Legal orders and waivers of licensing requirements could change the way many doctors see patients during the COVID-19 crisis.

A number of states have already taken steps to waive their requirement that a physician be licensed in the state in order to provide care to patients. California  and Florida are among the states that have done so – through their respective declarations of statewide emergency. More states are sure to follow.

Another route around traditional medical licensing requirements is the Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioner Act (UEVHPA), which – in the 20 or so states that have adopted it – can take effect once a statewide emergency is declared. This law lets volunteer health practitioners who are licensed in another state practice in the state where the emergency was declared, without first needing to obtain a license there. The practitioner need only be in good standing with any state in which he or she is currently licensed and be registered as a volunteer in the system. The Washington State Department of Health was one of the first such departments to invoke the UEVHPA in response to the coronavirus.

“The waiving of state licensure requirements should help ease a number of stress points of the current crisis in ways that benefit society,” said Gregory A. Hood, MD, an internist in Lexington, Ky., who is on the advisory board of Medscape Business of Medicine.

“As many have chosen to shelter in place, hoping to ride out the end of winter and, optimistically, the COVID-19 pandemic, there are physicians with second homes in South Carolina, Florida, and elsewhere who could be envisioned being brought into service to ease staffing shortfalls should the crisis exceed available resources.

“However, likely the most novel, necessary, and widespread impact of the waiving of licensure requirements will be aiding physicians in practicing telehealth video visits, as now authorized by Medicare and (hopefully) commercial insurers,” said Dr. Hood.

“Historically, there has been concern regarding the fact that most state medical boards require the physician to be licensed in the state where the patient resides or is located,” he said. “[Recently] I was able to conduct a video visit with a patient in Florida, at her initiation, over the potential of a broken bone. The case should be expected to have fallen under an emergency, but this waiver provides reassuring clarity.

“With the assistance of her boyfriend performing elements of the physical examination under my direction, we were able to establish a probable diagnosis, as well as a treatment plan – all while avoiding her exposing herself by leaving voluntary self-isolation or consuming resources in the emergency room,” Dr. Hood said.

Elsewhere, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federation of State Medical Boards has announced that it will act to verify licenses and credentials for doctors wishing to practice across state lines.


 

The “emergency exception” to in-state licensing requirements

Most state medical boards recognize some version of an exception to the in-state licensing requirement if a doctor or other healthcare professional is providing emergency care to a patient. But these exceptions rarely define what qualifies as an emergency. So, whether treatment of a COVID-19 patient or treatment of a non-COVID-19 patient who requires care in a triage setting constitutes an emergency – so that the exception to the licensing requirement applies—has been something of an open question.

What’s more, many states have laid out various exceptions to the exception. For example, in some states, the person providing the emergency treatment cannot be doing so in exchange for monetary compensation. Elsewhere, the emergency treatment must be provided outside of a traditional health care setting (not in a hospital or doctor’s office) to qualify under the exception.

Is expedited medical licensing an option?

There are ways for a care provider to obtain a medical license in some states without relying on the traditional (and often time-intensive) process. In Ohio, for example, the state’s medical board can issue an expedited license to practice medicine, although the care provider still needs to submit an application – in other words, expedited licensing can’t be granted retroactively. And in many states – including California, where medical board staff is required to complete initial review of an application within 60 working days – an expedited application isn’t an option (at least not yet).

Around 30 states have joined the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for doctors to get licensed in multiple states through an expedited application process. According to the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission, around 80% of doctors meet the criteria for licensing through the Compact.

Why licensing matters

State medical boards and other licensing agencies protect patients by making sure that an individual who practices medicine in the state is qualified to do so. That means scrutinizing applications to practice medicine in the state, reviewing credentials, and ensuring fitness to practice.

The practice of medicine without a license is typically considered a criminal act and is punishable by a variety of different sanctions (criminal, administrative, and professional). What’s more, the fact that a care provider was practicing medicine without a license could set the table for allegations of medical malpractice.

From a liability standpoint, if a doctor or other clinician treats a patient in a state where the clinician is unlicensed, then it’s a near certainty that any medical liability insurance the doctor carries will not apply to the treatment scenario. Suppose a patient is given substandard care and suffers harm at some point within the unlicensed treatment setting, and the patient files a malpractice lawsuit. In that situation, the doctor (and not an insurance company with so-called “deep pockets”) will be on the financial hook for the patient’s harm.

Doctors and other health care providers continue to serve the most critical of roles in our nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Like most things related to COVID-19, the information presented here is sure to change.

David Goguen is a legal editor at Nolo whose work focuses on claimants’ rights in personal injury cases. He is a member of the California State Bar and has more than a decade of experience in litigation and legal publishing. He is a graduate of the University of San Francisco School of Law.
 

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

Legal orders and waivers of licensing requirements could change the way many doctors see patients during the COVID-19 crisis.

A number of states have already taken steps to waive their requirement that a physician be licensed in the state in order to provide care to patients. California  and Florida are among the states that have done so – through their respective declarations of statewide emergency. More states are sure to follow.

Another route around traditional medical licensing requirements is the Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioner Act (UEVHPA), which – in the 20 or so states that have adopted it – can take effect once a statewide emergency is declared. This law lets volunteer health practitioners who are licensed in another state practice in the state where the emergency was declared, without first needing to obtain a license there. The practitioner need only be in good standing with any state in which he or she is currently licensed and be registered as a volunteer in the system. The Washington State Department of Health was one of the first such departments to invoke the UEVHPA in response to the coronavirus.

“The waiving of state licensure requirements should help ease a number of stress points of the current crisis in ways that benefit society,” said Gregory A. Hood, MD, an internist in Lexington, Ky., who is on the advisory board of Medscape Business of Medicine.

“As many have chosen to shelter in place, hoping to ride out the end of winter and, optimistically, the COVID-19 pandemic, there are physicians with second homes in South Carolina, Florida, and elsewhere who could be envisioned being brought into service to ease staffing shortfalls should the crisis exceed available resources.

“However, likely the most novel, necessary, and widespread impact of the waiving of licensure requirements will be aiding physicians in practicing telehealth video visits, as now authorized by Medicare and (hopefully) commercial insurers,” said Dr. Hood.

“Historically, there has been concern regarding the fact that most state medical boards require the physician to be licensed in the state where the patient resides or is located,” he said. “[Recently] I was able to conduct a video visit with a patient in Florida, at her initiation, over the potential of a broken bone. The case should be expected to have fallen under an emergency, but this waiver provides reassuring clarity.

“With the assistance of her boyfriend performing elements of the physical examination under my direction, we were able to establish a probable diagnosis, as well as a treatment plan – all while avoiding her exposing herself by leaving voluntary self-isolation or consuming resources in the emergency room,” Dr. Hood said.

Elsewhere, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federation of State Medical Boards has announced that it will act to verify licenses and credentials for doctors wishing to practice across state lines.


 

The “emergency exception” to in-state licensing requirements

Most state medical boards recognize some version of an exception to the in-state licensing requirement if a doctor or other healthcare professional is providing emergency care to a patient. But these exceptions rarely define what qualifies as an emergency. So, whether treatment of a COVID-19 patient or treatment of a non-COVID-19 patient who requires care in a triage setting constitutes an emergency – so that the exception to the licensing requirement applies—has been something of an open question.

What’s more, many states have laid out various exceptions to the exception. For example, in some states, the person providing the emergency treatment cannot be doing so in exchange for monetary compensation. Elsewhere, the emergency treatment must be provided outside of a traditional health care setting (not in a hospital or doctor’s office) to qualify under the exception.

Is expedited medical licensing an option?

There are ways for a care provider to obtain a medical license in some states without relying on the traditional (and often time-intensive) process. In Ohio, for example, the state’s medical board can issue an expedited license to practice medicine, although the care provider still needs to submit an application – in other words, expedited licensing can’t be granted retroactively. And in many states – including California, where medical board staff is required to complete initial review of an application within 60 working days – an expedited application isn’t an option (at least not yet).

Around 30 states have joined the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for doctors to get licensed in multiple states through an expedited application process. According to the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission, around 80% of doctors meet the criteria for licensing through the Compact.

Why licensing matters

State medical boards and other licensing agencies protect patients by making sure that an individual who practices medicine in the state is qualified to do so. That means scrutinizing applications to practice medicine in the state, reviewing credentials, and ensuring fitness to practice.

The practice of medicine without a license is typically considered a criminal act and is punishable by a variety of different sanctions (criminal, administrative, and professional). What’s more, the fact that a care provider was practicing medicine without a license could set the table for allegations of medical malpractice.

From a liability standpoint, if a doctor or other clinician treats a patient in a state where the clinician is unlicensed, then it’s a near certainty that any medical liability insurance the doctor carries will not apply to the treatment scenario. Suppose a patient is given substandard care and suffers harm at some point within the unlicensed treatment setting, and the patient files a malpractice lawsuit. In that situation, the doctor (and not an insurance company with so-called “deep pockets”) will be on the financial hook for the patient’s harm.

Doctors and other health care providers continue to serve the most critical of roles in our nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Like most things related to COVID-19, the information presented here is sure to change.

David Goguen is a legal editor at Nolo whose work focuses on claimants’ rights in personal injury cases. He is a member of the California State Bar and has more than a decade of experience in litigation and legal publishing. He is a graduate of the University of San Francisco School of Law.
 

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

Legal orders and waivers of licensing requirements could change the way many doctors see patients during the COVID-19 crisis.

A number of states have already taken steps to waive their requirement that a physician be licensed in the state in order to provide care to patients. California  and Florida are among the states that have done so – through their respective declarations of statewide emergency. More states are sure to follow.

Another route around traditional medical licensing requirements is the Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioner Act (UEVHPA), which – in the 20 or so states that have adopted it – can take effect once a statewide emergency is declared. This law lets volunteer health practitioners who are licensed in another state practice in the state where the emergency was declared, without first needing to obtain a license there. The practitioner need only be in good standing with any state in which he or she is currently licensed and be registered as a volunteer in the system. The Washington State Department of Health was one of the first such departments to invoke the UEVHPA in response to the coronavirus.

“The waiving of state licensure requirements should help ease a number of stress points of the current crisis in ways that benefit society,” said Gregory A. Hood, MD, an internist in Lexington, Ky., who is on the advisory board of Medscape Business of Medicine.

“As many have chosen to shelter in place, hoping to ride out the end of winter and, optimistically, the COVID-19 pandemic, there are physicians with second homes in South Carolina, Florida, and elsewhere who could be envisioned being brought into service to ease staffing shortfalls should the crisis exceed available resources.

“However, likely the most novel, necessary, and widespread impact of the waiving of licensure requirements will be aiding physicians in practicing telehealth video visits, as now authorized by Medicare and (hopefully) commercial insurers,” said Dr. Hood.

“Historically, there has been concern regarding the fact that most state medical boards require the physician to be licensed in the state where the patient resides or is located,” he said. “[Recently] I was able to conduct a video visit with a patient in Florida, at her initiation, over the potential of a broken bone. The case should be expected to have fallen under an emergency, but this waiver provides reassuring clarity.

“With the assistance of her boyfriend performing elements of the physical examination under my direction, we were able to establish a probable diagnosis, as well as a treatment plan – all while avoiding her exposing herself by leaving voluntary self-isolation or consuming resources in the emergency room,” Dr. Hood said.

Elsewhere, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federation of State Medical Boards has announced that it will act to verify licenses and credentials for doctors wishing to practice across state lines.


 

The “emergency exception” to in-state licensing requirements

Most state medical boards recognize some version of an exception to the in-state licensing requirement if a doctor or other healthcare professional is providing emergency care to a patient. But these exceptions rarely define what qualifies as an emergency. So, whether treatment of a COVID-19 patient or treatment of a non-COVID-19 patient who requires care in a triage setting constitutes an emergency – so that the exception to the licensing requirement applies—has been something of an open question.

What’s more, many states have laid out various exceptions to the exception. For example, in some states, the person providing the emergency treatment cannot be doing so in exchange for monetary compensation. Elsewhere, the emergency treatment must be provided outside of a traditional health care setting (not in a hospital or doctor’s office) to qualify under the exception.

Is expedited medical licensing an option?

There are ways for a care provider to obtain a medical license in some states without relying on the traditional (and often time-intensive) process. In Ohio, for example, the state’s medical board can issue an expedited license to practice medicine, although the care provider still needs to submit an application – in other words, expedited licensing can’t be granted retroactively. And in many states – including California, where medical board staff is required to complete initial review of an application within 60 working days – an expedited application isn’t an option (at least not yet).

Around 30 states have joined the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for doctors to get licensed in multiple states through an expedited application process. According to the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission, around 80% of doctors meet the criteria for licensing through the Compact.

Why licensing matters

State medical boards and other licensing agencies protect patients by making sure that an individual who practices medicine in the state is qualified to do so. That means scrutinizing applications to practice medicine in the state, reviewing credentials, and ensuring fitness to practice.

The practice of medicine without a license is typically considered a criminal act and is punishable by a variety of different sanctions (criminal, administrative, and professional). What’s more, the fact that a care provider was practicing medicine without a license could set the table for allegations of medical malpractice.

From a liability standpoint, if a doctor or other clinician treats a patient in a state where the clinician is unlicensed, then it’s a near certainty that any medical liability insurance the doctor carries will not apply to the treatment scenario. Suppose a patient is given substandard care and suffers harm at some point within the unlicensed treatment setting, and the patient files a malpractice lawsuit. In that situation, the doctor (and not an insurance company with so-called “deep pockets”) will be on the financial hook for the patient’s harm.

Doctors and other health care providers continue to serve the most critical of roles in our nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Like most things related to COVID-19, the information presented here is sure to change.

David Goguen is a legal editor at Nolo whose work focuses on claimants’ rights in personal injury cases. He is a member of the California State Bar and has more than a decade of experience in litigation and legal publishing. He is a graduate of the University of San Francisco School of Law.
 

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

Clinical question: Are blood cultures warranted in specific subsets of children hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)?

Background: Guidelines from the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommend obtaining blood cultures in children hospitalized with moderate to severe community-acquired pneumonia. This group of authors recently published a study showing the prevalence of bacteremia of 2.5% in a cohort of generally healthy children hospitalized with CAP who had blood cultures obtained, with only 0.4% harboring a pathogen not susceptible to penicillin. They found low yield for blood cultures in children hospitalized with CAP.

Study design: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Setting: Pediatric Health Information System Plus (PHIS+) database (six institutions).

Synopsis: Secondary analysis of prior study of children aged 3 months to 18 years hospitalized with CAP between 2007 to 2011. For the secondary analysis only children in whom a blood culture was obtained on the initial or second day of hospitalization were studied. CAP was defined by a primary ICD-9 discharge diagnosis code for pneumonia or a primary ICD-9 discharge diagnosis code for pleural effusion with a secondary diagnosis code for pneumonia. Children transferred into the study institution and children with complex chronic conditions were excluded from the study. The primary outcome was the presence of bacteremia based on pathogen detection in the initial blood culture. Bacteria were labeled as pathogens or contaminants.

A total of 7,509 children were included in the initial study. Of them, 2,568 (34.2%) had a blood culture obtained on the initial or second day of hospitalization; 65 (2.5%) of the children with blood cultures obtained on admission had bacteremia. The most common penicillin-susceptible blood pathogen isolated was Streptococcus pneumoniae (n = 47). Eleven children (0.4%) had bacteremia with a pathogen not susceptible to penicillin. Children with bacteremia had a higher median admission white blood cell (WBC) count than did those without bacteremia (17.5 × 10³ cells per mcL vs. 12.4 × 10³ cells per mcL; P < .01) and definite radiographic pneumonia on admission chest radiograph (P < .01). C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were also higher in children with bacteremia but were only obtained in 35% and 15% of patients, respectively. Children with bacteremia had a higher prevalence of complicated pneumonia on admission (P = .06) than did children without bacteremia. Children with bacteremia had longer lengths of stay (4 days vs. 2 days; P < .01) and were more likely to be admitted to an ICU (P < .01) than were children without bacteremia.

This study is limited by its sample because all of the patients were cared for at tertiary care hospitals. It is also limited by its timing; the PHIS+ data set spans the introduction of the 13-valent pneumococcal vaccine, and so the current prevalence of bacteremia in CAP may be lower than that found in the study.

Bottom line: The prevalence of bacteremia was low among a cohort of generally healthy children hospitalized with CAP, and no features strongly predicted the presence of bacteremia. The authors recommend that blood cultures in children with CAP should be limited to patients admitted to the ICU.

Citation: Lipsett SC et al. Predictors of Bacteremia in Children Hospitalized With Community-Acquired Pneumonia. Hosp Pediatr. 2019 Oct;9(10):770-8.

Dr. Kumar is a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and serves as the Pediatrics Editor for The Hospitalist.

Clinical question: Are blood cultures warranted in specific subsets of children hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)?

Background: Guidelines from the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommend obtaining blood cultures in children hospitalized with moderate to severe community-acquired pneumonia. This group of authors recently published a study showing the prevalence of bacteremia of 2.5% in a cohort of generally healthy children hospitalized with CAP who had blood cultures obtained, with only 0.4% harboring a pathogen not susceptible to penicillin. They found low yield for blood cultures in children hospitalized with CAP.

Study design: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Setting: Pediatric Health Information System Plus (PHIS+) database (six institutions).

Synopsis: Secondary analysis of prior study of children aged 3 months to 18 years hospitalized with CAP between 2007 to 2011. For the secondary analysis only children in whom a blood culture was obtained on the initial or second day of hospitalization were studied. CAP was defined by a primary ICD-9 discharge diagnosis code for pneumonia or a primary ICD-9 discharge diagnosis code for pleural effusion with a secondary diagnosis code for pneumonia. Children transferred into the study institution and children with complex chronic conditions were excluded from the study. The primary outcome was the presence of bacteremia based on pathogen detection in the initial blood culture. Bacteria were labeled as pathogens or contaminants.

A total of 7,509 children were included in the initial study. Of them, 2,568 (34.2%) had a blood culture obtained on the initial or second day of hospitalization; 65 (2.5%) of the children with blood cultures obtained on admission had bacteremia. The most common penicillin-susceptible blood pathogen isolated was Streptococcus pneumoniae (n = 47). Eleven children (0.4%) had bacteremia with a pathogen not susceptible to penicillin. Children with bacteremia had a higher median admission white blood cell (WBC) count than did those without bacteremia (17.5 × 10³ cells per mcL vs. 12.4 × 10³ cells per mcL; P < .01) and definite radiographic pneumonia on admission chest radiograph (P < .01). C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were also higher in children with bacteremia but were only obtained in 35% and 15% of patients, respectively. Children with bacteremia had a higher prevalence of complicated pneumonia on admission (P = .06) than did children without bacteremia. Children with bacteremia had longer lengths of stay (4 days vs. 2 days; P < .01) and were more likely to be admitted to an ICU (P < .01) than were children without bacteremia.

This study is limited by its sample because all of the patients were cared for at tertiary care hospitals. It is also limited by its timing; the PHIS+ data set spans the introduction of the 13-valent pneumococcal vaccine, and so the current prevalence of bacteremia in CAP may be lower than that found in the study.

Bottom line: The prevalence of bacteremia was low among a cohort of generally healthy children hospitalized with CAP, and no features strongly predicted the presence of bacteremia. The authors recommend that blood cultures in children with CAP should be limited to patients admitted to the ICU.

Citation: Lipsett SC et al. Predictors of Bacteremia in Children Hospitalized With Community-Acquired Pneumonia. Hosp Pediatr. 2019 Oct;9(10):770-8.

Dr. Kumar is a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and serves as the Pediatrics Editor for The Hospitalist.

Clinical question: Are blood cultures warranted in specific subsets of children hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)?

Background: Guidelines from the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommend obtaining blood cultures in children hospitalized with moderate to severe community-acquired pneumonia. This group of authors recently published a study showing the prevalence of bacteremia of 2.5% in a cohort of generally healthy children hospitalized with CAP who had blood cultures obtained, with only 0.4% harboring a pathogen not susceptible to penicillin. They found low yield for blood cultures in children hospitalized with CAP.

Study design: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Setting: Pediatric Health Information System Plus (PHIS+) database (six institutions).

Synopsis: Secondary analysis of prior study of children aged 3 months to 18 years hospitalized with CAP between 2007 to 2011. For the secondary analysis only children in whom a blood culture was obtained on the initial or second day of hospitalization were studied. CAP was defined by a primary ICD-9 discharge diagnosis code for pneumonia or a primary ICD-9 discharge diagnosis code for pleural effusion with a secondary diagnosis code for pneumonia. Children transferred into the study institution and children with complex chronic conditions were excluded from the study. The primary outcome was the presence of bacteremia based on pathogen detection in the initial blood culture. Bacteria were labeled as pathogens or contaminants.

A total of 7,509 children were included in the initial study. Of them, 2,568 (34.2%) had a blood culture obtained on the initial or second day of hospitalization; 65 (2.5%) of the children with blood cultures obtained on admission had bacteremia. The most common penicillin-susceptible blood pathogen isolated was Streptococcus pneumoniae (n = 47). Eleven children (0.4%) had bacteremia with a pathogen not susceptible to penicillin. Children with bacteremia had a higher median admission white blood cell (WBC) count than did those without bacteremia (17.5 × 10³ cells per mcL vs. 12.4 × 10³ cells per mcL; P < .01) and definite radiographic pneumonia on admission chest radiograph (P < .01). C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were also higher in children with bacteremia but were only obtained in 35% and 15% of patients, respectively. Children with bacteremia had a higher prevalence of complicated pneumonia on admission (P = .06) than did children without bacteremia. Children with bacteremia had longer lengths of stay (4 days vs. 2 days; P < .01) and were more likely to be admitted to an ICU (P < .01) than were children without bacteremia.

This study is limited by its sample because all of the patients were cared for at tertiary care hospitals. It is also limited by its timing; the PHIS+ data set spans the introduction of the 13-valent pneumococcal vaccine, and so the current prevalence of bacteremia in CAP may be lower than that found in the study.

Bottom line: The prevalence of bacteremia was low among a cohort of generally healthy children hospitalized with CAP, and no features strongly predicted the presence of bacteremia. The authors recommend that blood cultures in children with CAP should be limited to patients admitted to the ICU.

Citation: Lipsett SC et al. Predictors of Bacteremia in Children Hospitalized With Community-Acquired Pneumonia. Hosp Pediatr. 2019 Oct;9(10):770-8.

Dr. Kumar is a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and serves as the Pediatrics Editor for The Hospitalist.

Doctors at a Boston-area hospital learned via video conferencing that they would be receiving a 20% pay cut – a slap in the face at the precise moment that those on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic need a pat on the back (and more N95 respirators).

But Steward Health Care System*, which runs the hospital and dozens of others around the country, did the math and decided that the pay cuts were necessary to survive what they called “a seismic shock to our system.” They also announced furloughs for a large number of their nonclinical staff.

Spirits sank after the announcement. “It was devastating,” said one Boston doctor, who works for Steward and asked not to be identified for fear of retribution. “I didn’t say much during the call because I was so panicked, and I didn’t want to be crying on the call.”

Someone else did speak up, a senior colleague who warned that such a cut would kill morale at a time when physicians were already feeling vulnerable because of other shortages, including personal protective equipment. (Requests for interviews with Steward Health Care System executives were declined.)

Furloughs, layoffs, and even firings are happening elsewhere too. Hospitals in virus hotspots have already come up short on beds and face masks. Now a shortage of cash is prompting many to fire some of their health care workers, furlough them temporarily, or – like Steward Health Care System – slash their pay checks.

Despite almost $200 billion earmarked for hospital systems in the recently passed federal stimulus package, many hospitals are still in dire financial straits. Most make the majority of their money through so-called elective procedures, such as knee replacements and cataract surgeries, almost all of which have been postponed in order to conserve personal protective equipment and minimize spread of the virus. Those cancellations translate to a significant financial hit.

On top of that, hospitals will lose an average of $1,800 on every COVID-19 case, according to projections by Strata Decision Technology, a health care financial planning and analytic company. Some, they estimate, may lose much more, between $6,000 and $8,000 per patient. And hospitals were already hurting. According to a report from Bloomberg, at least 30 hospitals entered bankruptcy in 2019.

“This pressure on institutions to control costs has been around for several years,” said Steve Lefar, executive director of the data science division of Strata Decision Technology and lead author of the study. “This is just making it incredibly acute for them.”

Many hospital executives are bracing for months of hardship, leading to wrenching decisions to furlough or lay off staff, suspend bonuses, or cut pay – even as some short-staffed hospitals in COVID-19 hotspots are issuing pleas for doctors to come out of retirement.
 

Forward thinking?

While most furloughs and layoffs so far have affected people who don’t work directly with patients, many on the front lines have been hit with pay cuts or withheld bonuses or retirement contributions. In Massachusetts, the state’s medical society has asked Governor Charlie Baker for financial relief for health care workers in the form of grants, no-interest or forgivable small-business loans for physician practices, and deferment of medical student loan payments.

At St. Alexius Hospital in St. Louis, Sonny Saggar, MD, was fired as CEO after he clashed with a bankruptcy trustee. Dr. Saggar had proposed offering open beds to other hospital systems during the pandemic – an idea that, he said, was turned down out of concern for the bottom line.

“This is one of those times where we need to put down our search for profit and money and just look after people’s lives. We’re supposed to have that calling in health care,” said Dr. Saggar, who has since been reinstated as chief strategy officer and director of the COVID task force and ED. He noted that he and the trustee have resolved differences over funding.

At St. Claire HealthCare in Morehead, Ky., 300 employees who were not involved in direct patient care – a quarter of the hospital’s staff – have been furloughed, something Donald Lloyd II, St. Claire HealthCare’s CEO as of May 1, described as forward thinking.

To prepare for the influx of COVID-19 patients, the hospital shut down elective procedures early. “Prudence dictates the need to be extremely proactive,” Mr. Lloyd said. “We need to devote our limited resources to frontline clinical teams.”

Other hospitals are making similar moves, although many are not doing so publicly. Mr. Lloyd decided to put out a press release because he found it offensive that the federal government was “bailing out airlines and cruise lines before our frontline men and women caring for patients.”

Massachusetts-based Atrius Health, for instance, placed many staffers on a 1-month furlough, while simultaneously withholding a percentage of working physicians’ paychecks, saying that they plan to pay them back at a later date. TriHealth, in Cincinnati, looked elsewhere for ways to save money. Instead of cutting physician salaries, 11 executives took a 20% pay cut.

There are both better and worse ways to go about such staff reductions, according to Mr. Lefar. If reductions have to be made, it would be best if CEOs keep cuts as far away as possible from the front lines of patient care.

“My bias is to start with pay reductions for high-paid executives, then furloughs, and beyond that layoffs,” he said. (Furloughs allow employees to be brought back and receive unemployment benefits while not working.) “Anyone related to patient care – these are the people who are getting the country through this, these are the heroes.”
 

After the pandemic

Large hospital systems that can designate separate buildings for COVID-19 care may fare best financially, Mr. Lefar said. By retaining a clean, noninfectious facility, such setups could allow for an earlier return to regular procedures – as long as rapid COVID-19 testing becomes available.

Smaller hospitals, nearly half of which run at a financial loss, according to the Chartis Center for Rural Health, face the additional burdens of both limited capacity and a limited ability to separate COVID-19 care.

Mostly, Mr. Lefar said, it’s a matter of doing whatever is necessary to get through the worst of it. “A lot of what is deemed elective or scheduled will come back,” he said. “Right now it’s crisis mode. ... I think it’s going to be a rough 6-9 months, but we will get back to it.”

*Correction, 4/7/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a hospital in the Boston area run by Steward Health Care System. 

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

Doctors at a Boston-area hospital learned via video conferencing that they would be receiving a 20% pay cut – a slap in the face at the precise moment that those on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic need a pat on the back (and more N95 respirators).

But Steward Health Care System*, which runs the hospital and dozens of others around the country, did the math and decided that the pay cuts were necessary to survive what they called “a seismic shock to our system.” They also announced furloughs for a large number of their nonclinical staff.

Spirits sank after the announcement. “It was devastating,” said one Boston doctor, who works for Steward and asked not to be identified for fear of retribution. “I didn’t say much during the call because I was so panicked, and I didn’t want to be crying on the call.”

Someone else did speak up, a senior colleague who warned that such a cut would kill morale at a time when physicians were already feeling vulnerable because of other shortages, including personal protective equipment. (Requests for interviews with Steward Health Care System executives were declined.)

Furloughs, layoffs, and even firings are happening elsewhere too. Hospitals in virus hotspots have already come up short on beds and face masks. Now a shortage of cash is prompting many to fire some of their health care workers, furlough them temporarily, or – like Steward Health Care System – slash their pay checks.

Despite almost $200 billion earmarked for hospital systems in the recently passed federal stimulus package, many hospitals are still in dire financial straits. Most make the majority of their money through so-called elective procedures, such as knee replacements and cataract surgeries, almost all of which have been postponed in order to conserve personal protective equipment and minimize spread of the virus. Those cancellations translate to a significant financial hit.

On top of that, hospitals will lose an average of $1,800 on every COVID-19 case, according to projections by Strata Decision Technology, a health care financial planning and analytic company. Some, they estimate, may lose much more, between $6,000 and $8,000 per patient. And hospitals were already hurting. According to a report from Bloomberg, at least 30 hospitals entered bankruptcy in 2019.

“This pressure on institutions to control costs has been around for several years,” said Steve Lefar, executive director of the data science division of Strata Decision Technology and lead author of the study. “This is just making it incredibly acute for them.”

Many hospital executives are bracing for months of hardship, leading to wrenching decisions to furlough or lay off staff, suspend bonuses, or cut pay – even as some short-staffed hospitals in COVID-19 hotspots are issuing pleas for doctors to come out of retirement.
 

Forward thinking?

While most furloughs and layoffs so far have affected people who don’t work directly with patients, many on the front lines have been hit with pay cuts or withheld bonuses or retirement contributions. In Massachusetts, the state’s medical society has asked Governor Charlie Baker for financial relief for health care workers in the form of grants, no-interest or forgivable small-business loans for physician practices, and deferment of medical student loan payments.

At St. Alexius Hospital in St. Louis, Sonny Saggar, MD, was fired as CEO after he clashed with a bankruptcy trustee. Dr. Saggar had proposed offering open beds to other hospital systems during the pandemic – an idea that, he said, was turned down out of concern for the bottom line.

“This is one of those times where we need to put down our search for profit and money and just look after people’s lives. We’re supposed to have that calling in health care,” said Dr. Saggar, who has since been reinstated as chief strategy officer and director of the COVID task force and ED. He noted that he and the trustee have resolved differences over funding.

At St. Claire HealthCare in Morehead, Ky., 300 employees who were not involved in direct patient care – a quarter of the hospital’s staff – have been furloughed, something Donald Lloyd II, St. Claire HealthCare’s CEO as of May 1, described as forward thinking.

To prepare for the influx of COVID-19 patients, the hospital shut down elective procedures early. “Prudence dictates the need to be extremely proactive,” Mr. Lloyd said. “We need to devote our limited resources to frontline clinical teams.”

Other hospitals are making similar moves, although many are not doing so publicly. Mr. Lloyd decided to put out a press release because he found it offensive that the federal government was “bailing out airlines and cruise lines before our frontline men and women caring for patients.”

Massachusetts-based Atrius Health, for instance, placed many staffers on a 1-month furlough, while simultaneously withholding a percentage of working physicians’ paychecks, saying that they plan to pay them back at a later date. TriHealth, in Cincinnati, looked elsewhere for ways to save money. Instead of cutting physician salaries, 11 executives took a 20% pay cut.

There are both better and worse ways to go about such staff reductions, according to Mr. Lefar. If reductions have to be made, it would be best if CEOs keep cuts as far away as possible from the front lines of patient care.

“My bias is to start with pay reductions for high-paid executives, then furloughs, and beyond that layoffs,” he said. (Furloughs allow employees to be brought back and receive unemployment benefits while not working.) “Anyone related to patient care – these are the people who are getting the country through this, these are the heroes.”
 

After the pandemic

Large hospital systems that can designate separate buildings for COVID-19 care may fare best financially, Mr. Lefar said. By retaining a clean, noninfectious facility, such setups could allow for an earlier return to regular procedures – as long as rapid COVID-19 testing becomes available.

Smaller hospitals, nearly half of which run at a financial loss, according to the Chartis Center for Rural Health, face the additional burdens of both limited capacity and a limited ability to separate COVID-19 care.

Mostly, Mr. Lefar said, it’s a matter of doing whatever is necessary to get through the worst of it. “A lot of what is deemed elective or scheduled will come back,” he said. “Right now it’s crisis mode. ... I think it’s going to be a rough 6-9 months, but we will get back to it.”

*Correction, 4/7/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a hospital in the Boston area run by Steward Health Care System. 

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

Doctors at a Boston-area hospital learned via video conferencing that they would be receiving a 20% pay cut – a slap in the face at the precise moment that those on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic need a pat on the back (and more N95 respirators).

But Steward Health Care System*, which runs the hospital and dozens of others around the country, did the math and decided that the pay cuts were necessary to survive what they called “a seismic shock to our system.” They also announced furloughs for a large number of their nonclinical staff.

Spirits sank after the announcement. “It was devastating,” said one Boston doctor, who works for Steward and asked not to be identified for fear of retribution. “I didn’t say much during the call because I was so panicked, and I didn’t want to be crying on the call.”

Someone else did speak up, a senior colleague who warned that such a cut would kill morale at a time when physicians were already feeling vulnerable because of other shortages, including personal protective equipment. (Requests for interviews with Steward Health Care System executives were declined.)

Furloughs, layoffs, and even firings are happening elsewhere too. Hospitals in virus hotspots have already come up short on beds and face masks. Now a shortage of cash is prompting many to fire some of their health care workers, furlough them temporarily, or – like Steward Health Care System – slash their pay checks.

Despite almost $200 billion earmarked for hospital systems in the recently passed federal stimulus package, many hospitals are still in dire financial straits. Most make the majority of their money through so-called elective procedures, such as knee replacements and cataract surgeries, almost all of which have been postponed in order to conserve personal protective equipment and minimize spread of the virus. Those cancellations translate to a significant financial hit.

On top of that, hospitals will lose an average of $1,800 on every COVID-19 case, according to projections by Strata Decision Technology, a health care financial planning and analytic company. Some, they estimate, may lose much more, between $6,000 and $8,000 per patient. And hospitals were already hurting. According to a report from Bloomberg, at least 30 hospitals entered bankruptcy in 2019.

“This pressure on institutions to control costs has been around for several years,” said Steve Lefar, executive director of the data science division of Strata Decision Technology and lead author of the study. “This is just making it incredibly acute for them.”

Many hospital executives are bracing for months of hardship, leading to wrenching decisions to furlough or lay off staff, suspend bonuses, or cut pay – even as some short-staffed hospitals in COVID-19 hotspots are issuing pleas for doctors to come out of retirement.
 

Forward thinking?

While most furloughs and layoffs so far have affected people who don’t work directly with patients, many on the front lines have been hit with pay cuts or withheld bonuses or retirement contributions. In Massachusetts, the state’s medical society has asked Governor Charlie Baker for financial relief for health care workers in the form of grants, no-interest or forgivable small-business loans for physician practices, and deferment of medical student loan payments.

At St. Alexius Hospital in St. Louis, Sonny Saggar, MD, was fired as CEO after he clashed with a bankruptcy trustee. Dr. Saggar had proposed offering open beds to other hospital systems during the pandemic – an idea that, he said, was turned down out of concern for the bottom line.

“This is one of those times where we need to put down our search for profit and money and just look after people’s lives. We’re supposed to have that calling in health care,” said Dr. Saggar, who has since been reinstated as chief strategy officer and director of the COVID task force and ED. He noted that he and the trustee have resolved differences over funding.

At St. Claire HealthCare in Morehead, Ky., 300 employees who were not involved in direct patient care – a quarter of the hospital’s staff – have been furloughed, something Donald Lloyd II, St. Claire HealthCare’s CEO as of May 1, described as forward thinking.

To prepare for the influx of COVID-19 patients, the hospital shut down elective procedures early. “Prudence dictates the need to be extremely proactive,” Mr. Lloyd said. “We need to devote our limited resources to frontline clinical teams.”

Other hospitals are making similar moves, although many are not doing so publicly. Mr. Lloyd decided to put out a press release because he found it offensive that the federal government was “bailing out airlines and cruise lines before our frontline men and women caring for patients.”

Massachusetts-based Atrius Health, for instance, placed many staffers on a 1-month furlough, while simultaneously withholding a percentage of working physicians’ paychecks, saying that they plan to pay them back at a later date. TriHealth, in Cincinnati, looked elsewhere for ways to save money. Instead of cutting physician salaries, 11 executives took a 20% pay cut.

There are both better and worse ways to go about such staff reductions, according to Mr. Lefar. If reductions have to be made, it would be best if CEOs keep cuts as far away as possible from the front lines of patient care.

“My bias is to start with pay reductions for high-paid executives, then furloughs, and beyond that layoffs,” he said. (Furloughs allow employees to be brought back and receive unemployment benefits while not working.) “Anyone related to patient care – these are the people who are getting the country through this, these are the heroes.”
 

After the pandemic

Large hospital systems that can designate separate buildings for COVID-19 care may fare best financially, Mr. Lefar said. By retaining a clean, noninfectious facility, such setups could allow for an earlier return to regular procedures – as long as rapid COVID-19 testing becomes available.

Smaller hospitals, nearly half of which run at a financial loss, according to the Chartis Center for Rural Health, face the additional burdens of both limited capacity and a limited ability to separate COVID-19 care.

Mostly, Mr. Lefar said, it’s a matter of doing whatever is necessary to get through the worst of it. “A lot of what is deemed elective or scheduled will come back,” he said. “Right now it’s crisis mode. ... I think it’s going to be a rough 6-9 months, but we will get back to it.”

*Correction, 4/7/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a hospital in the Boston area run by Steward Health Care System. 

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

The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder in 4-year-olds rose from 2014 to 2016, indicating more early identification of ASD among the children born in 2012, compared with 2008, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data from individual surveillance sites in the CDC’s Early Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (Early ADDM) Network, however, show “wide variability in estimates [that] could reflect variable success in improving community identification,” Kelly A. Shaw, PhD, and associates wrote in MMWR Surveillance Summaries.

In 2016, the overall prevalence of ASD was 15.6 per 1,000 children aged 4 years at the six sites in the Early ADDM Network, compared with 14.1 per 1,000 in 2014, they reported.

“In addition, the cumulative incidence of ASD diagnoses at age 48 months was higher for children born in 2012 than for children born in 2008, which indicates a higher rate of diagnosis for the younger cohort,” wrote Dr. Shaw of the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Atlanta, and associates.

A closer look at the six Early ADDM Network sites shows considerable variation in prevalence. The New Jersey site, consisting of one full county and part of another that includes metropolitan Newark, reported a rate of 25.3 per 1,000 – 38.7 for males and 11.0 for females – while the rates for Missouri – one county in metropolitan St. Louis – were 13.4 (male), 3.9 (female), and 8.8 (combined), the investigators wrote.

ASD prevalence across the six sites was 3.5 times higher among males (23.9 per 1,000) than females (6.8). “Cumulative incidence patterns also differed by sex, with a steady increase in diagnoses with age for boys but an apparent plateau for girls at approximately age 36 months,” they noted.

The median age at earliest diagnosis was 33 months for all sites, with North Carolina lowest at 29 months and Wisconsin highest at 36 months.

The overall median, Dr. Shaw and associates pointed out, is “well above the youngest age at which ASD can be identified, [so] work remains to improve early diagnosis so children can receive timely services.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Shaw KA et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020;69(SS-3):1-11. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6903a1.

The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder in 4-year-olds rose from 2014 to 2016, indicating more early identification of ASD among the children born in 2012, compared with 2008, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data from individual surveillance sites in the CDC’s Early Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (Early ADDM) Network, however, show “wide variability in estimates [that] could reflect variable success in improving community identification,” Kelly A. Shaw, PhD, and associates wrote in MMWR Surveillance Summaries.

In 2016, the overall prevalence of ASD was 15.6 per 1,000 children aged 4 years at the six sites in the Early ADDM Network, compared with 14.1 per 1,000 in 2014, they reported.

“In addition, the cumulative incidence of ASD diagnoses at age 48 months was higher for children born in 2012 than for children born in 2008, which indicates a higher rate of diagnosis for the younger cohort,” wrote Dr. Shaw of the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Atlanta, and associates.

A closer look at the six Early ADDM Network sites shows considerable variation in prevalence. The New Jersey site, consisting of one full county and part of another that includes metropolitan Newark, reported a rate of 25.3 per 1,000 – 38.7 for males and 11.0 for females – while the rates for Missouri – one county in metropolitan St. Louis – were 13.4 (male), 3.9 (female), and 8.8 (combined), the investigators wrote.

ASD prevalence across the six sites was 3.5 times higher among males (23.9 per 1,000) than females (6.8). “Cumulative incidence patterns also differed by sex, with a steady increase in diagnoses with age for boys but an apparent plateau for girls at approximately age 36 months,” they noted.

The median age at earliest diagnosis was 33 months for all sites, with North Carolina lowest at 29 months and Wisconsin highest at 36 months.

The overall median, Dr. Shaw and associates pointed out, is “well above the youngest age at which ASD can be identified, [so] work remains to improve early diagnosis so children can receive timely services.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Shaw KA et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020;69(SS-3):1-11. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6903a1.

The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder in 4-year-olds rose from 2014 to 2016, indicating more early identification of ASD among the children born in 2012, compared with 2008, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data from individual surveillance sites in the CDC’s Early Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (Early ADDM) Network, however, show “wide variability in estimates [that] could reflect variable success in improving community identification,” Kelly A. Shaw, PhD, and associates wrote in MMWR Surveillance Summaries.

In 2016, the overall prevalence of ASD was 15.6 per 1,000 children aged 4 years at the six sites in the Early ADDM Network, compared with 14.1 per 1,000 in 2014, they reported.

“In addition, the cumulative incidence of ASD diagnoses at age 48 months was higher for children born in 2012 than for children born in 2008, which indicates a higher rate of diagnosis for the younger cohort,” wrote Dr. Shaw of the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Atlanta, and associates.

A closer look at the six Early ADDM Network sites shows considerable variation in prevalence. The New Jersey site, consisting of one full county and part of another that includes metropolitan Newark, reported a rate of 25.3 per 1,000 – 38.7 for males and 11.0 for females – while the rates for Missouri – one county in metropolitan St. Louis – were 13.4 (male), 3.9 (female), and 8.8 (combined), the investigators wrote.

ASD prevalence across the six sites was 3.5 times higher among males (23.9 per 1,000) than females (6.8). “Cumulative incidence patterns also differed by sex, with a steady increase in diagnoses with age for boys but an apparent plateau for girls at approximately age 36 months,” they noted.

The median age at earliest diagnosis was 33 months for all sites, with North Carolina lowest at 29 months and Wisconsin highest at 36 months.

The overall median, Dr. Shaw and associates pointed out, is “well above the youngest age at which ASD can be identified, [so] work remains to improve early diagnosis so children can receive timely services.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Shaw KA et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020;69(SS-3):1-11. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6903a1.

Being targeted by bullies as children and adolescents appears to be influenced in part by early childhood externalizing behavior and family vulnerability, according to data from a large, cohort study of 1,760 children in Canada.

BananaStock

“Peer victimization is characterized by substantial individual variability in its timing, duration, and intensity,” but the specific variations in victimization patterns have not been well studied, wrote Sinziana I. Oncioiu, MPH, of the University of Bordeaux (France) and colleagues.

To better describe the trajectories of peer victimization and identify factors associated with them, the researchers used data from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development of children born in Quebec in 1997-1998 and followed from 5 months to 17 years of age. Participants reported being the target of a bully at least once in ages 6-17 years. The study included 862 boys and 898 girls; 59% provided data on being bullied seven or eight times out of a possible eight assessments in the study published in Pediatrics.

The researchers identified four trajectories of peer victimization for ages 6-17 years: low (33%), moderate emerging (30%), childhood limited (26%), and high chronic (11%). Low victimization was defined as low victimization throughout the follow-up period. Moderate-emerging victimization was defined as steady levels from 6-12 years, followed by adolescent victimization. Childhood-limited peer victimization was defined as a high level of bullying at 6 years of age, followed by a sharp decline from 6 to 17 years. High-chronic victimization was defined as persistently high victimization compared, with the other groups, although levels declined from 6 to 17 years.

Overall, in a multivariate analysis, children in the moderate-emerging, childhood-limited, and high-chronic groups were more likely than those in the low victimization group to demonstrate externalizing behavior problems in early childhood. In addition, children with a paternal history of antisocial behavior were significantly more likely to be in moderate-emerging and high-chronic groups, compared with the low group (odds ratios 1.54 and 1.93, respectively). Children living in a nonintact family in early childhood were significantly more likely to fall into the childhood-limited and high-chronic groups, compared with the low group.

The study findings were limited by several factors including lack of assessment of power imbalances between bullies and victims and a lack of differentiation between children who were both bullies and victims and those who were victims only, the researchers noted. The use of self-reports and some attrition of the study population also limited the results, they said.

However, the study’s large size and long-term follow-up strengthen the results, which support the need for targeted interventions to address individual and family vulnerabilities and prevent persistent victimization during children’s school years, the researchers concluded.

Pediatricians have an important role to play in reducing potential vulnerability to being bullied among their patients, Stephen S. Leff, PhD; Brooke S. Paskewich, PsyD; and Nathan J. Blum, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Given that nearly two-thirds of school-aged youth in the current study report peer victimization during elementary and/or middle school, this is an important period in which pediatricians can screen for victimization during well-child visits,” they said. It also is important to have resources and referral information available, whether it is in the practice, the community, or online. Anticipatory guidance also is valuable by defining bullying (“aggressive or mean behavior that happens repeatedly in the context of a power imbalance,”) forms of bullying (physical, verbal, using gossip, and social exclusion in real time or online), and the impact of bullying on children and families.

In addition, pediatricians should “recognize externalizing behaviors as risk factors for adverse outcomes and assist families in accessing evidence-based interventions such as family behavioral counseling or parent training,” the editorialists said. “There may also be value in pediatricians being more attuned to indicators of parental psychopathology so that they can make recommendations to address the parents’ mental health needs and better prepare parents to support their child’s social-emotional development.”

The study was supported by the Quebec Government Ministry of Health, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Quebec’s Health Research Fund, and other Canadian organizations and universities. The editorial was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCEs: Oncioiu SI et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2654.

Being targeted by bullies as children and adolescents appears to be influenced in part by early childhood externalizing behavior and family vulnerability, according to data from a large, cohort study of 1,760 children in Canada.

BananaStock

“Peer victimization is characterized by substantial individual variability in its timing, duration, and intensity,” but the specific variations in victimization patterns have not been well studied, wrote Sinziana I. Oncioiu, MPH, of the University of Bordeaux (France) and colleagues.

To better describe the trajectories of peer victimization and identify factors associated with them, the researchers used data from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development of children born in Quebec in 1997-1998 and followed from 5 months to 17 years of age. Participants reported being the target of a bully at least once in ages 6-17 years. The study included 862 boys and 898 girls; 59% provided data on being bullied seven or eight times out of a possible eight assessments in the study published in Pediatrics.

The researchers identified four trajectories of peer victimization for ages 6-17 years: low (33%), moderate emerging (30%), childhood limited (26%), and high chronic (11%). Low victimization was defined as low victimization throughout the follow-up period. Moderate-emerging victimization was defined as steady levels from 6-12 years, followed by adolescent victimization. Childhood-limited peer victimization was defined as a high level of bullying at 6 years of age, followed by a sharp decline from 6 to 17 years. High-chronic victimization was defined as persistently high victimization compared, with the other groups, although levels declined from 6 to 17 years.

Overall, in a multivariate analysis, children in the moderate-emerging, childhood-limited, and high-chronic groups were more likely than those in the low victimization group to demonstrate externalizing behavior problems in early childhood. In addition, children with a paternal history of antisocial behavior were significantly more likely to be in moderate-emerging and high-chronic groups, compared with the low group (odds ratios 1.54 and 1.93, respectively). Children living in a nonintact family in early childhood were significantly more likely to fall into the childhood-limited and high-chronic groups, compared with the low group.

The study findings were limited by several factors including lack of assessment of power imbalances between bullies and victims and a lack of differentiation between children who were both bullies and victims and those who were victims only, the researchers noted. The use of self-reports and some attrition of the study population also limited the results, they said.

However, the study’s large size and long-term follow-up strengthen the results, which support the need for targeted interventions to address individual and family vulnerabilities and prevent persistent victimization during children’s school years, the researchers concluded.

Pediatricians have an important role to play in reducing potential vulnerability to being bullied among their patients, Stephen S. Leff, PhD; Brooke S. Paskewich, PsyD; and Nathan J. Blum, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Given that nearly two-thirds of school-aged youth in the current study report peer victimization during elementary and/or middle school, this is an important period in which pediatricians can screen for victimization during well-child visits,” they said. It also is important to have resources and referral information available, whether it is in the practice, the community, or online. Anticipatory guidance also is valuable by defining bullying (“aggressive or mean behavior that happens repeatedly in the context of a power imbalance,”) forms of bullying (physical, verbal, using gossip, and social exclusion in real time or online), and the impact of bullying on children and families.

In addition, pediatricians should “recognize externalizing behaviors as risk factors for adverse outcomes and assist families in accessing evidence-based interventions such as family behavioral counseling or parent training,” the editorialists said. “There may also be value in pediatricians being more attuned to indicators of parental psychopathology so that they can make recommendations to address the parents’ mental health needs and better prepare parents to support their child’s social-emotional development.”

The study was supported by the Quebec Government Ministry of Health, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Quebec’s Health Research Fund, and other Canadian organizations and universities. The editorial was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCEs: Oncioiu SI et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2654.

Being targeted by bullies as children and adolescents appears to be influenced in part by early childhood externalizing behavior and family vulnerability, according to data from a large, cohort study of 1,760 children in Canada.

BananaStock

“Peer victimization is characterized by substantial individual variability in its timing, duration, and intensity,” but the specific variations in victimization patterns have not been well studied, wrote Sinziana I. Oncioiu, MPH, of the University of Bordeaux (France) and colleagues.

To better describe the trajectories of peer victimization and identify factors associated with them, the researchers used data from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development of children born in Quebec in 1997-1998 and followed from 5 months to 17 years of age. Participants reported being the target of a bully at least once in ages 6-17 years. The study included 862 boys and 898 girls; 59% provided data on being bullied seven or eight times out of a possible eight assessments in the study published in Pediatrics.

The researchers identified four trajectories of peer victimization for ages 6-17 years: low (33%), moderate emerging (30%), childhood limited (26%), and high chronic (11%). Low victimization was defined as low victimization throughout the follow-up period. Moderate-emerging victimization was defined as steady levels from 6-12 years, followed by adolescent victimization. Childhood-limited peer victimization was defined as a high level of bullying at 6 years of age, followed by a sharp decline from 6 to 17 years. High-chronic victimization was defined as persistently high victimization compared, with the other groups, although levels declined from 6 to 17 years.

Overall, in a multivariate analysis, children in the moderate-emerging, childhood-limited, and high-chronic groups were more likely than those in the low victimization group to demonstrate externalizing behavior problems in early childhood. In addition, children with a paternal history of antisocial behavior were significantly more likely to be in moderate-emerging and high-chronic groups, compared with the low group (odds ratios 1.54 and 1.93, respectively). Children living in a nonintact family in early childhood were significantly more likely to fall into the childhood-limited and high-chronic groups, compared with the low group.

The study findings were limited by several factors including lack of assessment of power imbalances between bullies and victims and a lack of differentiation between children who were both bullies and victims and those who were victims only, the researchers noted. The use of self-reports and some attrition of the study population also limited the results, they said.

However, the study’s large size and long-term follow-up strengthen the results, which support the need for targeted interventions to address individual and family vulnerabilities and prevent persistent victimization during children’s school years, the researchers concluded.

Pediatricians have an important role to play in reducing potential vulnerability to being bullied among their patients, Stephen S. Leff, PhD; Brooke S. Paskewich, PsyD; and Nathan J. Blum, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Given that nearly two-thirds of school-aged youth in the current study report peer victimization during elementary and/or middle school, this is an important period in which pediatricians can screen for victimization during well-child visits,” they said. It also is important to have resources and referral information available, whether it is in the practice, the community, or online. Anticipatory guidance also is valuable by defining bullying (“aggressive or mean behavior that happens repeatedly in the context of a power imbalance,”) forms of bullying (physical, verbal, using gossip, and social exclusion in real time or online), and the impact of bullying on children and families.

In addition, pediatricians should “recognize externalizing behaviors as risk factors for adverse outcomes and assist families in accessing evidence-based interventions such as family behavioral counseling or parent training,” the editorialists said. “There may also be value in pediatricians being more attuned to indicators of parental psychopathology so that they can make recommendations to address the parents’ mental health needs and better prepare parents to support their child’s social-emotional development.”

The study was supported by the Quebec Government Ministry of Health, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Quebec’s Health Research Fund, and other Canadian organizations and universities. The editorial was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCEs: Oncioiu SI et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2654.

Gene Kranz was the NASA Flight Director during the Gemini and Apollo space flights, including Apollo 11 (moon landing) and Apollo 13. He has written: “When bad things happened, we just calmly laid out all the options and failure was not one of them. We never panicked and we never gave up on finding a solution.”

2019-nCoV (coronavirus, COVID-19) will define this generation of health care providers. First identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 and first appearing in the United States on January 19, 2020 (NEJM 2020;382:929). COVID-19 is a coronavirus similar to SARS and MERS. The U.S. Surgeon General and multiple endoscopy societies have recommended (strongly) that elective surgical and endoscopy procedures be deferred. Availability of testing has been slow, but many centers now have developed testing capabilities (including drive-through testing) with 6-hour result turnaround. We do not know the full pathophysiology, R₀ (number of secondary cases attributed to an index infection), ease of community transmission, risk to providers, definition of people at high risk (for both acquisition and complications), and much key information n to base recommendations.

Health system and practice leaders do not yet have sufficient information to know which patients to defer, which patients should still be seen, visitor policies, how to segregate waiting rooms, or how to protect providers. Despite a lack of definitive knowledge, we must make critical decisions and know that recommendations can change hourly. As the Chief Clinical Officer at Michigan Medicine, I am spending 16 hours a day immersed in these decisions and find that one of my critical jobs is to keep people from panicking.

Schools, bars, restaurants, churches and other public gathering places are closing. Three countries (to date) have instituted complete quarantine. Digestive Disease Week^® has been cancelled. We are entering a time in which normal life is altered and many changes will open up our thinking about long-term alternative processes.

COVID-19 will define this generation. The public will understand the real need for science, policies based on real facts, robust public health systems, and leaders who inspire confidence based on expert guidance. And, I believe we will see gastroenterologists, health systems, hospitals, and practices all showing us what our “finest hours” look like.
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

Gene Kranz was the NASA Flight Director during the Gemini and Apollo space flights, including Apollo 11 (moon landing) and Apollo 13. He has written: “When bad things happened, we just calmly laid out all the options and failure was not one of them. We never panicked and we never gave up on finding a solution.”

2019-nCoV (coronavirus, COVID-19) will define this generation of health care providers. First identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 and first appearing in the United States on January 19, 2020 (NEJM 2020;382:929). COVID-19 is a coronavirus similar to SARS and MERS. The U.S. Surgeon General and multiple endoscopy societies have recommended (strongly) that elective surgical and endoscopy procedures be deferred. Availability of testing has been slow, but many centers now have developed testing capabilities (including drive-through testing) with 6-hour result turnaround. We do not know the full pathophysiology, R₀ (number of secondary cases attributed to an index infection), ease of community transmission, risk to providers, definition of people at high risk (for both acquisition and complications), and much key information n to base recommendations.

Health system and practice leaders do not yet have sufficient information to know which patients to defer, which patients should still be seen, visitor policies, how to segregate waiting rooms, or how to protect providers. Despite a lack of definitive knowledge, we must make critical decisions and know that recommendations can change hourly. As the Chief Clinical Officer at Michigan Medicine, I am spending 16 hours a day immersed in these decisions and find that one of my critical jobs is to keep people from panicking.

Schools, bars, restaurants, churches and other public gathering places are closing. Three countries (to date) have instituted complete quarantine. Digestive Disease Week^® has been cancelled. We are entering a time in which normal life is altered and many changes will open up our thinking about long-term alternative processes.

COVID-19 will define this generation. The public will understand the real need for science, policies based on real facts, robust public health systems, and leaders who inspire confidence based on expert guidance. And, I believe we will see gastroenterologists, health systems, hospitals, and practices all showing us what our “finest hours” look like.
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

Gene Kranz was the NASA Flight Director during the Gemini and Apollo space flights, including Apollo 11 (moon landing) and Apollo 13. He has written: “When bad things happened, we just calmly laid out all the options and failure was not one of them. We never panicked and we never gave up on finding a solution.”

2019-nCoV (coronavirus, COVID-19) will define this generation of health care providers. First identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 and first appearing in the United States on January 19, 2020 (NEJM 2020;382:929). COVID-19 is a coronavirus similar to SARS and MERS. The U.S. Surgeon General and multiple endoscopy societies have recommended (strongly) that elective surgical and endoscopy procedures be deferred. Availability of testing has been slow, but many centers now have developed testing capabilities (including drive-through testing) with 6-hour result turnaround. We do not know the full pathophysiology, R₀ (number of secondary cases attributed to an index infection), ease of community transmission, risk to providers, definition of people at high risk (for both acquisition and complications), and much key information n to base recommendations.

Health system and practice leaders do not yet have sufficient information to know which patients to defer, which patients should still be seen, visitor policies, how to segregate waiting rooms, or how to protect providers. Despite a lack of definitive knowledge, we must make critical decisions and know that recommendations can change hourly. As the Chief Clinical Officer at Michigan Medicine, I am spending 16 hours a day immersed in these decisions and find that one of my critical jobs is to keep people from panicking.

Schools, bars, restaurants, churches and other public gathering places are closing. Three countries (to date) have instituted complete quarantine. Digestive Disease Week^® has been cancelled. We are entering a time in which normal life is altered and many changes will open up our thinking about long-term alternative processes.

COVID-19 will define this generation. The public will understand the real need for science, policies based on real facts, robust public health systems, and leaders who inspire confidence based on expert guidance. And, I believe we will see gastroenterologists, health systems, hospitals, and practices all showing us what our “finest hours” look like.
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has announced a wide range of temporary regulatory moves aimed at helping hospitals and health systems handle the surge of COVID-19 patients.

“We are waiving a wide and unprecedented range of regulatory requirements to equip the American health care system with maximum flexibility to deal with an influx of cases,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said during a March 30 conference call with reporters. “Many health care systems may not need these waivers and they shouldn’t use them if the situation doesn’t warrant it. But the flexibilities are there if it does. At a time of crisis, no regulatory barriers should stand in the way of patient care.”

Among the changes is an expansion of the venues in which health care systems and hospitals can provide services.

Federal regulations call for hospitals to provide services within their own buildings, raising concerns as to whether there will be enough capacity to handle the anticipated COVID-19 caseload.

“Under CMS’s temporary new rules, hospitals will be able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ambulatory surgery centers, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving hospital payments under Medicare,” CMS stated in a fact sheet highlighting the regulatory changes. “For example, a health care system can use a hotel to take care of patients needing less intensive care while using inpatient beds for COVID-19 patients.”

With these waivers, hospital systems will not have to rely on the Federal Emergency Management Agency to set up temporary hospitals and can move ahead using available community resources to help deal with the expected surge, Ms. Verma said.

These regulatory changes will be effect for the duration of the public health emergency, according to Ms. Verma.

Ambulatory surgery centers will have the option to contract with local health care systems to provide hospital services or they can enroll and bill as hospitals during the emergency, the fact sheet noted. They will be able to perform hospital services such as cancer procedures, trauma surgeries, and other essential surgeries.

CMS also is waiving the limit on the number of beds a doctor-owned hospital can have.

Additionally, for Medicare patients who may be homebound, CMS will now pay for a laboratory technician to make a home visit to collect a specimen for COVID-19 testing, and hospitals will be able to conduct testing in homes or other community-based settings under certain circumstances.

CMS also is taking actions aimed at expanding the health care workforce.

For instance, the agency is issuing a “blanket waiver” that allows hospitals to provide benefits to medical staff, including multiple daily meals, laundry service for personal clothing, or child care services while the staff is at the hospital providing patient care, according to the fact sheet.

Teaching hospitals will also receive more flexibility in using residents to provide health care services under the virtual direction of a teaching physician, who may be available through audio/video technology.

CMS also is temporarily eliminating paperwork requirements, and allowed greater use of verbal orders, to allow clinicians to spend more time on direct patient care.

On the device/equipment side, Medicare will cover respiratory-related devices and equipment “for any medical reason determined by clinicians,” according to the fact sheet, rather than only under certain circumstances.

And on the telehealth side, CMS is expanding the number of services that it will pay for via telehealth by more than 80, including emergency department visits, initial nursing facility and discharge visits, and home visits, which must be provided by a clinician that is allowed to provide telehealth. CMS will allow the use of commonly available interactive apps with audio and video, as well as audio-only phones.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has announced a wide range of temporary regulatory moves aimed at helping hospitals and health systems handle the surge of COVID-19 patients.

“We are waiving a wide and unprecedented range of regulatory requirements to equip the American health care system with maximum flexibility to deal with an influx of cases,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said during a March 30 conference call with reporters. “Many health care systems may not need these waivers and they shouldn’t use them if the situation doesn’t warrant it. But the flexibilities are there if it does. At a time of crisis, no regulatory barriers should stand in the way of patient care.”

Among the changes is an expansion of the venues in which health care systems and hospitals can provide services.

Federal regulations call for hospitals to provide services within their own buildings, raising concerns as to whether there will be enough capacity to handle the anticipated COVID-19 caseload.

“Under CMS’s temporary new rules, hospitals will be able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ambulatory surgery centers, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving hospital payments under Medicare,” CMS stated in a fact sheet highlighting the regulatory changes. “For example, a health care system can use a hotel to take care of patients needing less intensive care while using inpatient beds for COVID-19 patients.”

With these waivers, hospital systems will not have to rely on the Federal Emergency Management Agency to set up temporary hospitals and can move ahead using available community resources to help deal with the expected surge, Ms. Verma said.

These regulatory changes will be effect for the duration of the public health emergency, according to Ms. Verma.

Ambulatory surgery centers will have the option to contract with local health care systems to provide hospital services or they can enroll and bill as hospitals during the emergency, the fact sheet noted. They will be able to perform hospital services such as cancer procedures, trauma surgeries, and other essential surgeries.

CMS also is waiving the limit on the number of beds a doctor-owned hospital can have.

Additionally, for Medicare patients who may be homebound, CMS will now pay for a laboratory technician to make a home visit to collect a specimen for COVID-19 testing, and hospitals will be able to conduct testing in homes or other community-based settings under certain circumstances.

CMS also is taking actions aimed at expanding the health care workforce.

For instance, the agency is issuing a “blanket waiver” that allows hospitals to provide benefits to medical staff, including multiple daily meals, laundry service for personal clothing, or child care services while the staff is at the hospital providing patient care, according to the fact sheet.

Teaching hospitals will also receive more flexibility in using residents to provide health care services under the virtual direction of a teaching physician, who may be available through audio/video technology.

CMS also is temporarily eliminating paperwork requirements, and allowed greater use of verbal orders, to allow clinicians to spend more time on direct patient care.

On the device/equipment side, Medicare will cover respiratory-related devices and equipment “for any medical reason determined by clinicians,” according to the fact sheet, rather than only under certain circumstances.

And on the telehealth side, CMS is expanding the number of services that it will pay for via telehealth by more than 80, including emergency department visits, initial nursing facility and discharge visits, and home visits, which must be provided by a clinician that is allowed to provide telehealth. CMS will allow the use of commonly available interactive apps with audio and video, as well as audio-only phones.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has announced a wide range of temporary regulatory moves aimed at helping hospitals and health systems handle the surge of COVID-19 patients.

“We are waiving a wide and unprecedented range of regulatory requirements to equip the American health care system with maximum flexibility to deal with an influx of cases,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said during a March 30 conference call with reporters. “Many health care systems may not need these waivers and they shouldn’t use them if the situation doesn’t warrant it. But the flexibilities are there if it does. At a time of crisis, no regulatory barriers should stand in the way of patient care.”

Among the changes is an expansion of the venues in which health care systems and hospitals can provide services.

Federal regulations call for hospitals to provide services within their own buildings, raising concerns as to whether there will be enough capacity to handle the anticipated COVID-19 caseload.

“Under CMS’s temporary new rules, hospitals will be able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ambulatory surgery centers, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving hospital payments under Medicare,” CMS stated in a fact sheet highlighting the regulatory changes. “For example, a health care system can use a hotel to take care of patients needing less intensive care while using inpatient beds for COVID-19 patients.”

With these waivers, hospital systems will not have to rely on the Federal Emergency Management Agency to set up temporary hospitals and can move ahead using available community resources to help deal with the expected surge, Ms. Verma said.

These regulatory changes will be effect for the duration of the public health emergency, according to Ms. Verma.

Ambulatory surgery centers will have the option to contract with local health care systems to provide hospital services or they can enroll and bill as hospitals during the emergency, the fact sheet noted. They will be able to perform hospital services such as cancer procedures, trauma surgeries, and other essential surgeries.

CMS also is waiving the limit on the number of beds a doctor-owned hospital can have.

Additionally, for Medicare patients who may be homebound, CMS will now pay for a laboratory technician to make a home visit to collect a specimen for COVID-19 testing, and hospitals will be able to conduct testing in homes or other community-based settings under certain circumstances.

CMS also is taking actions aimed at expanding the health care workforce.

For instance, the agency is issuing a “blanket waiver” that allows hospitals to provide benefits to medical staff, including multiple daily meals, laundry service for personal clothing, or child care services while the staff is at the hospital providing patient care, according to the fact sheet.

Teaching hospitals will also receive more flexibility in using residents to provide health care services under the virtual direction of a teaching physician, who may be available through audio/video technology.

CMS also is temporarily eliminating paperwork requirements, and allowed greater use of verbal orders, to allow clinicians to spend more time on direct patient care.

On the device/equipment side, Medicare will cover respiratory-related devices and equipment “for any medical reason determined by clinicians,” according to the fact sheet, rather than only under certain circumstances.

And on the telehealth side, CMS is expanding the number of services that it will pay for via telehealth by more than 80, including emergency department visits, initial nursing facility and discharge visits, and home visits, which must be provided by a clinician that is allowed to provide telehealth. CMS will allow the use of commonly available interactive apps with audio and video, as well as audio-only phones.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

A survey of gynecologic cancer survivors has revealed why some of these patients don’t participate in clinical trials.

Half of survey respondents with no history of trial participation said their medical team never mentioned the possibility of a trial. About 27% of respondents who never enrolled in a trial said they were interested in trial participation but didn’t qualify, the trial they wanted wasn’t available, their insurance didn’t cover participation, or the trial site was too far away.

Annie Ellis and Mary (Dicey) Jackson Scroggins, who are both ovarian cancer survivors and patient advocates, reported these findings in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We thought it was important to hear and learn directly from gynecologic cancer survivors,” Ms. Ellis said in an interview. “So we decided to conduct a survey that would expand knowledge about clinical trial participation from a gynecologic cancer patient–specific perspective.”

Ms. Ellis and Ms. Scroggins used survivor networks and social media to distribute a 26-question survey on trial participation. The survey was completed by 189 survivors of gynecologic cancers, 49.19% of whom experienced recurrent disease. The most common diagnoses were ovarian cancer (69.84%) and endometrial or uterine cancer (23.28%).
 

Perspectives of nonparticipants

Most respondents (65.61%) had never participated in a clinical trial. The most common reason was that the patient’s doctor or medical team never discussed trial participation (50.40%).

There were patients who were interested in trial participation but couldn’t enroll because they didn’t qualify (14.40%), the location was too far away (7.20%), the trial they wanted wasn’t available (4.00%), or their insurance didn’t cover trial participation (1.60%).

Patients who were not interested in trial participation said they didn’t want to receive a placebo (11.20%), they weren’t interested in experimental therapies (3.20%), or they didn’t want to be randomized (2.40%). One patient (1.60%) said she does not trust the medical system.

“Given the frequent conversations about distrust in the medical system, we were surprised that only 1 of the 189 respondents indicated distrust in the medical system as a reason for not participating in a clinical trial,” Ms. Ellis said.
 

Perspectives of trial participants

Roughly a third of respondents (34.39%) had participated in a clinical trial. Most (86.15%) said they learned about the trial from their doctor. Other sources included the patient’s own research (13.85%), a trial matching service (3.08%), a family member or friend (3.08%), and a support group (1.54%).

The most common reasons patients participated in trials were: “my doctor recommended it,” “to help women in the future,” “to expand my treatment options,” and “to have a chance to benefit personally.”

Additional responses indicated that patients viewed their trial participation in a positive light.

“We were surprised to find that 100% of the respondents who had participated in a clinical trial indicated either that they would participate again (84.62%) or that they were not sure about future participation (15.38%),” Ms. Ellis said. “No respondent indicated that she would not consider another trial. From open comments in the survey, it was clear that even if they did not obtain the result they hoped for or if the experience wasn’t optimal, they maintained the option of participating again.”
 

Implications and next steps

The survey results suggest there is a need for more discussions about clinical trials with patients who have gynecologic cancers, according to Ms. Ellis and Ms. Scroggins.

“We feel that conversations about clinical trials, with health care team members, should be included at every care decision point, even if – or perhaps especially if – the patient belongs to a group perceived to be unlikely to agree to participate in a trial,” Ms. Ellis said.

“These conversations are necessary with all patients-survivors,” she said, “but they are particularly important and necessary with patients from populations underrepresented in the clinical trial system if we want more representative trial populations, more generalizable results, and the potential for better outcomes for all.”

For their part, Ms. Ellis and Ms. Scroggins plan to conduct more research on this topic to gain additional insights.

“We’d like to conduct a larger survey looking deeper into barriers to and reasons for participation, and to work with medical professionals to develop models of communication to encourage consideration of clinical trials,” Ms. Ellis said. “Additionally, we will work to have a more diverse respondent pool across many dimensions.”

Ms. Ellis is a research advocate on the scientific advisory committee of the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance in Washington. Ms. Scroggins is the director of global outreach and engagement at the International Gynecologic Cancer Society in Louisville, Ken. They have no conflicts of interest.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Ellis A and Scroggins MJ. SGO 2020, Abstract 540.

A survey of gynecologic cancer survivors has revealed why some of these patients don’t participate in clinical trials.

Half of survey respondents with no history of trial participation said their medical team never mentioned the possibility of a trial. About 27% of respondents who never enrolled in a trial said they were interested in trial participation but didn’t qualify, the trial they wanted wasn’t available, their insurance didn’t cover participation, or the trial site was too far away.

Annie Ellis and Mary (Dicey) Jackson Scroggins, who are both ovarian cancer survivors and patient advocates, reported these findings in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We thought it was important to hear and learn directly from gynecologic cancer survivors,” Ms. Ellis said in an interview. “So we decided to conduct a survey that would expand knowledge about clinical trial participation from a gynecologic cancer patient–specific perspective.”

Ms. Ellis and Ms. Scroggins used survivor networks and social media to distribute a 26-question survey on trial participation. The survey was completed by 189 survivors of gynecologic cancers, 49.19% of whom experienced recurrent disease. The most common diagnoses were ovarian cancer (69.84%) and endometrial or uterine cancer (23.28%).
 

Perspectives of nonparticipants

Most respondents (65.61%) had never participated in a clinical trial. The most common reason was that the patient’s doctor or medical team never discussed trial participation (50.40%).

There were patients who were interested in trial participation but couldn’t enroll because they didn’t qualify (14.40%), the location was too far away (7.20%), the trial they wanted wasn’t available (4.00%), or their insurance didn’t cover trial participation (1.60%).

Patients who were not interested in trial participation said they didn’t want to receive a placebo (11.20%), they weren’t interested in experimental therapies (3.20%), or they didn’t want to be randomized (2.40%). One patient (1.60%) said she does not trust the medical system.

“Given the frequent conversations about distrust in the medical system, we were surprised that only 1 of the 189 respondents indicated distrust in the medical system as a reason for not participating in a clinical trial,” Ms. Ellis said.
 

Perspectives of trial participants

Roughly a third of respondents (34.39%) had participated in a clinical trial. Most (86.15%) said they learned about the trial from their doctor. Other sources included the patient’s own research (13.85%), a trial matching service (3.08%), a family member or friend (3.08%), and a support group (1.54%).

The most common reasons patients participated in trials were: “my doctor recommended it,” “to help women in the future,” “to expand my treatment options,” and “to have a chance to benefit personally.”

Additional responses indicated that patients viewed their trial participation in a positive light.

“We were surprised to find that 100% of the respondents who had participated in a clinical trial indicated either that they would participate again (84.62%) or that they were not sure about future participation (15.38%),” Ms. Ellis said. “No respondent indicated that she would not consider another trial. From open comments in the survey, it was clear that even if they did not obtain the result they hoped for or if the experience wasn’t optimal, they maintained the option of participating again.”
 

Implications and next steps

The survey results suggest there is a need for more discussions about clinical trials with patients who have gynecologic cancers, according to Ms. Ellis and Ms. Scroggins.

“We feel that conversations about clinical trials, with health care team members, should be included at every care decision point, even if – or perhaps especially if – the patient belongs to a group perceived to be unlikely to agree to participate in a trial,” Ms. Ellis said.

“These conversations are necessary with all patients-survivors,” she said, “but they are particularly important and necessary with patients from populations underrepresented in the clinical trial system if we want more representative trial populations, more generalizable results, and the potential for better outcomes for all.”

For their part, Ms. Ellis and Ms. Scroggins plan to conduct more research on this topic to gain additional insights.

“We’d like to conduct a larger survey looking deeper into barriers to and reasons for participation, and to work with medical professionals to develop models of communication to encourage consideration of clinical trials,” Ms. Ellis said. “Additionally, we will work to have a more diverse respondent pool across many dimensions.”

Ms. Ellis is a research advocate on the scientific advisory committee of the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance in Washington. Ms. Scroggins is the director of global outreach and engagement at the International Gynecologic Cancer Society in Louisville, Ken. They have no conflicts of interest.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Ellis A and Scroggins MJ. SGO 2020, Abstract 540.

A survey of gynecologic cancer survivors has revealed why some of these patients don’t participate in clinical trials.

Half of survey respondents with no history of trial participation said their medical team never mentioned the possibility of a trial. About 27% of respondents who never enrolled in a trial said they were interested in trial participation but didn’t qualify, the trial they wanted wasn’t available, their insurance didn’t cover participation, or the trial site was too far away.

Annie Ellis and Mary (Dicey) Jackson Scroggins, who are both ovarian cancer survivors and patient advocates, reported these findings in an abstract that had been slated for presentation at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. The meeting was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We thought it was important to hear and learn directly from gynecologic cancer survivors,” Ms. Ellis said in an interview. “So we decided to conduct a survey that would expand knowledge about clinical trial participation from a gynecologic cancer patient–specific perspective.”

Ms. Ellis and Ms. Scroggins used survivor networks and social media to distribute a 26-question survey on trial participation. The survey was completed by 189 survivors of gynecologic cancers, 49.19% of whom experienced recurrent disease. The most common diagnoses were ovarian cancer (69.84%) and endometrial or uterine cancer (23.28%).
 

Perspectives of nonparticipants

Most respondents (65.61%) had never participated in a clinical trial. The most common reason was that the patient’s doctor or medical team never discussed trial participation (50.40%).

There were patients who were interested in trial participation but couldn’t enroll because they didn’t qualify (14.40%), the location was too far away (7.20%), the trial they wanted wasn’t available (4.00%), or their insurance didn’t cover trial participation (1.60%).

Patients who were not interested in trial participation said they didn’t want to receive a placebo (11.20%), they weren’t interested in experimental therapies (3.20%), or they didn’t want to be randomized (2.40%). One patient (1.60%) said she does not trust the medical system.

“Given the frequent conversations about distrust in the medical system, we were surprised that only 1 of the 189 respondents indicated distrust in the medical system as a reason for not participating in a clinical trial,” Ms. Ellis said.
 

Perspectives of trial participants

Roughly a third of respondents (34.39%) had participated in a clinical trial. Most (86.15%) said they learned about the trial from their doctor. Other sources included the patient’s own research (13.85%), a trial matching service (3.08%), a family member or friend (3.08%), and a support group (1.54%).

The most common reasons patients participated in trials were: “my doctor recommended it,” “to help women in the future,” “to expand my treatment options,” and “to have a chance to benefit personally.”

Additional responses indicated that patients viewed their trial participation in a positive light.

“We were surprised to find that 100% of the respondents who had participated in a clinical trial indicated either that they would participate again (84.62%) or that they were not sure about future participation (15.38%),” Ms. Ellis said. “No respondent indicated that she would not consider another trial. From open comments in the survey, it was clear that even if they did not obtain the result they hoped for or if the experience wasn’t optimal, they maintained the option of participating again.”
 

Implications and next steps

The survey results suggest there is a need for more discussions about clinical trials with patients who have gynecologic cancers, according to Ms. Ellis and Ms. Scroggins.

“We feel that conversations about clinical trials, with health care team members, should be included at every care decision point, even if – or perhaps especially if – the patient belongs to a group perceived to be unlikely to agree to participate in a trial,” Ms. Ellis said.

“These conversations are necessary with all patients-survivors,” she said, “but they are particularly important and necessary with patients from populations underrepresented in the clinical trial system if we want more representative trial populations, more generalizable results, and the potential for better outcomes for all.”

For their part, Ms. Ellis and Ms. Scroggins plan to conduct more research on this topic to gain additional insights.

“We’d like to conduct a larger survey looking deeper into barriers to and reasons for participation, and to work with medical professionals to develop models of communication to encourage consideration of clinical trials,” Ms. Ellis said. “Additionally, we will work to have a more diverse respondent pool across many dimensions.”

Ms. Ellis is a research advocate on the scientific advisory committee of the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance in Washington. Ms. Scroggins is the director of global outreach and engagement at the International Gynecologic Cancer Society in Louisville, Ken. They have no conflicts of interest.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Ellis A and Scroggins MJ. SGO 2020, Abstract 540.

A new blood-based test performs well at detecting multiple types of cancers across stages and therefore has good potential for screening, according to a prospective case-control substudy.

Investigators led by Minetta C. Liu, MD, a medical oncologist with the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., studied 6,689 participants – 2,482 with cancers of more than 50 types and 4,207 without cancer – drawn from the Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas Study and the STRIVE Study populations.

The investigators performed bisulfite sequencing that targeted informative methylation regions of plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA), and developed and validated a molecular classifier using methylation patterns to detect cancer and determine its tissue of origin.

Test performance was assessed both for cancer overall and for a prespecified set of 12 cancers (anus, bladder, colon/rectum, esophagus, head and neck, liver/bile duct, lung, lymphoma, ovary, pancreas, plasma cell neoplasm, stomach) that account for about 63% of U.S. cancer deaths annually.

Results reported this week in the Annals of Oncology showed that the test had a specificity of 99.3% in the validation cohort, corresponding to a false-positive rate of just 0.7%.

Sensitivity for detecting stage I-III disease was 43.9% for cancer overall and 67.3% for the prespecified set of cancers accounting for the majority of U.S. cancer deaths.

Test sensitivity increased with stage both for cancer overall (18%, 43%, 81%, and 93% for stage I, II, III, and IV disease, respectively) and for the prespecified set of cancers (39%, 69%, 83%, and 92%, respectively).

The test was able to predict a tissue of origin in 96% of samples in which a cancerlike signal was detected, and in 93% of cases, that prediction was accurate.

Some of the patients who had cancer were symptomatic and therefore would not be considered a screening population, Dr. Liu and coinvestigators acknowledged. Also, the test’s potential for reducing mortality remains unknown, and 1-year follow-up to verify cancer-free status was not yet available for all of the individuals without cancer.

“Together, these data provide compelling evidence that targeted methylation analysis of cfDNA can detect and localize a broad range of nonmetastatic and metastatic cancer types including many common and deadly cancers that lack effective screening strategies,” they maintained. The test’s “specificity and sensitivity performance approach ... the goal for population-level screening.”

“Considering the potential value of early detection in deadly malignancies, further evaluation of this test is justified in prospective population-level studies,” the investigators conclude. “Clinical validation in intended use populations is ongoing ... and a study has been initiated that is returning results to health care providers and patients ....”

Dr. Liu disclosed that the Mayo Clinic was compensated for her advisory board activities for GRAIL Inc. The study was supported by GRAIL, and by Princess Margaret Cancer Centre’s McCain Genitourinary BioBank in the department of surgical oncology.
 

SOURCE: Liu MC et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.02.011.

A new blood-based test performs well at detecting multiple types of cancers across stages and therefore has good potential for screening, according to a prospective case-control substudy.

Investigators led by Minetta C. Liu, MD, a medical oncologist with the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., studied 6,689 participants – 2,482 with cancers of more than 50 types and 4,207 without cancer – drawn from the Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas Study and the STRIVE Study populations.

The investigators performed bisulfite sequencing that targeted informative methylation regions of plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA), and developed and validated a molecular classifier using methylation patterns to detect cancer and determine its tissue of origin.

Test performance was assessed both for cancer overall and for a prespecified set of 12 cancers (anus, bladder, colon/rectum, esophagus, head and neck, liver/bile duct, lung, lymphoma, ovary, pancreas, plasma cell neoplasm, stomach) that account for about 63% of U.S. cancer deaths annually.

Results reported this week in the Annals of Oncology showed that the test had a specificity of 99.3% in the validation cohort, corresponding to a false-positive rate of just 0.7%.

Sensitivity for detecting stage I-III disease was 43.9% for cancer overall and 67.3% for the prespecified set of cancers accounting for the majority of U.S. cancer deaths.

Test sensitivity increased with stage both for cancer overall (18%, 43%, 81%, and 93% for stage I, II, III, and IV disease, respectively) and for the prespecified set of cancers (39%, 69%, 83%, and 92%, respectively).

The test was able to predict a tissue of origin in 96% of samples in which a cancerlike signal was detected, and in 93% of cases, that prediction was accurate.

Some of the patients who had cancer were symptomatic and therefore would not be considered a screening population, Dr. Liu and coinvestigators acknowledged. Also, the test’s potential for reducing mortality remains unknown, and 1-year follow-up to verify cancer-free status was not yet available for all of the individuals without cancer.

“Together, these data provide compelling evidence that targeted methylation analysis of cfDNA can detect and localize a broad range of nonmetastatic and metastatic cancer types including many common and deadly cancers that lack effective screening strategies,” they maintained. The test’s “specificity and sensitivity performance approach ... the goal for population-level screening.”

“Considering the potential value of early detection in deadly malignancies, further evaluation of this test is justified in prospective population-level studies,” the investigators conclude. “Clinical validation in intended use populations is ongoing ... and a study has been initiated that is returning results to health care providers and patients ....”

Dr. Liu disclosed that the Mayo Clinic was compensated for her advisory board activities for GRAIL Inc. The study was supported by GRAIL, and by Princess Margaret Cancer Centre’s McCain Genitourinary BioBank in the department of surgical oncology.
 

SOURCE: Liu MC et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.02.011.

A new blood-based test performs well at detecting multiple types of cancers across stages and therefore has good potential for screening, according to a prospective case-control substudy.

Investigators led by Minetta C. Liu, MD, a medical oncologist with the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., studied 6,689 participants – 2,482 with cancers of more than 50 types and 4,207 without cancer – drawn from the Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas Study and the STRIVE Study populations.

The investigators performed bisulfite sequencing that targeted informative methylation regions of plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA), and developed and validated a molecular classifier using methylation patterns to detect cancer and determine its tissue of origin.

Test performance was assessed both for cancer overall and for a prespecified set of 12 cancers (anus, bladder, colon/rectum, esophagus, head and neck, liver/bile duct, lung, lymphoma, ovary, pancreas, plasma cell neoplasm, stomach) that account for about 63% of U.S. cancer deaths annually.

Results reported this week in the Annals of Oncology showed that the test had a specificity of 99.3% in the validation cohort, corresponding to a false-positive rate of just 0.7%.

Sensitivity for detecting stage I-III disease was 43.9% for cancer overall and 67.3% for the prespecified set of cancers accounting for the majority of U.S. cancer deaths.

Test sensitivity increased with stage both for cancer overall (18%, 43%, 81%, and 93% for stage I, II, III, and IV disease, respectively) and for the prespecified set of cancers (39%, 69%, 83%, and 92%, respectively).

The test was able to predict a tissue of origin in 96% of samples in which a cancerlike signal was detected, and in 93% of cases, that prediction was accurate.

Some of the patients who had cancer were symptomatic and therefore would not be considered a screening population, Dr. Liu and coinvestigators acknowledged. Also, the test’s potential for reducing mortality remains unknown, and 1-year follow-up to verify cancer-free status was not yet available for all of the individuals without cancer.

“Together, these data provide compelling evidence that targeted methylation analysis of cfDNA can detect and localize a broad range of nonmetastatic and metastatic cancer types including many common and deadly cancers that lack effective screening strategies,” they maintained. The test’s “specificity and sensitivity performance approach ... the goal for population-level screening.”

“Considering the potential value of early detection in deadly malignancies, further evaluation of this test is justified in prospective population-level studies,” the investigators conclude. “Clinical validation in intended use populations is ongoing ... and a study has been initiated that is returning results to health care providers and patients ....”

Dr. Liu disclosed that the Mayo Clinic was compensated for her advisory board activities for GRAIL Inc. The study was supported by GRAIL, and by Princess Margaret Cancer Centre’s McCain Genitourinary BioBank in the department of surgical oncology.
 

SOURCE: Liu MC et al. Ann Oncol. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.02.011.

As the first international guidelines on the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are understandably comprehensive, one expert involved in their development highlights the essential recommendations and explains the rationale behind prone ventilation.

A panel of 39 experts from 12 countries from across the globe developed the 50 recommendations within four domains, under the auspices of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign. They are issued by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), and will subsequently be published in the journal Intensive Care Medicine.

A central aspect of the guidance is what works, and what does not, in treating critically ill patients with COVID-19 in intensive care.

Ten of the recommendations cover potential pharmacotherapies, most of which have only weak or no evidence of benefit, as discussed in a recent perspective on Medscape. All 50 recommendations, along with the associated level of evidence, are detailed in table 2 in the paper.

There is also an algorithm for the management of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 (figure 2) and a summary of clinical practice recommendations (figure 3).

In an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association issued just days after these new guidelines, Francois Lamontagne, MD, MSc, and Derek C. Angus, MD, MPH, say they “represent an excellent first step toward optimal, evidence-informed care for patients with COVID-19.” Lamontagne is from Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Canada, and Angus is from University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, and is an associate editor with JAMA.
 

Dealing With Tide of COVID-19 Patients, Protecting Healthcare Workers

Editor in chief of Intensive Care Medicine Giuseppe Citerio, MD, from University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy, said: “COVID-19 cases are rising rapidly worldwide, and so we are increasingly seeing that intensive care units [ICUs] have difficulty in dealing with the tide of patients.”

“We need more resource in ICUs, and quickly. This means more ventilators and more trained personnel. In the meantime, this guidance aims to rationalize our approach and to avoid unproven strategies,” he explains in a press release from ESICM.

“This is the first guidance to lay out what works and what doesn’t in treating coronavirus-infected patients in intensive care. It’s based on decades of research on acute respiratory infection being applied to COVID-19 patients,” added ESICM President-Elect Maurizio Cecconi, MD, from Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.

“At the same time as caring for patients, we need to make sure that health workers are following procedures which will allow themselves to be protected against infection,” he stressed.

“We must protect them, they are in the frontline. We cannot allow our healthcare workers to be at risk. On top of that, if they get infected they could also spread the disease further.”

Top-10 Recommendations

While all 50 recommendations are key to the successful management of COVID-19 patients, busy clinicians on the frontline need to zone in on those indispensable practical recommendations that they should implement immediately.

Medscape Medical News therefore asked lead author Waleed Alhazzani, MD, MSc, from the Division of Critical Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, to give his personal top 10, the first three of which are focused on limiting the spread of infection.

1. For healthcare workers performing aerosol-generating procedures¹ on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU, we recommend using fitted respirator masks (N95 respirators, FFP2, or equivalent), as compared to surgical/medical masks, in addition to other personal protective equipment (eg, gloves, gown, and eye protection such as a face shield or safety goggles.

2. We recommend performing aerosol-generating procedures on ICU patients with COVID-19 in a negative-pressure room.

3. For healthcare workers providing usual care for nonventilated COVID-19 patients, we suggest using surgical/medical masks, as compared to respirator masks in addition to other personal protective equipment.

4. For healthcare workers performing endotracheal intubation on patients with COVID-19, we suggest using video guided laryngoscopy, over direct laryngoscopy, if available.

5. We recommend endotracheal intubation in patients with COVID-19, performed by healthcare workers experienced with airway management, to minimize the number of attempts and risk of transmission.

6. For intubated and mechanically ventilated adults with suspicion of COVID-19, we suggest obtaining endotracheal aspirates, over bronchial wash or bronchoalveolar lavage samples.

7. For adults with COVID-19 and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, we suggest using high-flow nasal cannula [HFNC] over noninvasive positive pressure ventilation [NIPPV].

8. For adults with COVID-19 receiving NIPPV or HFNC, we recommend close monitoring for worsening of respiratory status and early intubation in a controlled setting if worsening occurs.

9. For mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19 and moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], we suggest prone ventilation for 12 to 16 hours over no prone ventilation.

10. For mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19 and respiratory failure (without ARDS), we don’t recommend routine use of systemic corticosteroids.

¹ This includes endotracheal intubation, bronchoscopy, open suctioning, administration of nebulized treatment, manual ventilation before intubation, physical proning of the patient, disconnecting the patient from the ventilator, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, tracheostomy, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
 

These choices are in broad agreement with those selected by Jason T. Poston, MD, University of Chicago, Illinois, and colleagues in their synopsis of these guidelines, published online March 26 in JAMA, although they also highlight another recommendation on infection control:

• For healthcare workers who are performing non-aerosol-generating procedures on mechanically ventilated (closed circuit) patients with COVID-19, we suggest using surgical/medical masks, as opposed to respirator masks, in addition to other personal protective equipment.

Importance of Prone Ventilation, Perhaps for Many Days

One recommendation singled out by both Alhazzani and coauthors, and Poston and colleagues, relates to prone ventilation for 12 to 16 hours in adults with moderate to severe ARDS receiving mechanical ventilation.

Michelle N. Gong, MD, MS, chief of critical care medicine at Montefiore Medical Center, New York City, also highlighted this practice in a live-stream interview with JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD.

She explained that, in her institution, they have been “very aggressive about proning these patients as early as possible, but unlike some of the past ARDS patients…they tend to require many, many days of proning in order to get a response”.

Gong added that patients “may improve very rapidly when they are proned, but when we supinate them, they lose [the improvement] and then they get proned for upwards of 10 days or more, if need be.”

Alhazzani told Medscape Medical News that prone ventilation “is a simple intervention that requires training of healthcare providers but can be applied in most contexts.”

He explained that the recommendation “is driven by indirect evidence from ARDS,” not specifically those in COVID-19, with recent studies having shown that COVID-19 “can affect lung bases and may cause significant atelectasis and reduced lung compliance in the context of ARDS.”

“Prone ventilation has been shown to reduce mortality in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. Therefore, we issued a suggestion for clinicians to consider prone ventilation in this population.”

‘Impressively Thorough’ Recommendations, With Some Caveats

In their JAMA editorial, Lamontagne and Angus describe the recommendations as “impressively thorough and expansive.”

They note that they address resource scarcity, which “is likely to be a critical issue in low- and middle-income countries experiencing any reasonably large number of cases and in high-income countries experiencing a surge in the demand for critical care.”

The authors say, however, that a “weakness” of the guidelines is that they make recommendations for interventions that “lack supporting evidence.”

Consequently, “when prioritizing scarce resources, clinicians and healthcare systems will have to choose among options that have limited evidence to support them.”

“In future iterations of the guidelines, there should be more detailed recommendations for how clinicians should prioritize scarce resources, or include more recommendations against the use of unproven therapies.”

“The tasks ahead for the dissemination and uptake of optimal critical care are herculean,” Lamontagne and Angus say.

They include “a need to generate more robust evidence, consider carefully the application of that evidence across a wide variety of clinical circumstances, and generate supporting materials to ensure effective implementation of the guideline recommendations,” they conclude.

ESICM recommendations coauthor Yaseen Arabi is the principal investigator on a clinical trial for lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon in Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and he was a nonpaid consultant on antiviral active for MERS- coronavirus (CoV) for Gilead Sciences and SAB Biotherapeutics. He is an investigator on REMAP-CAP trial and is a Board Members of the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC). Coauthor Eddy Fan declared receiving consultancy fees from ALung Technologies and MC3 Cardiopulmonary. Coauthor Maurizio Cecconi declared consultancy work with Edwards Lifesciences, Directed Systems, and Cheetah Medical.

JAMA Clinical Guidelines Synopsis coauthor Poston declares receiving honoraria for the CHEST Critical Care Board Review Course.

Editorialist Lamontagne reported receiving grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé, and the Lotte & John Hecht Foundation, unrelated to this work. Editorialist Angus participated in the development of Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for sepsis, but had no role in the creation of the current COVID-19 guidelines, nor the decision to create these guidelines.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the first international guidelines on the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are understandably comprehensive, one expert involved in their development highlights the essential recommendations and explains the rationale behind prone ventilation.

A panel of 39 experts from 12 countries from across the globe developed the 50 recommendations within four domains, under the auspices of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign. They are issued by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), and will subsequently be published in the journal Intensive Care Medicine.

A central aspect of the guidance is what works, and what does not, in treating critically ill patients with COVID-19 in intensive care.

Ten of the recommendations cover potential pharmacotherapies, most of which have only weak or no evidence of benefit, as discussed in a recent perspective on Medscape. All 50 recommendations, along with the associated level of evidence, are detailed in table 2 in the paper.

There is also an algorithm for the management of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 (figure 2) and a summary of clinical practice recommendations (figure 3).

In an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association issued just days after these new guidelines, Francois Lamontagne, MD, MSc, and Derek C. Angus, MD, MPH, say they “represent an excellent first step toward optimal, evidence-informed care for patients with COVID-19.” Lamontagne is from Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Canada, and Angus is from University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, and is an associate editor with JAMA.
 

Dealing With Tide of COVID-19 Patients, Protecting Healthcare Workers

Editor in chief of Intensive Care Medicine Giuseppe Citerio, MD, from University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy, said: “COVID-19 cases are rising rapidly worldwide, and so we are increasingly seeing that intensive care units [ICUs] have difficulty in dealing with the tide of patients.”

“We need more resource in ICUs, and quickly. This means more ventilators and more trained personnel. In the meantime, this guidance aims to rationalize our approach and to avoid unproven strategies,” he explains in a press release from ESICM.

“This is the first guidance to lay out what works and what doesn’t in treating coronavirus-infected patients in intensive care. It’s based on decades of research on acute respiratory infection being applied to COVID-19 patients,” added ESICM President-Elect Maurizio Cecconi, MD, from Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.

“At the same time as caring for patients, we need to make sure that health workers are following procedures which will allow themselves to be protected against infection,” he stressed.

“We must protect them, they are in the frontline. We cannot allow our healthcare workers to be at risk. On top of that, if they get infected they could also spread the disease further.”

Top-10 Recommendations

While all 50 recommendations are key to the successful management of COVID-19 patients, busy clinicians on the frontline need to zone in on those indispensable practical recommendations that they should implement immediately.

Medscape Medical News therefore asked lead author Waleed Alhazzani, MD, MSc, from the Division of Critical Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, to give his personal top 10, the first three of which are focused on limiting the spread of infection.

1. For healthcare workers performing aerosol-generating procedures¹ on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU, we recommend using fitted respirator masks (N95 respirators, FFP2, or equivalent), as compared to surgical/medical masks, in addition to other personal protective equipment (eg, gloves, gown, and eye protection such as a face shield or safety goggles.

2. We recommend performing aerosol-generating procedures on ICU patients with COVID-19 in a negative-pressure room.

3. For healthcare workers providing usual care for nonventilated COVID-19 patients, we suggest using surgical/medical masks, as compared to respirator masks in addition to other personal protective equipment.

4. For healthcare workers performing endotracheal intubation on patients with COVID-19, we suggest using video guided laryngoscopy, over direct laryngoscopy, if available.

5. We recommend endotracheal intubation in patients with COVID-19, performed by healthcare workers experienced with airway management, to minimize the number of attempts and risk of transmission.

6. For intubated and mechanically ventilated adults with suspicion of COVID-19, we suggest obtaining endotracheal aspirates, over bronchial wash or bronchoalveolar lavage samples.

7. For adults with COVID-19 and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, we suggest using high-flow nasal cannula [HFNC] over noninvasive positive pressure ventilation [NIPPV].

8. For adults with COVID-19 receiving NIPPV or HFNC, we recommend close monitoring for worsening of respiratory status and early intubation in a controlled setting if worsening occurs.

9. For mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19 and moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], we suggest prone ventilation for 12 to 16 hours over no prone ventilation.

10. For mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19 and respiratory failure (without ARDS), we don’t recommend routine use of systemic corticosteroids.

¹ This includes endotracheal intubation, bronchoscopy, open suctioning, administration of nebulized treatment, manual ventilation before intubation, physical proning of the patient, disconnecting the patient from the ventilator, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, tracheostomy, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
 

These choices are in broad agreement with those selected by Jason T. Poston, MD, University of Chicago, Illinois, and colleagues in their synopsis of these guidelines, published online March 26 in JAMA, although they also highlight another recommendation on infection control:

• For healthcare workers who are performing non-aerosol-generating procedures on mechanically ventilated (closed circuit) patients with COVID-19, we suggest using surgical/medical masks, as opposed to respirator masks, in addition to other personal protective equipment.

Importance of Prone Ventilation, Perhaps for Many Days

One recommendation singled out by both Alhazzani and coauthors, and Poston and colleagues, relates to prone ventilation for 12 to 16 hours in adults with moderate to severe ARDS receiving mechanical ventilation.

Michelle N. Gong, MD, MS, chief of critical care medicine at Montefiore Medical Center, New York City, also highlighted this practice in a live-stream interview with JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD.

She explained that, in her institution, they have been “very aggressive about proning these patients as early as possible, but unlike some of the past ARDS patients…they tend to require many, many days of proning in order to get a response”.

Gong added that patients “may improve very rapidly when they are proned, but when we supinate them, they lose [the improvement] and then they get proned for upwards of 10 days or more, if need be.”

Alhazzani told Medscape Medical News that prone ventilation “is a simple intervention that requires training of healthcare providers but can be applied in most contexts.”

He explained that the recommendation “is driven by indirect evidence from ARDS,” not specifically those in COVID-19, with recent studies having shown that COVID-19 “can affect lung bases and may cause significant atelectasis and reduced lung compliance in the context of ARDS.”

“Prone ventilation has been shown to reduce mortality in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. Therefore, we issued a suggestion for clinicians to consider prone ventilation in this population.”

‘Impressively Thorough’ Recommendations, With Some Caveats

In their JAMA editorial, Lamontagne and Angus describe the recommendations as “impressively thorough and expansive.”

They note that they address resource scarcity, which “is likely to be a critical issue in low- and middle-income countries experiencing any reasonably large number of cases and in high-income countries experiencing a surge in the demand for critical care.”

The authors say, however, that a “weakness” of the guidelines is that they make recommendations for interventions that “lack supporting evidence.”

Consequently, “when prioritizing scarce resources, clinicians and healthcare systems will have to choose among options that have limited evidence to support them.”

“In future iterations of the guidelines, there should be more detailed recommendations for how clinicians should prioritize scarce resources, or include more recommendations against the use of unproven therapies.”

“The tasks ahead for the dissemination and uptake of optimal critical care are herculean,” Lamontagne and Angus say.

They include “a need to generate more robust evidence, consider carefully the application of that evidence across a wide variety of clinical circumstances, and generate supporting materials to ensure effective implementation of the guideline recommendations,” they conclude.

ESICM recommendations coauthor Yaseen Arabi is the principal investigator on a clinical trial for lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon in Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and he was a nonpaid consultant on antiviral active for MERS- coronavirus (CoV) for Gilead Sciences and SAB Biotherapeutics. He is an investigator on REMAP-CAP trial and is a Board Members of the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC). Coauthor Eddy Fan declared receiving consultancy fees from ALung Technologies and MC3 Cardiopulmonary. Coauthor Maurizio Cecconi declared consultancy work with Edwards Lifesciences, Directed Systems, and Cheetah Medical.

JAMA Clinical Guidelines Synopsis coauthor Poston declares receiving honoraria for the CHEST Critical Care Board Review Course.

Editorialist Lamontagne reported receiving grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé, and the Lotte & John Hecht Foundation, unrelated to this work. Editorialist Angus participated in the development of Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for sepsis, but had no role in the creation of the current COVID-19 guidelines, nor the decision to create these guidelines.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the first international guidelines on the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are understandably comprehensive, one expert involved in their development highlights the essential recommendations and explains the rationale behind prone ventilation.

A panel of 39 experts from 12 countries from across the globe developed the 50 recommendations within four domains, under the auspices of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign. They are issued by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), and will subsequently be published in the journal Intensive Care Medicine.

A central aspect of the guidance is what works, and what does not, in treating critically ill patients with COVID-19 in intensive care.

Ten of the recommendations cover potential pharmacotherapies, most of which have only weak or no evidence of benefit, as discussed in a recent perspective on Medscape. All 50 recommendations, along with the associated level of evidence, are detailed in table 2 in the paper.

There is also an algorithm for the management of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 (figure 2) and a summary of clinical practice recommendations (figure 3).

In an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association issued just days after these new guidelines, Francois Lamontagne, MD, MSc, and Derek C. Angus, MD, MPH, say they “represent an excellent first step toward optimal, evidence-informed care for patients with COVID-19.” Lamontagne is from Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Canada, and Angus is from University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, and is an associate editor with JAMA.
 

Dealing With Tide of COVID-19 Patients, Protecting Healthcare Workers

Editor in chief of Intensive Care Medicine Giuseppe Citerio, MD, from University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy, said: “COVID-19 cases are rising rapidly worldwide, and so we are increasingly seeing that intensive care units [ICUs] have difficulty in dealing with the tide of patients.”

“We need more resource in ICUs, and quickly. This means more ventilators and more trained personnel. In the meantime, this guidance aims to rationalize our approach and to avoid unproven strategies,” he explains in a press release from ESICM.

“This is the first guidance to lay out what works and what doesn’t in treating coronavirus-infected patients in intensive care. It’s based on decades of research on acute respiratory infection being applied to COVID-19 patients,” added ESICM President-Elect Maurizio Cecconi, MD, from Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.

“At the same time as caring for patients, we need to make sure that health workers are following procedures which will allow themselves to be protected against infection,” he stressed.

“We must protect them, they are in the frontline. We cannot allow our healthcare workers to be at risk. On top of that, if they get infected they could also spread the disease further.”

Top-10 Recommendations

While all 50 recommendations are key to the successful management of COVID-19 patients, busy clinicians on the frontline need to zone in on those indispensable practical recommendations that they should implement immediately.

Medscape Medical News therefore asked lead author Waleed Alhazzani, MD, MSc, from the Division of Critical Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, to give his personal top 10, the first three of which are focused on limiting the spread of infection.

1. For healthcare workers performing aerosol-generating procedures¹ on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU, we recommend using fitted respirator masks (N95 respirators, FFP2, or equivalent), as compared to surgical/medical masks, in addition to other personal protective equipment (eg, gloves, gown, and eye protection such as a face shield or safety goggles.

2. We recommend performing aerosol-generating procedures on ICU patients with COVID-19 in a negative-pressure room.

3. For healthcare workers providing usual care for nonventilated COVID-19 patients, we suggest using surgical/medical masks, as compared to respirator masks in addition to other personal protective equipment.

4. For healthcare workers performing endotracheal intubation on patients with COVID-19, we suggest using video guided laryngoscopy, over direct laryngoscopy, if available.

5. We recommend endotracheal intubation in patients with COVID-19, performed by healthcare workers experienced with airway management, to minimize the number of attempts and risk of transmission.

6. For intubated and mechanically ventilated adults with suspicion of COVID-19, we suggest obtaining endotracheal aspirates, over bronchial wash or bronchoalveolar lavage samples.

7. For adults with COVID-19 and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, we suggest using high-flow nasal cannula [HFNC] over noninvasive positive pressure ventilation [NIPPV].

8. For adults with COVID-19 receiving NIPPV or HFNC, we recommend close monitoring for worsening of respiratory status and early intubation in a controlled setting if worsening occurs.

9. For mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19 and moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], we suggest prone ventilation for 12 to 16 hours over no prone ventilation.

10. For mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19 and respiratory failure (without ARDS), we don’t recommend routine use of systemic corticosteroids.

¹ This includes endotracheal intubation, bronchoscopy, open suctioning, administration of nebulized treatment, manual ventilation before intubation, physical proning of the patient, disconnecting the patient from the ventilator, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, tracheostomy, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
 

These choices are in broad agreement with those selected by Jason T. Poston, MD, University of Chicago, Illinois, and colleagues in their synopsis of these guidelines, published online March 26 in JAMA, although they also highlight another recommendation on infection control:

• For healthcare workers who are performing non-aerosol-generating procedures on mechanically ventilated (closed circuit) patients with COVID-19, we suggest using surgical/medical masks, as opposed to respirator masks, in addition to other personal protective equipment.

Importance of Prone Ventilation, Perhaps for Many Days

One recommendation singled out by both Alhazzani and coauthors, and Poston and colleagues, relates to prone ventilation for 12 to 16 hours in adults with moderate to severe ARDS receiving mechanical ventilation.

Michelle N. Gong, MD, MS, chief of critical care medicine at Montefiore Medical Center, New York City, also highlighted this practice in a live-stream interview with JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD.

She explained that, in her institution, they have been “very aggressive about proning these patients as early as possible, but unlike some of the past ARDS patients…they tend to require many, many days of proning in order to get a response”.

Gong added that patients “may improve very rapidly when they are proned, but when we supinate them, they lose [the improvement] and then they get proned for upwards of 10 days or more, if need be.”

Alhazzani told Medscape Medical News that prone ventilation “is a simple intervention that requires training of healthcare providers but can be applied in most contexts.”

He explained that the recommendation “is driven by indirect evidence from ARDS,” not specifically those in COVID-19, with recent studies having shown that COVID-19 “can affect lung bases and may cause significant atelectasis and reduced lung compliance in the context of ARDS.”

“Prone ventilation has been shown to reduce mortality in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. Therefore, we issued a suggestion for clinicians to consider prone ventilation in this population.”

‘Impressively Thorough’ Recommendations, With Some Caveats

In their JAMA editorial, Lamontagne and Angus describe the recommendations as “impressively thorough and expansive.”

They note that they address resource scarcity, which “is likely to be a critical issue in low- and middle-income countries experiencing any reasonably large number of cases and in high-income countries experiencing a surge in the demand for critical care.”

The authors say, however, that a “weakness” of the guidelines is that they make recommendations for interventions that “lack supporting evidence.”

Consequently, “when prioritizing scarce resources, clinicians and healthcare systems will have to choose among options that have limited evidence to support them.”

“In future iterations of the guidelines, there should be more detailed recommendations for how clinicians should prioritize scarce resources, or include more recommendations against the use of unproven therapies.”

“The tasks ahead for the dissemination and uptake of optimal critical care are herculean,” Lamontagne and Angus say.

They include “a need to generate more robust evidence, consider carefully the application of that evidence across a wide variety of clinical circumstances, and generate supporting materials to ensure effective implementation of the guideline recommendations,” they conclude.

ESICM recommendations coauthor Yaseen Arabi is the principal investigator on a clinical trial for lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon in Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and he was a nonpaid consultant on antiviral active for MERS- coronavirus (CoV) for Gilead Sciences and SAB Biotherapeutics. He is an investigator on REMAP-CAP trial and is a Board Members of the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC). Coauthor Eddy Fan declared receiving consultancy fees from ALung Technologies and MC3 Cardiopulmonary. Coauthor Maurizio Cecconi declared consultancy work with Edwards Lifesciences, Directed Systems, and Cheetah Medical.

JAMA Clinical Guidelines Synopsis coauthor Poston declares receiving honoraria for the CHEST Critical Care Board Review Course.

Editorialist Lamontagne reported receiving grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé, and the Lotte & John Hecht Foundation, unrelated to this work. Editorialist Angus participated in the development of Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for sepsis, but had no role in the creation of the current COVID-19 guidelines, nor the decision to create these guidelines.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.