Pediatric News

Although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to novel coronavirus is “well supported” by evidence, some infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after that period, according to authors of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will develop symptoms by day 12 of the infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors wrote.

However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases could become symptomatic after the end of that 14-day monitoring period, they cautioned.

“Our analyses do not preclude that estimate from being higher,” said the investigators, led by Stephen A. Lauer, PhD, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

The analysis, based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that were documented outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China, makes “more conservative assumptions” about the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure, compared with analyses in previous studies, the researchers wrote.

The estimated incubation period for SARS-CoV-2 in the 181-patient study was a median of 5.1 days, which is comparable with previous estimates based on COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan and consistent with other known human coronavirus diseases, such as SARS, which had a reported mean incubation period of 5 days, Dr. Lauer and colleagues noted.

Symptoms developed within 11.5 days for 97.5% of patients in the study.

Whether it’s acceptable to have 101 out of 10,000 cases becoming symptomatic beyond the recommended quarantine window depends on two factors, according to the authors. The first is the expected infection risk in the population that is being monitored, and the second is “judgment about the cost of missing cases,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y., said that in practical terms, the results suggest that the majority of patients with COVID-19 will be identified within 14 days, with an “outside chance” of an infected individual leaving quarantine and transmitting virus for a short period of time before becoming symptomatic.

“I think the proper message to give those patients [who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine] is, ‘after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods, but should you get any symptoms, immediately requarantine yourself and seek medical care,” he said.

Study coauthor Kyra H. Grantz, a doctoral graduate student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest-risk scenarios, though the benefits of doing so would have to be weighed against the costs to public health and to the individuals under quarantine.

“Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Grantz emphasized that the estimate of 101 out of 10,000 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring – representing the 99th percentile of cases – assumes the “most conservative, worst-case scenario” in a population that is fully infected.

“If you’re looking at a following a cohort of 1,000 people whom you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected, and only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms – before we get to this idea of how many people would we miss,” she said.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi:10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.

Although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to novel coronavirus is “well supported” by evidence, some infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after that period, according to authors of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will develop symptoms by day 12 of the infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors wrote.

However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases could become symptomatic after the end of that 14-day monitoring period, they cautioned.

“Our analyses do not preclude that estimate from being higher,” said the investigators, led by Stephen A. Lauer, PhD, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

The analysis, based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that were documented outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China, makes “more conservative assumptions” about the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure, compared with analyses in previous studies, the researchers wrote.

The estimated incubation period for SARS-CoV-2 in the 181-patient study was a median of 5.1 days, which is comparable with previous estimates based on COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan and consistent with other known human coronavirus diseases, such as SARS, which had a reported mean incubation period of 5 days, Dr. Lauer and colleagues noted.

Symptoms developed within 11.5 days for 97.5% of patients in the study.

Whether it’s acceptable to have 101 out of 10,000 cases becoming symptomatic beyond the recommended quarantine window depends on two factors, according to the authors. The first is the expected infection risk in the population that is being monitored, and the second is “judgment about the cost of missing cases,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y., said that in practical terms, the results suggest that the majority of patients with COVID-19 will be identified within 14 days, with an “outside chance” of an infected individual leaving quarantine and transmitting virus for a short period of time before becoming symptomatic.

“I think the proper message to give those patients [who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine] is, ‘after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods, but should you get any symptoms, immediately requarantine yourself and seek medical care,” he said.

Study coauthor Kyra H. Grantz, a doctoral graduate student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest-risk scenarios, though the benefits of doing so would have to be weighed against the costs to public health and to the individuals under quarantine.

“Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Grantz emphasized that the estimate of 101 out of 10,000 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring – representing the 99th percentile of cases – assumes the “most conservative, worst-case scenario” in a population that is fully infected.

“If you’re looking at a following a cohort of 1,000 people whom you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected, and only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms – before we get to this idea of how many people would we miss,” she said.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi:10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.

Although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to novel coronavirus is “well supported” by evidence, some infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after that period, according to authors of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will develop symptoms by day 12 of the infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors wrote.

However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases could become symptomatic after the end of that 14-day monitoring period, they cautioned.

“Our analyses do not preclude that estimate from being higher,” said the investigators, led by Stephen A. Lauer, PhD, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

The analysis, based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that were documented outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China, makes “more conservative assumptions” about the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure, compared with analyses in previous studies, the researchers wrote.

The estimated incubation period for SARS-CoV-2 in the 181-patient study was a median of 5.1 days, which is comparable with previous estimates based on COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan and consistent with other known human coronavirus diseases, such as SARS, which had a reported mean incubation period of 5 days, Dr. Lauer and colleagues noted.

Symptoms developed within 11.5 days for 97.5% of patients in the study.

Whether it’s acceptable to have 101 out of 10,000 cases becoming symptomatic beyond the recommended quarantine window depends on two factors, according to the authors. The first is the expected infection risk in the population that is being monitored, and the second is “judgment about the cost of missing cases,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y., said that in practical terms, the results suggest that the majority of patients with COVID-19 will be identified within 14 days, with an “outside chance” of an infected individual leaving quarantine and transmitting virus for a short period of time before becoming symptomatic.

“I think the proper message to give those patients [who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine] is, ‘after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods, but should you get any symptoms, immediately requarantine yourself and seek medical care,” he said.

Study coauthor Kyra H. Grantz, a doctoral graduate student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest-risk scenarios, though the benefits of doing so would have to be weighed against the costs to public health and to the individuals under quarantine.

“Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Grantz emphasized that the estimate of 101 out of 10,000 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring – representing the 99th percentile of cases – assumes the “most conservative, worst-case scenario” in a population that is fully infected.

“If you’re looking at a following a cohort of 1,000 people whom you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected, and only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms – before we get to this idea of how many people would we miss,” she said.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi:10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.

You learned a lot of things in medical school. But there must have been some things that you unlearned on the way to your degree. For instance, you unlearned that you could catch a cold by playing outside on a cold damp day without your jacket. You unlearned that handling a toad would give you warts.

©KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The authors of a recent study suggest that over your 4 years in medical school you also unlearned how to be empathetic (“Does Empathy Decline in the Clinical Phase of Medical Education? A Nationwide, Multi-institutional, Cross-Sectional Study of Students at DO-Granting Medical Schools,” Acad Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003175). The researchers surveyed more than 10,000 medical students at nearly 50 DO-granting medical schools using standardized questionnaire called the Jefferson Scale of Empathy. They discovered that the students in the clinical phase (years 3 and 4) had lower “empathy scores” than the students in the preclinical phase of their education (years 1 and 2). This decline was statistically significant but “negligible” in magnitude. One wonders why they even chose to publish their results, particularly when the number of respondents to the web-based survey declined with each successive year in medical school. Having looked at the a sample of some of the questions being asked, I can understand why third- and fourth-year students couldn’t be bothered to respond. They were too busy to answer a few dozen “lame” questions.

There may be a decline in empathy over the course our medical training, but I’m not sure that this study can speak to it. An older study found that although medical students scores on a self-administered scale declined between the second and third year, the observed empathetic behavior actually increased. If I had to choose, I would lean more heavily on the results of the behavioral observations.

Certainly, we all changed over the course of our medical education. Including postgraduate training, it may have lasted a decade or more. We saw hundreds of patients, observed life and death on a scale and with an intensity that most of us previously had never experienced. Our perspective changed from being a naive observer to playing the role of an active participant. Did that change include a decline in our capacity for empathy?

Something had to change. We found quickly that we didn’t have the time or emotional energy to learn as much about the person hiding behind every complaint as we once thought we should. We had to cut corners. Sometimes we cut too many. On the other hand, as we saw more patients we may have learned more efficient ways of discovering what we needed to know about them to become an effective and caring physician. If we found ourselves in a specialty in which patients have a high mortality, we were forced to learn ways of protecting ourselves from the emotional damage.

What would you call this process? Was it empathy erosion? Was it a hardening or toughening? Or was it simply maturation? Whatever term you use, it was an obligatory process if we hoped to survive. However, not all of us have done it well. Some of us have narrowed our focus to see only the complaint and the diagnosis, and we too often fail to see the human hiding in plain sight.

For those of us who completed our training with our empathy intact, was this the result of a genetic gift or the atmosphere our parents had created at home? I suspect that in most cases our capacity for empathy as physicians was nurtured and enhanced by the role models we encountered during our training. The mentors we most revered were those who had already been through the annealing process of medical school and specialty training and become even more skilled at caring than when they left college. It is an intangible that can’t be taught. Sadly, there is no way of guaranteeing that everyone who enters medical school will be exposed to or benefit from even one of these master physicians.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

You learned a lot of things in medical school. But there must have been some things that you unlearned on the way to your degree. For instance, you unlearned that you could catch a cold by playing outside on a cold damp day without your jacket. You unlearned that handling a toad would give you warts.

©KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The authors of a recent study suggest that over your 4 years in medical school you also unlearned how to be empathetic (“Does Empathy Decline in the Clinical Phase of Medical Education? A Nationwide, Multi-institutional, Cross-Sectional Study of Students at DO-Granting Medical Schools,” Acad Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003175). The researchers surveyed more than 10,000 medical students at nearly 50 DO-granting medical schools using standardized questionnaire called the Jefferson Scale of Empathy. They discovered that the students in the clinical phase (years 3 and 4) had lower “empathy scores” than the students in the preclinical phase of their education (years 1 and 2). This decline was statistically significant but “negligible” in magnitude. One wonders why they even chose to publish their results, particularly when the number of respondents to the web-based survey declined with each successive year in medical school. Having looked at the a sample of some of the questions being asked, I can understand why third- and fourth-year students couldn’t be bothered to respond. They were too busy to answer a few dozen “lame” questions.

There may be a decline in empathy over the course our medical training, but I’m not sure that this study can speak to it. An older study found that although medical students scores on a self-administered scale declined between the second and third year, the observed empathetic behavior actually increased. If I had to choose, I would lean more heavily on the results of the behavioral observations.

Certainly, we all changed over the course of our medical education. Including postgraduate training, it may have lasted a decade or more. We saw hundreds of patients, observed life and death on a scale and with an intensity that most of us previously had never experienced. Our perspective changed from being a naive observer to playing the role of an active participant. Did that change include a decline in our capacity for empathy?

Something had to change. We found quickly that we didn’t have the time or emotional energy to learn as much about the person hiding behind every complaint as we once thought we should. We had to cut corners. Sometimes we cut too many. On the other hand, as we saw more patients we may have learned more efficient ways of discovering what we needed to know about them to become an effective and caring physician. If we found ourselves in a specialty in which patients have a high mortality, we were forced to learn ways of protecting ourselves from the emotional damage.

What would you call this process? Was it empathy erosion? Was it a hardening or toughening? Or was it simply maturation? Whatever term you use, it was an obligatory process if we hoped to survive. However, not all of us have done it well. Some of us have narrowed our focus to see only the complaint and the diagnosis, and we too often fail to see the human hiding in plain sight.

For those of us who completed our training with our empathy intact, was this the result of a genetic gift or the atmosphere our parents had created at home? I suspect that in most cases our capacity for empathy as physicians was nurtured and enhanced by the role models we encountered during our training. The mentors we most revered were those who had already been through the annealing process of medical school and specialty training and become even more skilled at caring than when they left college. It is an intangible that can’t be taught. Sadly, there is no way of guaranteeing that everyone who enters medical school will be exposed to or benefit from even one of these master physicians.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

You learned a lot of things in medical school. But there must have been some things that you unlearned on the way to your degree. For instance, you unlearned that you could catch a cold by playing outside on a cold damp day without your jacket. You unlearned that handling a toad would give you warts.

©KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The authors of a recent study suggest that over your 4 years in medical school you also unlearned how to be empathetic (“Does Empathy Decline in the Clinical Phase of Medical Education? A Nationwide, Multi-institutional, Cross-Sectional Study of Students at DO-Granting Medical Schools,” Acad Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003175). The researchers surveyed more than 10,000 medical students at nearly 50 DO-granting medical schools using standardized questionnaire called the Jefferson Scale of Empathy. They discovered that the students in the clinical phase (years 3 and 4) had lower “empathy scores” than the students in the preclinical phase of their education (years 1 and 2). This decline was statistically significant but “negligible” in magnitude. One wonders why they even chose to publish their results, particularly when the number of respondents to the web-based survey declined with each successive year in medical school. Having looked at the a sample of some of the questions being asked, I can understand why third- and fourth-year students couldn’t be bothered to respond. They were too busy to answer a few dozen “lame” questions.

There may be a decline in empathy over the course our medical training, but I’m not sure that this study can speak to it. An older study found that although medical students scores on a self-administered scale declined between the second and third year, the observed empathetic behavior actually increased. If I had to choose, I would lean more heavily on the results of the behavioral observations.

Certainly, we all changed over the course of our medical education. Including postgraduate training, it may have lasted a decade or more. We saw hundreds of patients, observed life and death on a scale and with an intensity that most of us previously had never experienced. Our perspective changed from being a naive observer to playing the role of an active participant. Did that change include a decline in our capacity for empathy?

Something had to change. We found quickly that we didn’t have the time or emotional energy to learn as much about the person hiding behind every complaint as we once thought we should. We had to cut corners. Sometimes we cut too many. On the other hand, as we saw more patients we may have learned more efficient ways of discovering what we needed to know about them to become an effective and caring physician. If we found ourselves in a specialty in which patients have a high mortality, we were forced to learn ways of protecting ourselves from the emotional damage.

What would you call this process? Was it empathy erosion? Was it a hardening or toughening? Or was it simply maturation? Whatever term you use, it was an obligatory process if we hoped to survive. However, not all of us have done it well. Some of us have narrowed our focus to see only the complaint and the diagnosis, and we too often fail to see the human hiding in plain sight.

For those of us who completed our training with our empathy intact, was this the result of a genetic gift or the atmosphere our parents had created at home? I suspect that in most cases our capacity for empathy as physicians was nurtured and enhanced by the role models we encountered during our training. The mentors we most revered were those who had already been through the annealing process of medical school and specialty training and become even more skilled at caring than when they left college. It is an intangible that can’t be taught. Sadly, there is no way of guaranteeing that everyone who enters medical school will be exposed to or benefit from even one of these master physicians.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

U.S. high school students who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning – “sexual minorities” – faced twice the risk of physical or sexual assault in the past year compared with their heterosexual peers, according to findings reported in a research letter.

Sexual-minority females were particularly more likely to experience physical violence while sexual-minority boys had a fourfold increased risk of sexual violence.

“The results of our study suggest the existence of a crisis of violence against sexual minority adolescents,” Theodore L. Caputi, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatrics. “Given the substantial physical and emotional consequences of violence for those subjected to it and the large existing health disparities among sexual minority adolescents, addressing both physical and sexual violence against sexual minority adolescents should become a public health priority.”

Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said he was not surprised by the findings because adolescents who may feel more vulnerable relative to their peers are likely to be more of a target. They may not have the supports they need, he said, which will affect their resiliency and their ability to push back.

“These patients are at ages where their parents might be among their supporters,” Dr. Safer said in an interview. “People in their circle may not be aware of their circumstances.”

He emphasized the need for physicians to ensure their offices are safe places for sexual-minority youth to talk to adolescent patients about their gender and sexual identity as well as any history of victimization, and to involve parents in being an ally of their child.

The researchers analyzed data from the nationally representative 2015 and 2017 National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys administered to public and private high school students in grades 9-12 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 28,811 total respondents represented a 60% response rate both years.

After indicating their sex as male or female and their sexual orientation, respondents reported whether, in the past year, they had experienced a physical fight at school, a physical fight anywhere, or physical violence from a romantic partner. They also reported whether they had been sexually assaulted in the past year by a romantic partner or ever been forced to have intercourse. The 2017 survey included an additional question about sexual assault by anyone in the past year.

Most youth (87%) identified themselves as heterosexual while 2% were gay/lesbian, 7% were bisexual, and 4% were unsure. Sexual minorities reported a higher prevalence of all forms of violence and assault, compared with their heterosexual counterparts. Although risk of a physical fight in the past year differed by a small amount (28% of sexual-minority youth vs. 22% of heterosexual youth), the gap was considerably greater for risk of physical violence by a romantic partner (12% of sexual-minority youth vs. 5% of heterosexual youth).

More than three times as many sexual-minority adolescents (18%) as heterosexual adolescents (5%) said they had ever been forced to have intercourse, and a similarly high proportion of sexual-minority students (21%) had been sexually assaulted in the past year, compared with heterosexual students (8%). After accounting for survey year, sex, age, race/ethnicity, English language proficiency, and grade level, youth who identified as anything other than heterosexual were about twice as likely as their heterosexual counterparts to have experienced physical or sexual violence, including physical violence by a romantic partner (adjusted risk ratio, 1.97) or sexual assault by anyone (aRR, 2.10), in the past year. The risk of physical violence by a romantic partner or sexual assault by anyone was even greater for bisexual youth (aRR, 2.22 and aRR, 2.36, respectively).

The increased likelihood of physical violence and sexual violence differed by sex. Girls who identified as lesbian, bisexual, or questioning were more likely than heterosexual girls to have been in a fight at school or anywhere else (aRR, 1.91 and aRR, 1.74, respectively). Boys who were gay, bisexual, or questioning, meanwhile, were over four times more likely than heterosexual boys to have had forced intercourse or any kind of sexual assault (aRR, 4.70 and aRR, 4.64, respectively).

These findings point to the need for physicians to be “specifically talking to youth about gender identity and sexual orientation. Validating what kids are feeling is important,” Dr. Safer said in an interview.

Key to that process is making sure the physician’s office feels like a safe place for LGBTQ youth to have these kinds of conversations. “Most primary care and pediatric and adolescent care practices are not feeling well equipped to take care of these kids and are not necessarily serving as a good resource for these kids,” Dr. Safer said.

It’s also important for physicians to ask youth about potential violence or abuse they have experienced, including depression and sequelae from lack of support, for which gender- and sexual-minority youth are at greater risk, he said. Finally, doctors need to engage parents in the conversation.

“As a medical professional, you need to be asking the questions and really be out there as an ally, especially for pediatric and adolescent patients, and you need to be helping the parents of your patients be allies too,” Dr. Safer said.

The study was limited by having a binary question only about respondent’s sex and no data collection about transgender youth. The study’s cross-sectional design also precludes the ability to claim causation about any of the associations.

The research was funded by the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission, Stanford (Calif.) University, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Caputi TL et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6291.

U.S. high school students who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning – “sexual minorities” – faced twice the risk of physical or sexual assault in the past year compared with their heterosexual peers, according to findings reported in a research letter.

Sexual-minority females were particularly more likely to experience physical violence while sexual-minority boys had a fourfold increased risk of sexual violence.

“The results of our study suggest the existence of a crisis of violence against sexual minority adolescents,” Theodore L. Caputi, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatrics. “Given the substantial physical and emotional consequences of violence for those subjected to it and the large existing health disparities among sexual minority adolescents, addressing both physical and sexual violence against sexual minority adolescents should become a public health priority.”

Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said he was not surprised by the findings because adolescents who may feel more vulnerable relative to their peers are likely to be more of a target. They may not have the supports they need, he said, which will affect their resiliency and their ability to push back.

“These patients are at ages where their parents might be among their supporters,” Dr. Safer said in an interview. “People in their circle may not be aware of their circumstances.”

He emphasized the need for physicians to ensure their offices are safe places for sexual-minority youth to talk to adolescent patients about their gender and sexual identity as well as any history of victimization, and to involve parents in being an ally of their child.

The researchers analyzed data from the nationally representative 2015 and 2017 National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys administered to public and private high school students in grades 9-12 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 28,811 total respondents represented a 60% response rate both years.

After indicating their sex as male or female and their sexual orientation, respondents reported whether, in the past year, they had experienced a physical fight at school, a physical fight anywhere, or physical violence from a romantic partner. They also reported whether they had been sexually assaulted in the past year by a romantic partner or ever been forced to have intercourse. The 2017 survey included an additional question about sexual assault by anyone in the past year.

Most youth (87%) identified themselves as heterosexual while 2% were gay/lesbian, 7% were bisexual, and 4% were unsure. Sexual minorities reported a higher prevalence of all forms of violence and assault, compared with their heterosexual counterparts. Although risk of a physical fight in the past year differed by a small amount (28% of sexual-minority youth vs. 22% of heterosexual youth), the gap was considerably greater for risk of physical violence by a romantic partner (12% of sexual-minority youth vs. 5% of heterosexual youth).

More than three times as many sexual-minority adolescents (18%) as heterosexual adolescents (5%) said they had ever been forced to have intercourse, and a similarly high proportion of sexual-minority students (21%) had been sexually assaulted in the past year, compared with heterosexual students (8%). After accounting for survey year, sex, age, race/ethnicity, English language proficiency, and grade level, youth who identified as anything other than heterosexual were about twice as likely as their heterosexual counterparts to have experienced physical or sexual violence, including physical violence by a romantic partner (adjusted risk ratio, 1.97) or sexual assault by anyone (aRR, 2.10), in the past year. The risk of physical violence by a romantic partner or sexual assault by anyone was even greater for bisexual youth (aRR, 2.22 and aRR, 2.36, respectively).

The increased likelihood of physical violence and sexual violence differed by sex. Girls who identified as lesbian, bisexual, or questioning were more likely than heterosexual girls to have been in a fight at school or anywhere else (aRR, 1.91 and aRR, 1.74, respectively). Boys who were gay, bisexual, or questioning, meanwhile, were over four times more likely than heterosexual boys to have had forced intercourse or any kind of sexual assault (aRR, 4.70 and aRR, 4.64, respectively).

These findings point to the need for physicians to be “specifically talking to youth about gender identity and sexual orientation. Validating what kids are feeling is important,” Dr. Safer said in an interview.

Key to that process is making sure the physician’s office feels like a safe place for LGBTQ youth to have these kinds of conversations. “Most primary care and pediatric and adolescent care practices are not feeling well equipped to take care of these kids and are not necessarily serving as a good resource for these kids,” Dr. Safer said.

It’s also important for physicians to ask youth about potential violence or abuse they have experienced, including depression and sequelae from lack of support, for which gender- and sexual-minority youth are at greater risk, he said. Finally, doctors need to engage parents in the conversation.

“As a medical professional, you need to be asking the questions and really be out there as an ally, especially for pediatric and adolescent patients, and you need to be helping the parents of your patients be allies too,” Dr. Safer said.

The study was limited by having a binary question only about respondent’s sex and no data collection about transgender youth. The study’s cross-sectional design also precludes the ability to claim causation about any of the associations.

The research was funded by the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission, Stanford (Calif.) University, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Caputi TL et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6291.

U.S. high school students who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning – “sexual minorities” – faced twice the risk of physical or sexual assault in the past year compared with their heterosexual peers, according to findings reported in a research letter.

Sexual-minority females were particularly more likely to experience physical violence while sexual-minority boys had a fourfold increased risk of sexual violence.

“The results of our study suggest the existence of a crisis of violence against sexual minority adolescents,” Theodore L. Caputi, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatrics. “Given the substantial physical and emotional consequences of violence for those subjected to it and the large existing health disparities among sexual minority adolescents, addressing both physical and sexual violence against sexual minority adolescents should become a public health priority.”

Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said he was not surprised by the findings because adolescents who may feel more vulnerable relative to their peers are likely to be more of a target. They may not have the supports they need, he said, which will affect their resiliency and their ability to push back.

“These patients are at ages where their parents might be among their supporters,” Dr. Safer said in an interview. “People in their circle may not be aware of their circumstances.”

He emphasized the need for physicians to ensure their offices are safe places for sexual-minority youth to talk to adolescent patients about their gender and sexual identity as well as any history of victimization, and to involve parents in being an ally of their child.

The researchers analyzed data from the nationally representative 2015 and 2017 National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys administered to public and private high school students in grades 9-12 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 28,811 total respondents represented a 60% response rate both years.

After indicating their sex as male or female and their sexual orientation, respondents reported whether, in the past year, they had experienced a physical fight at school, a physical fight anywhere, or physical violence from a romantic partner. They also reported whether they had been sexually assaulted in the past year by a romantic partner or ever been forced to have intercourse. The 2017 survey included an additional question about sexual assault by anyone in the past year.

Most youth (87%) identified themselves as heterosexual while 2% were gay/lesbian, 7% were bisexual, and 4% were unsure. Sexual minorities reported a higher prevalence of all forms of violence and assault, compared with their heterosexual counterparts. Although risk of a physical fight in the past year differed by a small amount (28% of sexual-minority youth vs. 22% of heterosexual youth), the gap was considerably greater for risk of physical violence by a romantic partner (12% of sexual-minority youth vs. 5% of heterosexual youth).

More than three times as many sexual-minority adolescents (18%) as heterosexual adolescents (5%) said they had ever been forced to have intercourse, and a similarly high proportion of sexual-minority students (21%) had been sexually assaulted in the past year, compared with heterosexual students (8%). After accounting for survey year, sex, age, race/ethnicity, English language proficiency, and grade level, youth who identified as anything other than heterosexual were about twice as likely as their heterosexual counterparts to have experienced physical or sexual violence, including physical violence by a romantic partner (adjusted risk ratio, 1.97) or sexual assault by anyone (aRR, 2.10), in the past year. The risk of physical violence by a romantic partner or sexual assault by anyone was even greater for bisexual youth (aRR, 2.22 and aRR, 2.36, respectively).

The increased likelihood of physical violence and sexual violence differed by sex. Girls who identified as lesbian, bisexual, or questioning were more likely than heterosexual girls to have been in a fight at school or anywhere else (aRR, 1.91 and aRR, 1.74, respectively). Boys who were gay, bisexual, or questioning, meanwhile, were over four times more likely than heterosexual boys to have had forced intercourse or any kind of sexual assault (aRR, 4.70 and aRR, 4.64, respectively).

These findings point to the need for physicians to be “specifically talking to youth about gender identity and sexual orientation. Validating what kids are feeling is important,” Dr. Safer said in an interview.

Key to that process is making sure the physician’s office feels like a safe place for LGBTQ youth to have these kinds of conversations. “Most primary care and pediatric and adolescent care practices are not feeling well equipped to take care of these kids and are not necessarily serving as a good resource for these kids,” Dr. Safer said.

It’s also important for physicians to ask youth about potential violence or abuse they have experienced, including depression and sequelae from lack of support, for which gender- and sexual-minority youth are at greater risk, he said. Finally, doctors need to engage parents in the conversation.

“As a medical professional, you need to be asking the questions and really be out there as an ally, especially for pediatric and adolescent patients, and you need to be helping the parents of your patients be allies too,” Dr. Safer said.

The study was limited by having a binary question only about respondent’s sex and no data collection about transgender youth. The study’s cross-sectional design also precludes the ability to claim causation about any of the associations.

The research was funded by the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission, Stanford (Calif.) University, and the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Caputi TL et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6291.

Rotavirus vaccination was not associated with the incidence of type 1 diabetes in a study of more than 385,000 children published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Previous findings from a number of studies have indicated a possible association between rotavirus and type 1 diabetes, according to Jason M. Glanz, PhD, and colleagues. “Epidemiologic data suggest an association between gastrointestinal infection and incidence of type 1 diabetes in children followed from birth to age 10 years. Given these findings, it is biologically plausible that live, attenuated rotavirus vaccine could either increase or decrease the risk for type 1 diabetes in early childhood,” they wrote.

To examine the association between rotavirus vaccination and the incidence of type 1 diabetes in a cohort of U.S. children, Dr. Glanz, a senior investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research in Aurora, and colleagues retrospectively analyzed data from seven health care organizations that participate in the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

The researchers identified children born between 2006 and 2014 who had continuous enrollment from age 6 weeks to 2 years. They excluded children with a medical contraindication to vaccination or fewer than two well-child visits by age 12 months. They followed children until a type 1 diabetes diagnosis, disenrollment, or Dec. 31, 2017. The researchers adjusted for sex, birth year, mother’s age, birth weight, gestational age, and race or ethnicity.

The cohort included 386,937 children who were followed up a median of 5.4 years for a total person-time follow-up of 2,253,879 years. In all, 386,937 children (93.1%) were fully exposed to rotavirus vaccination; 15,765 (4.1%) were partially exposed to rotavirus vaccination, meaning that they received some, but not all, vaccine doses; and 11,003 (2.8%) were unexposed to rotavirus vaccination but had received all other recommended vaccines.

There were 464 cases of type 1 diabetes in the cohort, with an incidence rate of 20 cases per 100,000 person-years in the fully exposed group, 31.2 cases per 100,000 person-years in the partially exposed group, and 22.4 cases per 100,000 person-years in the unexposed group.

The incidence of type 1 diabetes was not significantly different across the rotavirus vaccine–exposure groups. The researchers reported that, compared with children unexposed to rotavirus vaccination, the adjusted hazard ratio for children fully exposed to rotavirus vaccination was 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.72), and for those partially exposed to the vaccination, it was 1.50 (95% CI, 0.81-2.77).

“Since licensure, rotavirus vaccination has been associated with a reduction in morbidity and mortality due to rotavirus infection in the United States and worldwide. ... Although rotavirus vaccination may not prevent type 1 diabetes, these results should provide additional reassurance to the public that rotavirus vaccination can be safely administered to infants,” they wrote.

The limited follow-up duration and relatively small proportion of patients unexposed to rotavirus vaccination are limitations of the study, the authors noted.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded the study. Several authors reported having received grants from the CDC. One author received grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and another from pharmaceutical companies not involved in the study.

SOURCE: Glanz JM et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6324.

Rotavirus vaccination was not associated with the incidence of type 1 diabetes in a study of more than 385,000 children published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Previous findings from a number of studies have indicated a possible association between rotavirus and type 1 diabetes, according to Jason M. Glanz, PhD, and colleagues. “Epidemiologic data suggest an association between gastrointestinal infection and incidence of type 1 diabetes in children followed from birth to age 10 years. Given these findings, it is biologically plausible that live, attenuated rotavirus vaccine could either increase or decrease the risk for type 1 diabetes in early childhood,” they wrote.

To examine the association between rotavirus vaccination and the incidence of type 1 diabetes in a cohort of U.S. children, Dr. Glanz, a senior investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research in Aurora, and colleagues retrospectively analyzed data from seven health care organizations that participate in the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

The researchers identified children born between 2006 and 2014 who had continuous enrollment from age 6 weeks to 2 years. They excluded children with a medical contraindication to vaccination or fewer than two well-child visits by age 12 months. They followed children until a type 1 diabetes diagnosis, disenrollment, or Dec. 31, 2017. The researchers adjusted for sex, birth year, mother’s age, birth weight, gestational age, and race or ethnicity.

The cohort included 386,937 children who were followed up a median of 5.4 years for a total person-time follow-up of 2,253,879 years. In all, 386,937 children (93.1%) were fully exposed to rotavirus vaccination; 15,765 (4.1%) were partially exposed to rotavirus vaccination, meaning that they received some, but not all, vaccine doses; and 11,003 (2.8%) were unexposed to rotavirus vaccination but had received all other recommended vaccines.

There were 464 cases of type 1 diabetes in the cohort, with an incidence rate of 20 cases per 100,000 person-years in the fully exposed group, 31.2 cases per 100,000 person-years in the partially exposed group, and 22.4 cases per 100,000 person-years in the unexposed group.

The incidence of type 1 diabetes was not significantly different across the rotavirus vaccine–exposure groups. The researchers reported that, compared with children unexposed to rotavirus vaccination, the adjusted hazard ratio for children fully exposed to rotavirus vaccination was 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.72), and for those partially exposed to the vaccination, it was 1.50 (95% CI, 0.81-2.77).

“Since licensure, rotavirus vaccination has been associated with a reduction in morbidity and mortality due to rotavirus infection in the United States and worldwide. ... Although rotavirus vaccination may not prevent type 1 diabetes, these results should provide additional reassurance to the public that rotavirus vaccination can be safely administered to infants,” they wrote.

The limited follow-up duration and relatively small proportion of patients unexposed to rotavirus vaccination are limitations of the study, the authors noted.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded the study. Several authors reported having received grants from the CDC. One author received grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and another from pharmaceutical companies not involved in the study.

SOURCE: Glanz JM et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6324.

Rotavirus vaccination was not associated with the incidence of type 1 diabetes in a study of more than 385,000 children published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Previous findings from a number of studies have indicated a possible association between rotavirus and type 1 diabetes, according to Jason M. Glanz, PhD, and colleagues. “Epidemiologic data suggest an association between gastrointestinal infection and incidence of type 1 diabetes in children followed from birth to age 10 years. Given these findings, it is biologically plausible that live, attenuated rotavirus vaccine could either increase or decrease the risk for type 1 diabetes in early childhood,” they wrote.

To examine the association between rotavirus vaccination and the incidence of type 1 diabetes in a cohort of U.S. children, Dr. Glanz, a senior investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research in Aurora, and colleagues retrospectively analyzed data from seven health care organizations that participate in the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

The researchers identified children born between 2006 and 2014 who had continuous enrollment from age 6 weeks to 2 years. They excluded children with a medical contraindication to vaccination or fewer than two well-child visits by age 12 months. They followed children until a type 1 diabetes diagnosis, disenrollment, or Dec. 31, 2017. The researchers adjusted for sex, birth year, mother’s age, birth weight, gestational age, and race or ethnicity.

The cohort included 386,937 children who were followed up a median of 5.4 years for a total person-time follow-up of 2,253,879 years. In all, 386,937 children (93.1%) were fully exposed to rotavirus vaccination; 15,765 (4.1%) were partially exposed to rotavirus vaccination, meaning that they received some, but not all, vaccine doses; and 11,003 (2.8%) were unexposed to rotavirus vaccination but had received all other recommended vaccines.

There were 464 cases of type 1 diabetes in the cohort, with an incidence rate of 20 cases per 100,000 person-years in the fully exposed group, 31.2 cases per 100,000 person-years in the partially exposed group, and 22.4 cases per 100,000 person-years in the unexposed group.

The incidence of type 1 diabetes was not significantly different across the rotavirus vaccine–exposure groups. The researchers reported that, compared with children unexposed to rotavirus vaccination, the adjusted hazard ratio for children fully exposed to rotavirus vaccination was 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.72), and for those partially exposed to the vaccination, it was 1.50 (95% CI, 0.81-2.77).

“Since licensure, rotavirus vaccination has been associated with a reduction in morbidity and mortality due to rotavirus infection in the United States and worldwide. ... Although rotavirus vaccination may not prevent type 1 diabetes, these results should provide additional reassurance to the public that rotavirus vaccination can be safely administered to infants,” they wrote.

The limited follow-up duration and relatively small proportion of patients unexposed to rotavirus vaccination are limitations of the study, the authors noted.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded the study. Several authors reported having received grants from the CDC. One author received grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and another from pharmaceutical companies not involved in the study.

SOURCE: Glanz JM et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6324.

The predictive accuracy of assessing very preterm (VPT) children at different ages leading up to middle school improves with age and by inclusion of any (mild or severe) cognitive impairment, rather than just severe impairment, in ongoing monitoring, according to a study published in Pediatrics.

Carmina Erdei, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the department of pediatrics at Harvard Medical school, both in Boston, and colleagues prospectively studied 103 children born VPT (32 weeks’ or less gestation) and 109 children born term. Exclusion criteria included congenital abnormalities and having non–English-speaking parents.

The investigators assessed the children’s cognitive abilities and neurodevelopment with age-appropriate measures at various ages: Bayley Scales of Infant Development (2nd ed.) at age 2 years, Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence at age 4 and 6 years, and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.) at age 9 and 12 years.

When only severe cognitive impairment at ages 2, 4, and 6 years was used as the criterion for ongoing monitoring, between 18% and 44% of severely impaired children at 12 years were missed – and would not have received continued monitoring and support. However, when any cognitive impairment at the younger ages was the criterion for continued monitoring, 100% of cases of severe impairment at age 12 years were correctly predicted.

The authors suggest that adoption of this more inclusive approach may be warranted, given the long-term ramifications of even mild cognitive impairment.

Positive predictive value (66%), negative predictive value (89%), and specificity (73%) intersected in assessments performed at age 6 years, such that they had the best predictive ability for any cognitive impairment at age 12 years.

“Our findings highlight the potential benefit of monitoring children at high risk with early delay until elementary school,” the authors wrote. “We acknowledge that this would result in a higher number of referrals and potentially increased short-term costs. Developmental follow-up is costly, yet early developmental services are valuable and positively impact preterm children’s cognitive and preacademic skills.”

The investigators also assessed family-social risks, such as socioeconomic status and maternal education, and found that children born VPT were more than twice as likely to be raised in families with more risks than were those born term (33% vs. 13%, respectively).

Limitations of the study include the high false-positive rate (34%) seen with the assessments at age 6 years, but the authors suggested that could be mitigated with risk stratification.

The study was funded by the Neurological Foundation, Lottery Grants Board, Canterbury Medical Research Foundation, and Health Research Council of New Zealand. The authors reported having no relevant financial relationships or conflicts of interest.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Erdei C et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 6. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1982.

The predictive accuracy of assessing very preterm (VPT) children at different ages leading up to middle school improves with age and by inclusion of any (mild or severe) cognitive impairment, rather than just severe impairment, in ongoing monitoring, according to a study published in Pediatrics.

Carmina Erdei, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the department of pediatrics at Harvard Medical school, both in Boston, and colleagues prospectively studied 103 children born VPT (32 weeks’ or less gestation) and 109 children born term. Exclusion criteria included congenital abnormalities and having non–English-speaking parents.

The investigators assessed the children’s cognitive abilities and neurodevelopment with age-appropriate measures at various ages: Bayley Scales of Infant Development (2nd ed.) at age 2 years, Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence at age 4 and 6 years, and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.) at age 9 and 12 years.

When only severe cognitive impairment at ages 2, 4, and 6 years was used as the criterion for ongoing monitoring, between 18% and 44% of severely impaired children at 12 years were missed – and would not have received continued monitoring and support. However, when any cognitive impairment at the younger ages was the criterion for continued monitoring, 100% of cases of severe impairment at age 12 years were correctly predicted.

The authors suggest that adoption of this more inclusive approach may be warranted, given the long-term ramifications of even mild cognitive impairment.

Positive predictive value (66%), negative predictive value (89%), and specificity (73%) intersected in assessments performed at age 6 years, such that they had the best predictive ability for any cognitive impairment at age 12 years.

“Our findings highlight the potential benefit of monitoring children at high risk with early delay until elementary school,” the authors wrote. “We acknowledge that this would result in a higher number of referrals and potentially increased short-term costs. Developmental follow-up is costly, yet early developmental services are valuable and positively impact preterm children’s cognitive and preacademic skills.”

The investigators also assessed family-social risks, such as socioeconomic status and maternal education, and found that children born VPT were more than twice as likely to be raised in families with more risks than were those born term (33% vs. 13%, respectively).

Limitations of the study include the high false-positive rate (34%) seen with the assessments at age 6 years, but the authors suggested that could be mitigated with risk stratification.

The study was funded by the Neurological Foundation, Lottery Grants Board, Canterbury Medical Research Foundation, and Health Research Council of New Zealand. The authors reported having no relevant financial relationships or conflicts of interest.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Erdei C et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 6. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1982.

The predictive accuracy of assessing very preterm (VPT) children at different ages leading up to middle school improves with age and by inclusion of any (mild or severe) cognitive impairment, rather than just severe impairment, in ongoing monitoring, according to a study published in Pediatrics.

Carmina Erdei, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the department of pediatrics at Harvard Medical school, both in Boston, and colleagues prospectively studied 103 children born VPT (32 weeks’ or less gestation) and 109 children born term. Exclusion criteria included congenital abnormalities and having non–English-speaking parents.

The investigators assessed the children’s cognitive abilities and neurodevelopment with age-appropriate measures at various ages: Bayley Scales of Infant Development (2nd ed.) at age 2 years, Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence at age 4 and 6 years, and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.) at age 9 and 12 years.

When only severe cognitive impairment at ages 2, 4, and 6 years was used as the criterion for ongoing monitoring, between 18% and 44% of severely impaired children at 12 years were missed – and would not have received continued monitoring and support. However, when any cognitive impairment at the younger ages was the criterion for continued monitoring, 100% of cases of severe impairment at age 12 years were correctly predicted.

The authors suggest that adoption of this more inclusive approach may be warranted, given the long-term ramifications of even mild cognitive impairment.

Positive predictive value (66%), negative predictive value (89%), and specificity (73%) intersected in assessments performed at age 6 years, such that they had the best predictive ability for any cognitive impairment at age 12 years.

“Our findings highlight the potential benefit of monitoring children at high risk with early delay until elementary school,” the authors wrote. “We acknowledge that this would result in a higher number of referrals and potentially increased short-term costs. Developmental follow-up is costly, yet early developmental services are valuable and positively impact preterm children’s cognitive and preacademic skills.”

The investigators also assessed family-social risks, such as socioeconomic status and maternal education, and found that children born VPT were more than twice as likely to be raised in families with more risks than were those born term (33% vs. 13%, respectively).

Limitations of the study include the high false-positive rate (34%) seen with the assessments at age 6 years, but the authors suggested that could be mitigated with risk stratification.

The study was funded by the Neurological Foundation, Lottery Grants Board, Canterbury Medical Research Foundation, and Health Research Council of New Zealand. The authors reported having no relevant financial relationships or conflicts of interest.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Erdei C et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 6. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1982.

LONDON – Disrupting how microorganisms communicate with each other could be a way to overcome antibiotic resistance and to help heal chronic wounds in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB), according to presenters at the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA).

The majority of chronic wounds in patients with EB are colonized with microorganisms, with a predominance of Staphylococcus species, said Erik Gerner, an industrial PhD student at Mölnlycke Health Care in Gothenburg, Sweden, and Gothenburg University.

Because of the growing problem of antibiotic resistance, alternative treatments are needed, and one possible alternative for treating infected wounds could be interfering with quorum sensing, the cell-to-cell communication used by bacteria, he said. He is hoping to explore this possibility as a novel treatment strategy for infected wounds.

“Quorum sensing is defined as the ability to detect and respond to population density,” Mr. Gerner said, noting that, when there is a sufficient density of bacteria, “they start to communicate with each other.” This enables them to act as a community and perform actions that they could not do as individual cells. Such actions include forming biofilms, which helps protect bacteria from their environment, such as the immune system. Other actions include collectively switching on the production of virulence factors and becoming resistant to treatments.

“Bacteria use quorum sensing to act collectively,” Mr. Gerner said. “If we could shut down this quorum sensing system, it would be very beneficial … and increase the chances to heal the wound.”

The quorum sensing system is based on the production of signaling molecules called AHL (N-acyl homoserine lactones), which are constantly produced at a low rate. This isn’t a problem until the level of bacteria increases and the level of quorum sensing breaches a threshold, he explained.

There are several benefits of inhibiting bacterial communication through disrupting quorum sensing, namely, “a low risk of resistance,” Mr. Gerner said. There is also potentially less toxin production by bacteria, and this could help the immune system in killing the invading bacteria.

One approach to disrupting quorum testing that Mr. Gerner has been investigating is the use of sodium salicylate (NaSa). So far, preclinical work shows that NaSa can reduce toxin production but not the growth rate of bacteria. The advantage of using NaSa is that it is nontoxic to human dermal fibroblasts, with similar results seen in human keratinocytes and immune cells. His work to date has shown that NaSa reduced activity of NF-kB (a proinflammatory signaling pathway) in differentiated and lipopolysaccharide-stimulated monocytes; NF-kB activated production of proinflammatory cytokines (such as interleukin-1 beta and IL-6) are elevated in EB wounds. “My studies support the bodies of evidence that bacteria use quorum sensing to coordinate … and to produce a large number of toxic factors,” Mr. Gerner concluded. Future studies will look at the potential of NaSa to disrupt this activity.
 

Skin microbiome of EB wounds

Understanding what bacteria most commonly colonize wounds in patients with EB was the subject of two unrelated presentations at the EB World Congress. Liat Samuelov, MD, of the department of molecular dermatology at Tel Aviv (Israel) Sourasky Medical Center, presented data on skin microbiome characteristics in eight patients with recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB). This showed that there was reduced bacterial diversity in wounds, and a “progressive development of dysbiosis across different stages of DEB wound formation.”

The skin microbiome has been implicated in several skin diseases, Dr. Samuelov and associates observed in a poster presentation. That includes the autoimmune blistering disease bullous pemphigoid (Exp Dermatol. 2017 Dec;26[12]:1221-7). “Colonization of DEB chronic wounds may lead to systemic infections, result in delayed healing, and possibly be involved in the development of squamous cell carcinoma,” they noted in the poster, “thus accurate delineation of the dysbiotic profile … may point to corrective measures of great therapeutic potential.”

The aim was to see what microorganisms were present in the chronic wounds of the patients. To be included in the study, patients must not have had any antibiotic treatment – oral or topical – in the past 6 months. Samples were taken from an untreated wound, around the wound, and from uninvolved skin, which were compared with samples taken from similar areas in age-matched controls.

Reduced bacterial diversity was observed in RDEB wounds, compared with uninvolved or perilesional areas and the skin of control subjects, Dr. Samuelov said in an oral presentation of the study results. There was increased abundance of Staphylococcus epidermidis and decreased Cutibacterium acnes, which she noted was in contrast to other studies where S. aureus was the most common colonizer in RDEB wounds.

Bacterial composition in each group was calculated using the beta-diversity score, while control samples showed similar microbial composition, the DEB samples had no microbial similarities among different samples. These data “suggest the need to ascertain the potential therapeutic benefit of interventions aimed at restoring normal microbiome composition in DEB,” Dr. Samuelov concluded.

Wound colonization and squamous cell carcinoma

Other research on wound microbiology was presented by Laura E. Levin, MD, a dermatologist at New York–Presbyterian, and associates. “Given the potential role of bacteria-induced inflammation in the development of wound-associated SCC [squamous cell carcinoma] in a subset of patients, we sought to improve our understanding of what microbes colonize and infect the wounds of patients with epidermolysis bullosa,” they explained in their poster.

The researchers, from New York–Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital and Columbia University Irvine Medical Center, New York, presented data from a retrospective analysis of 739 wound cultures taken between 2001 and 2017 from 158 patients enrolled in the Epidermolysis Bullosa Clinical Characterization and Outcomes Database. In the analysis, just under 70% of patients had DEB, of which 90% were of the RDEB subtype; 13% had EB simplex, 14% had junctional EB, and 3% had an unknown EB subtype.

At least one organism grew in 87% of cultures, with the most common microorganism isolated being Staphylococcus aureus (84% of cultures). Other commonly isolated microbes were Pseudomonas aeruginosa in 35% of cultures, Streptococcus group A in 34% of cultures (of which 22% were Streptococcus pyogenes), Corynebacterium species in 31% of cultures, and Proteus species in 18% of cultures.

“Improved understanding of what microbes are colonizing the wounds of our patients may help improve antibiotic stewardship,” the researchers stated.

Looking at the antibiotic susceptibilities, Dr. Levin and associates found that 68% of 115 cultures were sensitive to methicillin and 60% of 15 cultures were sensitive to mupirocin. “Resistance to many systemic and topical antibiotic agents in EB patients supports surveillance cultures with routine testing for mupirocin susceptibility,” they suggested.

A total of 23 patients developed SCC of whom 10 had cultures that grew S. aureus (90%) and P. aeruginosa (50%), and Proteus species (20%). Among the patients who did not develop SCC, the respective cultures positive for each of those microorganisms were 83%, 34%, and 11%. Perhaps “gram-negative and flagellated organisms may be more common in wounds of patients at risk for SCC,” they observed, adding that further studies were needed to determine if “wound microbiome interventions inhibit the risk of development of SCC and improve outcomes.”

Mr. Gerner’s research is supported by Mölnlycke Health Care. Dr. Samuelov had no disclosures. The work by Dr. Levin and associates is supported by the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance, EB Research Partnership, and the Epidermolysis Bullosa Medical Research Foundation.

LONDON – Disrupting how microorganisms communicate with each other could be a way to overcome antibiotic resistance and to help heal chronic wounds in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB), according to presenters at the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA).

The majority of chronic wounds in patients with EB are colonized with microorganisms, with a predominance of Staphylococcus species, said Erik Gerner, an industrial PhD student at Mölnlycke Health Care in Gothenburg, Sweden, and Gothenburg University.

Because of the growing problem of antibiotic resistance, alternative treatments are needed, and one possible alternative for treating infected wounds could be interfering with quorum sensing, the cell-to-cell communication used by bacteria, he said. He is hoping to explore this possibility as a novel treatment strategy for infected wounds.

“Quorum sensing is defined as the ability to detect and respond to population density,” Mr. Gerner said, noting that, when there is a sufficient density of bacteria, “they start to communicate with each other.” This enables them to act as a community and perform actions that they could not do as individual cells. Such actions include forming biofilms, which helps protect bacteria from their environment, such as the immune system. Other actions include collectively switching on the production of virulence factors and becoming resistant to treatments.

“Bacteria use quorum sensing to act collectively,” Mr. Gerner said. “If we could shut down this quorum sensing system, it would be very beneficial … and increase the chances to heal the wound.”

The quorum sensing system is based on the production of signaling molecules called AHL (N-acyl homoserine lactones), which are constantly produced at a low rate. This isn’t a problem until the level of bacteria increases and the level of quorum sensing breaches a threshold, he explained.

There are several benefits of inhibiting bacterial communication through disrupting quorum sensing, namely, “a low risk of resistance,” Mr. Gerner said. There is also potentially less toxin production by bacteria, and this could help the immune system in killing the invading bacteria.

One approach to disrupting quorum testing that Mr. Gerner has been investigating is the use of sodium salicylate (NaSa). So far, preclinical work shows that NaSa can reduce toxin production but not the growth rate of bacteria. The advantage of using NaSa is that it is nontoxic to human dermal fibroblasts, with similar results seen in human keratinocytes and immune cells. His work to date has shown that NaSa reduced activity of NF-kB (a proinflammatory signaling pathway) in differentiated and lipopolysaccharide-stimulated monocytes; NF-kB activated production of proinflammatory cytokines (such as interleukin-1 beta and IL-6) are elevated in EB wounds. “My studies support the bodies of evidence that bacteria use quorum sensing to coordinate … and to produce a large number of toxic factors,” Mr. Gerner concluded. Future studies will look at the potential of NaSa to disrupt this activity.
 

Skin microbiome of EB wounds

Understanding what bacteria most commonly colonize wounds in patients with EB was the subject of two unrelated presentations at the EB World Congress. Liat Samuelov, MD, of the department of molecular dermatology at Tel Aviv (Israel) Sourasky Medical Center, presented data on skin microbiome characteristics in eight patients with recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB). This showed that there was reduced bacterial diversity in wounds, and a “progressive development of dysbiosis across different stages of DEB wound formation.”

The skin microbiome has been implicated in several skin diseases, Dr. Samuelov and associates observed in a poster presentation. That includes the autoimmune blistering disease bullous pemphigoid (Exp Dermatol. 2017 Dec;26[12]:1221-7). “Colonization of DEB chronic wounds may lead to systemic infections, result in delayed healing, and possibly be involved in the development of squamous cell carcinoma,” they noted in the poster, “thus accurate delineation of the dysbiotic profile … may point to corrective measures of great therapeutic potential.”

The aim was to see what microorganisms were present in the chronic wounds of the patients. To be included in the study, patients must not have had any antibiotic treatment – oral or topical – in the past 6 months. Samples were taken from an untreated wound, around the wound, and from uninvolved skin, which were compared with samples taken from similar areas in age-matched controls.

Reduced bacterial diversity was observed in RDEB wounds, compared with uninvolved or perilesional areas and the skin of control subjects, Dr. Samuelov said in an oral presentation of the study results. There was increased abundance of Staphylococcus epidermidis and decreased Cutibacterium acnes, which she noted was in contrast to other studies where S. aureus was the most common colonizer in RDEB wounds.

Bacterial composition in each group was calculated using the beta-diversity score, while control samples showed similar microbial composition, the DEB samples had no microbial similarities among different samples. These data “suggest the need to ascertain the potential therapeutic benefit of interventions aimed at restoring normal microbiome composition in DEB,” Dr. Samuelov concluded.

Wound colonization and squamous cell carcinoma

Other research on wound microbiology was presented by Laura E. Levin, MD, a dermatologist at New York–Presbyterian, and associates. “Given the potential role of bacteria-induced inflammation in the development of wound-associated SCC [squamous cell carcinoma] in a subset of patients, we sought to improve our understanding of what microbes colonize and infect the wounds of patients with epidermolysis bullosa,” they explained in their poster.

The researchers, from New York–Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital and Columbia University Irvine Medical Center, New York, presented data from a retrospective analysis of 739 wound cultures taken between 2001 and 2017 from 158 patients enrolled in the Epidermolysis Bullosa Clinical Characterization and Outcomes Database. In the analysis, just under 70% of patients had DEB, of which 90% were of the RDEB subtype; 13% had EB simplex, 14% had junctional EB, and 3% had an unknown EB subtype.

At least one organism grew in 87% of cultures, with the most common microorganism isolated being Staphylococcus aureus (84% of cultures). Other commonly isolated microbes were Pseudomonas aeruginosa in 35% of cultures, Streptococcus group A in 34% of cultures (of which 22% were Streptococcus pyogenes), Corynebacterium species in 31% of cultures, and Proteus species in 18% of cultures.

“Improved understanding of what microbes are colonizing the wounds of our patients may help improve antibiotic stewardship,” the researchers stated.

Looking at the antibiotic susceptibilities, Dr. Levin and associates found that 68% of 115 cultures were sensitive to methicillin and 60% of 15 cultures were sensitive to mupirocin. “Resistance to many systemic and topical antibiotic agents in EB patients supports surveillance cultures with routine testing for mupirocin susceptibility,” they suggested.

A total of 23 patients developed SCC of whom 10 had cultures that grew S. aureus (90%) and P. aeruginosa (50%), and Proteus species (20%). Among the patients who did not develop SCC, the respective cultures positive for each of those microorganisms were 83%, 34%, and 11%. Perhaps “gram-negative and flagellated organisms may be more common in wounds of patients at risk for SCC,” they observed, adding that further studies were needed to determine if “wound microbiome interventions inhibit the risk of development of SCC and improve outcomes.”

Mr. Gerner’s research is supported by Mölnlycke Health Care. Dr. Samuelov had no disclosures. The work by Dr. Levin and associates is supported by the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance, EB Research Partnership, and the Epidermolysis Bullosa Medical Research Foundation.

LONDON – Disrupting how microorganisms communicate with each other could be a way to overcome antibiotic resistance and to help heal chronic wounds in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB), according to presenters at the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA).

The majority of chronic wounds in patients with EB are colonized with microorganisms, with a predominance of Staphylococcus species, said Erik Gerner, an industrial PhD student at Mölnlycke Health Care in Gothenburg, Sweden, and Gothenburg University.

Because of the growing problem of antibiotic resistance, alternative treatments are needed, and one possible alternative for treating infected wounds could be interfering with quorum sensing, the cell-to-cell communication used by bacteria, he said. He is hoping to explore this possibility as a novel treatment strategy for infected wounds.

“Quorum sensing is defined as the ability to detect and respond to population density,” Mr. Gerner said, noting that, when there is a sufficient density of bacteria, “they start to communicate with each other.” This enables them to act as a community and perform actions that they could not do as individual cells. Such actions include forming biofilms, which helps protect bacteria from their environment, such as the immune system. Other actions include collectively switching on the production of virulence factors and becoming resistant to treatments.

“Bacteria use quorum sensing to act collectively,” Mr. Gerner said. “If we could shut down this quorum sensing system, it would be very beneficial … and increase the chances to heal the wound.”

The quorum sensing system is based on the production of signaling molecules called AHL (N-acyl homoserine lactones), which are constantly produced at a low rate. This isn’t a problem until the level of bacteria increases and the level of quorum sensing breaches a threshold, he explained.

There are several benefits of inhibiting bacterial communication through disrupting quorum sensing, namely, “a low risk of resistance,” Mr. Gerner said. There is also potentially less toxin production by bacteria, and this could help the immune system in killing the invading bacteria.

One approach to disrupting quorum testing that Mr. Gerner has been investigating is the use of sodium salicylate (NaSa). So far, preclinical work shows that NaSa can reduce toxin production but not the growth rate of bacteria. The advantage of using NaSa is that it is nontoxic to human dermal fibroblasts, with similar results seen in human keratinocytes and immune cells. His work to date has shown that NaSa reduced activity of NF-kB (a proinflammatory signaling pathway) in differentiated and lipopolysaccharide-stimulated monocytes; NF-kB activated production of proinflammatory cytokines (such as interleukin-1 beta and IL-6) are elevated in EB wounds. “My studies support the bodies of evidence that bacteria use quorum sensing to coordinate … and to produce a large number of toxic factors,” Mr. Gerner concluded. Future studies will look at the potential of NaSa to disrupt this activity.
 

Skin microbiome of EB wounds

Understanding what bacteria most commonly colonize wounds in patients with EB was the subject of two unrelated presentations at the EB World Congress. Liat Samuelov, MD, of the department of molecular dermatology at Tel Aviv (Israel) Sourasky Medical Center, presented data on skin microbiome characteristics in eight patients with recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB). This showed that there was reduced bacterial diversity in wounds, and a “progressive development of dysbiosis across different stages of DEB wound formation.”

The skin microbiome has been implicated in several skin diseases, Dr. Samuelov and associates observed in a poster presentation. That includes the autoimmune blistering disease bullous pemphigoid (Exp Dermatol. 2017 Dec;26[12]:1221-7). “Colonization of DEB chronic wounds may lead to systemic infections, result in delayed healing, and possibly be involved in the development of squamous cell carcinoma,” they noted in the poster, “thus accurate delineation of the dysbiotic profile … may point to corrective measures of great therapeutic potential.”

The aim was to see what microorganisms were present in the chronic wounds of the patients. To be included in the study, patients must not have had any antibiotic treatment – oral or topical – in the past 6 months. Samples were taken from an untreated wound, around the wound, and from uninvolved skin, which were compared with samples taken from similar areas in age-matched controls.

Reduced bacterial diversity was observed in RDEB wounds, compared with uninvolved or perilesional areas and the skin of control subjects, Dr. Samuelov said in an oral presentation of the study results. There was increased abundance of Staphylococcus epidermidis and decreased Cutibacterium acnes, which she noted was in contrast to other studies where S. aureus was the most common colonizer in RDEB wounds.

Bacterial composition in each group was calculated using the beta-diversity score, while control samples showed similar microbial composition, the DEB samples had no microbial similarities among different samples. These data “suggest the need to ascertain the potential therapeutic benefit of interventions aimed at restoring normal microbiome composition in DEB,” Dr. Samuelov concluded.

Wound colonization and squamous cell carcinoma

Other research on wound microbiology was presented by Laura E. Levin, MD, a dermatologist at New York–Presbyterian, and associates. “Given the potential role of bacteria-induced inflammation in the development of wound-associated SCC [squamous cell carcinoma] in a subset of patients, we sought to improve our understanding of what microbes colonize and infect the wounds of patients with epidermolysis bullosa,” they explained in their poster.

The researchers, from New York–Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital and Columbia University Irvine Medical Center, New York, presented data from a retrospective analysis of 739 wound cultures taken between 2001 and 2017 from 158 patients enrolled in the Epidermolysis Bullosa Clinical Characterization and Outcomes Database. In the analysis, just under 70% of patients had DEB, of which 90% were of the RDEB subtype; 13% had EB simplex, 14% had junctional EB, and 3% had an unknown EB subtype.

At least one organism grew in 87% of cultures, with the most common microorganism isolated being Staphylococcus aureus (84% of cultures). Other commonly isolated microbes were Pseudomonas aeruginosa in 35% of cultures, Streptococcus group A in 34% of cultures (of which 22% were Streptococcus pyogenes), Corynebacterium species in 31% of cultures, and Proteus species in 18% of cultures.

“Improved understanding of what microbes are colonizing the wounds of our patients may help improve antibiotic stewardship,” the researchers stated.

Looking at the antibiotic susceptibilities, Dr. Levin and associates found that 68% of 115 cultures were sensitive to methicillin and 60% of 15 cultures were sensitive to mupirocin. “Resistance to many systemic and topical antibiotic agents in EB patients supports surveillance cultures with routine testing for mupirocin susceptibility,” they suggested.

A total of 23 patients developed SCC of whom 10 had cultures that grew S. aureus (90%) and P. aeruginosa (50%), and Proteus species (20%). Among the patients who did not develop SCC, the respective cultures positive for each of those microorganisms were 83%, 34%, and 11%. Perhaps “gram-negative and flagellated organisms may be more common in wounds of patients at risk for SCC,” they observed, adding that further studies were needed to determine if “wound microbiome interventions inhibit the risk of development of SCC and improve outcomes.”

Mr. Gerner’s research is supported by Mölnlycke Health Care. Dr. Samuelov had no disclosures. The work by Dr. Levin and associates is supported by the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance, EB Research Partnership, and the Epidermolysis Bullosa Medical Research Foundation.

Nationwide influenza activity declined for the third consecutive week, but the 2019-2020 season is on pace to be the longest in more than a decade.

Outpatient visits to health care providers for influenza-like illness dropped from 5.5% the previous week to 5.3% of all visits for the week ending Feb. 29, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on March 6.

The national baseline rate of 2.4% was first reached during the week of Nov. 9, 2019 – marking the start of flu season – and has remained at or above that level for 17 consecutive weeks. Last year’s season, which also was the longest in a decade, lasted 21 consecutive weeks but started 2 weeks later than the current season and had a lower outpatient-visit rate (4.5%) for the last week of February, CDC data show.

This season’s earlier start could mean that even a somewhat steep decline in visits to below the baseline rate – marking the end of the season – might take 5 or 6 weeks and would make 2019-2020 even longer than 2018-2019.

The activity situation on the state level reflects the small national decline. For the week ending Feb. 29, there were 33 states at level 10 on the CDC’s 1-10 activity scale, compared with 37 the week before, and a total of 40 in the “high” range of 8-10, compared with 43 the week before, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

The other main measure of influenza activity, percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive, also declined for the third week in a row and is now at 24.3% after reaching a high of 30.3% during the week of Feb. 2-8, the influenza division said.

The overall cumulative hospitalization rate continues to remain at a fairly typical 57.9 per 100,000 population, but rates for school-aged children (84.9 per 100,000) and young adults (31.2 per 100,000) are among the highest ever recorded at this point in the season. Mortality among children – now at 136 for 2019-2020 – is higher than for any season since reporting began in 2004, with the exception of the 2009 pandemic, the CDC said.
 

rfranki@mdedge.com

Nationwide influenza activity declined for the third consecutive week, but the 2019-2020 season is on pace to be the longest in more than a decade.

Outpatient visits to health care providers for influenza-like illness dropped from 5.5% the previous week to 5.3% of all visits for the week ending Feb. 29, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on March 6.

The national baseline rate of 2.4% was first reached during the week of Nov. 9, 2019 – marking the start of flu season – and has remained at or above that level for 17 consecutive weeks. Last year’s season, which also was the longest in a decade, lasted 21 consecutive weeks but started 2 weeks later than the current season and had a lower outpatient-visit rate (4.5%) for the last week of February, CDC data show.

This season’s earlier start could mean that even a somewhat steep decline in visits to below the baseline rate – marking the end of the season – might take 5 or 6 weeks and would make 2019-2020 even longer than 2018-2019.

The activity situation on the state level reflects the small national decline. For the week ending Feb. 29, there were 33 states at level 10 on the CDC’s 1-10 activity scale, compared with 37 the week before, and a total of 40 in the “high” range of 8-10, compared with 43 the week before, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

The other main measure of influenza activity, percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive, also declined for the third week in a row and is now at 24.3% after reaching a high of 30.3% during the week of Feb. 2-8, the influenza division said.

The overall cumulative hospitalization rate continues to remain at a fairly typical 57.9 per 100,000 population, but rates for school-aged children (84.9 per 100,000) and young adults (31.2 per 100,000) are among the highest ever recorded at this point in the season. Mortality among children – now at 136 for 2019-2020 – is higher than for any season since reporting began in 2004, with the exception of the 2009 pandemic, the CDC said.
 

rfranki@mdedge.com

Nationwide influenza activity declined for the third consecutive week, but the 2019-2020 season is on pace to be the longest in more than a decade.

Outpatient visits to health care providers for influenza-like illness dropped from 5.5% the previous week to 5.3% of all visits for the week ending Feb. 29, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on March 6.

The national baseline rate of 2.4% was first reached during the week of Nov. 9, 2019 – marking the start of flu season – and has remained at or above that level for 17 consecutive weeks. Last year’s season, which also was the longest in a decade, lasted 21 consecutive weeks but started 2 weeks later than the current season and had a lower outpatient-visit rate (4.5%) for the last week of February, CDC data show.

This season’s earlier start could mean that even a somewhat steep decline in visits to below the baseline rate – marking the end of the season – might take 5 or 6 weeks and would make 2019-2020 even longer than 2018-2019.

The activity situation on the state level reflects the small national decline. For the week ending Feb. 29, there were 33 states at level 10 on the CDC’s 1-10 activity scale, compared with 37 the week before, and a total of 40 in the “high” range of 8-10, compared with 43 the week before, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

The other main measure of influenza activity, percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive, also declined for the third week in a row and is now at 24.3% after reaching a high of 30.3% during the week of Feb. 2-8, the influenza division said.

The overall cumulative hospitalization rate continues to remain at a fairly typical 57.9 per 100,000 population, but rates for school-aged children (84.9 per 100,000) and young adults (31.2 per 100,000) are among the highest ever recorded at this point in the season. Mortality among children – now at 136 for 2019-2020 – is higher than for any season since reporting began in 2004, with the exception of the 2009 pandemic, the CDC said.
 

rfranki@mdedge.com

Infant rice cereal contains lower levels of arsenic than it did in 2014, according to test results released by the Food and Drug Administration.

In April 2016, the FDA issued draft guidance calling for manufacturers of the product to reduce the level of arsenic in their cereals by establishing an action level of arsenic of 100 mcg/kg or 100 parts per billion.

Seventy-six percent of samples of infant rice cereal tested in 2018 had levels of arsenic at or below 100 parts per billion versus 47% of samples tested in 2014, according to a statement from the FDA. In 2011-2013, an even lower percentage of samples tested contained amounts of inorganic arsenic at or below the FDA’s current action level for this element, whose consumption has been associated with cancer, skin lesions, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes.

The 2018 data is based on the testing of 149 samples of infant white and brown rice cereal samples.

“Results from our tests show that manufacturers have made significant progress in ensuring lower levels of inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereal,” Susan Mayne, PhD, director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in the FDA statement.

“Both white rice and brown rice cereals showed improvement in meeting the FDA’s 100 ppb proposed action level, but the improvement was greatest for white rice cereals, which tend to have lower levels of inorganic arsenic overall,” according to the statement.

klennon@mdedge.com

Infant rice cereal contains lower levels of arsenic than it did in 2014, according to test results released by the Food and Drug Administration.

In April 2016, the FDA issued draft guidance calling for manufacturers of the product to reduce the level of arsenic in their cereals by establishing an action level of arsenic of 100 mcg/kg or 100 parts per billion.

Seventy-six percent of samples of infant rice cereal tested in 2018 had levels of arsenic at or below 100 parts per billion versus 47% of samples tested in 2014, according to a statement from the FDA. In 2011-2013, an even lower percentage of samples tested contained amounts of inorganic arsenic at or below the FDA’s current action level for this element, whose consumption has been associated with cancer, skin lesions, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes.

The 2018 data is based on the testing of 149 samples of infant white and brown rice cereal samples.

“Results from our tests show that manufacturers have made significant progress in ensuring lower levels of inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereal,” Susan Mayne, PhD, director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in the FDA statement.

“Both white rice and brown rice cereals showed improvement in meeting the FDA’s 100 ppb proposed action level, but the improvement was greatest for white rice cereals, which tend to have lower levels of inorganic arsenic overall,” according to the statement.

klennon@mdedge.com

Infant rice cereal contains lower levels of arsenic than it did in 2014, according to test results released by the Food and Drug Administration.

In April 2016, the FDA issued draft guidance calling for manufacturers of the product to reduce the level of arsenic in their cereals by establishing an action level of arsenic of 100 mcg/kg or 100 parts per billion.

Seventy-six percent of samples of infant rice cereal tested in 2018 had levels of arsenic at or below 100 parts per billion versus 47% of samples tested in 2014, according to a statement from the FDA. In 2011-2013, an even lower percentage of samples tested contained amounts of inorganic arsenic at or below the FDA’s current action level for this element, whose consumption has been associated with cancer, skin lesions, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes.

The 2018 data is based on the testing of 149 samples of infant white and brown rice cereal samples.

“Results from our tests show that manufacturers have made significant progress in ensuring lower levels of inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereal,” Susan Mayne, PhD, director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in the FDA statement.

“Both white rice and brown rice cereals showed improvement in meeting the FDA’s 100 ppb proposed action level, but the improvement was greatest for white rice cereals, which tend to have lower levels of inorganic arsenic overall,” according to the statement.

klennon@mdedge.com

The toilet bowl, sink, and bathroom door handle of an isolation room housing a patient with the novel coronavirus tested positive for the virus, raising the possibility that viral shedding in the stool could represent another route of transmission, investigators reported.

CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield

Air outlet fans and other room sites also tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), though an anteroom, a corridor, and most personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by health care providers tested negative, according to the researchers, led by Sean Wei Xiang Ong, MBBS, of the National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore.

Taken together, these findings suggest a “need for strict adherence to environmental and hand hygiene” to combat significant environmental contamination through respiratory droplets and fecal shedding, Dr. Ong and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau in New York, said these results demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is “clearly capable” of contaminating bathroom sinks and toilets.

“That wouldn’t have been the first place I would have thought of, before this study,” he said in an interview. “You need to pay attention to cleaning the bathrooms, which we obviously do, but that’s an important reminder.”

The report by Dr. Ong and coauthors included a total of three patients housed in airborne infection isolation rooms in a dedicated SARS-CoV-2 outbreak center in Singapore. For each patient, surface samples were taken from 26 sites in the isolation room, an anteroom, and a bathroom. Samples were also taken from PPE on physicians as they left the patient rooms.

Samples for the first patient, taken right after routine cleaning, were all negative, according to researchers. That room was sampled twice, on days 4 and 10 of the illness, while the patient was still symptomatic. Likewise, for the second patient, postcleaning samples were negative; those samples were taken 2 days after cleaning.

However, for the third patient, samples were taken before routine cleaning. In this case, Dr. Ong and colleagues said 13 of 15 room sites (87%) were positive, including air outlet fans, while 3 of 5 toilet sites (60%) were positive as well, though no contamination was found in the anteroom, corridor, or in air samples.

That patient had two stool samples that were positive for SARS-CoV-2, but no diarrhea, authors said, and had upper respiratory tract involvement without pneumonia.

The fact that swabs of the air exhaust outlets tested positive suggests that virus-laden droplets could be “displaced by airflows” and end up on vents or other equipment, Dr. Ong and coauthors reported.

All PPE samples tested negative, except for the front of one shoe.

“The risk of transmission from contaminated footwear is likely low, as evidenced by negative results in the anteroom and corridor,” they wrote.

While this study included only a small number of patients, Dr. Glatt said the findings represent an important and useful contribution to the literature on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

“Every day we’re getting more information, and each little piece of the puzzle helps us in the overall management of individuals with COVID-19,” he said in the interview. “They’re adding to our ability to manage, control, and mitigate further spread of the disease.”

Funding for the study came from the National Medical Research Council in Singapore and DSO National Laboratories. Dr. Ong and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ong SWX et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3227.

The toilet bowl, sink, and bathroom door handle of an isolation room housing a patient with the novel coronavirus tested positive for the virus, raising the possibility that viral shedding in the stool could represent another route of transmission, investigators reported.

CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield

Air outlet fans and other room sites also tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), though an anteroom, a corridor, and most personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by health care providers tested negative, according to the researchers, led by Sean Wei Xiang Ong, MBBS, of the National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore.

Taken together, these findings suggest a “need for strict adherence to environmental and hand hygiene” to combat significant environmental contamination through respiratory droplets and fecal shedding, Dr. Ong and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau in New York, said these results demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is “clearly capable” of contaminating bathroom sinks and toilets.

“That wouldn’t have been the first place I would have thought of, before this study,” he said in an interview. “You need to pay attention to cleaning the bathrooms, which we obviously do, but that’s an important reminder.”

The report by Dr. Ong and coauthors included a total of three patients housed in airborne infection isolation rooms in a dedicated SARS-CoV-2 outbreak center in Singapore. For each patient, surface samples were taken from 26 sites in the isolation room, an anteroom, and a bathroom. Samples were also taken from PPE on physicians as they left the patient rooms.

Samples for the first patient, taken right after routine cleaning, were all negative, according to researchers. That room was sampled twice, on days 4 and 10 of the illness, while the patient was still symptomatic. Likewise, for the second patient, postcleaning samples were negative; those samples were taken 2 days after cleaning.

However, for the third patient, samples were taken before routine cleaning. In this case, Dr. Ong and colleagues said 13 of 15 room sites (87%) were positive, including air outlet fans, while 3 of 5 toilet sites (60%) were positive as well, though no contamination was found in the anteroom, corridor, or in air samples.

That patient had two stool samples that were positive for SARS-CoV-2, but no diarrhea, authors said, and had upper respiratory tract involvement without pneumonia.

The fact that swabs of the air exhaust outlets tested positive suggests that virus-laden droplets could be “displaced by airflows” and end up on vents or other equipment, Dr. Ong and coauthors reported.

All PPE samples tested negative, except for the front of one shoe.

“The risk of transmission from contaminated footwear is likely low, as evidenced by negative results in the anteroom and corridor,” they wrote.

While this study included only a small number of patients, Dr. Glatt said the findings represent an important and useful contribution to the literature on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

“Every day we’re getting more information, and each little piece of the puzzle helps us in the overall management of individuals with COVID-19,” he said in the interview. “They’re adding to our ability to manage, control, and mitigate further spread of the disease.”

Funding for the study came from the National Medical Research Council in Singapore and DSO National Laboratories. Dr. Ong and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ong SWX et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3227.

The toilet bowl, sink, and bathroom door handle of an isolation room housing a patient with the novel coronavirus tested positive for the virus, raising the possibility that viral shedding in the stool could represent another route of transmission, investigators reported.

CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield

Air outlet fans and other room sites also tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), though an anteroom, a corridor, and most personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by health care providers tested negative, according to the researchers, led by Sean Wei Xiang Ong, MBBS, of the National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore.

Taken together, these findings suggest a “need for strict adherence to environmental and hand hygiene” to combat significant environmental contamination through respiratory droplets and fecal shedding, Dr. Ong and colleagues wrote in JAMA.

Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau in New York, said these results demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is “clearly capable” of contaminating bathroom sinks and toilets.

“That wouldn’t have been the first place I would have thought of, before this study,” he said in an interview. “You need to pay attention to cleaning the bathrooms, which we obviously do, but that’s an important reminder.”

The report by Dr. Ong and coauthors included a total of three patients housed in airborne infection isolation rooms in a dedicated SARS-CoV-2 outbreak center in Singapore. For each patient, surface samples were taken from 26 sites in the isolation room, an anteroom, and a bathroom. Samples were also taken from PPE on physicians as they left the patient rooms.

Samples for the first patient, taken right after routine cleaning, were all negative, according to researchers. That room was sampled twice, on days 4 and 10 of the illness, while the patient was still symptomatic. Likewise, for the second patient, postcleaning samples were negative; those samples were taken 2 days after cleaning.

However, for the third patient, samples were taken before routine cleaning. In this case, Dr. Ong and colleagues said 13 of 15 room sites (87%) were positive, including air outlet fans, while 3 of 5 toilet sites (60%) were positive as well, though no contamination was found in the anteroom, corridor, or in air samples.

That patient had two stool samples that were positive for SARS-CoV-2, but no diarrhea, authors said, and had upper respiratory tract involvement without pneumonia.

The fact that swabs of the air exhaust outlets tested positive suggests that virus-laden droplets could be “displaced by airflows” and end up on vents or other equipment, Dr. Ong and coauthors reported.

All PPE samples tested negative, except for the front of one shoe.

“The risk of transmission from contaminated footwear is likely low, as evidenced by negative results in the anteroom and corridor,” they wrote.

While this study included only a small number of patients, Dr. Glatt said the findings represent an important and useful contribution to the literature on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

“Every day we’re getting more information, and each little piece of the puzzle helps us in the overall management of individuals with COVID-19,” he said in the interview. “They’re adding to our ability to manage, control, and mitigate further spread of the disease.”

Funding for the study came from the National Medical Research Council in Singapore and DSO National Laboratories. Dr. Ong and colleagues reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ong SWX et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3227.

Telehealth is increasingly being viewed as a key way to help fight the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States. Recognizing the potential of this technology to slow the spread of the disease, the House of Representatives included a provision in an $8.3 billion emergency response bill it approved today that would temporarily lift restrictions on Medicare telehealth coverage to assist in the efforts to contain the virus.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that hospitals should be prepared to use telehealth as one of their tools in fighting the outbreak, according to a recent news release from the American Hospital Association (AHA).

Congress is responding to that need by including the service in the new coronavirus legislation now headed to the Senate, after the funding bill was approved in a 415-2 vote by the House.

The bill empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “waive or modify application of certain Medicare requirements with respect to telehealth services furnished during certain emergency periods.”

While the measure adds telehealth to the waiver authority that the HHS secretary currently has during national emergencies, it’s only for the coronavirus crisis in this case, Krista Drobac, executive director of the Alliance for Connected Care, told Medscape Medical News.

The waiver would apply to originating sites of telehealth visits, she noted. Thus Medicare coverage of telemedicine would be expanded beyond rural areas.

In addition, the waiver would allow coverage of virtual visits conducted on smartphones with audio and video capabilities. A “qualified provider,” as defined by the legislation, would be a practitioner who has an established relationship with the patient or who is in the same practice as the provider who has that relationship.

An advantage of telehealth, proponents say, is that it can enable people who believe they have COVID-19 to be seen at home rather than visit offices or emergency departments (EDs) where they might spread the disease or be in proximity to others who have it.

In an editorial published March 2 in Modern Healthcare, medical directors from Stanford Medicine, MedStar Health, and Intermountain Healthcare also noted that telehealth can give patients 24/7 access to care, allow surveillance of patients at risk while keeping them at home, ensure that treatment in hospitals is reserved for high-need patients, and enable providers to triage and screen more patients than can be handled in brick-and-mortar care settings.

However, telehealth screening would allow physicians only to judge whether a patient’s symptoms might be indicative of COVID-19, the Alliance for Connected Care, a telehealth advocacy group, noted in a letter to Congressional leaders. Patients would still have to be seen in person to be tested for the disease.

The group, which represents technology companies, health insurers, pharmacies, and other healthcare players, has been lobbying Congress to include telehealth in federal funds to combat the outbreak.

The American Telemedicine Association (ATA) also supports this goal, ATA President Joseph Kvedar, MD, told Medscape Medical News. And the authors of the Modern Healthcare editorial also advocated for this legislative solution. Because the fatality rate for COVID-19 is significantly higher for older people than for other age groups, they noted, telehealth should be an economically viable option for all seniors.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) long covered telemedicine only in rural areas and only when initiated in healthcare settings. Recently, however, CMS loosened its approach to some extent. Virtual “check-in visits” can now be initiated from any location, including home, to determine whether a Medicare patient needs to be seen in the office. In addition, CMS allows Medicare Advantage plans to offer telemedicine as a core benefit.

Are healthcare systems prepared?

Some large healthcare systems such as Stanford, MedStar, and Intermountain are already using telehealth to diagnose and treat patients who have traditional influenza. Telehealth providers at Stanford estimate that almost 50% of these patients are being prescribed the antiviral drug Tamiflu.

It’s unclear whether other healthcare systems are this well prepared to offer telehealth on a large scale. But, according to an AHA survey, Kvedar noted, three quarters of AHA members are engaged in some form of telehealth.

Drobac said “it wouldn’t require too much effort” to ramp up a wide-scale telehealth program that could help reduce the impact of the outbreak. “The technology is there,” she noted. “You need a HIPAA-compliant telehealth platform, but there are so many out there.”

Kvedar agreed. To begin with, he said, hospitals might sequester patients who visit the ED with COVID-19 symptoms in a video-equipped “isolation room.” Staff members could then do the patient intake from a different location in the hospital.

He admitted that this approach would be infeasible if a lot of patients arrived in EDs with coronavirus symptoms. However, Kvedar noted, “All the tools are in place to go well beyond that. American Well, Teladoc, and others are all offering ways to get out in front of this. There are plenty of vendors out there, and most people have a connected cell phone that you can do a video call on.”

Hospital leaders would have to decide whether to embrace telehealth, which would mean less use of services in their institutions, he said. “But it would be for the greater good of the public.”

Kvedar recalled that there was some use of telehealth in the New York area after 9/11. Telehealth was also used in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But the ATA president, who is also vice president of connected health at Partners HealthCare in Boston, noted that the COVID-19 outbreak is the first public health emergency to occur in the era of Skype and smartphones.

If Congress does ultimately authorize CMS to cover telehealth across the board during this emergency, might that lead to a permanent change in Medicare coverage policy? Kvedar wouldn’t venture an opinion. “However, the current CMS leadership has been incredibly telehealth friendly,” he said. “So it’s possible they would [embrace a lifting of restrictions]. As patients get a sense of this modality of care and how convenient it is for them, they’ll start asking for more.”

Meanwhile, he said, the telehealth opportunity goes beyond video visits with doctors to mitigate the outbreak. Telehealth data could also be used to track disease spread, similar to how researchers have studied Google searches to predict the spread of the flu, he noted.

Teladoc, a major telehealth vendor, recently told stock analysts it’s already working with the CDC on disease surveillance, according to a report in FierceHealthcare.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Telehealth is increasingly being viewed as a key way to help fight the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States. Recognizing the potential of this technology to slow the spread of the disease, the House of Representatives included a provision in an $8.3 billion emergency response bill it approved today that would temporarily lift restrictions on Medicare telehealth coverage to assist in the efforts to contain the virus.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that hospitals should be prepared to use telehealth as one of their tools in fighting the outbreak, according to a recent news release from the American Hospital Association (AHA).

Congress is responding to that need by including the service in the new coronavirus legislation now headed to the Senate, after the funding bill was approved in a 415-2 vote by the House.

The bill empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “waive or modify application of certain Medicare requirements with respect to telehealth services furnished during certain emergency periods.”

While the measure adds telehealth to the waiver authority that the HHS secretary currently has during national emergencies, it’s only for the coronavirus crisis in this case, Krista Drobac, executive director of the Alliance for Connected Care, told Medscape Medical News.

The waiver would apply to originating sites of telehealth visits, she noted. Thus Medicare coverage of telemedicine would be expanded beyond rural areas.

In addition, the waiver would allow coverage of virtual visits conducted on smartphones with audio and video capabilities. A “qualified provider,” as defined by the legislation, would be a practitioner who has an established relationship with the patient or who is in the same practice as the provider who has that relationship.

An advantage of telehealth, proponents say, is that it can enable people who believe they have COVID-19 to be seen at home rather than visit offices or emergency departments (EDs) where they might spread the disease or be in proximity to others who have it.

In an editorial published March 2 in Modern Healthcare, medical directors from Stanford Medicine, MedStar Health, and Intermountain Healthcare also noted that telehealth can give patients 24/7 access to care, allow surveillance of patients at risk while keeping them at home, ensure that treatment in hospitals is reserved for high-need patients, and enable providers to triage and screen more patients than can be handled in brick-and-mortar care settings.

However, telehealth screening would allow physicians only to judge whether a patient’s symptoms might be indicative of COVID-19, the Alliance for Connected Care, a telehealth advocacy group, noted in a letter to Congressional leaders. Patients would still have to be seen in person to be tested for the disease.

The group, which represents technology companies, health insurers, pharmacies, and other healthcare players, has been lobbying Congress to include telehealth in federal funds to combat the outbreak.

The American Telemedicine Association (ATA) also supports this goal, ATA President Joseph Kvedar, MD, told Medscape Medical News. And the authors of the Modern Healthcare editorial also advocated for this legislative solution. Because the fatality rate for COVID-19 is significantly higher for older people than for other age groups, they noted, telehealth should be an economically viable option for all seniors.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) long covered telemedicine only in rural areas and only when initiated in healthcare settings. Recently, however, CMS loosened its approach to some extent. Virtual “check-in visits” can now be initiated from any location, including home, to determine whether a Medicare patient needs to be seen in the office. In addition, CMS allows Medicare Advantage plans to offer telemedicine as a core benefit.

Are healthcare systems prepared?

Some large healthcare systems such as Stanford, MedStar, and Intermountain are already using telehealth to diagnose and treat patients who have traditional influenza. Telehealth providers at Stanford estimate that almost 50% of these patients are being prescribed the antiviral drug Tamiflu.

It’s unclear whether other healthcare systems are this well prepared to offer telehealth on a large scale. But, according to an AHA survey, Kvedar noted, three quarters of AHA members are engaged in some form of telehealth.

Drobac said “it wouldn’t require too much effort” to ramp up a wide-scale telehealth program that could help reduce the impact of the outbreak. “The technology is there,” she noted. “You need a HIPAA-compliant telehealth platform, but there are so many out there.”

Kvedar agreed. To begin with, he said, hospitals might sequester patients who visit the ED with COVID-19 symptoms in a video-equipped “isolation room.” Staff members could then do the patient intake from a different location in the hospital.

He admitted that this approach would be infeasible if a lot of patients arrived in EDs with coronavirus symptoms. However, Kvedar noted, “All the tools are in place to go well beyond that. American Well, Teladoc, and others are all offering ways to get out in front of this. There are plenty of vendors out there, and most people have a connected cell phone that you can do a video call on.”

Hospital leaders would have to decide whether to embrace telehealth, which would mean less use of services in their institutions, he said. “But it would be for the greater good of the public.”

Kvedar recalled that there was some use of telehealth in the New York area after 9/11. Telehealth was also used in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But the ATA president, who is also vice president of connected health at Partners HealthCare in Boston, noted that the COVID-19 outbreak is the first public health emergency to occur in the era of Skype and smartphones.

If Congress does ultimately authorize CMS to cover telehealth across the board during this emergency, might that lead to a permanent change in Medicare coverage policy? Kvedar wouldn’t venture an opinion. “However, the current CMS leadership has been incredibly telehealth friendly,” he said. “So it’s possible they would [embrace a lifting of restrictions]. As patients get a sense of this modality of care and how convenient it is for them, they’ll start asking for more.”

Meanwhile, he said, the telehealth opportunity goes beyond video visits with doctors to mitigate the outbreak. Telehealth data could also be used to track disease spread, similar to how researchers have studied Google searches to predict the spread of the flu, he noted.

Teladoc, a major telehealth vendor, recently told stock analysts it’s already working with the CDC on disease surveillance, according to a report in FierceHealthcare.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Telehealth is increasingly being viewed as a key way to help fight the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States. Recognizing the potential of this technology to slow the spread of the disease, the House of Representatives included a provision in an $8.3 billion emergency response bill it approved today that would temporarily lift restrictions on Medicare telehealth coverage to assist in the efforts to contain the virus.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that hospitals should be prepared to use telehealth as one of their tools in fighting the outbreak, according to a recent news release from the American Hospital Association (AHA).

Congress is responding to that need by including the service in the new coronavirus legislation now headed to the Senate, after the funding bill was approved in a 415-2 vote by the House.

The bill empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “waive or modify application of certain Medicare requirements with respect to telehealth services furnished during certain emergency periods.”

While the measure adds telehealth to the waiver authority that the HHS secretary currently has during national emergencies, it’s only for the coronavirus crisis in this case, Krista Drobac, executive director of the Alliance for Connected Care, told Medscape Medical News.

The waiver would apply to originating sites of telehealth visits, she noted. Thus Medicare coverage of telemedicine would be expanded beyond rural areas.

In addition, the waiver would allow coverage of virtual visits conducted on smartphones with audio and video capabilities. A “qualified provider,” as defined by the legislation, would be a practitioner who has an established relationship with the patient or who is in the same practice as the provider who has that relationship.

An advantage of telehealth, proponents say, is that it can enable people who believe they have COVID-19 to be seen at home rather than visit offices or emergency departments (EDs) where they might spread the disease or be in proximity to others who have it.

In an editorial published March 2 in Modern Healthcare, medical directors from Stanford Medicine, MedStar Health, and Intermountain Healthcare also noted that telehealth can give patients 24/7 access to care, allow surveillance of patients at risk while keeping them at home, ensure that treatment in hospitals is reserved for high-need patients, and enable providers to triage and screen more patients than can be handled in brick-and-mortar care settings.

However, telehealth screening would allow physicians only to judge whether a patient’s symptoms might be indicative of COVID-19, the Alliance for Connected Care, a telehealth advocacy group, noted in a letter to Congressional leaders. Patients would still have to be seen in person to be tested for the disease.

The group, which represents technology companies, health insurers, pharmacies, and other healthcare players, has been lobbying Congress to include telehealth in federal funds to combat the outbreak.

The American Telemedicine Association (ATA) also supports this goal, ATA President Joseph Kvedar, MD, told Medscape Medical News. And the authors of the Modern Healthcare editorial also advocated for this legislative solution. Because the fatality rate for COVID-19 is significantly higher for older people than for other age groups, they noted, telehealth should be an economically viable option for all seniors.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) long covered telemedicine only in rural areas and only when initiated in healthcare settings. Recently, however, CMS loosened its approach to some extent. Virtual “check-in visits” can now be initiated from any location, including home, to determine whether a Medicare patient needs to be seen in the office. In addition, CMS allows Medicare Advantage plans to offer telemedicine as a core benefit.

Are healthcare systems prepared?

Some large healthcare systems such as Stanford, MedStar, and Intermountain are already using telehealth to diagnose and treat patients who have traditional influenza. Telehealth providers at Stanford estimate that almost 50% of these patients are being prescribed the antiviral drug Tamiflu.

It’s unclear whether other healthcare systems are this well prepared to offer telehealth on a large scale. But, according to an AHA survey, Kvedar noted, three quarters of AHA members are engaged in some form of telehealth.

Drobac said “it wouldn’t require too much effort” to ramp up a wide-scale telehealth program that could help reduce the impact of the outbreak. “The technology is there,” she noted. “You need a HIPAA-compliant telehealth platform, but there are so many out there.”

Kvedar agreed. To begin with, he said, hospitals might sequester patients who visit the ED with COVID-19 symptoms in a video-equipped “isolation room.” Staff members could then do the patient intake from a different location in the hospital.

He admitted that this approach would be infeasible if a lot of patients arrived in EDs with coronavirus symptoms. However, Kvedar noted, “All the tools are in place to go well beyond that. American Well, Teladoc, and others are all offering ways to get out in front of this. There are plenty of vendors out there, and most people have a connected cell phone that you can do a video call on.”

Hospital leaders would have to decide whether to embrace telehealth, which would mean less use of services in their institutions, he said. “But it would be for the greater good of the public.”

Kvedar recalled that there was some use of telehealth in the New York area after 9/11. Telehealth was also used in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But the ATA president, who is also vice president of connected health at Partners HealthCare in Boston, noted that the COVID-19 outbreak is the first public health emergency to occur in the era of Skype and smartphones.

If Congress does ultimately authorize CMS to cover telehealth across the board during this emergency, might that lead to a permanent change in Medicare coverage policy? Kvedar wouldn’t venture an opinion. “However, the current CMS leadership has been incredibly telehealth friendly,” he said. “So it’s possible they would [embrace a lifting of restrictions]. As patients get a sense of this modality of care and how convenient it is for them, they’ll start asking for more.”

Meanwhile, he said, the telehealth opportunity goes beyond video visits with doctors to mitigate the outbreak. Telehealth data could also be used to track disease spread, similar to how researchers have studied Google searches to predict the spread of the flu, he noted.

Teladoc, a major telehealth vendor, recently told stock analysts it’s already working with the CDC on disease surveillance, according to a report in FierceHealthcare.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.