light than if they got amber light,” said Dr. Killgore.

Participants wore an actigraphy device that took sleep measurements. Early results indicate that blue-light recipients were getting more sleep by the end of the study.

Researchers are now analyzing additional data to see whether the improvements in depression and post-concussion symptoms are linked to improved sleep. They also gathered data from brain imaging that will be analyzed at a later date.

Dr. Killgore and his colleagues aim to determine what distinguishes people who respond to blue-light therapy from those who don’t. “We want to know what it is that would allow some people to be more responsive than others, so we’re going to be exploring skin color, eye color, genetic factors, and other factors,” he said.

They’re also conducting a study of blue-light therapy in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder, 90% of whom have sleep problems.

“This is quite fascinating,” said Dr. Killgore. “It looks like if you get blue light after your treatment, the treatment sticks better than if you didn’t get the blue light. We think that sleep is probably playing an important role in that.”

Several light devices are available, ranging in price from about $100 to $200.

Commenting on the research, concussion expert Frank Conidi, MD, director of the Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology, Port St. Lucie, said the study is interesting from a number of perspectives.

For one thing, it shows that blue-light therapy “provides an inexpensive and minimally invasive way to treat concussion,” he said.

Dr. Conidi said he would recommend blue-light therapy for concussion patients. “I could see neurology practices offering the device to patients as an in-office treatment or to take home for a small fee. I think athletes would be quite receptive to this, as they’re always looking for nonpharmacological ways to treat concussion.”

Dr. Conidi noted that the new results are consistent with other studies that show that decreased depression and improved sleep help with somatic symptoms.

From a research perspective, the study provides a “stepping stone” for larger trials, said Dr. Conidi. He would like to see more studies of acute concussion, such as studies as to whether the therapy shortens the duration of symptoms.

“I would also like to see controlled studies on headache and vestibular symptoms, which are the two most common,” he said.

The study was funded by the US Department of Defense. Killgore and Conidi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With health care systems becoming increasingly stretched as the COVID-19 pandemic sweeps the globe, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has produced practical recommendations for prioritizing the management of cancer patients, including those with gynecologic cancers.

ESMO’s guidelines for cervical, endometrial, and epithelial ovarian cancer delineate which patients should be prioritized for treatment in the face of reduced resources and despite the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“Many European countries have already sorted their own guidelines, either nationally or through their own societies,” said Jonathan Ledermann, MD, a professor of medical oncology at the University College London Cancer Institute who was involved in developing ESMO’s recommendations for gynecologic cancers.

Dr. Ledermann noted that the British Gynaecological Cancer Society, for example, has published guidance on COVID-19 that reflects U.K. practice.

“ESMO obviously feels a responsibility, from the European perspective, to give some guidance to their membership about the COVID-19 situation in the same way that they would put out guidelines if a new drug became available,” Dr. Ledermann said.
 

Prioritizing care

All of the ESMO COVID-19 guidelines group cancer patients into high-, medium-, or low-priority categories to ensure that patients who may need the most care will be seen first as hospital services become affected by the pandemic.

Those in the high-priority category are patients whose condition is either immediately life-threatening or clinically unstable or who may benefit greatly from intervention. Those in the low-priority group are patients who may be stable enough to have treatment delayed while the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing or for whom the benefit of the intervention is low, compared with the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Those in the medium-priority group are patients whose treatment is noncritical, but for whom delaying treatment for more than 6 weeks could potentially impact the overall outcome or care of the patient.

For all gynecologic cancers covered, the guidelines stress that decisions made by the multidisciplinary team need to be documented, taking the patient’s condition into account, assessing who may be the most vulnerable, and considering the available resources.
 

High-priority visits

Examples of patients with cervical cancer who are a high priority for outpatient visits, according to the guidelines, include patients who have acute abdominal symptoms, renal obstruction, or complications after surgery or radiotherapy. Persistent and severe symptomatic pelvic or vaginal bleeding is another reason to be categorized as high priority for an outpatient visit, alongside anuria or symptoms of deep vein thrombosis.

New patients with histologically confirmed cervical changes should also be seen as a high priority to stage their cancer, but the guidelines stress that any blood tests and imaging should be done as close to the patient’s home as possible.

Similar recommendations are made for women with endometrial cancer, with those who have potentially unstable symptoms, severe bleeding from their tumors, and signs of venous thromboembolism or anuria being at the highest priority for outpatient visits.

Women with potentially unstable epithelial ovarian cancer – who have acute abdominal pain, intestinal obstruction, or complications after surgery – are also a high priority for an outpatient visit, as are new patients who have symptomatic ascites, pleural effusion, or intestinal obstruction.
 

Applying guidelines in practice

Knowing that ESMO and other organizations have carefully considered the management of cancer patients specifically in relation to COVID-19 could offer oncologists “a feeling of support and some security when they make difficult decisions,” Dr. Ledermann said.

“With all guidelines, particularly in this sort of situation, we have to be very careful in terms of their interpretation, because what fits one country may not fit another, and what fits one hospital may not necessarily fit another. So they should be taken as guidance rather than prescriptive documents,” Dr. Ledermann said.

As vice president of the European Society for Gynecologic Oncology, Dr. Ledermann noted that ESGO has taken a slightly different approach than ESMO. ESGO decided to collect and post links to existing COVID-19 resources on its website rather than create its own specific recommendations.

ESGO is also producing an expert webinar series, which has, so far, covered the management of ovarian and uterine cancers, giving clinicians the chance to learn from those who have experienced dramatic changes to their services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Ledermann has no conflicts of interest.

With health care systems becoming increasingly stretched as the COVID-19 pandemic sweeps the globe, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has produced practical recommendations for prioritizing the management of cancer patients, including those with gynecologic cancers.

ESMO’s guidelines for cervical, endometrial, and epithelial ovarian cancer delineate which patients should be prioritized for treatment in the face of reduced resources and despite the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“Many European countries have already sorted their own guidelines, either nationally or through their own societies,” said Jonathan Ledermann, MD, a professor of medical oncology at the University College London Cancer Institute who was involved in developing ESMO’s recommendations for gynecologic cancers.

Dr. Ledermann noted that the British Gynaecological Cancer Society, for example, has published guidance on COVID-19 that reflects U.K. practice.

“ESMO obviously feels a responsibility, from the European perspective, to give some guidance to their membership about the COVID-19 situation in the same way that they would put out guidelines if a new drug became available,” Dr. Ledermann said.
 

Prioritizing care

All of the ESMO COVID-19 guidelines group cancer patients into high-, medium-, or low-priority categories to ensure that patients who may need the most care will be seen first as hospital services become affected by the pandemic.

Those in the high-priority category are patients whose condition is either immediately life-threatening or clinically unstable or who may benefit greatly from intervention. Those in the low-priority group are patients who may be stable enough to have treatment delayed while the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing or for whom the benefit of the intervention is low, compared with the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Those in the medium-priority group are patients whose treatment is noncritical, but for whom delaying treatment for more than 6 weeks could potentially impact the overall outcome or care of the patient.

For all gynecologic cancers covered, the guidelines stress that decisions made by the multidisciplinary team need to be documented, taking the patient’s condition into account, assessing who may be the most vulnerable, and considering the available resources.
 

High-priority visits

Examples of patients with cervical cancer who are a high priority for outpatient visits, according to the guidelines, include patients who have acute abdominal symptoms, renal obstruction, or complications after surgery or radiotherapy. Persistent and severe symptomatic pelvic or vaginal bleeding is another reason to be categorized as high priority for an outpatient visit, alongside anuria or symptoms of deep vein thrombosis.

New patients with histologically confirmed cervical changes should also be seen as a high priority to stage their cancer, but the guidelines stress that any blood tests and imaging should be done as close to the patient’s home as possible.

Similar recommendations are made for women with endometrial cancer, with those who have potentially unstable symptoms, severe bleeding from their tumors, and signs of venous thromboembolism or anuria being at the highest priority for outpatient visits.

Women with potentially unstable epithelial ovarian cancer – who have acute abdominal pain, intestinal obstruction, or complications after surgery – are also a high priority for an outpatient visit, as are new patients who have symptomatic ascites, pleural effusion, or intestinal obstruction.
 

Applying guidelines in practice

Knowing that ESMO and other organizations have carefully considered the management of cancer patients specifically in relation to COVID-19 could offer oncologists “a feeling of support and some security when they make difficult decisions,” Dr. Ledermann said.

“With all guidelines, particularly in this sort of situation, we have to be very careful in terms of their interpretation, because what fits one country may not fit another, and what fits one hospital may not necessarily fit another. So they should be taken as guidance rather than prescriptive documents,” Dr. Ledermann said.

As vice president of the European Society for Gynecologic Oncology, Dr. Ledermann noted that ESGO has taken a slightly different approach than ESMO. ESGO decided to collect and post links to existing COVID-19 resources on its website rather than create its own specific recommendations.

ESGO is also producing an expert webinar series, which has, so far, covered the management of ovarian and uterine cancers, giving clinicians the chance to learn from those who have experienced dramatic changes to their services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Ledermann has no conflicts of interest.

With health care systems becoming increasingly stretched as the COVID-19 pandemic sweeps the globe, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has produced practical recommendations for prioritizing the management of cancer patients, including those with gynecologic cancers.

ESMO’s guidelines for cervical, endometrial, and epithelial ovarian cancer delineate which patients should be prioritized for treatment in the face of reduced resources and despite the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“Many European countries have already sorted their own guidelines, either nationally or through their own societies,” said Jonathan Ledermann, MD, a professor of medical oncology at the University College London Cancer Institute who was involved in developing ESMO’s recommendations for gynecologic cancers.

Dr. Ledermann noted that the British Gynaecological Cancer Society, for example, has published guidance on COVID-19 that reflects U.K. practice.

“ESMO obviously feels a responsibility, from the European perspective, to give some guidance to their membership about the COVID-19 situation in the same way that they would put out guidelines if a new drug became available,” Dr. Ledermann said.
 

Prioritizing care

All of the ESMO COVID-19 guidelines group cancer patients into high-, medium-, or low-priority categories to ensure that patients who may need the most care will be seen first as hospital services become affected by the pandemic.

Those in the high-priority category are patients whose condition is either immediately life-threatening or clinically unstable or who may benefit greatly from intervention. Those in the low-priority group are patients who may be stable enough to have treatment delayed while the COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing or for whom the benefit of the intervention is low, compared with the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Those in the medium-priority group are patients whose treatment is noncritical, but for whom delaying treatment for more than 6 weeks could potentially impact the overall outcome or care of the patient.

For all gynecologic cancers covered, the guidelines stress that decisions made by the multidisciplinary team need to be documented, taking the patient’s condition into account, assessing who may be the most vulnerable, and considering the available resources.
 

High-priority visits

Examples of patients with cervical cancer who are a high priority for outpatient visits, according to the guidelines, include patients who have acute abdominal symptoms, renal obstruction, or complications after surgery or radiotherapy. Persistent and severe symptomatic pelvic or vaginal bleeding is another reason to be categorized as high priority for an outpatient visit, alongside anuria or symptoms of deep vein thrombosis.

New patients with histologically confirmed cervical changes should also be seen as a high priority to stage their cancer, but the guidelines stress that any blood tests and imaging should be done as close to the patient’s home as possible.

Similar recommendations are made for women with endometrial cancer, with those who have potentially unstable symptoms, severe bleeding from their tumors, and signs of venous thromboembolism or anuria being at the highest priority for outpatient visits.

Women with potentially unstable epithelial ovarian cancer – who have acute abdominal pain, intestinal obstruction, or complications after surgery – are also a high priority for an outpatient visit, as are new patients who have symptomatic ascites, pleural effusion, or intestinal obstruction.
 

Applying guidelines in practice

Knowing that ESMO and other organizations have carefully considered the management of cancer patients specifically in relation to COVID-19 could offer oncologists “a feeling of support and some security when they make difficult decisions,” Dr. Ledermann said.

“With all guidelines, particularly in this sort of situation, we have to be very careful in terms of their interpretation, because what fits one country may not fit another, and what fits one hospital may not necessarily fit another. So they should be taken as guidance rather than prescriptive documents,” Dr. Ledermann said.

As vice president of the European Society for Gynecologic Oncology, Dr. Ledermann noted that ESGO has taken a slightly different approach than ESMO. ESGO decided to collect and post links to existing COVID-19 resources on its website rather than create its own specific recommendations.

ESGO is also producing an expert webinar series, which has, so far, covered the management of ovarian and uterine cancers, giving clinicians the chance to learn from those who have experienced dramatic changes to their services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Ledermann has no conflicts of interest.

For more information about upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.

UPCOMING EVENTS

May 2-5, 2020
Digestive Disease Week® (DDW)
DDW^® 2020 and all associated events have been canceled. While we are disappointed to miss the science, education and networking that are hallmarks of DDW^®, we must focus on the health and safety of our community. Certainly, this cancellation raises many questions. We have attempted to answer them in this FAQ and remain committed to keeping you informed of new details as they form.

Aug. 14-15, 2020
James W. Freston Single Topic Conference: Gastrointestinal Organoids and Engineered Organ Systems
AGA is actively evaluating developments concerning coronavirus. We expect the 2020 James W. Freston Conference will take place as scheduled and continue to monitor the situation.
Chicago, IL

Aug. 14-16, 2020
2020 Principles of GI for the NP and PA
AGA is actively evaluating developments concerning coronavirus. We expect the 2020 Principles of GI for the NP and PA will take place as scheduled and continue to monitor the situation.
Denver, CO
 

For more information about upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.

UPCOMING EVENTS

May 2-5, 2020
Digestive Disease Week® (DDW)
DDW^® 2020 and all associated events have been canceled. While we are disappointed to miss the science, education and networking that are hallmarks of DDW^®, we must focus on the health and safety of our community. Certainly, this cancellation raises many questions. We have attempted to answer them in this FAQ and remain committed to keeping you informed of new details as they form.

Aug. 14-15, 2020
James W. Freston Single Topic Conference: Gastrointestinal Organoids and Engineered Organ Systems
AGA is actively evaluating developments concerning coronavirus. We expect the 2020 James W. Freston Conference will take place as scheduled and continue to monitor the situation.
Chicago, IL

Aug. 14-16, 2020
2020 Principles of GI for the NP and PA
AGA is actively evaluating developments concerning coronavirus. We expect the 2020 Principles of GI for the NP and PA will take place as scheduled and continue to monitor the situation.
Denver, CO
 

For more information about upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.

UPCOMING EVENTS

May 2-5, 2020
Digestive Disease Week® (DDW)
DDW^® 2020 and all associated events have been canceled. While we are disappointed to miss the science, education and networking that are hallmarks of DDW^®, we must focus on the health and safety of our community. Certainly, this cancellation raises many questions. We have attempted to answer them in this FAQ and remain committed to keeping you informed of new details as they form.

Aug. 14-15, 2020
James W. Freston Single Topic Conference: Gastrointestinal Organoids and Engineered Organ Systems
AGA is actively evaluating developments concerning coronavirus. We expect the 2020 James W. Freston Conference will take place as scheduled and continue to monitor the situation.
Chicago, IL

Aug. 14-16, 2020
2020 Principles of GI for the NP and PA
AGA is actively evaluating developments concerning coronavirus. We expect the 2020 Principles of GI for the NP and PA will take place as scheduled and continue to monitor the situation.
Denver, CO