Feature

Halloween is fast approaching and retail stores are fully stocked with costumes and candy. Physician dialog is beginning to shift from school access toward how to counsel patients and families on COVID-19 safety around Halloween. What steps families ultimately take about Halloween will hinge on where they live and what the COVID infection and death rates are in their area, advised pediatrician Shelly Vaziri Flais, MD.

Courtesy Andrew Beattie

Halloween “is going to look very different this year, especially in urban and rural settings, according to Dr. Flais, who is a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago. The notion that trick-or-treating automatically involves physically distancing is a misconception. Urban celebrations frequently see many people gathering on the streets, and that will be even more likely in a pandemic year when people have been separated for long periods of time.

For pediatricians advising families on COVID-19 safety measures to follow while celebrating Halloween, it’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all approach, said Dr. Flais, who practices pediatrics at Pediatric Health Associates in Naperville, Ill.

The goal for physicians across the board should be “to ensure that we aren’t so cautious that we drive folks to do things that are higher risk,” she said in an interview. “We are now 6-7 months into the pandemic and the public is growing weary of laying low, so it is important for physicians to not recommend safety measures that are too restrictive.”

The balance pediatricians will need to strike in advising their patients is tricky at best. So in dispensing advice, it is important to make sure that it has a benefit to the overall population, cautioned Dr. Flais. Activities such as hosting independently organized, heavily packed indoor gatherings where people are eating, drinking, and not wearing masks is not going to be beneficial for the masses.

Courtesy Dr. Shelly V. Flais

“We’re all lucky that we have technology. We’ve gotten used to doing virtual hugs and activities on Zoom,” she said, adding that she has already seen some really creative ideas on social media for enjoying a COVID-conscious Halloween, including a festive candy chute created by an Ohio family that is perfect for distributing candy while minimizing physical contact.

In an AAP press release, Dr. Flais noted that “this is a good time to teach children the importance of protecting not just ourselves but each other.” How we choose to manage our safety and the safety of our children “can have a ripple effect on our family members.” It is possible to make safe, responsible choices when celebrating and still create magical memories for our children.

Francis E. Rushton Jr., MD, of the University of South Carolina, Columbia, said in an interview, “ I certainly support the AAP recommendations. Because of the way COVID-19 virus is spread, I would emphasize with my patients that the No. 1 thing to do is to enforce facial mask wearing while out trick-or-treating.

“I would also err on the side of safety if my child was showing any signs of illness and find an alternative method of celebrating Halloween that would not involve close contact with other individuals,” said Dr. Rushton, who is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

AAP-recommended Do’s and Don’ts for celebrating Halloween

DO:

• Avoid large gatherings.
• Maintain 6 feet distance.
• Wear cloth masks and wash hands often.
• Use hand sanitizer before and after visiting pumpkin patches and apple orchards.

DON’T:

• Wear painted cloth masks since paints can contain toxins that should not be breathed.
• Use a costume mask unless it has layers of breathable fabric snugly covering mouth and nose.
• Wear cloth mask under costume mask.
• Attend indoor parties or haunted houses.

CDC safety considerations (supplemental to state and local safety laws)

• Assess current cases and overall spread in your community before making any plans.
• Choose outdoor venues or indoor facilities that are well ventilated.
• Consider the length of the event, how many are attending, where they are coming from, and how they behave before and during the event.
• If you are awaiting test results, have COVID-19 symptoms, or have been exposed to COVID-19, stay home.
• If you are at higher risk, avoid large gatherings and limit exposure to anyone you do not live with.
• Make available to others masks, 60% or greater alcohol-based hand sanitizer, and tissues.
• Avoid touching your nose, eyes, and mouth.
• For a complete set of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID safety recommendations go here.

Suggested safe, fun activities

• Use Zoom and other chat programs to share costumes, play games, and watch festive movies.
• Participate in socially distanced outdoor community events at local parks, zoos, etc.
• Attend haunted forests and corn mazes. Maintain more than 6 feet of distance around screaming patrons.
• Decorate pumpkins.
• Cook a Halloween-themed meal.
• If trick-or-treating has been canceled, try a scavenger hunt in the house or yard.
• When handing out treats, wear gloves and mask. Consider prepackaging treat bags. Line up visitors 6 feet apart and discourage gatherings around entranceways.
• Wipe down all goodies received and consider quarantining them for a few days.
• Always wash hands before and after trick-or-treating and when handling treats.

Halloween is fast approaching and retail stores are fully stocked with costumes and candy. Physician dialog is beginning to shift from school access toward how to counsel patients and families on COVID-19 safety around Halloween. What steps families ultimately take about Halloween will hinge on where they live and what the COVID infection and death rates are in their area, advised pediatrician Shelly Vaziri Flais, MD.

Courtesy Andrew Beattie

Halloween “is going to look very different this year, especially in urban and rural settings, according to Dr. Flais, who is a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago. The notion that trick-or-treating automatically involves physically distancing is a misconception. Urban celebrations frequently see many people gathering on the streets, and that will be even more likely in a pandemic year when people have been separated for long periods of time.

For pediatricians advising families on COVID-19 safety measures to follow while celebrating Halloween, it’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all approach, said Dr. Flais, who practices pediatrics at Pediatric Health Associates in Naperville, Ill.

The goal for physicians across the board should be “to ensure that we aren’t so cautious that we drive folks to do things that are higher risk,” she said in an interview. “We are now 6-7 months into the pandemic and the public is growing weary of laying low, so it is important for physicians to not recommend safety measures that are too restrictive.”

The balance pediatricians will need to strike in advising their patients is tricky at best. So in dispensing advice, it is important to make sure that it has a benefit to the overall population, cautioned Dr. Flais. Activities such as hosting independently organized, heavily packed indoor gatherings where people are eating, drinking, and not wearing masks is not going to be beneficial for the masses.

Courtesy Dr. Shelly V. Flais

“We’re all lucky that we have technology. We’ve gotten used to doing virtual hugs and activities on Zoom,” she said, adding that she has already seen some really creative ideas on social media for enjoying a COVID-conscious Halloween, including a festive candy chute created by an Ohio family that is perfect for distributing candy while minimizing physical contact.

In an AAP press release, Dr. Flais noted that “this is a good time to teach children the importance of protecting not just ourselves but each other.” How we choose to manage our safety and the safety of our children “can have a ripple effect on our family members.” It is possible to make safe, responsible choices when celebrating and still create magical memories for our children.

Francis E. Rushton Jr., MD, of the University of South Carolina, Columbia, said in an interview, “ I certainly support the AAP recommendations. Because of the way COVID-19 virus is spread, I would emphasize with my patients that the No. 1 thing to do is to enforce facial mask wearing while out trick-or-treating.

“I would also err on the side of safety if my child was showing any signs of illness and find an alternative method of celebrating Halloween that would not involve close contact with other individuals,” said Dr. Rushton, who is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

AAP-recommended Do’s and Don’ts for celebrating Halloween

DO:

• Avoid large gatherings.
• Maintain 6 feet distance.
• Wear cloth masks and wash hands often.
• Use hand sanitizer before and after visiting pumpkin patches and apple orchards.

DON’T:

• Wear painted cloth masks since paints can contain toxins that should not be breathed.
• Use a costume mask unless it has layers of breathable fabric snugly covering mouth and nose.
• Wear cloth mask under costume mask.
• Attend indoor parties or haunted houses.

CDC safety considerations (supplemental to state and local safety laws)

• Assess current cases and overall spread in your community before making any plans.
• Choose outdoor venues or indoor facilities that are well ventilated.
• Consider the length of the event, how many are attending, where they are coming from, and how they behave before and during the event.
• If you are awaiting test results, have COVID-19 symptoms, or have been exposed to COVID-19, stay home.
• If you are at higher risk, avoid large gatherings and limit exposure to anyone you do not live with.
• Make available to others masks, 60% or greater alcohol-based hand sanitizer, and tissues.
• Avoid touching your nose, eyes, and mouth.
• For a complete set of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID safety recommendations go here.

Suggested safe, fun activities

• Use Zoom and other chat programs to share costumes, play games, and watch festive movies.
• Participate in socially distanced outdoor community events at local parks, zoos, etc.
• Attend haunted forests and corn mazes. Maintain more than 6 feet of distance around screaming patrons.
• Decorate pumpkins.
• Cook a Halloween-themed meal.
• If trick-or-treating has been canceled, try a scavenger hunt in the house or yard.
• When handing out treats, wear gloves and mask. Consider prepackaging treat bags. Line up visitors 6 feet apart and discourage gatherings around entranceways.
• Wipe down all goodies received and consider quarantining them for a few days.
• Always wash hands before and after trick-or-treating and when handling treats.

Halloween is fast approaching and retail stores are fully stocked with costumes and candy. Physician dialog is beginning to shift from school access toward how to counsel patients and families on COVID-19 safety around Halloween. What steps families ultimately take about Halloween will hinge on where they live and what the COVID infection and death rates are in their area, advised pediatrician Shelly Vaziri Flais, MD.

Courtesy Andrew Beattie

Halloween “is going to look very different this year, especially in urban and rural settings, according to Dr. Flais, who is a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Northwestern University, Chicago. The notion that trick-or-treating automatically involves physically distancing is a misconception. Urban celebrations frequently see many people gathering on the streets, and that will be even more likely in a pandemic year when people have been separated for long periods of time.

For pediatricians advising families on COVID-19 safety measures to follow while celebrating Halloween, it’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all approach, said Dr. Flais, who practices pediatrics at Pediatric Health Associates in Naperville, Ill.

The goal for physicians across the board should be “to ensure that we aren’t so cautious that we drive folks to do things that are higher risk,” she said in an interview. “We are now 6-7 months into the pandemic and the public is growing weary of laying low, so it is important for physicians to not recommend safety measures that are too restrictive.”

The balance pediatricians will need to strike in advising their patients is tricky at best. So in dispensing advice, it is important to make sure that it has a benefit to the overall population, cautioned Dr. Flais. Activities such as hosting independently organized, heavily packed indoor gatherings where people are eating, drinking, and not wearing masks is not going to be beneficial for the masses.

Courtesy Dr. Shelly V. Flais

“We’re all lucky that we have technology. We’ve gotten used to doing virtual hugs and activities on Zoom,” she said, adding that she has already seen some really creative ideas on social media for enjoying a COVID-conscious Halloween, including a festive candy chute created by an Ohio family that is perfect for distributing candy while minimizing physical contact.

In an AAP press release, Dr. Flais noted that “this is a good time to teach children the importance of protecting not just ourselves but each other.” How we choose to manage our safety and the safety of our children “can have a ripple effect on our family members.” It is possible to make safe, responsible choices when celebrating and still create magical memories for our children.

Francis E. Rushton Jr., MD, of the University of South Carolina, Columbia, said in an interview, “ I certainly support the AAP recommendations. Because of the way COVID-19 virus is spread, I would emphasize with my patients that the No. 1 thing to do is to enforce facial mask wearing while out trick-or-treating.

“I would also err on the side of safety if my child was showing any signs of illness and find an alternative method of celebrating Halloween that would not involve close contact with other individuals,” said Dr. Rushton, who is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

AAP-recommended Do’s and Don’ts for celebrating Halloween

DO:

• Avoid large gatherings.
• Maintain 6 feet distance.
• Wear cloth masks and wash hands often.
• Use hand sanitizer before and after visiting pumpkin patches and apple orchards.

DON’T:

• Wear painted cloth masks since paints can contain toxins that should not be breathed.
• Use a costume mask unless it has layers of breathable fabric snugly covering mouth and nose.
• Wear cloth mask under costume mask.
• Attend indoor parties or haunted houses.

CDC safety considerations (supplemental to state and local safety laws)

• Assess current cases and overall spread in your community before making any plans.
• Choose outdoor venues or indoor facilities that are well ventilated.
• Consider the length of the event, how many are attending, where they are coming from, and how they behave before and during the event.
• If you are awaiting test results, have COVID-19 symptoms, or have been exposed to COVID-19, stay home.
• If you are at higher risk, avoid large gatherings and limit exposure to anyone you do not live with.
• Make available to others masks, 60% or greater alcohol-based hand sanitizer, and tissues.
• Avoid touching your nose, eyes, and mouth.
• For a complete set of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID safety recommendations go here.

Suggested safe, fun activities

• Use Zoom and other chat programs to share costumes, play games, and watch festive movies.
• Participate in socially distanced outdoor community events at local parks, zoos, etc.
• Attend haunted forests and corn mazes. Maintain more than 6 feet of distance around screaming patrons.
• Decorate pumpkins.
• Cook a Halloween-themed meal.
• If trick-or-treating has been canceled, try a scavenger hunt in the house or yard.
• When handing out treats, wear gloves and mask. Consider prepackaging treat bags. Line up visitors 6 feet apart and discourage gatherings around entranceways.
• Wipe down all goodies received and consider quarantining them for a few days.
• Always wash hands before and after trick-or-treating and when handling treats.

A final report from the multinational placebo-controlled ACTT-1 trial confirms that remdesivir is effective and well tolerated for shortening the time to recovery from COVID-19 infection.

In May 2020, remdesivir received Food and Drug Administration approval for emergency treatment of severe COVID-19 on the basis of a preliminary report on this trial. In August 2020, the FDA expanded the indication to include all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection irrespective of severity.

“Our findings were consistent with the findings of the preliminary report: a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” reported a team of investigators led by John H. Beigel, MD, of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s broadened indication was not based on the ACTT-1 trial, according to Dr. Beigel. “Other data have demonstrated that remdesivir shortens recovery in patients with lower acuity. In our study, evidence of pneumonia was an enrollment requirement,” he explained in an interview.

In the newly published final ACTT-1 data, the median time to recovery was 10 days for those on active therapy versus 15 days for those randomized to placebo. With a rate ratio of 1.29 (P less than .001), this translated to a recovery that was about one third faster.

In this final report, remdesivir’s significant advantage over placebo regarding the trial’s primary endpoint was reinforced by efficacy on multiple secondary endpoints.

This benefits on multiple secondary endpoints included a 50% greater odds ratio (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9) of significant clinical improvement by day 15 after adjustment for baseline severity, a shorter initial length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days) and fewer days on oxygen supplementation (13 vs. 21 days) for the subgroup of patients on oxygen at enrollment.

Although the numerically lower mortality in the remdesivir arm (6.75 vs. 11.9%) did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Beigel said, “mortality was moving in the same direction as the other key endpoints.”

According to the study investigators, the types of rates of adverse events on remdesivir, which inhibits viral replication, “were generally similar in the remdesivir and placebo groups.”

In ACTT-1, 1,062 patients were randomized to remdesivir (200 mg loading dose followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 days) or placebo. Patients were enrolled at study sites in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The data of ACTT-1 confirm a benefit from remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but Dr. Beigel said he agrees with the current FDA indication that supports treatment in any hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

“We saw bigger benefits in patients with more severe infections. The benefits are not as large in patients with mild disease, but I think remdesivir should be considered in any hospitalized patient,” Dr. Beigel said.

This point of view is shared.

“I would give this drug to anyone in the hospital infected with COVID-19 assuming there was an ample supply and no need for rationing,” said Donna E. Sweet, MD, professor of internal medicine, University of Kansas, Wichita. She noted that this study has implications for hospital and hospital staff, as well as for patients.

“This type of reduction in recovery time means a reduction in potential exposures to hospital staff, a reduced need for PPE [personal protective equipment], and it will free up beds in the ICU [intensive care unit],” said Dr. Sweet, who also serves as an editorial advisory board member for Internal Medicine News.

An infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota also considers remdesivir to have an important role for conserving resources that deserves emphasis.

The reduction in time to recovery “is of benefit to the health system by maintaining hospital bed capacity,” said David R. Boulware, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

According to his reading of the available data, including those from ACTT-1, the benefit appears to be greatest in those with a moderate degree of illness, which he defined as “sick enough to be hospitalized and require oxygen, yet not severely sick [and] requiring a ventilator or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].”

This does not preclude a benefit in those with more severe or milder disease, but patients with mild disease “are likely to recover regardless – or despite – whatever therapy they receive,” he said.

Dr. Beigel, the principal investigator of this trial, reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Beigel JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

A final report from the multinational placebo-controlled ACTT-1 trial confirms that remdesivir is effective and well tolerated for shortening the time to recovery from COVID-19 infection.

In May 2020, remdesivir received Food and Drug Administration approval for emergency treatment of severe COVID-19 on the basis of a preliminary report on this trial. In August 2020, the FDA expanded the indication to include all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection irrespective of severity.

“Our findings were consistent with the findings of the preliminary report: a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” reported a team of investigators led by John H. Beigel, MD, of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s broadened indication was not based on the ACTT-1 trial, according to Dr. Beigel. “Other data have demonstrated that remdesivir shortens recovery in patients with lower acuity. In our study, evidence of pneumonia was an enrollment requirement,” he explained in an interview.

In the newly published final ACTT-1 data, the median time to recovery was 10 days for those on active therapy versus 15 days for those randomized to placebo. With a rate ratio of 1.29 (P less than .001), this translated to a recovery that was about one third faster.

In this final report, remdesivir’s significant advantage over placebo regarding the trial’s primary endpoint was reinforced by efficacy on multiple secondary endpoints.

This benefits on multiple secondary endpoints included a 50% greater odds ratio (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9) of significant clinical improvement by day 15 after adjustment for baseline severity, a shorter initial length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days) and fewer days on oxygen supplementation (13 vs. 21 days) for the subgroup of patients on oxygen at enrollment.

Although the numerically lower mortality in the remdesivir arm (6.75 vs. 11.9%) did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Beigel said, “mortality was moving in the same direction as the other key endpoints.”

According to the study investigators, the types of rates of adverse events on remdesivir, which inhibits viral replication, “were generally similar in the remdesivir and placebo groups.”

In ACTT-1, 1,062 patients were randomized to remdesivir (200 mg loading dose followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 days) or placebo. Patients were enrolled at study sites in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The data of ACTT-1 confirm a benefit from remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but Dr. Beigel said he agrees with the current FDA indication that supports treatment in any hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

“We saw bigger benefits in patients with more severe infections. The benefits are not as large in patients with mild disease, but I think remdesivir should be considered in any hospitalized patient,” Dr. Beigel said.

This point of view is shared.

“I would give this drug to anyone in the hospital infected with COVID-19 assuming there was an ample supply and no need for rationing,” said Donna E. Sweet, MD, professor of internal medicine, University of Kansas, Wichita. She noted that this study has implications for hospital and hospital staff, as well as for patients.

“This type of reduction in recovery time means a reduction in potential exposures to hospital staff, a reduced need for PPE [personal protective equipment], and it will free up beds in the ICU [intensive care unit],” said Dr. Sweet, who also serves as an editorial advisory board member for Internal Medicine News.

An infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota also considers remdesivir to have an important role for conserving resources that deserves emphasis.

The reduction in time to recovery “is of benefit to the health system by maintaining hospital bed capacity,” said David R. Boulware, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

According to his reading of the available data, including those from ACTT-1, the benefit appears to be greatest in those with a moderate degree of illness, which he defined as “sick enough to be hospitalized and require oxygen, yet not severely sick [and] requiring a ventilator or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].”

This does not preclude a benefit in those with more severe or milder disease, but patients with mild disease “are likely to recover regardless – or despite – whatever therapy they receive,” he said.

Dr. Beigel, the principal investigator of this trial, reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Beigel JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

A final report from the multinational placebo-controlled ACTT-1 trial confirms that remdesivir is effective and well tolerated for shortening the time to recovery from COVID-19 infection.

In May 2020, remdesivir received Food and Drug Administration approval for emergency treatment of severe COVID-19 on the basis of a preliminary report on this trial. In August 2020, the FDA expanded the indication to include all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection irrespective of severity.

“Our findings were consistent with the findings of the preliminary report: a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” reported a team of investigators led by John H. Beigel, MD, of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s broadened indication was not based on the ACTT-1 trial, according to Dr. Beigel. “Other data have demonstrated that remdesivir shortens recovery in patients with lower acuity. In our study, evidence of pneumonia was an enrollment requirement,” he explained in an interview.

In the newly published final ACTT-1 data, the median time to recovery was 10 days for those on active therapy versus 15 days for those randomized to placebo. With a rate ratio of 1.29 (P less than .001), this translated to a recovery that was about one third faster.

In this final report, remdesivir’s significant advantage over placebo regarding the trial’s primary endpoint was reinforced by efficacy on multiple secondary endpoints.

This benefits on multiple secondary endpoints included a 50% greater odds ratio (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9) of significant clinical improvement by day 15 after adjustment for baseline severity, a shorter initial length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days) and fewer days on oxygen supplementation (13 vs. 21 days) for the subgroup of patients on oxygen at enrollment.

Although the numerically lower mortality in the remdesivir arm (6.75 vs. 11.9%) did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Beigel said, “mortality was moving in the same direction as the other key endpoints.”

According to the study investigators, the types of rates of adverse events on remdesivir, which inhibits viral replication, “were generally similar in the remdesivir and placebo groups.”

In ACTT-1, 1,062 patients were randomized to remdesivir (200 mg loading dose followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 days) or placebo. Patients were enrolled at study sites in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The data of ACTT-1 confirm a benefit from remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but Dr. Beigel said he agrees with the current FDA indication that supports treatment in any hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

“We saw bigger benefits in patients with more severe infections. The benefits are not as large in patients with mild disease, but I think remdesivir should be considered in any hospitalized patient,” Dr. Beigel said.

This point of view is shared.

“I would give this drug to anyone in the hospital infected with COVID-19 assuming there was an ample supply and no need for rationing,” said Donna E. Sweet, MD, professor of internal medicine, University of Kansas, Wichita. She noted that this study has implications for hospital and hospital staff, as well as for patients.

“This type of reduction in recovery time means a reduction in potential exposures to hospital staff, a reduced need for PPE [personal protective equipment], and it will free up beds in the ICU [intensive care unit],” said Dr. Sweet, who also serves as an editorial advisory board member for Internal Medicine News.

An infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota also considers remdesivir to have an important role for conserving resources that deserves emphasis.

The reduction in time to recovery “is of benefit to the health system by maintaining hospital bed capacity,” said David R. Boulware, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

According to his reading of the available data, including those from ACTT-1, the benefit appears to be greatest in those with a moderate degree of illness, which he defined as “sick enough to be hospitalized and require oxygen, yet not severely sick [and] requiring a ventilator or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].”

This does not preclude a benefit in those with more severe or milder disease, but patients with mild disease “are likely to recover regardless – or despite – whatever therapy they receive,” he said.

Dr. Beigel, the principal investigator of this trial, reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Beigel JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved tafasitamab-cxix (Monjuvi) in combination with lenalidomide for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma, who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

In an interview, Ann S. LaCasce, MD, a lymphoma specialist, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and director of the Dana-Farber/Massachusetts General Brigham fellowship in hematology/oncology, discussed the drug and its approval:

Question: How common is relapsed or refractory DLBCL? Have there been any changes in the rates of this disease in recent years?

Dr. LaCasce: Approximately 40% of patients with DLBCL will have relapsed or refractory disease. The rates of lymphoma have been rising over the past several decades for unclear reasons. As this is a disease predominantly of older adults, increasing life expectancy likely plays a role. Environmental factors may also be contributing.

Q: How long do patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who are not eligible for stem cell transplant usually survive?

Dr. LaCasce: This is highly variable, though it’s estimated to be approximately 1 year. Some patients will be cured with autologous transplantation or CAR-T cells. The pace of the disease can be highly variable, with some patients responding to multiple lines of therapy whereas others may have rapidly progressive refractory disease.

Q: What makes patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL ineligible for ASCT?

Dr. LaCasce: To be eligible, patients need to be younger than 70-75 years or so without significant comorbidities and must have chemotherapy-responsive disease. More than half of patients will not fit these criteria.

Q: Can you briefly describe the L-MIND study that led to the approval of tafasitamab-cxix?

Dr. LaCasce: This was a single-arm, phase 2 study of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL status after one to three prior regimens who were not candidates for ASCT. Patients received tafasitamab until progression and up to 1 year of lenalidomide. The median age was 72 years, and 50% of patients had received only one prior line of therapy.

The overall and complete response rates in 80 patients treated were 60% and 43%, respectively. The median progression-free survival was approximately 1 year. Nearly half of patients required dose reduction of lenalidomide, and about a quarter discontinued the drug. Twenty-five percent of patients discontinued therapy for adverse events.

Q: What’s the toxicity profile of tafasitamab-cxix?

Dr. LaCasce: The most common adverse events were infusion reactions and myelosuppression, which are managed with standard approaches to incident rate ratios with steroids, antihistamines, etc. Myelosuppression can occur, but in this combination is mostly driven by lenalidomide, which is dose reduced or discontinued.

Q: Where does tafasitamab-cxix fit in the treatment paradigm for relapsed or refractory DLBCL? How does it compare with other available options?

Dr. LaCasce: This is an option for patients who are not candidates for potentially curative approaches, including ASCT and CAR T-cell therapy. There are patients not eligible for ASCT who may be appropriate for CAR-T.

Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide requires frequent visits, particularly during the first 3 months, and then every other week until progression. The dose of lenalidomide will not be tolerable for many of these patients.

Other options in this population include polatuzumab plus bendamustine/rituximab or possibly selinexor. The former has similar activity and is time limited, though many patients will not tolerate the full dose of bendamustine. In the study leading to approval, selinexor had a much lower response rate of approximately 30%, and the patient population was much more favorable, given that eligibility required 60-98 days after last therapy before enrolling.

The only approval specific for nontransplant patients is tafasitamab/lenalidomide.

Q: From a cost standpoint, how does tafasitamab compare with other options in this patient population?

Dr. LaCasce: I don’t have exact figures, but all options are very expensive. CAR-T is the most expensive. Given the ongoing therapy of tafasitamab until progression, the cumulative cost could be very high. Polatuzumab plus bendamustine/rituximab and selinexor are also very costly.

Q: What other drugs are in development for relapsed or refractory DLBCL?

Dr. LaCasce: Novel CAR T-cell therapies, including lisocabtagene maraleucel that is at the FDA, are in development. Bispecific antibodies (REGN1979 and mosunetuzumab), combinations with CD47 antibodies, and loncastuximab tesirine are all in phase 2 trials.

Dr. LaCasce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved tafasitamab-cxix (Monjuvi) in combination with lenalidomide for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma, who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

In an interview, Ann S. LaCasce, MD, a lymphoma specialist, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and director of the Dana-Farber/Massachusetts General Brigham fellowship in hematology/oncology, discussed the drug and its approval:

Question: How common is relapsed or refractory DLBCL? Have there been any changes in the rates of this disease in recent years?

Dr. LaCasce: Approximately 40% of patients with DLBCL will have relapsed or refractory disease. The rates of lymphoma have been rising over the past several decades for unclear reasons. As this is a disease predominantly of older adults, increasing life expectancy likely plays a role. Environmental factors may also be contributing.

Q: How long do patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who are not eligible for stem cell transplant usually survive?

Dr. LaCasce: This is highly variable, though it’s estimated to be approximately 1 year. Some patients will be cured with autologous transplantation or CAR-T cells. The pace of the disease can be highly variable, with some patients responding to multiple lines of therapy whereas others may have rapidly progressive refractory disease.

Q: What makes patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL ineligible for ASCT?

Dr. LaCasce: To be eligible, patients need to be younger than 70-75 years or so without significant comorbidities and must have chemotherapy-responsive disease. More than half of patients will not fit these criteria.

Q: Can you briefly describe the L-MIND study that led to the approval of tafasitamab-cxix?

Dr. LaCasce: This was a single-arm, phase 2 study of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL status after one to three prior regimens who were not candidates for ASCT. Patients received tafasitamab until progression and up to 1 year of lenalidomide. The median age was 72 years, and 50% of patients had received only one prior line of therapy.

The overall and complete response rates in 80 patients treated were 60% and 43%, respectively. The median progression-free survival was approximately 1 year. Nearly half of patients required dose reduction of lenalidomide, and about a quarter discontinued the drug. Twenty-five percent of patients discontinued therapy for adverse events.

Q: What’s the toxicity profile of tafasitamab-cxix?

Dr. LaCasce: The most common adverse events were infusion reactions and myelosuppression, which are managed with standard approaches to incident rate ratios with steroids, antihistamines, etc. Myelosuppression can occur, but in this combination is mostly driven by lenalidomide, which is dose reduced or discontinued.

Q: Where does tafasitamab-cxix fit in the treatment paradigm for relapsed or refractory DLBCL? How does it compare with other available options?

Dr. LaCasce: This is an option for patients who are not candidates for potentially curative approaches, including ASCT and CAR T-cell therapy. There are patients not eligible for ASCT who may be appropriate for CAR-T.

Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide requires frequent visits, particularly during the first 3 months, and then every other week until progression. The dose of lenalidomide will not be tolerable for many of these patients.

Other options in this population include polatuzumab plus bendamustine/rituximab or possibly selinexor. The former has similar activity and is time limited, though many patients will not tolerate the full dose of bendamustine. In the study leading to approval, selinexor had a much lower response rate of approximately 30%, and the patient population was much more favorable, given that eligibility required 60-98 days after last therapy before enrolling.

The only approval specific for nontransplant patients is tafasitamab/lenalidomide.

Q: From a cost standpoint, how does tafasitamab compare with other options in this patient population?

Dr. LaCasce: I don’t have exact figures, but all options are very expensive. CAR-T is the most expensive. Given the ongoing therapy of tafasitamab until progression, the cumulative cost could be very high. Polatuzumab plus bendamustine/rituximab and selinexor are also very costly.

Q: What other drugs are in development for relapsed or refractory DLBCL?

Dr. LaCasce: Novel CAR T-cell therapies, including lisocabtagene maraleucel that is at the FDA, are in development. Bispecific antibodies (REGN1979 and mosunetuzumab), combinations with CD47 antibodies, and loncastuximab tesirine are all in phase 2 trials.

Dr. LaCasce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved tafasitamab-cxix (Monjuvi) in combination with lenalidomide for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma, who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

In an interview, Ann S. LaCasce, MD, a lymphoma specialist, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and director of the Dana-Farber/Massachusetts General Brigham fellowship in hematology/oncology, discussed the drug and its approval:

Question: How common is relapsed or refractory DLBCL? Have there been any changes in the rates of this disease in recent years?

Dr. LaCasce: Approximately 40% of patients with DLBCL will have relapsed or refractory disease. The rates of lymphoma have been rising over the past several decades for unclear reasons. As this is a disease predominantly of older adults, increasing life expectancy likely plays a role. Environmental factors may also be contributing.

Q: How long do patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who are not eligible for stem cell transplant usually survive?

Dr. LaCasce: This is highly variable, though it’s estimated to be approximately 1 year. Some patients will be cured with autologous transplantation or CAR-T cells. The pace of the disease can be highly variable, with some patients responding to multiple lines of therapy whereas others may have rapidly progressive refractory disease.

Q: What makes patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL ineligible for ASCT?

Dr. LaCasce: To be eligible, patients need to be younger than 70-75 years or so without significant comorbidities and must have chemotherapy-responsive disease. More than half of patients will not fit these criteria.

Q: Can you briefly describe the L-MIND study that led to the approval of tafasitamab-cxix?

Dr. LaCasce: This was a single-arm, phase 2 study of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL status after one to three prior regimens who were not candidates for ASCT. Patients received tafasitamab until progression and up to 1 year of lenalidomide. The median age was 72 years, and 50% of patients had received only one prior line of therapy.

The overall and complete response rates in 80 patients treated were 60% and 43%, respectively. The median progression-free survival was approximately 1 year. Nearly half of patients required dose reduction of lenalidomide, and about a quarter discontinued the drug. Twenty-five percent of patients discontinued therapy for adverse events.

Q: What’s the toxicity profile of tafasitamab-cxix?

Dr. LaCasce: The most common adverse events were infusion reactions and myelosuppression, which are managed with standard approaches to incident rate ratios with steroids, antihistamines, etc. Myelosuppression can occur, but in this combination is mostly driven by lenalidomide, which is dose reduced or discontinued.

Q: Where does tafasitamab-cxix fit in the treatment paradigm for relapsed or refractory DLBCL? How does it compare with other available options?

Dr. LaCasce: This is an option for patients who are not candidates for potentially curative approaches, including ASCT and CAR T-cell therapy. There are patients not eligible for ASCT who may be appropriate for CAR-T.

Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide requires frequent visits, particularly during the first 3 months, and then every other week until progression. The dose of lenalidomide will not be tolerable for many of these patients.

Other options in this population include polatuzumab plus bendamustine/rituximab or possibly selinexor. The former has similar activity and is time limited, though many patients will not tolerate the full dose of bendamustine. In the study leading to approval, selinexor had a much lower response rate of approximately 30%, and the patient population was much more favorable, given that eligibility required 60-98 days after last therapy before enrolling.

The only approval specific for nontransplant patients is tafasitamab/lenalidomide.

Q: From a cost standpoint, how does tafasitamab compare with other options in this patient population?

Dr. LaCasce: I don’t have exact figures, but all options are very expensive. CAR-T is the most expensive. Given the ongoing therapy of tafasitamab until progression, the cumulative cost could be very high. Polatuzumab plus bendamustine/rituximab and selinexor are also very costly.

Q: What other drugs are in development for relapsed or refractory DLBCL?

Dr. LaCasce: Novel CAR T-cell therapies, including lisocabtagene maraleucel that is at the FDA, are in development. Bispecific antibodies (REGN1979 and mosunetuzumab), combinations with CD47 antibodies, and loncastuximab tesirine are all in phase 2 trials.

Dr. LaCasce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Roughly half of American adults have hypertension, and about 71% of these cases are uncontrolled, according to data from the American Heart Association.

If left uncontrolled, hypertension can increase risk for conditions including heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, pregnancy complications, and cognitive decline, surgeon general Vice Adm. Jerome M. Adams, MD, said in a teleconference on Oct. 7. Hispanic and Black individuals are disproportionately affected, he added.

“We cannot wait to deal with this epidemic of uncontrolled high blood pressure,” even in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Adams. “We know what works” to help control hypertension, he added, citing his own use of a blood pressure monitoring device at home.

The Department of Health & Human Services has issued a Call to Action to Control Hypertension based on the latest science and research.

Dr. Adams outlined three goals to improve hypertension control, starting with making it a national priority. The Call to Action supports increasing awareness of the health risks associated with hypertension, recognizing the economic impact, overcoming barriers to controlling hypertension, and promoting health equity.

“In 2020, disparities in the burden of disease – especially among minority populations – have been recognized during the COVID-19 pandemic. A growing body of evidence has shown that people with underlying health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, are at increased risk of worse outcomes related to COVID-19 infection,” according to the Call to Action.

A second goal is to build and sustain communities that support individuals in taking responsibility for their health and blood pressure control, Dr. Adams said. He cited the need to create places for safe physical activity, access to healthy food, and opportunities to connect to resources to support lifestyle changes.

Finally, clinicians should continue to use standardized treatment approaches and promote team-based care to maximize outcomes for patients, Dr. Adams said.

Success starts with making hypertension control a priority across the leadership team, regardless of the size, location, or demographic population at a health care setting, he said. Dr. Adams cited the Million Hearts 2022 program, an ongoing initiative to prevent 1 million heart attacks in the United States over 5 years, as a way that HHS is recognizing and rewarding success stories in hypertension control from across the country.

Empowering patients and equipping them to take charge of their hypertension essential to reducing the epidemic of high blood pressure, especially during the ongoing pandemic, Dr. Adams said. His message to clinicians to extend to patients is that it is safe to visit their doctors. Hospitals have worked to create a safe environment, however, patients can and should monitor their blood pressure regularly at home, using a self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) device, which may be covered by some insurers.

“I would encourage people to know their numbers,” and that 130/80 mm Hg is considered high and a risk factor for poor health outcomes, Dr. Adams said. Clinicians also should continue to support patients in lifestyle changes such as healthy eating and exercising regularly to help control high blood pressure.

The AHA expressed support for the surgeon general’s Call to Action. “Today’s call to action references updated hypertension guidelines the AHA and the American College of Cardiology issued in 2017 that apply the latest science to help clinicians work with patients to control their blood pressure,” the AHA said in a statement. The AHA also called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other insurance providers “to include coverage of SMBP devices for treatment and management of hypertension.”

The Call to Action was accompanied by a Viewpoint from Dr. Adams and Janet S. Wright, MD, also of the HHS, published in JAMA. Dr. Adams and Dr. Wright emphasized that the timing of the Call to Action recognizes that many of the same social factors that support or impede successful high blood pressure control are factors in worse outcomes from COVID-19 infections as well.

“When coupled with widespread implementation of best practices in clinical settings and empowering individuals to actively manage their blood pressure, acknowledging and addressing a community’s social conditions may generate sustained improvements in control of both hypertension and COVID-19,” they said.

Read and download the full Call to Action here, and read the Executive Summary at hhs.gov.

Roughly half of American adults have hypertension, and about 71% of these cases are uncontrolled, according to data from the American Heart Association.

If left uncontrolled, hypertension can increase risk for conditions including heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, pregnancy complications, and cognitive decline, surgeon general Vice Adm. Jerome M. Adams, MD, said in a teleconference on Oct. 7. Hispanic and Black individuals are disproportionately affected, he added.

“We cannot wait to deal with this epidemic of uncontrolled high blood pressure,” even in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Adams. “We know what works” to help control hypertension, he added, citing his own use of a blood pressure monitoring device at home.

The Department of Health & Human Services has issued a Call to Action to Control Hypertension based on the latest science and research.

Dr. Adams outlined three goals to improve hypertension control, starting with making it a national priority. The Call to Action supports increasing awareness of the health risks associated with hypertension, recognizing the economic impact, overcoming barriers to controlling hypertension, and promoting health equity.

“In 2020, disparities in the burden of disease – especially among minority populations – have been recognized during the COVID-19 pandemic. A growing body of evidence has shown that people with underlying health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, are at increased risk of worse outcomes related to COVID-19 infection,” according to the Call to Action.

A second goal is to build and sustain communities that support individuals in taking responsibility for their health and blood pressure control, Dr. Adams said. He cited the need to create places for safe physical activity, access to healthy food, and opportunities to connect to resources to support lifestyle changes.

Finally, clinicians should continue to use standardized treatment approaches and promote team-based care to maximize outcomes for patients, Dr. Adams said.

Success starts with making hypertension control a priority across the leadership team, regardless of the size, location, or demographic population at a health care setting, he said. Dr. Adams cited the Million Hearts 2022 program, an ongoing initiative to prevent 1 million heart attacks in the United States over 5 years, as a way that HHS is recognizing and rewarding success stories in hypertension control from across the country.

Empowering patients and equipping them to take charge of their hypertension essential to reducing the epidemic of high blood pressure, especially during the ongoing pandemic, Dr. Adams said. His message to clinicians to extend to patients is that it is safe to visit their doctors. Hospitals have worked to create a safe environment, however, patients can and should monitor their blood pressure regularly at home, using a self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) device, which may be covered by some insurers.

“I would encourage people to know their numbers,” and that 130/80 mm Hg is considered high and a risk factor for poor health outcomes, Dr. Adams said. Clinicians also should continue to support patients in lifestyle changes such as healthy eating and exercising regularly to help control high blood pressure.

The AHA expressed support for the surgeon general’s Call to Action. “Today’s call to action references updated hypertension guidelines the AHA and the American College of Cardiology issued in 2017 that apply the latest science to help clinicians work with patients to control their blood pressure,” the AHA said in a statement. The AHA also called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other insurance providers “to include coverage of SMBP devices for treatment and management of hypertension.”

The Call to Action was accompanied by a Viewpoint from Dr. Adams and Janet S. Wright, MD, also of the HHS, published in JAMA. Dr. Adams and Dr. Wright emphasized that the timing of the Call to Action recognizes that many of the same social factors that support or impede successful high blood pressure control are factors in worse outcomes from COVID-19 infections as well.

“When coupled with widespread implementation of best practices in clinical settings and empowering individuals to actively manage their blood pressure, acknowledging and addressing a community’s social conditions may generate sustained improvements in control of both hypertension and COVID-19,” they said.

Read and download the full Call to Action here, and read the Executive Summary at hhs.gov.

Roughly half of American adults have hypertension, and about 71% of these cases are uncontrolled, according to data from the American Heart Association.

If left uncontrolled, hypertension can increase risk for conditions including heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, pregnancy complications, and cognitive decline, surgeon general Vice Adm. Jerome M. Adams, MD, said in a teleconference on Oct. 7. Hispanic and Black individuals are disproportionately affected, he added.

“We cannot wait to deal with this epidemic of uncontrolled high blood pressure,” even in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Adams. “We know what works” to help control hypertension, he added, citing his own use of a blood pressure monitoring device at home.

The Department of Health & Human Services has issued a Call to Action to Control Hypertension based on the latest science and research.

Dr. Adams outlined three goals to improve hypertension control, starting with making it a national priority. The Call to Action supports increasing awareness of the health risks associated with hypertension, recognizing the economic impact, overcoming barriers to controlling hypertension, and promoting health equity.

“In 2020, disparities in the burden of disease – especially among minority populations – have been recognized during the COVID-19 pandemic. A growing body of evidence has shown that people with underlying health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, are at increased risk of worse outcomes related to COVID-19 infection,” according to the Call to Action.

A second goal is to build and sustain communities that support individuals in taking responsibility for their health and blood pressure control, Dr. Adams said. He cited the need to create places for safe physical activity, access to healthy food, and opportunities to connect to resources to support lifestyle changes.

Finally, clinicians should continue to use standardized treatment approaches and promote team-based care to maximize outcomes for patients, Dr. Adams said.

Success starts with making hypertension control a priority across the leadership team, regardless of the size, location, or demographic population at a health care setting, he said. Dr. Adams cited the Million Hearts 2022 program, an ongoing initiative to prevent 1 million heart attacks in the United States over 5 years, as a way that HHS is recognizing and rewarding success stories in hypertension control from across the country.

Empowering patients and equipping them to take charge of their hypertension essential to reducing the epidemic of high blood pressure, especially during the ongoing pandemic, Dr. Adams said. His message to clinicians to extend to patients is that it is safe to visit their doctors. Hospitals have worked to create a safe environment, however, patients can and should monitor their blood pressure regularly at home, using a self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) device, which may be covered by some insurers.

“I would encourage people to know their numbers,” and that 130/80 mm Hg is considered high and a risk factor for poor health outcomes, Dr. Adams said. Clinicians also should continue to support patients in lifestyle changes such as healthy eating and exercising regularly to help control high blood pressure.

The AHA expressed support for the surgeon general’s Call to Action. “Today’s call to action references updated hypertension guidelines the AHA and the American College of Cardiology issued in 2017 that apply the latest science to help clinicians work with patients to control their blood pressure,” the AHA said in a statement. The AHA also called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other insurance providers “to include coverage of SMBP devices for treatment and management of hypertension.”

The Call to Action was accompanied by a Viewpoint from Dr. Adams and Janet S. Wright, MD, also of the HHS, published in JAMA. Dr. Adams and Dr. Wright emphasized that the timing of the Call to Action recognizes that many of the same social factors that support or impede successful high blood pressure control are factors in worse outcomes from COVID-19 infections as well.

“When coupled with widespread implementation of best practices in clinical settings and empowering individuals to actively manage their blood pressure, acknowledging and addressing a community’s social conditions may generate sustained improvements in control of both hypertension and COVID-19,” they said.

Read and download the full Call to Action here, and read the Executive Summary at hhs.gov.

After increasing for several weeks, the proportion of new COVID-19 cases occurring in children has dropped for the second week in a row, according to data in a new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

COVID-19 cases in children accounted for 12.3% of all new cases in the United States for the week ending Oct. 1, down from 15.2% the previous week. That measure had reached its highest point, 16.9%, just one week earlier (Sept. 17), the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The total number of COVID-19 cases in children now stands as 657,572, or 10.6% of the more than 6.2 million cases reported among Americans of all ages, based on data from the health departments of 49 states (New York does not provide ages on its website), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The child COVID-19 rate for the United States was 874 per 100,000 children as of Oct. 1, and that figure has doubled since the end of July. At the state level, the highest rates can be found in Tennessee (2,031.4 per 100,000), North Dakota (2,029.6), and South Carolina (2,002.6), with the lowest rates in Vermont (168.9), Maine (229.1), and New Hampshire (268.3), the AAP/CHA report shows.

The children of Wyoming make up the largest share, 22.4%, of any state’s COVID-19 cases, followed by North Dakota and Tennessee, both at 18.3%. New Jersey is lower than any other state at 3.9%, although New York City is a slightly lower 3.6%, the AAP and CHA said.

“The data are limited because the states differ in how they report the data, and it is unknown how many children have been infected but not tested. It is unclear how much of the increase in child cases is due to increased testing capacity,” the AAP said in an earlier statement.

rfranki@mdedge.com

After increasing for several weeks, the proportion of new COVID-19 cases occurring in children has dropped for the second week in a row, according to data in a new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

COVID-19 cases in children accounted for 12.3% of all new cases in the United States for the week ending Oct. 1, down from 15.2% the previous week. That measure had reached its highest point, 16.9%, just one week earlier (Sept. 17), the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The total number of COVID-19 cases in children now stands as 657,572, or 10.6% of the more than 6.2 million cases reported among Americans of all ages, based on data from the health departments of 49 states (New York does not provide ages on its website), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The child COVID-19 rate for the United States was 874 per 100,000 children as of Oct. 1, and that figure has doubled since the end of July. At the state level, the highest rates can be found in Tennessee (2,031.4 per 100,000), North Dakota (2,029.6), and South Carolina (2,002.6), with the lowest rates in Vermont (168.9), Maine (229.1), and New Hampshire (268.3), the AAP/CHA report shows.

The children of Wyoming make up the largest share, 22.4%, of any state’s COVID-19 cases, followed by North Dakota and Tennessee, both at 18.3%. New Jersey is lower than any other state at 3.9%, although New York City is a slightly lower 3.6%, the AAP and CHA said.

“The data are limited because the states differ in how they report the data, and it is unknown how many children have been infected but not tested. It is unclear how much of the increase in child cases is due to increased testing capacity,” the AAP said in an earlier statement.

rfranki@mdedge.com

After increasing for several weeks, the proportion of new COVID-19 cases occurring in children has dropped for the second week in a row, according to data in a new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

COVID-19 cases in children accounted for 12.3% of all new cases in the United States for the week ending Oct. 1, down from 15.2% the previous week. That measure had reached its highest point, 16.9%, just one week earlier (Sept. 17), the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The total number of COVID-19 cases in children now stands as 657,572, or 10.6% of the more than 6.2 million cases reported among Americans of all ages, based on data from the health departments of 49 states (New York does not provide ages on its website), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The child COVID-19 rate for the United States was 874 per 100,000 children as of Oct. 1, and that figure has doubled since the end of July. At the state level, the highest rates can be found in Tennessee (2,031.4 per 100,000), North Dakota (2,029.6), and South Carolina (2,002.6), with the lowest rates in Vermont (168.9), Maine (229.1), and New Hampshire (268.3), the AAP/CHA report shows.

The children of Wyoming make up the largest share, 22.4%, of any state’s COVID-19 cases, followed by North Dakota and Tennessee, both at 18.3%. New Jersey is lower than any other state at 3.9%, although New York City is a slightly lower 3.6%, the AAP and CHA said.

“The data are limited because the states differ in how they report the data, and it is unknown how many children have been infected but not tested. It is unclear how much of the increase in child cases is due to increased testing capacity,” the AAP said in an earlier statement.

rfranki@mdedge.com

As the COVID-19 pandemic drove down the number of primary care visits and altered the method – moving many to telehealth appointments instead of in-person visits – the content of those appointments also changed, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. Specifically, researchers found that preventive and chronic care for cardiovascular risk management dropped off during the first half of 2020 vs previous years.

For the study, G. Caleb Alexander, MD, from the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues analyzed data from the IQVIA National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative audit of outpatient care in the United States, from the first quarter of 2018 through the second quarter of 2020.

Most primary care visits in 2018 and 2019 were office based, the authors noted. In the second quarter (Q2, April-May) of 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the country, the total number of primary care encounters decreased by 21.4%, and the number of office visits dropped by 50.2%, compared with the average of visits during Q2 in 2018 and 2019.

At the same time, telemedicine visits increased from just 1.1% of total visits in Q2 of 2018 and 2019 to 4.1% of visits in the first quarter (January through March) of 2020 and to 35.3% of visits in Q2 of 2020.

The authors also found that the use of telemedicine in the first half of 2020 varied by geographical region and was not associated with the regional COVID-19 burden. In the Pacific region (Washington, Oregon, and California), 26.8% of encounters were virtual. By contrast, the proportion of telemedicine encounters accounted for only 15.1% of visits in the East North Central states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio).

Adults between the ages of 19 and 55 years were more likely to attend telemedicine visits than were those younger or older. Additionally, adults who were commercially insured were more likely to adopt telemedicine versus those with public or no insurance. The study did not find substantial differences in telemedicine use by payer type, nor evidence of a racial disparity between Black and White people in their use of telemedicine.
 

Drop-off in preventive and chronic care

During the second quarter of this year, the authors reported, the number of visits that included blood pressure assessments dropped by 50.1% and the number of visits in which cholesterol levels were assessed fell by 36.9%, compared with the Q2 of 2018 and 2019.

Visits in which providers prescribed new antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering medications decreased by 26% in Q2 of 2020 versus the same periods in the previous 2 years. The number of visits in which such prescriptions were renewed dropped by 8.9%.

New treatments also decreased significantly in Q2 of 2020 for patients with chronic conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, asthma, depression, and insomnia.

When the authors compared the content of telemedicine versus in-person visits in Q2 of 2020, they found a substantial difference. Blood pressure was assessed in 69.7% of office visits, compared with 9.6% of telemedicine. Similarly, cholesterol levels were evaluated in 21.6% of office visits versus 13.5% of telemedicine encounters. New medications were ordered in similar proportions of office-based and telemedicine visits.

The authors concluded that “the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with changes in the structure of primary care delivery, with the content of telemedicine visits differing from that of office-based encounters.”

While limited in scope, the authors noted, their study is one of the first to evaluate the changes in the content of primary care visits during the pandemic. They attributed the decline in evaluations of cardiovascular risk factors such as blood pressure and cholesterol to “fewer total visits and less frequent assessments during telemedicine encounters.”

While pointing to the inherent limitations of telemedicine, the study did not mention the availability of digital home blood pressure cuffs or home cholesterol test kits. Both kinds of devices are available at consumer-friendly price points and can help people track their indicators, but they’re not considered a substitute for sphygmomanometers used in offices or conventional lab tests. It’s not known how many consumers with cardiovascular risk factors have this kind of home monitoring equipment or how many doctors look at this kind of data.

Dr. Alexander reported serving as a paid adviser to IQVIA; that he is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation; and that he is a member of OptumRx’s National P&T Committee. One coauthor reported serving as an unpaid adviser to IQVIA and receiving personal fees from the states of California, Washington, and Alaska outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic drove down the number of primary care visits and altered the method – moving many to telehealth appointments instead of in-person visits – the content of those appointments also changed, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. Specifically, researchers found that preventive and chronic care for cardiovascular risk management dropped off during the first half of 2020 vs previous years.

For the study, G. Caleb Alexander, MD, from the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues analyzed data from the IQVIA National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative audit of outpatient care in the United States, from the first quarter of 2018 through the second quarter of 2020.

Most primary care visits in 2018 and 2019 were office based, the authors noted. In the second quarter (Q2, April-May) of 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the country, the total number of primary care encounters decreased by 21.4%, and the number of office visits dropped by 50.2%, compared with the average of visits during Q2 in 2018 and 2019.

At the same time, telemedicine visits increased from just 1.1% of total visits in Q2 of 2018 and 2019 to 4.1% of visits in the first quarter (January through March) of 2020 and to 35.3% of visits in Q2 of 2020.

The authors also found that the use of telemedicine in the first half of 2020 varied by geographical region and was not associated with the regional COVID-19 burden. In the Pacific region (Washington, Oregon, and California), 26.8% of encounters were virtual. By contrast, the proportion of telemedicine encounters accounted for only 15.1% of visits in the East North Central states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio).

Adults between the ages of 19 and 55 years were more likely to attend telemedicine visits than were those younger or older. Additionally, adults who were commercially insured were more likely to adopt telemedicine versus those with public or no insurance. The study did not find substantial differences in telemedicine use by payer type, nor evidence of a racial disparity between Black and White people in their use of telemedicine.
 

Drop-off in preventive and chronic care

During the second quarter of this year, the authors reported, the number of visits that included blood pressure assessments dropped by 50.1% and the number of visits in which cholesterol levels were assessed fell by 36.9%, compared with the Q2 of 2018 and 2019.

Visits in which providers prescribed new antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering medications decreased by 26% in Q2 of 2020 versus the same periods in the previous 2 years. The number of visits in which such prescriptions were renewed dropped by 8.9%.

New treatments also decreased significantly in Q2 of 2020 for patients with chronic conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, asthma, depression, and insomnia.

When the authors compared the content of telemedicine versus in-person visits in Q2 of 2020, they found a substantial difference. Blood pressure was assessed in 69.7% of office visits, compared with 9.6% of telemedicine. Similarly, cholesterol levels were evaluated in 21.6% of office visits versus 13.5% of telemedicine encounters. New medications were ordered in similar proportions of office-based and telemedicine visits.

The authors concluded that “the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with changes in the structure of primary care delivery, with the content of telemedicine visits differing from that of office-based encounters.”

While limited in scope, the authors noted, their study is one of the first to evaluate the changes in the content of primary care visits during the pandemic. They attributed the decline in evaluations of cardiovascular risk factors such as blood pressure and cholesterol to “fewer total visits and less frequent assessments during telemedicine encounters.”

While pointing to the inherent limitations of telemedicine, the study did not mention the availability of digital home blood pressure cuffs or home cholesterol test kits. Both kinds of devices are available at consumer-friendly price points and can help people track their indicators, but they’re not considered a substitute for sphygmomanometers used in offices or conventional lab tests. It’s not known how many consumers with cardiovascular risk factors have this kind of home monitoring equipment or how many doctors look at this kind of data.

Dr. Alexander reported serving as a paid adviser to IQVIA; that he is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation; and that he is a member of OptumRx’s National P&T Committee. One coauthor reported serving as an unpaid adviser to IQVIA and receiving personal fees from the states of California, Washington, and Alaska outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic drove down the number of primary care visits and altered the method – moving many to telehealth appointments instead of in-person visits – the content of those appointments also changed, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. Specifically, researchers found that preventive and chronic care for cardiovascular risk management dropped off during the first half of 2020 vs previous years.

For the study, G. Caleb Alexander, MD, from the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues analyzed data from the IQVIA National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative audit of outpatient care in the United States, from the first quarter of 2018 through the second quarter of 2020.

Most primary care visits in 2018 and 2019 were office based, the authors noted. In the second quarter (Q2, April-May) of 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the country, the total number of primary care encounters decreased by 21.4%, and the number of office visits dropped by 50.2%, compared with the average of visits during Q2 in 2018 and 2019.

At the same time, telemedicine visits increased from just 1.1% of total visits in Q2 of 2018 and 2019 to 4.1% of visits in the first quarter (January through March) of 2020 and to 35.3% of visits in Q2 of 2020.

The authors also found that the use of telemedicine in the first half of 2020 varied by geographical region and was not associated with the regional COVID-19 burden. In the Pacific region (Washington, Oregon, and California), 26.8% of encounters were virtual. By contrast, the proportion of telemedicine encounters accounted for only 15.1% of visits in the East North Central states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio).

Adults between the ages of 19 and 55 years were more likely to attend telemedicine visits than were those younger or older. Additionally, adults who were commercially insured were more likely to adopt telemedicine versus those with public or no insurance. The study did not find substantial differences in telemedicine use by payer type, nor evidence of a racial disparity between Black and White people in their use of telemedicine.
 

Drop-off in preventive and chronic care

During the second quarter of this year, the authors reported, the number of visits that included blood pressure assessments dropped by 50.1% and the number of visits in which cholesterol levels were assessed fell by 36.9%, compared with the Q2 of 2018 and 2019.

Visits in which providers prescribed new antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering medications decreased by 26% in Q2 of 2020 versus the same periods in the previous 2 years. The number of visits in which such prescriptions were renewed dropped by 8.9%.

New treatments also decreased significantly in Q2 of 2020 for patients with chronic conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, asthma, depression, and insomnia.

When the authors compared the content of telemedicine versus in-person visits in Q2 of 2020, they found a substantial difference. Blood pressure was assessed in 69.7% of office visits, compared with 9.6% of telemedicine. Similarly, cholesterol levels were evaluated in 21.6% of office visits versus 13.5% of telemedicine encounters. New medications were ordered in similar proportions of office-based and telemedicine visits.

The authors concluded that “the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with changes in the structure of primary care delivery, with the content of telemedicine visits differing from that of office-based encounters.”

While limited in scope, the authors noted, their study is one of the first to evaluate the changes in the content of primary care visits during the pandemic. They attributed the decline in evaluations of cardiovascular risk factors such as blood pressure and cholesterol to “fewer total visits and less frequent assessments during telemedicine encounters.”

While pointing to the inherent limitations of telemedicine, the study did not mention the availability of digital home blood pressure cuffs or home cholesterol test kits. Both kinds of devices are available at consumer-friendly price points and can help people track their indicators, but they’re not considered a substitute for sphygmomanometers used in offices or conventional lab tests. It’s not known how many consumers with cardiovascular risk factors have this kind of home monitoring equipment or how many doctors look at this kind of data.

Dr. Alexander reported serving as a paid adviser to IQVIA; that he is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation; and that he is a member of OptumRx’s National P&T Committee. One coauthor reported serving as an unpaid adviser to IQVIA and receiving personal fees from the states of California, Washington, and Alaska outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has updated its page on Essure information for patients and health care providers to add additional information on adverse events reported by its manufacturer.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Essure was a permanent implantable birth control device approved by the FDA in 2002. FDA ordered Bayer in 2016 to conduct a postmarket surveillance study of Essure following reports of safety concerns, and expanded the study from 3 years to 5 years in 2018. Bayer voluntarily removed Essure from the market at the end of 2018, citing low sales after a “black box” warning was placed on the device. All devices were returned to the company by the end of 2019.

Bayer is required to report variances in Medical Device Reporting (MDR) requirements of Essure related to litigation to the FDA, which includes adverse events such death, serious injury, and “malfunction that would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur.” The reports are limited to events Bayer becomes aware of between November 2016 and November 2020. Bayer will continue to provide these reports until April 2021.

The FDA emphasized that the collected data are based on social media reports and already may be reported to the FDA, rather than being a collection of new events. “The limited information provided in the reports prevents the ability to draw any conclusions as to whether the device, or its removal, caused or contributed to any of the events in the reports,” Benjamin Fisher, PhD, director of the Reproductive, Gastro-Renal, Urological, General Hospital Device and Human Factors Office in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in an FDA In Brief statement on Aug. 11.

The FDA first uploaded an Essure MDR variance spreadsheet in August 2020, listing 1,453 events, consisting of 53 reports of deaths, 1,376 reports of serious injury, and 24 reports of device malfunction that occurred as of June 2020. In September 2020, FDA uploaded a second variance spreadsheet, which added another 1,934 events that occurred as of July.
 

Interim analysis of postmarketing surveillance study

An interim analysis of 1,128 patients from 67 centers in the Essure postmarket surveillance study, which compared women who received Essure with those who received laparoscopic tubal sterilization, revealed that 94.6% (265 of 280 patients) in the Essure group had a successful implantation of the device, compared with 99.6% of women who achieved bilateral tubal occlusion from laparoscopic tubal sterilization.

Regarding safety, 9.1% of women in the Essure group and 4.5% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group reported chronic lower abdominal and/or pelvic pain, and 16.3% in the Essure group and 10.2% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group reported new or worsening abnormal uterine bleeding. In the Essure group, 22.3% of women said they experienced hypersensitivity, an allergic reaction, and new “autoimmune-like reactions” compared with 12.5% of women in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group.

The interim analysis also showed 19.7% of women in the Essure group and 3.0% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group underwent gynecologic surgical procedures, which were “driven primarily by Essure removal and endometrial ablation procedures in Essure patients.” Device removal occurred in 6.8% of women with the Essure device.
 

Consistent data on Essure

An FDA search of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database in January of 2020 revealed 47,856 medical device reports of Essure between November 2002 and December 2019. The most common adverse events observed during this period were:

• Pain or abdominal pain (32,901 cases).
• Heavy or irregular menses (14,573 cases). Headache (8,570 cases).
• Device fragment or foreign body in a patient (8,501 cases).
• Perforation (7,825 cases).
• Fatigue (7,083 cases).
• Gain or loss in weight (5,980 cases).
• Anxiety and/or depression (5,366 cases).
• Rash and/or hypersensitivity (5,077 cases)
• Hair loss (4,999 cases).

Problems with the device itself included reports of:

• Device incompatibility such as an allergy (7,515 cases).
• The device migrating (4,535 cases).
• The device breaking or fracturing (2,297 cases).
• The device dislodging or dislocating (1,797 cases).
• Improper operation including implant failure and pregnancy (1,058 cases).

In 2019, Essure received 15,083 medical device reports, an increase from 6,000 reports in 2018 and 11,854 reports in 2017.

To date, nearly 39,000 women in the United States have made claims to injuries related to the Essure device. In August, Bayer announced it would pay approximately $1.6 billion U.S. dollars to settle 90% of these cases in exchange for claimants to “dismiss their cases or not file.” Bayer also said in a press release that the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the company.

In an interview, Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said the latest adverse event reports show “consistent info from [the] MAUDE database when comparing 2019 to previous years, highlighting most common problems related to pain and heavy or irregular bleeding.”

She emphasized ob.gyns with patients who have an Essure device should “consider Essure-related etiology that may necessitate device removal when evaluating patients with gynecological problems, especially with regard to abdominal/pelvic pain and heavy/irregular bleeding.”

Dr. Cansino reported no relevant financial disclosures. She is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board.

The Food and Drug Administration has updated its page on Essure information for patients and health care providers to add additional information on adverse events reported by its manufacturer.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Essure was a permanent implantable birth control device approved by the FDA in 2002. FDA ordered Bayer in 2016 to conduct a postmarket surveillance study of Essure following reports of safety concerns, and expanded the study from 3 years to 5 years in 2018. Bayer voluntarily removed Essure from the market at the end of 2018, citing low sales after a “black box” warning was placed on the device. All devices were returned to the company by the end of 2019.

Bayer is required to report variances in Medical Device Reporting (MDR) requirements of Essure related to litigation to the FDA, which includes adverse events such death, serious injury, and “malfunction that would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur.” The reports are limited to events Bayer becomes aware of between November 2016 and November 2020. Bayer will continue to provide these reports until April 2021.

The FDA emphasized that the collected data are based on social media reports and already may be reported to the FDA, rather than being a collection of new events. “The limited information provided in the reports prevents the ability to draw any conclusions as to whether the device, or its removal, caused or contributed to any of the events in the reports,” Benjamin Fisher, PhD, director of the Reproductive, Gastro-Renal, Urological, General Hospital Device and Human Factors Office in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in an FDA In Brief statement on Aug. 11.

The FDA first uploaded an Essure MDR variance spreadsheet in August 2020, listing 1,453 events, consisting of 53 reports of deaths, 1,376 reports of serious injury, and 24 reports of device malfunction that occurred as of June 2020. In September 2020, FDA uploaded a second variance spreadsheet, which added another 1,934 events that occurred as of July.
 

Interim analysis of postmarketing surveillance study

An interim analysis of 1,128 patients from 67 centers in the Essure postmarket surveillance study, which compared women who received Essure with those who received laparoscopic tubal sterilization, revealed that 94.6% (265 of 280 patients) in the Essure group had a successful implantation of the device, compared with 99.6% of women who achieved bilateral tubal occlusion from laparoscopic tubal sterilization.

Regarding safety, 9.1% of women in the Essure group and 4.5% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group reported chronic lower abdominal and/or pelvic pain, and 16.3% in the Essure group and 10.2% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group reported new or worsening abnormal uterine bleeding. In the Essure group, 22.3% of women said they experienced hypersensitivity, an allergic reaction, and new “autoimmune-like reactions” compared with 12.5% of women in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group.

The interim analysis also showed 19.7% of women in the Essure group and 3.0% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group underwent gynecologic surgical procedures, which were “driven primarily by Essure removal and endometrial ablation procedures in Essure patients.” Device removal occurred in 6.8% of women with the Essure device.
 

Consistent data on Essure

An FDA search of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database in January of 2020 revealed 47,856 medical device reports of Essure between November 2002 and December 2019. The most common adverse events observed during this period were:

• Pain or abdominal pain (32,901 cases).
• Heavy or irregular menses (14,573 cases). Headache (8,570 cases).
• Device fragment or foreign body in a patient (8,501 cases).
• Perforation (7,825 cases).
• Fatigue (7,083 cases).
• Gain or loss in weight (5,980 cases).
• Anxiety and/or depression (5,366 cases).
• Rash and/or hypersensitivity (5,077 cases)
• Hair loss (4,999 cases).

Problems with the device itself included reports of:

• Device incompatibility such as an allergy (7,515 cases).
• The device migrating (4,535 cases).
• The device breaking or fracturing (2,297 cases).
• The device dislodging or dislocating (1,797 cases).
• Improper operation including implant failure and pregnancy (1,058 cases).

In 2019, Essure received 15,083 medical device reports, an increase from 6,000 reports in 2018 and 11,854 reports in 2017.

To date, nearly 39,000 women in the United States have made claims to injuries related to the Essure device. In August, Bayer announced it would pay approximately $1.6 billion U.S. dollars to settle 90% of these cases in exchange for claimants to “dismiss their cases or not file.” Bayer also said in a press release that the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the company.

In an interview, Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said the latest adverse event reports show “consistent info from [the] MAUDE database when comparing 2019 to previous years, highlighting most common problems related to pain and heavy or irregular bleeding.”

She emphasized ob.gyns with patients who have an Essure device should “consider Essure-related etiology that may necessitate device removal when evaluating patients with gynecological problems, especially with regard to abdominal/pelvic pain and heavy/irregular bleeding.”

Dr. Cansino reported no relevant financial disclosures. She is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board.

The Food and Drug Administration has updated its page on Essure information for patients and health care providers to add additional information on adverse events reported by its manufacturer.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Essure was a permanent implantable birth control device approved by the FDA in 2002. FDA ordered Bayer in 2016 to conduct a postmarket surveillance study of Essure following reports of safety concerns, and expanded the study from 3 years to 5 years in 2018. Bayer voluntarily removed Essure from the market at the end of 2018, citing low sales after a “black box” warning was placed on the device. All devices were returned to the company by the end of 2019.

Bayer is required to report variances in Medical Device Reporting (MDR) requirements of Essure related to litigation to the FDA, which includes adverse events such death, serious injury, and “malfunction that would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur.” The reports are limited to events Bayer becomes aware of between November 2016 and November 2020. Bayer will continue to provide these reports until April 2021.

The FDA emphasized that the collected data are based on social media reports and already may be reported to the FDA, rather than being a collection of new events. “The limited information provided in the reports prevents the ability to draw any conclusions as to whether the device, or its removal, caused or contributed to any of the events in the reports,” Benjamin Fisher, PhD, director of the Reproductive, Gastro-Renal, Urological, General Hospital Device and Human Factors Office in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in an FDA In Brief statement on Aug. 11.

The FDA first uploaded an Essure MDR variance spreadsheet in August 2020, listing 1,453 events, consisting of 53 reports of deaths, 1,376 reports of serious injury, and 24 reports of device malfunction that occurred as of June 2020. In September 2020, FDA uploaded a second variance spreadsheet, which added another 1,934 events that occurred as of July.
 

Interim analysis of postmarketing surveillance study

An interim analysis of 1,128 patients from 67 centers in the Essure postmarket surveillance study, which compared women who received Essure with those who received laparoscopic tubal sterilization, revealed that 94.6% (265 of 280 patients) in the Essure group had a successful implantation of the device, compared with 99.6% of women who achieved bilateral tubal occlusion from laparoscopic tubal sterilization.

Regarding safety, 9.1% of women in the Essure group and 4.5% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group reported chronic lower abdominal and/or pelvic pain, and 16.3% in the Essure group and 10.2% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group reported new or worsening abnormal uterine bleeding. In the Essure group, 22.3% of women said they experienced hypersensitivity, an allergic reaction, and new “autoimmune-like reactions” compared with 12.5% of women in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group.

The interim analysis also showed 19.7% of women in the Essure group and 3.0% in the laparoscopic tubal sterilization group underwent gynecologic surgical procedures, which were “driven primarily by Essure removal and endometrial ablation procedures in Essure patients.” Device removal occurred in 6.8% of women with the Essure device.
 

Consistent data on Essure

An FDA search of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database in January of 2020 revealed 47,856 medical device reports of Essure between November 2002 and December 2019. The most common adverse events observed during this period were:

• Pain or abdominal pain (32,901 cases).
• Heavy or irregular menses (14,573 cases). Headache (8,570 cases).
• Device fragment or foreign body in a patient (8,501 cases).
• Perforation (7,825 cases).
• Fatigue (7,083 cases).
• Gain or loss in weight (5,980 cases).
• Anxiety and/or depression (5,366 cases).
• Rash and/or hypersensitivity (5,077 cases)
• Hair loss (4,999 cases).

Problems with the device itself included reports of:

• Device incompatibility such as an allergy (7,515 cases).
• The device migrating (4,535 cases).
• The device breaking or fracturing (2,297 cases).
• The device dislodging or dislocating (1,797 cases).
• Improper operation including implant failure and pregnancy (1,058 cases).

In 2019, Essure received 15,083 medical device reports, an increase from 6,000 reports in 2018 and 11,854 reports in 2017.

To date, nearly 39,000 women in the United States have made claims to injuries related to the Essure device. In August, Bayer announced it would pay approximately $1.6 billion U.S. dollars to settle 90% of these cases in exchange for claimants to “dismiss their cases or not file.” Bayer also said in a press release that the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the company.

In an interview, Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said the latest adverse event reports show “consistent info from [the] MAUDE database when comparing 2019 to previous years, highlighting most common problems related to pain and heavy or irregular bleeding.”

She emphasized ob.gyns with patients who have an Essure device should “consider Essure-related etiology that may necessitate device removal when evaluating patients with gynecological problems, especially with regard to abdominal/pelvic pain and heavy/irregular bleeding.”

Dr. Cansino reported no relevant financial disclosures. She is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News Editorial Advisory Board.

A recent review looked at all articles describing skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 – 46 articles with a total of 130 clinical images – and found none that documented dermatologic conditions in people with dark skin. This was despite the disproportionate incidence of the disease in Black, Latino, and Native American/American Indian populations of color.

What’s going on? Temitayo Ogunleye, MD, an assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, spoke with lead investigator Jenna Lester, MD, a dermatologist and director of the Skin of Color Clinic at University of California, San Francisco, about the implications of her research.

Dr. Ogunleye: What prompted you to do this study in the first place?

Dr. Lester: It was actually driven by frustration. While we’re recognizing these COVID-related dermatologic manifestations, we’re still trying to figure out their clinical significance. We’ve learned what changes could be an early sign of infection and what might occur in people who are otherwise asymptomatic and should be tested. But in the process, we’re leaving out the group of people – dark-skinned populations – who are most heavily impacted by COVID. This is an injustice to the people who could benefit the most if found to have an early, visible sign of the disease on their skin. For example, pernio-like lesions and erythema, both of which have been seen in COVID patients, are harder to identify in darker skin.

As dermatologists, we know that the skin is the biggest organ and one that has the advantage of being visible. We partner with patients because they can see what we can see. We can explain what skin changes mean, and having examples to show them is really powerful. Because doctors typically respond best to numbers, I recognized that we needed data to prove that this lack of representation of persons of color in our COVID documentation was in fact true.

Can you tell us the key findings from your research?

We included any article that described the cutaneous manifestations of COVID – and also included a photograph – and was published over a period of 5 months. Then we categorized each image using the Fitzpatrick Skin Type Scale. We found that the majority of the photos were of people with light skin; there were no images at all of patients with dark skin, Fitzpatrick type V or VI. A handful, about 6%, depicted skin changes in patients with Fitzpatrick type IV skin.

Were you surprised by the findings?

No. I was not surprised at all, for a couple of reasons. First, many of the referrals that I had been getting to evaluate possible COVID manifestations were from primary care doctors. And as we both know, erythema, hyperpigmentation, and discoloration can be difficult for even a trained dermatologist to pick up on. So if these patients with skin changes potentially suggestive of COVID are presenting to their primary care doctor who could not determine what they were, perhaps because they had never seen them in someone with darker skin, it means those same clinicians are not likely to document these rashes. I suspect that a lot of these photos were sourced from primary care.

The other reason for my lack of surprise is that I have looked at this issue before. In a study I did in 2019 looking at images in dermatology textbooks, my coauthors and I found that there was a pretty dramatic underrepresentation of skin of color overall. Another analysis of images in core dermatology textbooks, published earlier this year by one of your colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania, Jules Lipoff, MD, showed that the percentage of images of dark skin ranged from as low as 4% to a high of about 18%.

So I wonder whether that makes us less likely to look for things in patients with darker skin, except for those conditions that we’re taught are more common in people with darker skin, like keloids, vitiligo, or certain types of hair loss. I wonder whether we just don’t think of other conditions because all the photos we ever see of psoriasis or rosacea, for example, are of people with lighter skin.

You bring up a good point about the cyclical nature of this process. If you don’t see skin conditions in darker skin, then you don’t know what to look for and so you never look for it.

Exactly. What if a Black patient says, for example: “This looks different on my skin; do you think this could be related to COVID?” And their doctor looks at their skin and says no. Not because it isn’t, but because they haven’t seen that before. Then they don’t take a picture of it and we’ll never know what that might have been.

The disturbing thing I have found is that there is an overrepresentation of dark skin in images of sexually transmitted infections. So based on what you are taught, you begin to create these powerful cognitive biases in your brain as a clinician and you start to put people in categories: “This person is more likely to get this because I’ve seen a lot of photos of it.”

Take the example of a 40ish Black woman with a cough who is presumed to have sarcoidosis, because we’ve all been taught that. But what we have not been taught, at least not as definitively, is that the highest prevalence of sarcoidosis is in Nordic countries, where there are not many Black people.

So these loops teach you things that don’t necessarily represent reality. We are taught to recognize patterns, but the patterns that we’ve created are not necessarily valid and carry the biases of the people who decided they were important for us to learn.
 

So the underrepresentation of persons of color in images depicting skin changes in COVID-19 is, in your perspective, a continuation of this pattern of bias?

I definitely think it is. It’s important to understand the history of photography and the development of color film in order to contextualize that question. Kodak Gold was one of the first color films made. To assist photographers, the company developed a Shirley card, which could be used for color balancing in developing this film. That card, which was distributed to film development labs across the country, depicted a fair-skinned White woman as the standard for how people should appear in the photograph. Film technology was built around this idea.

As a result, people with darker skin were never portrayed accurately and did not have a lot of detail to their features or their skin. A number of famous photographers boycotted by not using the film.

But it wasn’t until chocolate manufacturers and the furniture industries decided that Kodak Gold film was not showing their brown products in enough detail that Kodak was forced to change.

It took these big industries saying “we’re not going to use your film anymore” to spur the development of multicultural Shirley cards which included images of Asian, White, and Black women (a Latina was added later). That didn’t happen until 1995. By then, digital photography had already started to take off. Unfortunately, that advance built off of the original color film and still harbored some of the same issues.

So in addition to concerns about clinicians not recognizing a skin change in a darker-skinned person, if they do recognize it and do decide to photograph it, it just might not come out right. So then it’s possible that clinicians just decide to stop taking photos.

This is another example of structural racism – things that are just baked into the system about which people are unaware. I fear we’ll continue to perpetuate these unconscious biases with the development of augmented intelligence or various algorithms.

I think that this history – which I was unaware of – highlights what happens when White skin becomes the standard. It certainly explains the issue we’ve both seen of clinicians not recognizing erythema on dark skin.

That’s a big one. And I think it’s a big one because it’s a shared presenting sign of a lot of different rashes. It can also be a sign of a dermatologic emergency that requires rapid recognition and treatment. Erythema can be very subtle, especially in skin of color. It is one of the things that we use to grade severity of psoriasis, and as a result of it not being appreciated in people with darker skin, those patients have not been included in a lot of the clinical trials.

There has even been discussion of whether erythema is something we should deem to be an important finding in people with darker skin.

Maybe one of the problems is terminology. Erythema connotes pink or red coloration, and that does not really show up on dark skin as overtly.

Exactly. Emollient use is also different in people of color. So the “classic” scales of psoriasis often aren’t present in someone who uses a lot of lotion.

In addition to the different clinical appearance of many common skin conditions, cultural practices might be different in different groups, which may also alter your differential diagnoses and treatment recommendations – for instance, moisturizer use, shampooing frequency, or use of different hair styling products.

I totally agree. Hair is another big one. Identifying broken hairs, short hairs, texture changes, and variability in the size of the hair shaft is different in coiled, Black hair and is not really applicable to people with more textured hair patterns. People of different ethnicities and cultures do different things. Standards that we traditionally use, such as the hair-pull test, don’t work quite as well in different groups.

I think that speaks to the changes that we also need to make in educating both dermatologists and nondermatologists in diagnostic criteria and clinical findings.

Dermatology is the second least diverse specialty. And that means our experts – faculty, lecturers, mentors – are not likely to be people of color. You don’t know what you don’t know. You only have your own experiences. If you don’t have people who can explain why something may be different for a different group of people, you don’t have an opportunity to broaden your understanding. You and I noticed because we know what it’s like to have this type of hair. But it’s not something that other people who don’t share the same hair type would have the same perspective on.

It is even more reason to make sure that our dermatology workforce mirrors our population. About 3% of the dermatologists in the United States are Black; the numbers are equally bad for Latino and indigenous dermatologists. If you don’t have enough people in your immediate environment who can help broaden your perspective, that becomes a problem that can harm patients.

If we don’t have a diverse group of people in the field who are contributing to the literature, changing some of the ways that we think about practice, then everyone is just going to keep doing the wrong thing.

We need to build our evidence and pay more attention to the racial breakdown of patients included in studies. We are recognizing that we have blind spots but we don’t have people or data that can change that. If what we are publishing overrepresents a certain group, how will we ever learn to do things differently?

I recognize the fact that this is not a new idea. Others have worked on these issues for a long time. Your colleague, Susan Taylor, MD, a professor at University of Pennsylvania and a founder of the Skin of Color Society, used her energy and frustration about this issue and published a whole textbook on it: “Dermatology for Skin of Color.” When I tried to publish my first paper on this issue, I got a lot of pushback, but I’m happy that now it’s something that everyone is talking about. So just in the span of a couple of years, the acceptance of this idea has changed dramatically.

I hope that this is the start of sustainable, systemic changes that can have a real impact.

Let me ask a technical question. Is the excuse of not knowing how to photograph darker skin just that – an excuse? Or is that concern truly valid?

That’s a great question. There are certain techniques that one can employ. And yes, it can be more challenging if you are not used to taking photos of people with darker skin, but it certainly can be learned.

I think that an intelligent group of people who have faced things before that felt insurmountable could continue to push to figure out how to do it. But it is something that does require skills, and part of it is because there’s this bias built into the camera, so you have to make up for that.

I think every single dermatologist has that ability, and you just have to know that it’s worthwhile to do because your patient is that valuable.

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

A recent review looked at all articles describing skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 – 46 articles with a total of 130 clinical images – and found none that documented dermatologic conditions in people with dark skin. This was despite the disproportionate incidence of the disease in Black, Latino, and Native American/American Indian populations of color.

What’s going on? Temitayo Ogunleye, MD, an assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, spoke with lead investigator Jenna Lester, MD, a dermatologist and director of the Skin of Color Clinic at University of California, San Francisco, about the implications of her research.

Dr. Ogunleye: What prompted you to do this study in the first place?

Dr. Lester: It was actually driven by frustration. While we’re recognizing these COVID-related dermatologic manifestations, we’re still trying to figure out their clinical significance. We’ve learned what changes could be an early sign of infection and what might occur in people who are otherwise asymptomatic and should be tested. But in the process, we’re leaving out the group of people – dark-skinned populations – who are most heavily impacted by COVID. This is an injustice to the people who could benefit the most if found to have an early, visible sign of the disease on their skin. For example, pernio-like lesions and erythema, both of which have been seen in COVID patients, are harder to identify in darker skin.

As dermatologists, we know that the skin is the biggest organ and one that has the advantage of being visible. We partner with patients because they can see what we can see. We can explain what skin changes mean, and having examples to show them is really powerful. Because doctors typically respond best to numbers, I recognized that we needed data to prove that this lack of representation of persons of color in our COVID documentation was in fact true.

Can you tell us the key findings from your research?

We included any article that described the cutaneous manifestations of COVID – and also included a photograph – and was published over a period of 5 months. Then we categorized each image using the Fitzpatrick Skin Type Scale. We found that the majority of the photos were of people with light skin; there were no images at all of patients with dark skin, Fitzpatrick type V or VI. A handful, about 6%, depicted skin changes in patients with Fitzpatrick type IV skin.

Were you surprised by the findings?

No. I was not surprised at all, for a couple of reasons. First, many of the referrals that I had been getting to evaluate possible COVID manifestations were from primary care doctors. And as we both know, erythema, hyperpigmentation, and discoloration can be difficult for even a trained dermatologist to pick up on. So if these patients with skin changes potentially suggestive of COVID are presenting to their primary care doctor who could not determine what they were, perhaps because they had never seen them in someone with darker skin, it means those same clinicians are not likely to document these rashes. I suspect that a lot of these photos were sourced from primary care.

The other reason for my lack of surprise is that I have looked at this issue before. In a study I did in 2019 looking at images in dermatology textbooks, my coauthors and I found that there was a pretty dramatic underrepresentation of skin of color overall. Another analysis of images in core dermatology textbooks, published earlier this year by one of your colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania, Jules Lipoff, MD, showed that the percentage of images of dark skin ranged from as low as 4% to a high of about 18%.

So I wonder whether that makes us less likely to look for things in patients with darker skin, except for those conditions that we’re taught are more common in people with darker skin, like keloids, vitiligo, or certain types of hair loss. I wonder whether we just don’t think of other conditions because all the photos we ever see of psoriasis or rosacea, for example, are of people with lighter skin.

You bring up a good point about the cyclical nature of this process. If you don’t see skin conditions in darker skin, then you don’t know what to look for and so you never look for it.

Exactly. What if a Black patient says, for example: “This looks different on my skin; do you think this could be related to COVID?” And their doctor looks at their skin and says no. Not because it isn’t, but because they haven’t seen that before. Then they don’t take a picture of it and we’ll never know what that might have been.

The disturbing thing I have found is that there is an overrepresentation of dark skin in images of sexually transmitted infections. So based on what you are taught, you begin to create these powerful cognitive biases in your brain as a clinician and you start to put people in categories: “This person is more likely to get this because I’ve seen a lot of photos of it.”

Take the example of a 40ish Black woman with a cough who is presumed to have sarcoidosis, because we’ve all been taught that. But what we have not been taught, at least not as definitively, is that the highest prevalence of sarcoidosis is in Nordic countries, where there are not many Black people.

So these loops teach you things that don’t necessarily represent reality. We are taught to recognize patterns, but the patterns that we’ve created are not necessarily valid and carry the biases of the people who decided they were important for us to learn.
 

So the underrepresentation of persons of color in images depicting skin changes in COVID-19 is, in your perspective, a continuation of this pattern of bias?

I definitely think it is. It’s important to understand the history of photography and the development of color film in order to contextualize that question. Kodak Gold was one of the first color films made. To assist photographers, the company developed a Shirley card, which could be used for color balancing in developing this film. That card, which was distributed to film development labs across the country, depicted a fair-skinned White woman as the standard for how people should appear in the photograph. Film technology was built around this idea.

As a result, people with darker skin were never portrayed accurately and did not have a lot of detail to their features or their skin. A number of famous photographers boycotted by not using the film.

But it wasn’t until chocolate manufacturers and the furniture industries decided that Kodak Gold film was not showing their brown products in enough detail that Kodak was forced to change.

It took these big industries saying “we’re not going to use your film anymore” to spur the development of multicultural Shirley cards which included images of Asian, White, and Black women (a Latina was added later). That didn’t happen until 1995. By then, digital photography had already started to take off. Unfortunately, that advance built off of the original color film and still harbored some of the same issues.

So in addition to concerns about clinicians not recognizing a skin change in a darker-skinned person, if they do recognize it and do decide to photograph it, it just might not come out right. So then it’s possible that clinicians just decide to stop taking photos.

This is another example of structural racism – things that are just baked into the system about which people are unaware. I fear we’ll continue to perpetuate these unconscious biases with the development of augmented intelligence or various algorithms.

I think that this history – which I was unaware of – highlights what happens when White skin becomes the standard. It certainly explains the issue we’ve both seen of clinicians not recognizing erythema on dark skin.

That’s a big one. And I think it’s a big one because it’s a shared presenting sign of a lot of different rashes. It can also be a sign of a dermatologic emergency that requires rapid recognition and treatment. Erythema can be very subtle, especially in skin of color. It is one of the things that we use to grade severity of psoriasis, and as a result of it not being appreciated in people with darker skin, those patients have not been included in a lot of the clinical trials.

There has even been discussion of whether erythema is something we should deem to be an important finding in people with darker skin.

Maybe one of the problems is terminology. Erythema connotes pink or red coloration, and that does not really show up on dark skin as overtly.

Exactly. Emollient use is also different in people of color. So the “classic” scales of psoriasis often aren’t present in someone who uses a lot of lotion.

In addition to the different clinical appearance of many common skin conditions, cultural practices might be different in different groups, which may also alter your differential diagnoses and treatment recommendations – for instance, moisturizer use, shampooing frequency, or use of different hair styling products.

I totally agree. Hair is another big one. Identifying broken hairs, short hairs, texture changes, and variability in the size of the hair shaft is different in coiled, Black hair and is not really applicable to people with more textured hair patterns. People of different ethnicities and cultures do different things. Standards that we traditionally use, such as the hair-pull test, don’t work quite as well in different groups.

I think that speaks to the changes that we also need to make in educating both dermatologists and nondermatologists in diagnostic criteria and clinical findings.

Dermatology is the second least diverse specialty. And that means our experts – faculty, lecturers, mentors – are not likely to be people of color. You don’t know what you don’t know. You only have your own experiences. If you don’t have people who can explain why something may be different for a different group of people, you don’t have an opportunity to broaden your understanding. You and I noticed because we know what it’s like to have this type of hair. But it’s not something that other people who don’t share the same hair type would have the same perspective on.

It is even more reason to make sure that our dermatology workforce mirrors our population. About 3% of the dermatologists in the United States are Black; the numbers are equally bad for Latino and indigenous dermatologists. If you don’t have enough people in your immediate environment who can help broaden your perspective, that becomes a problem that can harm patients.

If we don’t have a diverse group of people in the field who are contributing to the literature, changing some of the ways that we think about practice, then everyone is just going to keep doing the wrong thing.

We need to build our evidence and pay more attention to the racial breakdown of patients included in studies. We are recognizing that we have blind spots but we don’t have people or data that can change that. If what we are publishing overrepresents a certain group, how will we ever learn to do things differently?

I recognize the fact that this is not a new idea. Others have worked on these issues for a long time. Your colleague, Susan Taylor, MD, a professor at University of Pennsylvania and a founder of the Skin of Color Society, used her energy and frustration about this issue and published a whole textbook on it: “Dermatology for Skin of Color.” When I tried to publish my first paper on this issue, I got a lot of pushback, but I’m happy that now it’s something that everyone is talking about. So just in the span of a couple of years, the acceptance of this idea has changed dramatically.

I hope that this is the start of sustainable, systemic changes that can have a real impact.

Let me ask a technical question. Is the excuse of not knowing how to photograph darker skin just that – an excuse? Or is that concern truly valid?

That’s a great question. There are certain techniques that one can employ. And yes, it can be more challenging if you are not used to taking photos of people with darker skin, but it certainly can be learned.

I think that an intelligent group of people who have faced things before that felt insurmountable could continue to push to figure out how to do it. But it is something that does require skills, and part of it is because there’s this bias built into the camera, so you have to make up for that.

I think every single dermatologist has that ability, and you just have to know that it’s worthwhile to do because your patient is that valuable.

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

A recent review looked at all articles describing skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 – 46 articles with a total of 130 clinical images – and found none that documented dermatologic conditions in people with dark skin. This was despite the disproportionate incidence of the disease in Black, Latino, and Native American/American Indian populations of color.

What’s going on? Temitayo Ogunleye, MD, an assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, spoke with lead investigator Jenna Lester, MD, a dermatologist and director of the Skin of Color Clinic at University of California, San Francisco, about the implications of her research.

Dr. Ogunleye: What prompted you to do this study in the first place?

Dr. Lester: It was actually driven by frustration. While we’re recognizing these COVID-related dermatologic manifestations, we’re still trying to figure out their clinical significance. We’ve learned what changes could be an early sign of infection and what might occur in people who are otherwise asymptomatic and should be tested. But in the process, we’re leaving out the group of people – dark-skinned populations – who are most heavily impacted by COVID. This is an injustice to the people who could benefit the most if found to have an early, visible sign of the disease on their skin. For example, pernio-like lesions and erythema, both of which have been seen in COVID patients, are harder to identify in darker skin.

As dermatologists, we know that the skin is the biggest organ and one that has the advantage of being visible. We partner with patients because they can see what we can see. We can explain what skin changes mean, and having examples to show them is really powerful. Because doctors typically respond best to numbers, I recognized that we needed data to prove that this lack of representation of persons of color in our COVID documentation was in fact true.

Can you tell us the key findings from your research?

We included any article that described the cutaneous manifestations of COVID – and also included a photograph – and was published over a period of 5 months. Then we categorized each image using the Fitzpatrick Skin Type Scale. We found that the majority of the photos were of people with light skin; there were no images at all of patients with dark skin, Fitzpatrick type V or VI. A handful, about 6%, depicted skin changes in patients with Fitzpatrick type IV skin.

Were you surprised by the findings?

No. I was not surprised at all, for a couple of reasons. First, many of the referrals that I had been getting to evaluate possible COVID manifestations were from primary care doctors. And as we both know, erythema, hyperpigmentation, and discoloration can be difficult for even a trained dermatologist to pick up on. So if these patients with skin changes potentially suggestive of COVID are presenting to their primary care doctor who could not determine what they were, perhaps because they had never seen them in someone with darker skin, it means those same clinicians are not likely to document these rashes. I suspect that a lot of these photos were sourced from primary care.

The other reason for my lack of surprise is that I have looked at this issue before. In a study I did in 2019 looking at images in dermatology textbooks, my coauthors and I found that there was a pretty dramatic underrepresentation of skin of color overall. Another analysis of images in core dermatology textbooks, published earlier this year by one of your colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania, Jules Lipoff, MD, showed that the percentage of images of dark skin ranged from as low as 4% to a high of about 18%.

So I wonder whether that makes us less likely to look for things in patients with darker skin, except for those conditions that we’re taught are more common in people with darker skin, like keloids, vitiligo, or certain types of hair loss. I wonder whether we just don’t think of other conditions because all the photos we ever see of psoriasis or rosacea, for example, are of people with lighter skin.

You bring up a good point about the cyclical nature of this process. If you don’t see skin conditions in darker skin, then you don’t know what to look for and so you never look for it.

Exactly. What if a Black patient says, for example: “This looks different on my skin; do you think this could be related to COVID?” And their doctor looks at their skin and says no. Not because it isn’t, but because they haven’t seen that before. Then they don’t take a picture of it and we’ll never know what that might have been.

The disturbing thing I have found is that there is an overrepresentation of dark skin in images of sexually transmitted infections. So based on what you are taught, you begin to create these powerful cognitive biases in your brain as a clinician and you start to put people in categories: “This person is more likely to get this because I’ve seen a lot of photos of it.”

Take the example of a 40ish Black woman with a cough who is presumed to have sarcoidosis, because we’ve all been taught that. But what we have not been taught, at least not as definitively, is that the highest prevalence of sarcoidosis is in Nordic countries, where there are not many Black people.

So these loops teach you things that don’t necessarily represent reality. We are taught to recognize patterns, but the patterns that we’ve created are not necessarily valid and carry the biases of the people who decided they were important for us to learn.
 

So the underrepresentation of persons of color in images depicting skin changes in COVID-19 is, in your perspective, a continuation of this pattern of bias?

I definitely think it is. It’s important to understand the history of photography and the development of color film in order to contextualize that question. Kodak Gold was one of the first color films made. To assist photographers, the company developed a Shirley card, which could be used for color balancing in developing this film. That card, which was distributed to film development labs across the country, depicted a fair-skinned White woman as the standard for how people should appear in the photograph. Film technology was built around this idea.

As a result, people with darker skin were never portrayed accurately and did not have a lot of detail to their features or their skin. A number of famous photographers boycotted by not using the film.

But it wasn’t until chocolate manufacturers and the furniture industries decided that Kodak Gold film was not showing their brown products in enough detail that Kodak was forced to change.

It took these big industries saying “we’re not going to use your film anymore” to spur the development of multicultural Shirley cards which included images of Asian, White, and Black women (a Latina was added later). That didn’t happen until 1995. By then, digital photography had already started to take off. Unfortunately, that advance built off of the original color film and still harbored some of the same issues.

So in addition to concerns about clinicians not recognizing a skin change in a darker-skinned person, if they do recognize it and do decide to photograph it, it just might not come out right. So then it’s possible that clinicians just decide to stop taking photos.

This is another example of structural racism – things that are just baked into the system about which people are unaware. I fear we’ll continue to perpetuate these unconscious biases with the development of augmented intelligence or various algorithms.

I think that this history – which I was unaware of – highlights what happens when White skin becomes the standard. It certainly explains the issue we’ve both seen of clinicians not recognizing erythema on dark skin.

That’s a big one. And I think it’s a big one because it’s a shared presenting sign of a lot of different rashes. It can also be a sign of a dermatologic emergency that requires rapid recognition and treatment. Erythema can be very subtle, especially in skin of color. It is one of the things that we use to grade severity of psoriasis, and as a result of it not being appreciated in people with darker skin, those patients have not been included in a lot of the clinical trials.

There has even been discussion of whether erythema is something we should deem to be an important finding in people with darker skin.

Maybe one of the problems is terminology. Erythema connotes pink or red coloration, and that does not really show up on dark skin as overtly.

Exactly. Emollient use is also different in people of color. So the “classic” scales of psoriasis often aren’t present in someone who uses a lot of lotion.

In addition to the different clinical appearance of many common skin conditions, cultural practices might be different in different groups, which may also alter your differential diagnoses and treatment recommendations – for instance, moisturizer use, shampooing frequency, or use of different hair styling products.

I totally agree. Hair is another big one. Identifying broken hairs, short hairs, texture changes, and variability in the size of the hair shaft is different in coiled, Black hair and is not really applicable to people with more textured hair patterns. People of different ethnicities and cultures do different things. Standards that we traditionally use, such as the hair-pull test, don’t work quite as well in different groups.

I think that speaks to the changes that we also need to make in educating both dermatologists and nondermatologists in diagnostic criteria and clinical findings.

Dermatology is the second least diverse specialty. And that means our experts – faculty, lecturers, mentors – are not likely to be people of color. You don’t know what you don’t know. You only have your own experiences. If you don’t have people who can explain why something may be different for a different group of people, you don’t have an opportunity to broaden your understanding. You and I noticed because we know what it’s like to have this type of hair. But it’s not something that other people who don’t share the same hair type would have the same perspective on.

It is even more reason to make sure that our dermatology workforce mirrors our population. About 3% of the dermatologists in the United States are Black; the numbers are equally bad for Latino and indigenous dermatologists. If you don’t have enough people in your immediate environment who can help broaden your perspective, that becomes a problem that can harm patients.

If we don’t have a diverse group of people in the field who are contributing to the literature, changing some of the ways that we think about practice, then everyone is just going to keep doing the wrong thing.

We need to build our evidence and pay more attention to the racial breakdown of patients included in studies. We are recognizing that we have blind spots but we don’t have people or data that can change that. If what we are publishing overrepresents a certain group, how will we ever learn to do things differently?

I recognize the fact that this is not a new idea. Others have worked on these issues for a long time. Your colleague, Susan Taylor, MD, a professor at University of Pennsylvania and a founder of the Skin of Color Society, used her energy and frustration about this issue and published a whole textbook on it: “Dermatology for Skin of Color.” When I tried to publish my first paper on this issue, I got a lot of pushback, but I’m happy that now it’s something that everyone is talking about. So just in the span of a couple of years, the acceptance of this idea has changed dramatically.

I hope that this is the start of sustainable, systemic changes that can have a real impact.

Let me ask a technical question. Is the excuse of not knowing how to photograph darker skin just that – an excuse? Or is that concern truly valid?

That’s a great question. There are certain techniques that one can employ. And yes, it can be more challenging if you are not used to taking photos of people with darker skin, but it certainly can be learned.

I think that an intelligent group of people who have faced things before that felt insurmountable could continue to push to figure out how to do it. But it is something that does require skills, and part of it is because there’s this bias built into the camera, so you have to make up for that.

I think every single dermatologist has that ability, and you just have to know that it’s worthwhile to do because your patient is that valuable.

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

Clarence Troutman survived a 2-month hospital stay with COVID-19, then went home in early June. But he’s far from over the disease, still suffering from limited endurance, shortness of breath and hands that can be stiff and swollen.

“Before COVID, I was a 59-year-old, relatively healthy man,” said the broadband technician from Denver. “If I had to say where I’m at now, I’d say about 50% of where I was, but when I first went home, I was at 20%.”

He credits much of his progress to the “motivation and education” gleaned from a new program for post-COVID patients at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, one of a small but growing number of clinics aimed at treating and studying those who have had the unpredictable coronavirus.

As the election nears, much attention is focused on daily infection numbers or the climbing death toll, but another measure matters: Patients who survive but continue to wrestle with a range of physical or mental effects, including lung damage, heart or neurologic concerns, anxiety, and depression.

“We need to think about how we’re going to provide care for patients who may be recovering for years after the virus,” said Sarah Jolley, MD, a pulmonologist with UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital and director of UCHealth’s Post-Covid Clinic, where Mr. Troutman is seen.

That need has jump-started post-COVID clinics, which bring together a range of specialists into a one-stop shop.

One of the first and largest such clinics is at Mount Sinai in New York City, but programs have also launched at the University of California,San Francisco; Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center; and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. The Cleveland Clinic plans to open one early next year. And it’s not just academic medical centers: St. John’s Well Child and Family Center, part of a network of community clinics in south central Los Angeles, said this month it aims to test thousands of its patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 since March for long-term effects.

The general idea is to bring together medical professionals across a broad spectrum, including physicians who specialize in lung disorders, heart issues, and brain and spinal cord problems. Mental health specialists are also involved, along with social workers and pharmacists. Many of the centers also do research studies, aiming to better understand why the virus hits certain patients so hard.

“Some of our patients, even those on a ventilator on death’s door, will come out remarkably unscathed,” said Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, an assistant professor of pulmonary critical care and a leader of the post-COVID program at UCSF, called the OPTIMAL clinic. “Others, even those who were never hospitalized, have disabling fatigue, ongoing chest pain, and shortness of breath, and there’s a whole spectrum in between.”
 

‘Staggering’ medical need

It’s too early to know how long the persistent medical effects and symptoms will linger, or to make accurate estimates on the percentage of patients affected.

Some early studies are sobering. An Austrian report released this month found that 76 of the first 86 patients studied had evidence of lung damage 6 weeks after hospital discharge, but that dropped to 48 patients at 12 weeks.

Some researchers and clinics say about 10% of U.S. COVID patients they see may have longer-running effects, said Zijian Chen, MD, medical director of the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai, which has enrolled 400 patients so far.

If that estimate is correct – and Dr. Chen emphasized that more research is needed to make sure – it translates to patients entering the medical system in droves, often with multiple issues.

How health systems and insurers respond will be key, he said. More than 6.5 million U.S. residents have tested positive for the disease. If fewer than 10% – say 500,000 – already have long-lasting symptoms, “that number is staggering,” Dr. Chen said. “How much medical care will be needed for that?”

Though start-up costs could be a hurdle, the clinics themselves may eventually draw much-needed revenue to medical centers by attracting patients, many of whom have insurance to cover some or all of the cost of repeated visits.

Dr. Chen said the specialized centers can help lower health spending by providing more cost effective, coordinated care that avoids duplicative testing a patient might otherwise undergo.

“We’ve seen patients that when they come in, they’ve already had four MRI or CT scans and a stack of bloodwork,” he said.

The program consolidates those earlier results and determines if any additional testing is needed. Sometimes the answer to what’s causing patients’ long-lasting symptoms remains elusive. One problem for patients seeking help outside of dedicated clinics is that when there is no clear cause for their condition, they may be told the symptoms are imagined.

“I believe in the patients,” said Dr. Chen.

About half the clinic’s patients have received test results showing damage, said Dr. Chen, an endocrinologist and internal medicine physician. For those patients, the clinic can develop a treatment plan. But, frustratingly, the other half have inconclusive test results yet exhibit a range of symptoms.

“That makes it more difficult to treat,” said Dr. Chen.

Experts see parallels to a push in the past decade to establish special clinics to treat patients released from ICU wards, who may have problems related to long-term bed rest or the delirium many experience while hospitalized. Some of the current post-COVID clinics are modeled after the post-ICU clinics or are expanded versions of them.

The ICU Recovery Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., for instance, which opened in 2012, is accepting post-COVID patients.

There are about a dozen post-ICU clinics nationally, some of which are also now working with COVID patients, said James Jackson, director of long-term outcomes at the Vanderbilt center. In addition, he’s heard of at least another dozen post-COVID centers in development.

The centers generally do an initial assessment a few weeks after a patient is diagnosed or discharged from the hospital, often by video call. Check-in and repeat visits are scheduled every month or so after that.

“In an ideal world, with these post-COVID clinics, you can identify the patients and get them into rehab,” he said. “Even if the primary thing these clinics did was to say to patients: ‘This is real, it is not all in your head,’ that impact would be important.”
 

A question of feasibility

Financing is the largest obstacle, program proponents said. Many hospitals lost substantial revenue to canceled elective procedures during stay-at-home periods.

“So, it’s not a great time to be pitching a new activity that requires a start-up subsidy,” said Glenn Melnick, PhD, a professor of health economics at the University of Southern California.

At UCSF, a select group of faculty members staff the post-COVID clinics and some mental health professionals volunteer their time, said Dr. Santhosh.

Dr. Chen said he was able to recruit team members and support staff from the ranks of those whose elective patient caseload had dropped.

Dr. Jackson said unfortunately there’s not been enough research into the cost-and-clinical effectiveness of post-ICU centers.

“In the early days, there may have been questions about how much value does this add,” he noted. “Now, the question is not so much is it a good idea, but is it feasible?”

Right now, the post-COVID centers are foremost a research effort, said Len Nichols, an economist and nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute. “If these guys get good at treating long-term symptoms, that’s good for all of us. There’s not enough patients to make it a business model yet, but if they become the place to go when you get it, it could become a business model for some of the elite institutions.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Clarence Troutman survived a 2-month hospital stay with COVID-19, then went home in early June. But he’s far from over the disease, still suffering from limited endurance, shortness of breath and hands that can be stiff and swollen.

“Before COVID, I was a 59-year-old, relatively healthy man,” said the broadband technician from Denver. “If I had to say where I’m at now, I’d say about 50% of where I was, but when I first went home, I was at 20%.”

He credits much of his progress to the “motivation and education” gleaned from a new program for post-COVID patients at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, one of a small but growing number of clinics aimed at treating and studying those who have had the unpredictable coronavirus.

As the election nears, much attention is focused on daily infection numbers or the climbing death toll, but another measure matters: Patients who survive but continue to wrestle with a range of physical or mental effects, including lung damage, heart or neurologic concerns, anxiety, and depression.

“We need to think about how we’re going to provide care for patients who may be recovering for years after the virus,” said Sarah Jolley, MD, a pulmonologist with UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital and director of UCHealth’s Post-Covid Clinic, where Mr. Troutman is seen.

That need has jump-started post-COVID clinics, which bring together a range of specialists into a one-stop shop.

One of the first and largest such clinics is at Mount Sinai in New York City, but programs have also launched at the University of California,San Francisco; Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center; and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. The Cleveland Clinic plans to open one early next year. And it’s not just academic medical centers: St. John’s Well Child and Family Center, part of a network of community clinics in south central Los Angeles, said this month it aims to test thousands of its patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 since March for long-term effects.

The general idea is to bring together medical professionals across a broad spectrum, including physicians who specialize in lung disorders, heart issues, and brain and spinal cord problems. Mental health specialists are also involved, along with social workers and pharmacists. Many of the centers also do research studies, aiming to better understand why the virus hits certain patients so hard.

“Some of our patients, even those on a ventilator on death’s door, will come out remarkably unscathed,” said Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, an assistant professor of pulmonary critical care and a leader of the post-COVID program at UCSF, called the OPTIMAL clinic. “Others, even those who were never hospitalized, have disabling fatigue, ongoing chest pain, and shortness of breath, and there’s a whole spectrum in between.”
 

‘Staggering’ medical need

It’s too early to know how long the persistent medical effects and symptoms will linger, or to make accurate estimates on the percentage of patients affected.

Some early studies are sobering. An Austrian report released this month found that 76 of the first 86 patients studied had evidence of lung damage 6 weeks after hospital discharge, but that dropped to 48 patients at 12 weeks.

Some researchers and clinics say about 10% of U.S. COVID patients they see may have longer-running effects, said Zijian Chen, MD, medical director of the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai, which has enrolled 400 patients so far.

If that estimate is correct – and Dr. Chen emphasized that more research is needed to make sure – it translates to patients entering the medical system in droves, often with multiple issues.

How health systems and insurers respond will be key, he said. More than 6.5 million U.S. residents have tested positive for the disease. If fewer than 10% – say 500,000 – already have long-lasting symptoms, “that number is staggering,” Dr. Chen said. “How much medical care will be needed for that?”

Though start-up costs could be a hurdle, the clinics themselves may eventually draw much-needed revenue to medical centers by attracting patients, many of whom have insurance to cover some or all of the cost of repeated visits.

Dr. Chen said the specialized centers can help lower health spending by providing more cost effective, coordinated care that avoids duplicative testing a patient might otherwise undergo.

“We’ve seen patients that when they come in, they’ve already had four MRI or CT scans and a stack of bloodwork,” he said.

The program consolidates those earlier results and determines if any additional testing is needed. Sometimes the answer to what’s causing patients’ long-lasting symptoms remains elusive. One problem for patients seeking help outside of dedicated clinics is that when there is no clear cause for their condition, they may be told the symptoms are imagined.

“I believe in the patients,” said Dr. Chen.

About half the clinic’s patients have received test results showing damage, said Dr. Chen, an endocrinologist and internal medicine physician. For those patients, the clinic can develop a treatment plan. But, frustratingly, the other half have inconclusive test results yet exhibit a range of symptoms.

“That makes it more difficult to treat,” said Dr. Chen.

Experts see parallels to a push in the past decade to establish special clinics to treat patients released from ICU wards, who may have problems related to long-term bed rest or the delirium many experience while hospitalized. Some of the current post-COVID clinics are modeled after the post-ICU clinics or are expanded versions of them.

The ICU Recovery Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., for instance, which opened in 2012, is accepting post-COVID patients.

There are about a dozen post-ICU clinics nationally, some of which are also now working with COVID patients, said James Jackson, director of long-term outcomes at the Vanderbilt center. In addition, he’s heard of at least another dozen post-COVID centers in development.

The centers generally do an initial assessment a few weeks after a patient is diagnosed or discharged from the hospital, often by video call. Check-in and repeat visits are scheduled every month or so after that.

“In an ideal world, with these post-COVID clinics, you can identify the patients and get them into rehab,” he said. “Even if the primary thing these clinics did was to say to patients: ‘This is real, it is not all in your head,’ that impact would be important.”
 

A question of feasibility

Financing is the largest obstacle, program proponents said. Many hospitals lost substantial revenue to canceled elective procedures during stay-at-home periods.

“So, it’s not a great time to be pitching a new activity that requires a start-up subsidy,” said Glenn Melnick, PhD, a professor of health economics at the University of Southern California.

At UCSF, a select group of faculty members staff the post-COVID clinics and some mental health professionals volunteer their time, said Dr. Santhosh.

Dr. Chen said he was able to recruit team members and support staff from the ranks of those whose elective patient caseload had dropped.

Dr. Jackson said unfortunately there’s not been enough research into the cost-and-clinical effectiveness of post-ICU centers.

“In the early days, there may have been questions about how much value does this add,” he noted. “Now, the question is not so much is it a good idea, but is it feasible?”

Right now, the post-COVID centers are foremost a research effort, said Len Nichols, an economist and nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute. “If these guys get good at treating long-term symptoms, that’s good for all of us. There’s not enough patients to make it a business model yet, but if they become the place to go when you get it, it could become a business model for some of the elite institutions.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Clarence Troutman survived a 2-month hospital stay with COVID-19, then went home in early June. But he’s far from over the disease, still suffering from limited endurance, shortness of breath and hands that can be stiff and swollen.

“Before COVID, I was a 59-year-old, relatively healthy man,” said the broadband technician from Denver. “If I had to say where I’m at now, I’d say about 50% of where I was, but when I first went home, I was at 20%.”

He credits much of his progress to the “motivation and education” gleaned from a new program for post-COVID patients at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, one of a small but growing number of clinics aimed at treating and studying those who have had the unpredictable coronavirus.

As the election nears, much attention is focused on daily infection numbers or the climbing death toll, but another measure matters: Patients who survive but continue to wrestle with a range of physical or mental effects, including lung damage, heart or neurologic concerns, anxiety, and depression.

“We need to think about how we’re going to provide care for patients who may be recovering for years after the virus,” said Sarah Jolley, MD, a pulmonologist with UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital and director of UCHealth’s Post-Covid Clinic, where Mr. Troutman is seen.

That need has jump-started post-COVID clinics, which bring together a range of specialists into a one-stop shop.

One of the first and largest such clinics is at Mount Sinai in New York City, but programs have also launched at the University of California,San Francisco; Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center; and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. The Cleveland Clinic plans to open one early next year. And it’s not just academic medical centers: St. John’s Well Child and Family Center, part of a network of community clinics in south central Los Angeles, said this month it aims to test thousands of its patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 since March for long-term effects.

The general idea is to bring together medical professionals across a broad spectrum, including physicians who specialize in lung disorders, heart issues, and brain and spinal cord problems. Mental health specialists are also involved, along with social workers and pharmacists. Many of the centers also do research studies, aiming to better understand why the virus hits certain patients so hard.

“Some of our patients, even those on a ventilator on death’s door, will come out remarkably unscathed,” said Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, an assistant professor of pulmonary critical care and a leader of the post-COVID program at UCSF, called the OPTIMAL clinic. “Others, even those who were never hospitalized, have disabling fatigue, ongoing chest pain, and shortness of breath, and there’s a whole spectrum in between.”
 

‘Staggering’ medical need

It’s too early to know how long the persistent medical effects and symptoms will linger, or to make accurate estimates on the percentage of patients affected.

Some early studies are sobering. An Austrian report released this month found that 76 of the first 86 patients studied had evidence of lung damage 6 weeks after hospital discharge, but that dropped to 48 patients at 12 weeks.

Some researchers and clinics say about 10% of U.S. COVID patients they see may have longer-running effects, said Zijian Chen, MD, medical director of the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai, which has enrolled 400 patients so far.

If that estimate is correct – and Dr. Chen emphasized that more research is needed to make sure – it translates to patients entering the medical system in droves, often with multiple issues.

How health systems and insurers respond will be key, he said. More than 6.5 million U.S. residents have tested positive for the disease. If fewer than 10% – say 500,000 – already have long-lasting symptoms, “that number is staggering,” Dr. Chen said. “How much medical care will be needed for that?”

Though start-up costs could be a hurdle, the clinics themselves may eventually draw much-needed revenue to medical centers by attracting patients, many of whom have insurance to cover some or all of the cost of repeated visits.

Dr. Chen said the specialized centers can help lower health spending by providing more cost effective, coordinated care that avoids duplicative testing a patient might otherwise undergo.

“We’ve seen patients that when they come in, they’ve already had four MRI or CT scans and a stack of bloodwork,” he said.

The program consolidates those earlier results and determines if any additional testing is needed. Sometimes the answer to what’s causing patients’ long-lasting symptoms remains elusive. One problem for patients seeking help outside of dedicated clinics is that when there is no clear cause for their condition, they may be told the symptoms are imagined.

“I believe in the patients,” said Dr. Chen.

About half the clinic’s patients have received test results showing damage, said Dr. Chen, an endocrinologist and internal medicine physician. For those patients, the clinic can develop a treatment plan. But, frustratingly, the other half have inconclusive test results yet exhibit a range of symptoms.

“That makes it more difficult to treat,” said Dr. Chen.

Experts see parallels to a push in the past decade to establish special clinics to treat patients released from ICU wards, who may have problems related to long-term bed rest or the delirium many experience while hospitalized. Some of the current post-COVID clinics are modeled after the post-ICU clinics or are expanded versions of them.

The ICU Recovery Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., for instance, which opened in 2012, is accepting post-COVID patients.

There are about a dozen post-ICU clinics nationally, some of which are also now working with COVID patients, said James Jackson, director of long-term outcomes at the Vanderbilt center. In addition, he’s heard of at least another dozen post-COVID centers in development.

The centers generally do an initial assessment a few weeks after a patient is diagnosed or discharged from the hospital, often by video call. Check-in and repeat visits are scheduled every month or so after that.

“In an ideal world, with these post-COVID clinics, you can identify the patients and get them into rehab,” he said. “Even if the primary thing these clinics did was to say to patients: ‘This is real, it is not all in your head,’ that impact would be important.”
 

A question of feasibility

Financing is the largest obstacle, program proponents said. Many hospitals lost substantial revenue to canceled elective procedures during stay-at-home periods.

“So, it’s not a great time to be pitching a new activity that requires a start-up subsidy,” said Glenn Melnick, PhD, a professor of health economics at the University of Southern California.

At UCSF, a select group of faculty members staff the post-COVID clinics and some mental health professionals volunteer their time, said Dr. Santhosh.

Dr. Chen said he was able to recruit team members and support staff from the ranks of those whose elective patient caseload had dropped.

Dr. Jackson said unfortunately there’s not been enough research into the cost-and-clinical effectiveness of post-ICU centers.

“In the early days, there may have been questions about how much value does this add,” he noted. “Now, the question is not so much is it a good idea, but is it feasible?”

Right now, the post-COVID centers are foremost a research effort, said Len Nichols, an economist and nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute. “If these guys get good at treating long-term symptoms, that’s good for all of us. There’s not enough patients to make it a business model yet, but if they become the place to go when you get it, it could become a business model for some of the elite institutions.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.