MDedge Rheumatology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERY trial spurs response

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guidance useful for U.S. physicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERY trial spurs response

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guidance useful for U.S. physicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERY trial spurs response

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guidance useful for U.S. physicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Lindsey Criswell, MD, MPH, DSc, has been selected as the next director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS).

Dr. Criswell, vice chancellor of research at the University of California, San Francisco, will replace acting director Robert H. Carter, MD, who has overseen NIAMS since December 2018, following the unexpected death of longtime director Stephen I. Katz, MD, PhD, who had directed the institute since 1995. She will start her new role in early 2021, according to the NIH.

“Dr. Criswell has rich experience as a clinician, researcher, and administrator. Her ability to oversee the research program of one of the country’s top research-intensive medical schools, and her expertise in autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, make her well-positioned to direct NIAMS,” said NIH director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, said in an announcement.

Dr. Criswell, who holds the Kenneth H. Fye, M.D., endowed chair in rheumatology and the Jean S. Engleman Distinguished Professorship in Rheumatology at UCSF, spent most of her career at the university, focusing her research on the genetics and epidemiology of human autoimmune disease, particularly rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Using genome-wide association and other genetic studies, her research team contributed to the identification of more than 30 genes linked to these disorders, according to the NIH.

NIAMS has a budget of nearly $625 million and its extramural research program supports scientific studies and research training and career development throughout the country through grants and contracts to research organizations in fields that include rheumatology, muscle biology, orthopedics, bone and mineral metabolism, and dermatology.

jevans@mdedge.com

Lindsey Criswell, MD, MPH, DSc, has been selected as the next director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS).

Dr. Criswell, vice chancellor of research at the University of California, San Francisco, will replace acting director Robert H. Carter, MD, who has overseen NIAMS since December 2018, following the unexpected death of longtime director Stephen I. Katz, MD, PhD, who had directed the institute since 1995. She will start her new role in early 2021, according to the NIH.

“Dr. Criswell has rich experience as a clinician, researcher, and administrator. Her ability to oversee the research program of one of the country’s top research-intensive medical schools, and her expertise in autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, make her well-positioned to direct NIAMS,” said NIH director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, said in an announcement.

Dr. Criswell, who holds the Kenneth H. Fye, M.D., endowed chair in rheumatology and the Jean S. Engleman Distinguished Professorship in Rheumatology at UCSF, spent most of her career at the university, focusing her research on the genetics and epidemiology of human autoimmune disease, particularly rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Using genome-wide association and other genetic studies, her research team contributed to the identification of more than 30 genes linked to these disorders, according to the NIH.

NIAMS has a budget of nearly $625 million and its extramural research program supports scientific studies and research training and career development throughout the country through grants and contracts to research organizations in fields that include rheumatology, muscle biology, orthopedics, bone and mineral metabolism, and dermatology.

jevans@mdedge.com

Lindsey Criswell, MD, MPH, DSc, has been selected as the next director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS).

Dr. Criswell, vice chancellor of research at the University of California, San Francisco, will replace acting director Robert H. Carter, MD, who has overseen NIAMS since December 2018, following the unexpected death of longtime director Stephen I. Katz, MD, PhD, who had directed the institute since 1995. She will start her new role in early 2021, according to the NIH.

“Dr. Criswell has rich experience as a clinician, researcher, and administrator. Her ability to oversee the research program of one of the country’s top research-intensive medical schools, and her expertise in autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, make her well-positioned to direct NIAMS,” said NIH director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, said in an announcement.

Dr. Criswell, who holds the Kenneth H. Fye, M.D., endowed chair in rheumatology and the Jean S. Engleman Distinguished Professorship in Rheumatology at UCSF, spent most of her career at the university, focusing her research on the genetics and epidemiology of human autoimmune disease, particularly rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Using genome-wide association and other genetic studies, her research team contributed to the identification of more than 30 genes linked to these disorders, according to the NIH.

NIAMS has a budget of nearly $625 million and its extramural research program supports scientific studies and research training and career development throughout the country through grants and contracts to research organizations in fields that include rheumatology, muscle biology, orthopedics, bone and mineral metabolism, and dermatology.

jevans@mdedge.com

Skin eruptions could help physicians identify people with severe COVID-19 who are more likely to develop coagulopathies, new evidence suggests.

Researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine NewYork–Presbyterian Medical Center in New York linked livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions to a greater likelihood for occlusive vascular disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a small case series.

These skin signs could augment coagulation assays in this patient population. “Physicians should consider a hematology consult for potential anticoagulation in patients with these skin presentations and severe COVID-19,” senior author Joanna Harp, MD, said in an interview.

“Physicians should also consider D-dimer, fibrinogen, coagulation studies, and a skin biopsy given that there are other diagnoses on the differential as well.”

The research letter was published online on Aug. 5 in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings build on multiple previous reports of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19, including a study of 375 patients in Spain. Among people with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, senior author of the Spanish research, Ignacio Garcia-Doval, MD, PhD, also observed livedoid and necrotic skin eruptions more commonly in severe disease.

“I think that this case series [from Harp and colleagues] confirms the findings of our previous paper – that patients with livedoid or necrotic lesions have a worse prognosis, as these are markers of vascular occlusion,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Harp and colleagues reported their observations with four patients aged 40-80 years. Each had severe COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome and required intubation. Treating clinicians requested a dermatology consult to assess acral fixed livedo racemosa and retiform purpura presentations.

D-dimer levels exceeded 3 mcg/mL in each case. All four patients had a suspected pulmonary embolism within 1-5 days of the dermatologic findings. Prophylactic anticoagulation at admission was changed to therapeutic anticoagulation because of increasing D-dimer levels and the suspected thrombotic events.

“I think that the paper is interesting because it shows the associated histopathological findings and has important clinical implications due to the association with pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Garcia-Doval, a researcher at the Spanish Academy of Dermatology in Madrid. “These patients should probably be anticoagulated.”
 

Skin biopsy results

Punch biopsies revealed pauci-inflammatory thrombogenic vasculopathy involving capillaries, venules, arterioles, or small arteries.

Livedo racemosa skin findings point to partial occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels, whereas retiform purpura indicate full occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels.

An inability to confirm the exact timing of the onset of the skin rash was a limitation of the study.

“The findings suggest that clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 should be aware of livedoid and purpuric rashes as potential manifestations of an underlying hypercoagulable state,” the authors noted. “If these skin findings are identified, a skin biopsy should be considered because the result may guide anticoagulation management.”

Observations during an outbreak

The researchers observed these cases between March 13 and April 3, during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in New York.

“We did see additional cases since our study period. However, it has decreased significantly with the falling number of COVID-19 cases in the city,” said Dr. Harp, a dermatologist at NewYork–Presbyterian.

Another contributing factor in the drop in cases was “implementation of earlier, more aggressive anticoagulation in many of these patients at our institution,” she added.

The investigators plan to continue the research. “We are working on a more formalized study,” lead author Caren Droesch, MD, said in an interview.

“But given very low patient numbers in our area we have not started recruiting patients,” said Dr. Droesch, a resident at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork–Presbyterian at the time of the study. She is now a dermatologist at Mass General Brigham in Wellesley, Mass.
 

Consider a dermatology consult

“This is a small case series of four patients, but mirrors what we have seen at our institution and what others have reported about individual patients around the world,” Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “The skin, like many other organ systems, can be affected by thrombotic events within the setting of COVID-19 disease.”

As in the current study, Dr. Fernandez observed skin manifestations in people with severe COVID-19 with elevated D-dimer levels. These patients typically require mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, he added.

“As these authors point out, it is important for all clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients to look for these rashes,” said Dr. Fernandez, who coauthored a report on skin manifestations in this patient population. “We also agree that clinicians should have a low threshold for consulting dermatology. A skin biopsy is minimally invasive and can be important in confirming or refuting that such rashes are truly reflective of thrombotic vasculopathy.”

Dr. Harp, Dr. Droesch and Dr. Garcia-Doval have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fernandez received funding from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative at Case Western Reserve University to study skin manifestations of COVID-19.
 

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

Skin eruptions could help physicians identify people with severe COVID-19 who are more likely to develop coagulopathies, new evidence suggests.

Researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine NewYork–Presbyterian Medical Center in New York linked livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions to a greater likelihood for occlusive vascular disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a small case series.

These skin signs could augment coagulation assays in this patient population. “Physicians should consider a hematology consult for potential anticoagulation in patients with these skin presentations and severe COVID-19,” senior author Joanna Harp, MD, said in an interview.

“Physicians should also consider D-dimer, fibrinogen, coagulation studies, and a skin biopsy given that there are other diagnoses on the differential as well.”

The research letter was published online on Aug. 5 in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings build on multiple previous reports of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19, including a study of 375 patients in Spain. Among people with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, senior author of the Spanish research, Ignacio Garcia-Doval, MD, PhD, also observed livedoid and necrotic skin eruptions more commonly in severe disease.

“I think that this case series [from Harp and colleagues] confirms the findings of our previous paper – that patients with livedoid or necrotic lesions have a worse prognosis, as these are markers of vascular occlusion,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Harp and colleagues reported their observations with four patients aged 40-80 years. Each had severe COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome and required intubation. Treating clinicians requested a dermatology consult to assess acral fixed livedo racemosa and retiform purpura presentations.

D-dimer levels exceeded 3 mcg/mL in each case. All four patients had a suspected pulmonary embolism within 1-5 days of the dermatologic findings. Prophylactic anticoagulation at admission was changed to therapeutic anticoagulation because of increasing D-dimer levels and the suspected thrombotic events.

“I think that the paper is interesting because it shows the associated histopathological findings and has important clinical implications due to the association with pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Garcia-Doval, a researcher at the Spanish Academy of Dermatology in Madrid. “These patients should probably be anticoagulated.”
 

Skin biopsy results

Punch biopsies revealed pauci-inflammatory thrombogenic vasculopathy involving capillaries, venules, arterioles, or small arteries.

Livedo racemosa skin findings point to partial occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels, whereas retiform purpura indicate full occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels.

An inability to confirm the exact timing of the onset of the skin rash was a limitation of the study.

“The findings suggest that clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 should be aware of livedoid and purpuric rashes as potential manifestations of an underlying hypercoagulable state,” the authors noted. “If these skin findings are identified, a skin biopsy should be considered because the result may guide anticoagulation management.”

Observations during an outbreak

The researchers observed these cases between March 13 and April 3, during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in New York.

“We did see additional cases since our study period. However, it has decreased significantly with the falling number of COVID-19 cases in the city,” said Dr. Harp, a dermatologist at NewYork–Presbyterian.

Another contributing factor in the drop in cases was “implementation of earlier, more aggressive anticoagulation in many of these patients at our institution,” she added.

The investigators plan to continue the research. “We are working on a more formalized study,” lead author Caren Droesch, MD, said in an interview.

“But given very low patient numbers in our area we have not started recruiting patients,” said Dr. Droesch, a resident at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork–Presbyterian at the time of the study. She is now a dermatologist at Mass General Brigham in Wellesley, Mass.
 

Consider a dermatology consult

“This is a small case series of four patients, but mirrors what we have seen at our institution and what others have reported about individual patients around the world,” Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “The skin, like many other organ systems, can be affected by thrombotic events within the setting of COVID-19 disease.”

As in the current study, Dr. Fernandez observed skin manifestations in people with severe COVID-19 with elevated D-dimer levels. These patients typically require mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, he added.

“As these authors point out, it is important for all clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients to look for these rashes,” said Dr. Fernandez, who coauthored a report on skin manifestations in this patient population. “We also agree that clinicians should have a low threshold for consulting dermatology. A skin biopsy is minimally invasive and can be important in confirming or refuting that such rashes are truly reflective of thrombotic vasculopathy.”

Dr. Harp, Dr. Droesch and Dr. Garcia-Doval have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fernandez received funding from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative at Case Western Reserve University to study skin manifestations of COVID-19.
 

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

Skin eruptions could help physicians identify people with severe COVID-19 who are more likely to develop coagulopathies, new evidence suggests.

Researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine NewYork–Presbyterian Medical Center in New York linked livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions to a greater likelihood for occlusive vascular disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a small case series.

These skin signs could augment coagulation assays in this patient population. “Physicians should consider a hematology consult for potential anticoagulation in patients with these skin presentations and severe COVID-19,” senior author Joanna Harp, MD, said in an interview.

“Physicians should also consider D-dimer, fibrinogen, coagulation studies, and a skin biopsy given that there are other diagnoses on the differential as well.”

The research letter was published online on Aug. 5 in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings build on multiple previous reports of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19, including a study of 375 patients in Spain. Among people with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, senior author of the Spanish research, Ignacio Garcia-Doval, MD, PhD, also observed livedoid and necrotic skin eruptions more commonly in severe disease.

“I think that this case series [from Harp and colleagues] confirms the findings of our previous paper – that patients with livedoid or necrotic lesions have a worse prognosis, as these are markers of vascular occlusion,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Harp and colleagues reported their observations with four patients aged 40-80 years. Each had severe COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome and required intubation. Treating clinicians requested a dermatology consult to assess acral fixed livedo racemosa and retiform purpura presentations.

D-dimer levels exceeded 3 mcg/mL in each case. All four patients had a suspected pulmonary embolism within 1-5 days of the dermatologic findings. Prophylactic anticoagulation at admission was changed to therapeutic anticoagulation because of increasing D-dimer levels and the suspected thrombotic events.

“I think that the paper is interesting because it shows the associated histopathological findings and has important clinical implications due to the association with pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Garcia-Doval, a researcher at the Spanish Academy of Dermatology in Madrid. “These patients should probably be anticoagulated.”
 

Skin biopsy results

Punch biopsies revealed pauci-inflammatory thrombogenic vasculopathy involving capillaries, venules, arterioles, or small arteries.

Livedo racemosa skin findings point to partial occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels, whereas retiform purpura indicate full occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels.

An inability to confirm the exact timing of the onset of the skin rash was a limitation of the study.

“The findings suggest that clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 should be aware of livedoid and purpuric rashes as potential manifestations of an underlying hypercoagulable state,” the authors noted. “If these skin findings are identified, a skin biopsy should be considered because the result may guide anticoagulation management.”

Observations during an outbreak

The researchers observed these cases between March 13 and April 3, during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in New York.

“We did see additional cases since our study period. However, it has decreased significantly with the falling number of COVID-19 cases in the city,” said Dr. Harp, a dermatologist at NewYork–Presbyterian.

Another contributing factor in the drop in cases was “implementation of earlier, more aggressive anticoagulation in many of these patients at our institution,” she added.

The investigators plan to continue the research. “We are working on a more formalized study,” lead author Caren Droesch, MD, said in an interview.

“But given very low patient numbers in our area we have not started recruiting patients,” said Dr. Droesch, a resident at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork–Presbyterian at the time of the study. She is now a dermatologist at Mass General Brigham in Wellesley, Mass.
 

Consider a dermatology consult

“This is a small case series of four patients, but mirrors what we have seen at our institution and what others have reported about individual patients around the world,” Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “The skin, like many other organ systems, can be affected by thrombotic events within the setting of COVID-19 disease.”

As in the current study, Dr. Fernandez observed skin manifestations in people with severe COVID-19 with elevated D-dimer levels. These patients typically require mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, he added.

“As these authors point out, it is important for all clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients to look for these rashes,” said Dr. Fernandez, who coauthored a report on skin manifestations in this patient population. “We also agree that clinicians should have a low threshold for consulting dermatology. A skin biopsy is minimally invasive and can be important in confirming or refuting that such rashes are truly reflective of thrombotic vasculopathy.”

Dr. Harp, Dr. Droesch and Dr. Garcia-Doval have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fernandez received funding from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative at Case Western Reserve University to study skin manifestations of COVID-19.
 

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

Over the last several decades science has fallen off this country’s radar screen. Yes, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has recently had a brief moment in the spotlight as a buzzword de jour. But the critical importance of careful and systematic investigation into the world around us using observation and trial and error is a tough sell to a large segment of our population.

SDI Productions/iStock/Getty Images

The COVID-19 pandemic is providing an excellent opportunity for science and medicine to showcase their star qualities. Of course some people in leadership positions persist in disregarding the value of scientific investigation. But I get the feeling that the fear generated by the pandemic is creating some converts among many previous science skeptics. This gathering enthusiasm among the general population is a predictably slow process because that’s the way science works. It often doesn’t provide quick answers. And it is difficult for the nonscientist to see the beauty in the reality that the things we thought were true 2 months ago are likely to be proven wrong today as more observations accumulate.

Unfortunately, even in this time of renewal, science and medicine continue to generate a bumper crop of bad apples. A recent New York Times article examines the career of one such unscrupulous physician/scientist whose recent exploits threaten to undo much of the positive image the pandemic has cast on science (“The Doctor Behind the Disputed Covid Data,” by Ellen Gabler and Roni Caryn Rabin, The New York Times, July 27, 2020). The subject of the article is the physician who was responsible for providing some of the large data sets on which several papers were published about the apparent ineffectiveness and danger of using hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients. The authenticity of the data sets recently has been seriously questioned, and the articles have been retracted by the journals in which they had appeared.

Based on numerous interviews with coworkers, the Times reporters present a strong case that this individual’s long history of unreliability make his association with allegedly fraudulent data set not surprising but maybe even predictable. At one point in his training, there appears to have been serious questions about advancing the physician to the next level. Despite these concerns, he was allowed to continue and complete his specialty training. It is of note that in his last year of clinical practice, the physician became the subject of three serious malpractice claims that question his competence.

I suspect that some of you have crossed paths with physicians whose competence and/or moral character you found concerning. Were they peers? Were you the individual’s supervisor or was he or she your mentor? How did you respond? Did anyone respond at all?

There has been a lot written and said in recent months about how and when to respond to respond to sexual harassment in the workplace. But I don’t recall reading any articles that discuss how one should respond to incompetence. Of course competency can be a relative term, but in most cases significant incompetence is hard to miss because it tends to be repeated.

It is easy for the airports and subway systems to post signs that say “If you see something say something.” It’s a different story for hospitals and medical schools that may have systems in place for reporting and following up on poor practice. But my sense is that there are too many cases that slip through the cracks.

This is another example of a problem for which I don’t have a solution. However, if this column prompts just one of you who sees something to say something then I have had a good day.
 

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.

Over the last several decades science has fallen off this country’s radar screen. Yes, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has recently had a brief moment in the spotlight as a buzzword de jour. But the critical importance of careful and systematic investigation into the world around us using observation and trial and error is a tough sell to a large segment of our population.

SDI Productions/iStock/Getty Images

The COVID-19 pandemic is providing an excellent opportunity for science and medicine to showcase their star qualities. Of course some people in leadership positions persist in disregarding the value of scientific investigation. But I get the feeling that the fear generated by the pandemic is creating some converts among many previous science skeptics. This gathering enthusiasm among the general population is a predictably slow process because that’s the way science works. It often doesn’t provide quick answers. And it is difficult for the nonscientist to see the beauty in the reality that the things we thought were true 2 months ago are likely to be proven wrong today as more observations accumulate.

Unfortunately, even in this time of renewal, science and medicine continue to generate a bumper crop of bad apples. A recent New York Times article examines the career of one such unscrupulous physician/scientist whose recent exploits threaten to undo much of the positive image the pandemic has cast on science (“The Doctor Behind the Disputed Covid Data,” by Ellen Gabler and Roni Caryn Rabin, The New York Times, July 27, 2020). The subject of the article is the physician who was responsible for providing some of the large data sets on which several papers were published about the apparent ineffectiveness and danger of using hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients. The authenticity of the data sets recently has been seriously questioned, and the articles have been retracted by the journals in which they had appeared.

Based on numerous interviews with coworkers, the Times reporters present a strong case that this individual’s long history of unreliability make his association with allegedly fraudulent data set not surprising but maybe even predictable. At one point in his training, there appears to have been serious questions about advancing the physician to the next level. Despite these concerns, he was allowed to continue and complete his specialty training. It is of note that in his last year of clinical practice, the physician became the subject of three serious malpractice claims that question his competence.

I suspect that some of you have crossed paths with physicians whose competence and/or moral character you found concerning. Were they peers? Were you the individual’s supervisor or was he or she your mentor? How did you respond? Did anyone respond at all?

There has been a lot written and said in recent months about how and when to respond to respond to sexual harassment in the workplace. But I don’t recall reading any articles that discuss how one should respond to incompetence. Of course competency can be a relative term, but in most cases significant incompetence is hard to miss because it tends to be repeated.

It is easy for the airports and subway systems to post signs that say “If you see something say something.” It’s a different story for hospitals and medical schools that may have systems in place for reporting and following up on poor practice. But my sense is that there are too many cases that slip through the cracks.

This is another example of a problem for which I don’t have a solution. However, if this column prompts just one of you who sees something to say something then I have had a good day.
 

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.

Over the last several decades science has fallen off this country’s radar screen. Yes, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has recently had a brief moment in the spotlight as a buzzword de jour. But the critical importance of careful and systematic investigation into the world around us using observation and trial and error is a tough sell to a large segment of our population.

SDI Productions/iStock/Getty Images

The COVID-19 pandemic is providing an excellent opportunity for science and medicine to showcase their star qualities. Of course some people in leadership positions persist in disregarding the value of scientific investigation. But I get the feeling that the fear generated by the pandemic is creating some converts among many previous science skeptics. This gathering enthusiasm among the general population is a predictably slow process because that’s the way science works. It often doesn’t provide quick answers. And it is difficult for the nonscientist to see the beauty in the reality that the things we thought were true 2 months ago are likely to be proven wrong today as more observations accumulate.

Unfortunately, even in this time of renewal, science and medicine continue to generate a bumper crop of bad apples. A recent New York Times article examines the career of one such unscrupulous physician/scientist whose recent exploits threaten to undo much of the positive image the pandemic has cast on science (“The Doctor Behind the Disputed Covid Data,” by Ellen Gabler and Roni Caryn Rabin, The New York Times, July 27, 2020). The subject of the article is the physician who was responsible for providing some of the large data sets on which several papers were published about the apparent ineffectiveness and danger of using hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients. The authenticity of the data sets recently has been seriously questioned, and the articles have been retracted by the journals in which they had appeared.

Based on numerous interviews with coworkers, the Times reporters present a strong case that this individual’s long history of unreliability make his association with allegedly fraudulent data set not surprising but maybe even predictable. At one point in his training, there appears to have been serious questions about advancing the physician to the next level. Despite these concerns, he was allowed to continue and complete his specialty training. It is of note that in his last year of clinical practice, the physician became the subject of three serious malpractice claims that question his competence.

I suspect that some of you have crossed paths with physicians whose competence and/or moral character you found concerning. Were they peers? Were you the individual’s supervisor or was he or she your mentor? How did you respond? Did anyone respond at all?

There has been a lot written and said in recent months about how and when to respond to respond to sexual harassment in the workplace. But I don’t recall reading any articles that discuss how one should respond to incompetence. Of course competency can be a relative term, but in most cases significant incompetence is hard to miss because it tends to be repeated.

It is easy for the airports and subway systems to post signs that say “If you see something say something.” It’s a different story for hospitals and medical schools that may have systems in place for reporting and following up on poor practice. But my sense is that there are too many cases that slip through the cracks.

This is another example of a problem for which I don’t have a solution. However, if this column prompts just one of you who sees something to say something then I have had a good day.
 

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.

The Trump administration is sticking with a plan to boost certain Medicare pay for many primary care and other specialties focused heavily on office visits while lowering that for other groups to balance these increased costs.

On Aug. 4, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted on the Federal Register draft versions of two of its major annual payment measures: the physician fee schedule and the payment rule for hospital outpatient services. On Aug. 3, the CMS informally posted a copy of the physician fee schedule on its own website, allowing medical groups to begin reading the more than 1,300-page rule.

Federal officials normally use annual Medicare payment rules to make many revisions to policies as well as adjust reimbursement.

The draft 2021 physician fee schedule, for example, calls for broadening the authority of clinicians other than physicians to authorize testing of people enrolled in Medicare.

The CMS intends to allow nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certain other health care professionals to more widely supervise diagnostic psychological and neuropsychological tests, in keeping with applicable state laws.

The draft 2021 hospital outpatient rule proposes a gradual changeover to allow more procedures to be performed on an outpatient basis. This shift could save money for Medicare as well as for the people enrolled in the giant federal health program who need these services, the CMS explained.

Medicare would begin with a change in status for almost 300 musculoskeletal-related services, making them eligible for payment in the hospital outpatient setting when appropriate, CMS wrote in a fact sheet.

The initial reaction to Medicare’s proposed 2021 rules centered on its planned redistribution of funds among medical specialties. The CMS had outlined this plan last year. It is part of longstanding efforts to boost pay for primary care specialists and other physicians whose practice centers more around office visits than procedures.

There is broad support in health policy circles for raising pay for these specialties, but there also are strong objections to the cuts the CMS plans to offset the cost of rising pay for some fields.

Susan R. Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association, addressed both of these ideas in an AMA news release on the proposed 2021 physician fee schedule. The increase in pay for office visits, covered under evaluation and management services (E/M), stems from recommendations on resource costs from the AMA/Specialty Society RVS Update Committee, Dr. Bailey said.

“Unfortunately, these office visit payment increases, and a multitude of other new CMS proposed payment increases, are required by statute to be offset by payment reductions to other services, through an unsustainable reduction of nearly 11% to the Medicare conversion factor,” Dr. Bailey explained.

In the news release, Dr. Bailey asked Congress to waive Medicare’s budget-neutrality requirements to allow increases without the cuts.

“Physicians are already experiencing substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19, so these pay cuts could not come at a worse time,” she said.

Winners and losers

The CMS details the possible winners and losers in its payment reshuffle in Table 90 of the proposed 2021 physician fee schedule. In the proposed rule, CMS notes in the draft that these figures are based upon estimates of aggregate allowed charges across all services furnished by physicians and other clinicians.

“Therefore, they are averages, and may not necessarily be representative of what is happening to the particular services furnished by a single practitioner within any given specialty,” the CMS said.

Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 draft rule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (17%), family practice (13%), general practice (8%), geriatrics (4%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (8%), rheumatology (16%), and urology (8%).

In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–9%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–7%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–7%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–11%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).

An umbrella group, the Surgical Care Coalition, on Aug. 3 had a quick statement ready about the CMS proposal. Writing on behalf of the group was David B. Hoyt, MD, executive director of the American College of Surgeons.

“Today’s proposed rule ignores both patients and the surgeons who care for them. The middle of a pandemic is no time for cuts to any form of health care, but today’s announcement moves ahead as if nothing has changed,” Hoyt said in the statement. “The Surgical Care Coalition believes no physician should see payment cuts that will reduce patients’ access to care.”

The Surgical Care Coalition already has been asking Congress to waive budget-neutrality requirements. Making a similar request Aug. 4 in a unified statement were the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA), and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA).

“Our organizations call on Congress and CMS to advance well-reasoned fee schedule payment policies and waive budget neutrality,” the groups said. “While APTA, AOTA, and ASHA do not oppose payment increases for primary care physicians, we believe these increases can be implemented without imposing payment reductions on other providers.”
 

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

The Trump administration is sticking with a plan to boost certain Medicare pay for many primary care and other specialties focused heavily on office visits while lowering that for other groups to balance these increased costs.

On Aug. 4, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted on the Federal Register draft versions of two of its major annual payment measures: the physician fee schedule and the payment rule for hospital outpatient services. On Aug. 3, the CMS informally posted a copy of the physician fee schedule on its own website, allowing medical groups to begin reading the more than 1,300-page rule.

Federal officials normally use annual Medicare payment rules to make many revisions to policies as well as adjust reimbursement.

The draft 2021 physician fee schedule, for example, calls for broadening the authority of clinicians other than physicians to authorize testing of people enrolled in Medicare.

The CMS intends to allow nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certain other health care professionals to more widely supervise diagnostic psychological and neuropsychological tests, in keeping with applicable state laws.

The draft 2021 hospital outpatient rule proposes a gradual changeover to allow more procedures to be performed on an outpatient basis. This shift could save money for Medicare as well as for the people enrolled in the giant federal health program who need these services, the CMS explained.

Medicare would begin with a change in status for almost 300 musculoskeletal-related services, making them eligible for payment in the hospital outpatient setting when appropriate, CMS wrote in a fact sheet.

The initial reaction to Medicare’s proposed 2021 rules centered on its planned redistribution of funds among medical specialties. The CMS had outlined this plan last year. It is part of longstanding efforts to boost pay for primary care specialists and other physicians whose practice centers more around office visits than procedures.

There is broad support in health policy circles for raising pay for these specialties, but there also are strong objections to the cuts the CMS plans to offset the cost of rising pay for some fields.

Susan R. Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association, addressed both of these ideas in an AMA news release on the proposed 2021 physician fee schedule. The increase in pay for office visits, covered under evaluation and management services (E/M), stems from recommendations on resource costs from the AMA/Specialty Society RVS Update Committee, Dr. Bailey said.

“Unfortunately, these office visit payment increases, and a multitude of other new CMS proposed payment increases, are required by statute to be offset by payment reductions to other services, through an unsustainable reduction of nearly 11% to the Medicare conversion factor,” Dr. Bailey explained.

In the news release, Dr. Bailey asked Congress to waive Medicare’s budget-neutrality requirements to allow increases without the cuts.

“Physicians are already experiencing substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19, so these pay cuts could not come at a worse time,” she said.

Winners and losers

The CMS details the possible winners and losers in its payment reshuffle in Table 90 of the proposed 2021 physician fee schedule. In the proposed rule, CMS notes in the draft that these figures are based upon estimates of aggregate allowed charges across all services furnished by physicians and other clinicians.

“Therefore, they are averages, and may not necessarily be representative of what is happening to the particular services furnished by a single practitioner within any given specialty,” the CMS said.

Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 draft rule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (17%), family practice (13%), general practice (8%), geriatrics (4%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (8%), rheumatology (16%), and urology (8%).

In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–9%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–7%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–7%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–11%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).

An umbrella group, the Surgical Care Coalition, on Aug. 3 had a quick statement ready about the CMS proposal. Writing on behalf of the group was David B. Hoyt, MD, executive director of the American College of Surgeons.

“Today’s proposed rule ignores both patients and the surgeons who care for them. The middle of a pandemic is no time for cuts to any form of health care, but today’s announcement moves ahead as if nothing has changed,” Hoyt said in the statement. “The Surgical Care Coalition believes no physician should see payment cuts that will reduce patients’ access to care.”

The Surgical Care Coalition already has been asking Congress to waive budget-neutrality requirements. Making a similar request Aug. 4 in a unified statement were the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA), and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA).

“Our organizations call on Congress and CMS to advance well-reasoned fee schedule payment policies and waive budget neutrality,” the groups said. “While APTA, AOTA, and ASHA do not oppose payment increases for primary care physicians, we believe these increases can be implemented without imposing payment reductions on other providers.”
 

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

The Trump administration is sticking with a plan to boost certain Medicare pay for many primary care and other specialties focused heavily on office visits while lowering that for other groups to balance these increased costs.

On Aug. 4, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted on the Federal Register draft versions of two of its major annual payment measures: the physician fee schedule and the payment rule for hospital outpatient services. On Aug. 3, the CMS informally posted a copy of the physician fee schedule on its own website, allowing medical groups to begin reading the more than 1,300-page rule.

Federal officials normally use annual Medicare payment rules to make many revisions to policies as well as adjust reimbursement.

The draft 2021 physician fee schedule, for example, calls for broadening the authority of clinicians other than physicians to authorize testing of people enrolled in Medicare.

The CMS intends to allow nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certain other health care professionals to more widely supervise diagnostic psychological and neuropsychological tests, in keeping with applicable state laws.

The draft 2021 hospital outpatient rule proposes a gradual changeover to allow more procedures to be performed on an outpatient basis. This shift could save money for Medicare as well as for the people enrolled in the giant federal health program who need these services, the CMS explained.

Medicare would begin with a change in status for almost 300 musculoskeletal-related services, making them eligible for payment in the hospital outpatient setting when appropriate, CMS wrote in a fact sheet.

The initial reaction to Medicare’s proposed 2021 rules centered on its planned redistribution of funds among medical specialties. The CMS had outlined this plan last year. It is part of longstanding efforts to boost pay for primary care specialists and other physicians whose practice centers more around office visits than procedures.

There is broad support in health policy circles for raising pay for these specialties, but there also are strong objections to the cuts the CMS plans to offset the cost of rising pay for some fields.

Susan R. Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association, addressed both of these ideas in an AMA news release on the proposed 2021 physician fee schedule. The increase in pay for office visits, covered under evaluation and management services (E/M), stems from recommendations on resource costs from the AMA/Specialty Society RVS Update Committee, Dr. Bailey said.

“Unfortunately, these office visit payment increases, and a multitude of other new CMS proposed payment increases, are required by statute to be offset by payment reductions to other services, through an unsustainable reduction of nearly 11% to the Medicare conversion factor,” Dr. Bailey explained.

In the news release, Dr. Bailey asked Congress to waive Medicare’s budget-neutrality requirements to allow increases without the cuts.

“Physicians are already experiencing substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19, so these pay cuts could not come at a worse time,” she said.

Winners and losers

The CMS details the possible winners and losers in its payment reshuffle in Table 90 of the proposed 2021 physician fee schedule. In the proposed rule, CMS notes in the draft that these figures are based upon estimates of aggregate allowed charges across all services furnished by physicians and other clinicians.

“Therefore, they are averages, and may not necessarily be representative of what is happening to the particular services furnished by a single practitioner within any given specialty,” the CMS said.

Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 draft rule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (17%), family practice (13%), general practice (8%), geriatrics (4%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (8%), rheumatology (16%), and urology (8%).

In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–9%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–7%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–7%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–11%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).

An umbrella group, the Surgical Care Coalition, on Aug. 3 had a quick statement ready about the CMS proposal. Writing on behalf of the group was David B. Hoyt, MD, executive director of the American College of Surgeons.

“Today’s proposed rule ignores both patients and the surgeons who care for them. The middle of a pandemic is no time for cuts to any form of health care, but today’s announcement moves ahead as if nothing has changed,” Hoyt said in the statement. “The Surgical Care Coalition believes no physician should see payment cuts that will reduce patients’ access to care.”

The Surgical Care Coalition already has been asking Congress to waive budget-neutrality requirements. Making a similar request Aug. 4 in a unified statement were the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA), and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA).

“Our organizations call on Congress and CMS to advance well-reasoned fee schedule payment policies and waive budget neutrality,” the groups said. “While APTA, AOTA, and ASHA do not oppose payment increases for primary care physicians, we believe these increases can be implemented without imposing payment reductions on other providers.”
 

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

Hospital costs for the nation’s 35.8 million inpatient stays in 2017 totaled $434.2 billion, for an average of $11,700 per stay, according to a recent analysis from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The single most expensive inpatient condition that year, representing about 8.8% of all hospital costs, was septicemia at $38.2 billion, nearly double the $19.9 billion spent on the next most expensive condition, osteoarthritis, Lan Liang, PhD, of the AHRQ, and associates said in a statistical brief.

These figures “represent the hospital’s costs to produce the services – not the amount paid for services by payers – and they do not include separately billed physician fees associated with the hospitalization,” they noted.

Third in overall cost for 2017 but first in total number of stays were live-born infants, with 3.7 million admissions costing just under $16 billion. Hospital costs for acute myocardial infarction ($14.3 billion) made it the fourth most expensive condition, with heart failure fifth at $13.6 billion, based on data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s National Inpatient Sample.

The 20 most expensive conditions, which also included coronary atherosclerosis, pneumonia, renal failure, and lower-limb fracture, accounted for close to 47% of all hospital costs and over 43% of all stays in 2017. The total amount spent by hospitals that year, $1.1 trillion, constituted nearly a third of all health care expenditures and was 4.7% higher than in 2016, Dr. Liang and associates reported.

“Although this growth represented deceleration, compared with the 5.8% increase between 2014 and 2015, the consistent year-to-year rise in hospital-related expenses remains a central concern among policymakers,” they wrote.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Hospital costs for the nation’s 35.8 million inpatient stays in 2017 totaled $434.2 billion, for an average of $11,700 per stay, according to a recent analysis from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The single most expensive inpatient condition that year, representing about 8.8% of all hospital costs, was septicemia at $38.2 billion, nearly double the $19.9 billion spent on the next most expensive condition, osteoarthritis, Lan Liang, PhD, of the AHRQ, and associates said in a statistical brief.

These figures “represent the hospital’s costs to produce the services – not the amount paid for services by payers – and they do not include separately billed physician fees associated with the hospitalization,” they noted.

Third in overall cost for 2017 but first in total number of stays were live-born infants, with 3.7 million admissions costing just under $16 billion. Hospital costs for acute myocardial infarction ($14.3 billion) made it the fourth most expensive condition, with heart failure fifth at $13.6 billion, based on data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s National Inpatient Sample.

The 20 most expensive conditions, which also included coronary atherosclerosis, pneumonia, renal failure, and lower-limb fracture, accounted for close to 47% of all hospital costs and over 43% of all stays in 2017. The total amount spent by hospitals that year, $1.1 trillion, constituted nearly a third of all health care expenditures and was 4.7% higher than in 2016, Dr. Liang and associates reported.

“Although this growth represented deceleration, compared with the 5.8% increase between 2014 and 2015, the consistent year-to-year rise in hospital-related expenses remains a central concern among policymakers,” they wrote.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Hospital costs for the nation’s 35.8 million inpatient stays in 2017 totaled $434.2 billion, for an average of $11,700 per stay, according to a recent analysis from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The single most expensive inpatient condition that year, representing about 8.8% of all hospital costs, was septicemia at $38.2 billion, nearly double the $19.9 billion spent on the next most expensive condition, osteoarthritis, Lan Liang, PhD, of the AHRQ, and associates said in a statistical brief.

These figures “represent the hospital’s costs to produce the services – not the amount paid for services by payers – and they do not include separately billed physician fees associated with the hospitalization,” they noted.

Third in overall cost for 2017 but first in total number of stays were live-born infants, with 3.7 million admissions costing just under $16 billion. Hospital costs for acute myocardial infarction ($14.3 billion) made it the fourth most expensive condition, with heart failure fifth at $13.6 billion, based on data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s National Inpatient Sample.

The 20 most expensive conditions, which also included coronary atherosclerosis, pneumonia, renal failure, and lower-limb fracture, accounted for close to 47% of all hospital costs and over 43% of all stays in 2017. The total amount spent by hospitals that year, $1.1 trillion, constituted nearly a third of all health care expenditures and was 4.7% higher than in 2016, Dr. Liang and associates reported.

“Although this growth represented deceleration, compared with the 5.8% increase between 2014 and 2015, the consistent year-to-year rise in hospital-related expenses remains a central concern among policymakers,” they wrote.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Evidence for a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health remains unsupported, and the potential risks outweigh any potential benefits, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

American Heart Association

The increased legalization of cannabis and cannabis products in the United States has driven medical professionals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis in relation to health conditions, wrote Robert L. Page II, PharmD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.

In a statement published in Circulation, the researchers noted that although cannabis has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms in certain conditions, clinicians in the United States have been limited from studying its health effects because of federal law restrictions. “Cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance, deeming no accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and an unacceptable safety profile,” the researchers wrote.

The statement addresses issues with the use of cannabis by individuals with cardiovascular disease or those at increased risk. Observational studies have shown no cardiovascular benefits associated with cannabis, the writers noted. The most common chemicals in cannabis include THC (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) and CBD (cannabidiol).

Some research has shown associations between CBD cardiovascular features including lower blood pressure and reduced inflammation, the writers noted. However, THC, the component of cannabis associated with a “high” or intoxication, has been associated with heart rhythm abnormalities. The writers cited data suggesting an increased risk of heart attacks, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, although more research is needed.

The statement outlines common cannabis formulations including plant-based, extracts, crystalline forms, edible products, and tinctures. In addition, the statement notes that synthetic cannabis products are marketed and used in the United States without subject to regulation.

“Over the past 5 years, we have seen a surge in cannabis use, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic here in Colorado, especially among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. Page said in an interview. Because of the surge, health care practitioners need to familiarize themselves with not only the benefits, but risks associated with cannabis use regardless of the formulation,” he said. As heart disease remains a leading cause of death in the United States, understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis is crucial at this time.

Dr. Page noted that popular attitudes about cannabis could pose risks to users’ cardiovascular health. “One leading misconception about cannabis is because it is ‘natural’ it must be safe,” Dr. Page said. “As with all medications, cannabis has side effects, some of which can be cardiovascular in nature,” he said. “Significant drug-drug interactions can occur as CBD and THC, both found in cannabis, inhibit CYP3A4, which metabolizes a large number of medications used to treat many cardiovascular conditions,” he noted.

“Unfortunately, much of the published data is observational in nature due to the federal restrictions on cannabis as a schedule I drug,” said Dr. Page. “Nonetheless, safety signals have emerged regarding cannabis use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Carefully designed prospective short- and long-term studies regarding cannabis use and cardiovascular safety are needed,” he emphasized.

Areas in particular need of additional research include the cardiovascular effects of cannabis in several vulnerable populations such as adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, transplant recipients, and those with underlying cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Page.

“Nonetheless, based on the safety signals described within this Clinical Science Statement, an open discussion regarding the risks of using cannabis needs to occur between patient and health care providers,” he said. “Furthermore, patients must be transparent regarding their cannabis use with their cardiologist and primary care provider. The cannabis story will continue to evolve and is a rapidly moving/changing target,” he said.

“Whether cannabis use is a definitive risk factor for cardiovascular disease as with tobacco use is still unknown, and both acute and long-term studies are desperately needed to address this issue,” he said.

Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Page et al. Circulation. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.

Evidence for a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health remains unsupported, and the potential risks outweigh any potential benefits, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

American Heart Association

The increased legalization of cannabis and cannabis products in the United States has driven medical professionals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis in relation to health conditions, wrote Robert L. Page II, PharmD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.

In a statement published in Circulation, the researchers noted that although cannabis has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms in certain conditions, clinicians in the United States have been limited from studying its health effects because of federal law restrictions. “Cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance, deeming no accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and an unacceptable safety profile,” the researchers wrote.

The statement addresses issues with the use of cannabis by individuals with cardiovascular disease or those at increased risk. Observational studies have shown no cardiovascular benefits associated with cannabis, the writers noted. The most common chemicals in cannabis include THC (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) and CBD (cannabidiol).

Some research has shown associations between CBD cardiovascular features including lower blood pressure and reduced inflammation, the writers noted. However, THC, the component of cannabis associated with a “high” or intoxication, has been associated with heart rhythm abnormalities. The writers cited data suggesting an increased risk of heart attacks, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, although more research is needed.

The statement outlines common cannabis formulations including plant-based, extracts, crystalline forms, edible products, and tinctures. In addition, the statement notes that synthetic cannabis products are marketed and used in the United States without subject to regulation.

“Over the past 5 years, we have seen a surge in cannabis use, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic here in Colorado, especially among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. Page said in an interview. Because of the surge, health care practitioners need to familiarize themselves with not only the benefits, but risks associated with cannabis use regardless of the formulation,” he said. As heart disease remains a leading cause of death in the United States, understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis is crucial at this time.

Dr. Page noted that popular attitudes about cannabis could pose risks to users’ cardiovascular health. “One leading misconception about cannabis is because it is ‘natural’ it must be safe,” Dr. Page said. “As with all medications, cannabis has side effects, some of which can be cardiovascular in nature,” he said. “Significant drug-drug interactions can occur as CBD and THC, both found in cannabis, inhibit CYP3A4, which metabolizes a large number of medications used to treat many cardiovascular conditions,” he noted.

“Unfortunately, much of the published data is observational in nature due to the federal restrictions on cannabis as a schedule I drug,” said Dr. Page. “Nonetheless, safety signals have emerged regarding cannabis use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Carefully designed prospective short- and long-term studies regarding cannabis use and cardiovascular safety are needed,” he emphasized.

Areas in particular need of additional research include the cardiovascular effects of cannabis in several vulnerable populations such as adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, transplant recipients, and those with underlying cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Page.

“Nonetheless, based on the safety signals described within this Clinical Science Statement, an open discussion regarding the risks of using cannabis needs to occur between patient and health care providers,” he said. “Furthermore, patients must be transparent regarding their cannabis use with their cardiologist and primary care provider. The cannabis story will continue to evolve and is a rapidly moving/changing target,” he said.

“Whether cannabis use is a definitive risk factor for cardiovascular disease as with tobacco use is still unknown, and both acute and long-term studies are desperately needed to address this issue,” he said.

Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Page et al. Circulation. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.

Evidence for a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health remains unsupported, and the potential risks outweigh any potential benefits, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

American Heart Association

The increased legalization of cannabis and cannabis products in the United States has driven medical professionals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis in relation to health conditions, wrote Robert L. Page II, PharmD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.

In a statement published in Circulation, the researchers noted that although cannabis has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms in certain conditions, clinicians in the United States have been limited from studying its health effects because of federal law restrictions. “Cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance, deeming no accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and an unacceptable safety profile,” the researchers wrote.

The statement addresses issues with the use of cannabis by individuals with cardiovascular disease or those at increased risk. Observational studies have shown no cardiovascular benefits associated with cannabis, the writers noted. The most common chemicals in cannabis include THC (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) and CBD (cannabidiol).

Some research has shown associations between CBD cardiovascular features including lower blood pressure and reduced inflammation, the writers noted. However, THC, the component of cannabis associated with a “high” or intoxication, has been associated with heart rhythm abnormalities. The writers cited data suggesting an increased risk of heart attacks, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, although more research is needed.

The statement outlines common cannabis formulations including plant-based, extracts, crystalline forms, edible products, and tinctures. In addition, the statement notes that synthetic cannabis products are marketed and used in the United States without subject to regulation.

“Over the past 5 years, we have seen a surge in cannabis use, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic here in Colorado, especially among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. Page said in an interview. Because of the surge, health care practitioners need to familiarize themselves with not only the benefits, but risks associated with cannabis use regardless of the formulation,” he said. As heart disease remains a leading cause of death in the United States, understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis is crucial at this time.

Dr. Page noted that popular attitudes about cannabis could pose risks to users’ cardiovascular health. “One leading misconception about cannabis is because it is ‘natural’ it must be safe,” Dr. Page said. “As with all medications, cannabis has side effects, some of which can be cardiovascular in nature,” he said. “Significant drug-drug interactions can occur as CBD and THC, both found in cannabis, inhibit CYP3A4, which metabolizes a large number of medications used to treat many cardiovascular conditions,” he noted.

“Unfortunately, much of the published data is observational in nature due to the federal restrictions on cannabis as a schedule I drug,” said Dr. Page. “Nonetheless, safety signals have emerged regarding cannabis use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Carefully designed prospective short- and long-term studies regarding cannabis use and cardiovascular safety are needed,” he emphasized.

Areas in particular need of additional research include the cardiovascular effects of cannabis in several vulnerable populations such as adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, transplant recipients, and those with underlying cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Page.

“Nonetheless, based on the safety signals described within this Clinical Science Statement, an open discussion regarding the risks of using cannabis needs to occur between patient and health care providers,” he said. “Furthermore, patients must be transparent regarding their cannabis use with their cardiologist and primary care provider. The cannabis story will continue to evolve and is a rapidly moving/changing target,” he said.

“Whether cannabis use is a definitive risk factor for cardiovascular disease as with tobacco use is still unknown, and both acute and long-term studies are desperately needed to address this issue,” he said.

Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Page et al. Circulation. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.