Pulmonology

A study of patients with pulmonary hypertension suggests a reconsideration of the accepted benchmark for pulmonary vascular hypertension as a predictor of heart failure may be warranted.

An elevated pulmonary vascular resistance of 3.0 Wood units or greater has been used as a prognostic marker for death and heart failure in pulmonary hypertension subgroups. But a large, multiyear study of a veterans population suggests that shifting that threshold to 2.2 Wood units in patients with right-heart catheterization may be justified.

Bradley A. Maron, MD, of the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues evaluated 40,082 veterans in the VA Clinical Assessment, Reporting and Tracking (CART) program who had right-heart catheterization (RHC) in the VA system from Oct. 1, 2007, to Sept. 30, 2016.

“To our knowledge, these data provide the first evidence-based information on the continuum of clinical risk related to PVR in patients with elevated pulmonary artery pressure,” the researchers wrote. Their report was published online in Lancet Respiratory Medicine (2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30317-9).

The retrospective cohort study found that all-cause mortality hazard ratio (HR), when adjusted for clinical variables, and mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) increased progressively beginning at around 2.0 Wood units (WU). Clinically significant mortality HR emerged at 2.2 WU, with an adjusted risk 9% greater than a PVR of 2.1 Wood units (P < .0034), which the study considered the upper limit of normal PVR in health adults of a similar age range (61.5 to 73.5 years) as the study cohort. The researchers noted that a PVR of 3.0 WU has been the standard for forecasting outcomes in pulmonary hypertension (PH) (Eur Heart J. 2010;31:2915-57).

“Overall, these results suggest that reconsidering the hemodynamic parameters that define pulmonary hypertension in patients with cardiopulmonary disease is warranted, and they identify a need for early detection strategies to capture this large and vulnerable population,” the researchers wrote.

A subsequent analysis focused on patients with an mPAP of >19 mm HG (n = 32,725) and found that all-cause death when adjusted over a wide range of clinical variables that included PVR of 2.2 WU increased to a 25% HR. “However,” the researchers added, “a median cardiac output of < 4.0 L/min, which has been shown to be independently associated with adverse outcome, was present only when PVR was more than 4.0 Wood units.”

For a PVR of 2.2-3.0 WU, the median cardiac output was 4.87 L/min; for > 3.0 WU, it was 4.13 L/min. Among the patients with PVR > 2.2 WU (n = 15,780), 13.6% (n = 2,147) had an mPAP of 19-24 mm Hg.

In all patients with mPAP > 19 mm HG, pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) became a determining risk factor, with 15 mm HG the demarcation between low and high PAWP. At PVR of 2.2 WU, low-PAWP patients had a 52% greater adjusted risk of death and high-PAWP a 23% greater risk. At 4.0 WU, those adjusted risks rose dramatically – to 272% and 58%, for the low- and high-PAWP subgroups, respectively (P < .0001).

“Stratification of patients by PAWP had a major effect on outcome estimates in our study, illustrating the limitations of using the same PVR level to define clinical risk between precapillary and postcapillary pulmonary hypertension,” the researchers wrote.

They called for further study into how these findings impact people with PH but lower levels of cardiopulmonary disease than the cohort. “Overall, these findings support reconsidering the combination of hemodynamic variables used to identify patients with pulmonary hypertension,” the researchers stated.

The analyses of the VA CART database makes this “an interesting study,” said G. Hossein Almassi, MD, FCCP, of the Medical College of Wisconsin and Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee. “Within its limitation as a retrospective cohort study, the findings of a lower PVR and a lower mean PAP of > 19 mm being associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization are significant.”

He added: “Time will tell whether this will be an impetus for the clinicians to consider earlier therapeutic interventions in addition to lifestyle modification such as smoking cessation in this group of patients.”

Dr. Maron disclosed a financial relationship with Actelion.

SOURCE: Maron BA et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30317-9.

A study of patients with pulmonary hypertension suggests a reconsideration of the accepted benchmark for pulmonary vascular hypertension as a predictor of heart failure may be warranted.

An elevated pulmonary vascular resistance of 3.0 Wood units or greater has been used as a prognostic marker for death and heart failure in pulmonary hypertension subgroups. But a large, multiyear study of a veterans population suggests that shifting that threshold to 2.2 Wood units in patients with right-heart catheterization may be justified.

Bradley A. Maron, MD, of the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues evaluated 40,082 veterans in the VA Clinical Assessment, Reporting and Tracking (CART) program who had right-heart catheterization (RHC) in the VA system from Oct. 1, 2007, to Sept. 30, 2016.

“To our knowledge, these data provide the first evidence-based information on the continuum of clinical risk related to PVR in patients with elevated pulmonary artery pressure,” the researchers wrote. Their report was published online in Lancet Respiratory Medicine (2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30317-9).

The retrospective cohort study found that all-cause mortality hazard ratio (HR), when adjusted for clinical variables, and mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) increased progressively beginning at around 2.0 Wood units (WU). Clinically significant mortality HR emerged at 2.2 WU, with an adjusted risk 9% greater than a PVR of 2.1 Wood units (P < .0034), which the study considered the upper limit of normal PVR in health adults of a similar age range (61.5 to 73.5 years) as the study cohort. The researchers noted that a PVR of 3.0 WU has been the standard for forecasting outcomes in pulmonary hypertension (PH) (Eur Heart J. 2010;31:2915-57).

“Overall, these results suggest that reconsidering the hemodynamic parameters that define pulmonary hypertension in patients with cardiopulmonary disease is warranted, and they identify a need for early detection strategies to capture this large and vulnerable population,” the researchers wrote.

A subsequent analysis focused on patients with an mPAP of >19 mm HG (n = 32,725) and found that all-cause death when adjusted over a wide range of clinical variables that included PVR of 2.2 WU increased to a 25% HR. “However,” the researchers added, “a median cardiac output of < 4.0 L/min, which has been shown to be independently associated with adverse outcome, was present only when PVR was more than 4.0 Wood units.”

For a PVR of 2.2-3.0 WU, the median cardiac output was 4.87 L/min; for > 3.0 WU, it was 4.13 L/min. Among the patients with PVR > 2.2 WU (n = 15,780), 13.6% (n = 2,147) had an mPAP of 19-24 mm Hg.

In all patients with mPAP > 19 mm HG, pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) became a determining risk factor, with 15 mm HG the demarcation between low and high PAWP. At PVR of 2.2 WU, low-PAWP patients had a 52% greater adjusted risk of death and high-PAWP a 23% greater risk. At 4.0 WU, those adjusted risks rose dramatically – to 272% and 58%, for the low- and high-PAWP subgroups, respectively (P < .0001).

“Stratification of patients by PAWP had a major effect on outcome estimates in our study, illustrating the limitations of using the same PVR level to define clinical risk between precapillary and postcapillary pulmonary hypertension,” the researchers wrote.

They called for further study into how these findings impact people with PH but lower levels of cardiopulmonary disease than the cohort. “Overall, these findings support reconsidering the combination of hemodynamic variables used to identify patients with pulmonary hypertension,” the researchers stated.

The analyses of the VA CART database makes this “an interesting study,” said G. Hossein Almassi, MD, FCCP, of the Medical College of Wisconsin and Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee. “Within its limitation as a retrospective cohort study, the findings of a lower PVR and a lower mean PAP of > 19 mm being associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization are significant.”

He added: “Time will tell whether this will be an impetus for the clinicians to consider earlier therapeutic interventions in addition to lifestyle modification such as smoking cessation in this group of patients.”

Dr. Maron disclosed a financial relationship with Actelion.

SOURCE: Maron BA et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30317-9.

A study of patients with pulmonary hypertension suggests a reconsideration of the accepted benchmark for pulmonary vascular hypertension as a predictor of heart failure may be warranted.

An elevated pulmonary vascular resistance of 3.0 Wood units or greater has been used as a prognostic marker for death and heart failure in pulmonary hypertension subgroups. But a large, multiyear study of a veterans population suggests that shifting that threshold to 2.2 Wood units in patients with right-heart catheterization may be justified.

Bradley A. Maron, MD, of the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues evaluated 40,082 veterans in the VA Clinical Assessment, Reporting and Tracking (CART) program who had right-heart catheterization (RHC) in the VA system from Oct. 1, 2007, to Sept. 30, 2016.

“To our knowledge, these data provide the first evidence-based information on the continuum of clinical risk related to PVR in patients with elevated pulmonary artery pressure,” the researchers wrote. Their report was published online in Lancet Respiratory Medicine (2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30317-9).

The retrospective cohort study found that all-cause mortality hazard ratio (HR), when adjusted for clinical variables, and mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) increased progressively beginning at around 2.0 Wood units (WU). Clinically significant mortality HR emerged at 2.2 WU, with an adjusted risk 9% greater than a PVR of 2.1 Wood units (P < .0034), which the study considered the upper limit of normal PVR in health adults of a similar age range (61.5 to 73.5 years) as the study cohort. The researchers noted that a PVR of 3.0 WU has been the standard for forecasting outcomes in pulmonary hypertension (PH) (Eur Heart J. 2010;31:2915-57).

“Overall, these results suggest that reconsidering the hemodynamic parameters that define pulmonary hypertension in patients with cardiopulmonary disease is warranted, and they identify a need for early detection strategies to capture this large and vulnerable population,” the researchers wrote.

A subsequent analysis focused on patients with an mPAP of >19 mm HG (n = 32,725) and found that all-cause death when adjusted over a wide range of clinical variables that included PVR of 2.2 WU increased to a 25% HR. “However,” the researchers added, “a median cardiac output of < 4.0 L/min, which has been shown to be independently associated with adverse outcome, was present only when PVR was more than 4.0 Wood units.”

For a PVR of 2.2-3.0 WU, the median cardiac output was 4.87 L/min; for > 3.0 WU, it was 4.13 L/min. Among the patients with PVR > 2.2 WU (n = 15,780), 13.6% (n = 2,147) had an mPAP of 19-24 mm Hg.

In all patients with mPAP > 19 mm HG, pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) became a determining risk factor, with 15 mm HG the demarcation between low and high PAWP. At PVR of 2.2 WU, low-PAWP patients had a 52% greater adjusted risk of death and high-PAWP a 23% greater risk. At 4.0 WU, those adjusted risks rose dramatically – to 272% and 58%, for the low- and high-PAWP subgroups, respectively (P < .0001).

“Stratification of patients by PAWP had a major effect on outcome estimates in our study, illustrating the limitations of using the same PVR level to define clinical risk between precapillary and postcapillary pulmonary hypertension,” the researchers wrote.

They called for further study into how these findings impact people with PH but lower levels of cardiopulmonary disease than the cohort. “Overall, these findings support reconsidering the combination of hemodynamic variables used to identify patients with pulmonary hypertension,” the researchers stated.

The analyses of the VA CART database makes this “an interesting study,” said G. Hossein Almassi, MD, FCCP, of the Medical College of Wisconsin and Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee. “Within its limitation as a retrospective cohort study, the findings of a lower PVR and a lower mean PAP of > 19 mm being associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization are significant.”

He added: “Time will tell whether this will be an impetus for the clinicians to consider earlier therapeutic interventions in addition to lifestyle modification such as smoking cessation in this group of patients.”

Dr. Maron disclosed a financial relationship with Actelion.

SOURCE: Maron BA et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30317-9.

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

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

American Heart Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

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

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

American Heart Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

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

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

American Heart Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

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

A study has shown a strong link between sleeping disturbances and depression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

magicmine/Getty Images

Adults with clinically stable COPD who reported sleep problems were significantly more likely to report depression or anxiety, poor self-efficacy, and poor health-related quality of life, compared with those not reporting sleep problems, according to the findings from a study of 245 patients.

Sleep problems are common in patients with COPD and have been associated with poor COPD-related outcomes, wrote Sang Hee Lee, MD, of Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Gunpo-si, South Korea, and colleagues.

“However, there is a lack of research on factors associated with sleep disturbance in patients with COPD,” they wrote.

In a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study published in the Clinical Respiratory Journal, the researchers enrolled 245 adults with COPD who completed the COPD and Asthma Impact Scale (CASIS) to determine sleep impairment. The CASIS was developed to measure sleep-related problems associated with respiratory disease, and scored on a scale of 1-100, with higher scores indicating greater sleep impairment. The average CASIS score was 40.9. The average age of the patients was 67 years, and 92% were men.

Patients’ health-related quality of life, anxiety/depression, and self-efficacy were assessed using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the COPD Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES). The average scores on these measures were 36.0 for the SGRQ; 48.1 and 50.6, respectively, for the physical and mental components of the SF-36; 3.8 and 6.4, respectively, for the HADS-A and HADS-D measures of anxiety and depression; and 3.3 on the CSES.

Worse sleep in these patients was associated with worse scores on measures of mood. In a multivariate analysis, higher scores on all four measures of health-related quality of life were significantly associated with higher CASIS scores (P = .006 for SGRQ; P = .037 for SF-36, P < .001 for HADS, and P = .010 for CSES).

Although the CASIS did not allow for measurement of symptom severity and did not include many items related to breathing problems, the test “shows good internal consistency, test-retest reproducibility, and construct validity according to previous studies,” the researchers wrote. “The CASIS may be a good tool for evaluating sleep disturbances in COPD patients, and further study is needed,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional study design, lack of data on obstructive sleep apnea, and lack of information on specific treatments such as at-home oxygen use or high-dose steroid use, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a disease-specific sleep measure, and the study is the first known to include self-efficacy in relation to sleep quality in COPD patients, they reported.

The results highlight the association between depression, poor quality of life, and self-efficacy in relation to poor sleep, and suggest that “Sleep quality could be improved by enhancing HRQL and self-efficacy,” the researchers said. “Screening for mood disorder in patients with COPD is also needed,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee SH et al. Clin Respir J. 2020 Jul 24. doi: 10.1111/crj.13235.

A study has shown a strong link between sleeping disturbances and depression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

magicmine/Getty Images

Adults with clinically stable COPD who reported sleep problems were significantly more likely to report depression or anxiety, poor self-efficacy, and poor health-related quality of life, compared with those not reporting sleep problems, according to the findings from a study of 245 patients.

Sleep problems are common in patients with COPD and have been associated with poor COPD-related outcomes, wrote Sang Hee Lee, MD, of Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Gunpo-si, South Korea, and colleagues.

“However, there is a lack of research on factors associated with sleep disturbance in patients with COPD,” they wrote.

In a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study published in the Clinical Respiratory Journal, the researchers enrolled 245 adults with COPD who completed the COPD and Asthma Impact Scale (CASIS) to determine sleep impairment. The CASIS was developed to measure sleep-related problems associated with respiratory disease, and scored on a scale of 1-100, with higher scores indicating greater sleep impairment. The average CASIS score was 40.9. The average age of the patients was 67 years, and 92% were men.

Patients’ health-related quality of life, anxiety/depression, and self-efficacy were assessed using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the COPD Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES). The average scores on these measures were 36.0 for the SGRQ; 48.1 and 50.6, respectively, for the physical and mental components of the SF-36; 3.8 and 6.4, respectively, for the HADS-A and HADS-D measures of anxiety and depression; and 3.3 on the CSES.

Worse sleep in these patients was associated with worse scores on measures of mood. In a multivariate analysis, higher scores on all four measures of health-related quality of life were significantly associated with higher CASIS scores (P = .006 for SGRQ; P = .037 for SF-36, P < .001 for HADS, and P = .010 for CSES).

Although the CASIS did not allow for measurement of symptom severity and did not include many items related to breathing problems, the test “shows good internal consistency, test-retest reproducibility, and construct validity according to previous studies,” the researchers wrote. “The CASIS may be a good tool for evaluating sleep disturbances in COPD patients, and further study is needed,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional study design, lack of data on obstructive sleep apnea, and lack of information on specific treatments such as at-home oxygen use or high-dose steroid use, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a disease-specific sleep measure, and the study is the first known to include self-efficacy in relation to sleep quality in COPD patients, they reported.

The results highlight the association between depression, poor quality of life, and self-efficacy in relation to poor sleep, and suggest that “Sleep quality could be improved by enhancing HRQL and self-efficacy,” the researchers said. “Screening for mood disorder in patients with COPD is also needed,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee SH et al. Clin Respir J. 2020 Jul 24. doi: 10.1111/crj.13235.

A study has shown a strong link between sleeping disturbances and depression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

magicmine/Getty Images

Adults with clinically stable COPD who reported sleep problems were significantly more likely to report depression or anxiety, poor self-efficacy, and poor health-related quality of life, compared with those not reporting sleep problems, according to the findings from a study of 245 patients.

Sleep problems are common in patients with COPD and have been associated with poor COPD-related outcomes, wrote Sang Hee Lee, MD, of Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Gunpo-si, South Korea, and colleagues.

“However, there is a lack of research on factors associated with sleep disturbance in patients with COPD,” they wrote.

In a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study published in the Clinical Respiratory Journal, the researchers enrolled 245 adults with COPD who completed the COPD and Asthma Impact Scale (CASIS) to determine sleep impairment. The CASIS was developed to measure sleep-related problems associated with respiratory disease, and scored on a scale of 1-100, with higher scores indicating greater sleep impairment. The average CASIS score was 40.9. The average age of the patients was 67 years, and 92% were men.

Patients’ health-related quality of life, anxiety/depression, and self-efficacy were assessed using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the COPD Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES). The average scores on these measures were 36.0 for the SGRQ; 48.1 and 50.6, respectively, for the physical and mental components of the SF-36; 3.8 and 6.4, respectively, for the HADS-A and HADS-D measures of anxiety and depression; and 3.3 on the CSES.

Worse sleep in these patients was associated with worse scores on measures of mood. In a multivariate analysis, higher scores on all four measures of health-related quality of life were significantly associated with higher CASIS scores (P = .006 for SGRQ; P = .037 for SF-36, P < .001 for HADS, and P = .010 for CSES).

Although the CASIS did not allow for measurement of symptom severity and did not include many items related to breathing problems, the test “shows good internal consistency, test-retest reproducibility, and construct validity according to previous studies,” the researchers wrote. “The CASIS may be a good tool for evaluating sleep disturbances in COPD patients, and further study is needed,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional study design, lack of data on obstructive sleep apnea, and lack of information on specific treatments such as at-home oxygen use or high-dose steroid use, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a disease-specific sleep measure, and the study is the first known to include self-efficacy in relation to sleep quality in COPD patients, they reported.

The results highlight the association between depression, poor quality of life, and self-efficacy in relation to poor sleep, and suggest that “Sleep quality could be improved by enhancing HRQL and self-efficacy,” the researchers said. “Screening for mood disorder in patients with COPD is also needed,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee SH et al. Clin Respir J. 2020 Jul 24. doi: 10.1111/crj.13235.

When the pandemic was just emerging from its infancy and we were just beginning to think about social distancing, I was sitting around enjoying an adult beverage and some gluten free (not my choice) snacks with some friends. A retired nurse who had just celebrated her 80th birthday said, “I can’t wait until they’ve developed a vaccine.” A former electrical engineer sitting just short of 2 meters to her left responded, “Don’t save me a place near the front of the line for something that is being developed in a program called Warp Speed.”

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

How do you feel about the potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Are you going to roll up your sleeve as soon as the vaccine becomes available in your community? What are you going to suggest to your patients, your children? I suspect many of you will answer, “It depends.” What factors will you be considering when you try to decide between what is likely to be several competing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines?

Will it make any difference to you which biochemical-immune-bending strategy is being used to make the vaccine? All of them will probably be the result of a clever sounding but novel technique, all of them with a track record that is measured in months and not years. Will you be swayed by how large the trials were? Or how long the follow-up lasted? How effective must the vaccine be to convince you that it is worth receiving or recommending? Do you have the tools and experience to make a decision like that? I know I don’t. And should you and I even be put in a position to make that decision?

In the past, you and I may have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for advice. But given the somewhat murky and stormy relationship between the CDC and the president, the vaccine recommendation may be issued by the White House and not the CDC.

For those of us who were practicing medicine during the Swine Flu fiasco of 1976, the pace and the politics surrounding the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has a discomforting déjà vu quality about it. The fact that like this year 1976 was an election year that infused the development process with a sense of urgency above and beyond any of the concerns about the pandemic that never happened. Although causality was never proven, there was a surge in Guillain-Barré syndrome cases that had been linked temporally to the vaccine.

Of course, our pandemic is real, and it would be imprudent to wait a year or more to watch for long-term vaccine sequelae. However, I am more than a little concerned that fast tracking the development process may result in unfortunate consequences in the short term that could have been avoided with a more measured approach to trialing the vaccines.

The sad reality is that as a nation we tend to be impatient. We are drawn to quick fixes that come in a vial or a capsule. We are learning that simple measures like mask wearing and social distancing can make a difference in slowing the spread of the virus. It would be tragic to rush a vaccine into production that at best turns out to simply be an expensive alternative to the measures that we know work or at worst injures more of us than it saves.
 

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

When the pandemic was just emerging from its infancy and we were just beginning to think about social distancing, I was sitting around enjoying an adult beverage and some gluten free (not my choice) snacks with some friends. A retired nurse who had just celebrated her 80th birthday said, “I can’t wait until they’ve developed a vaccine.” A former electrical engineer sitting just short of 2 meters to her left responded, “Don’t save me a place near the front of the line for something that is being developed in a program called Warp Speed.”

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

How do you feel about the potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Are you going to roll up your sleeve as soon as the vaccine becomes available in your community? What are you going to suggest to your patients, your children? I suspect many of you will answer, “It depends.” What factors will you be considering when you try to decide between what is likely to be several competing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines?

Will it make any difference to you which biochemical-immune-bending strategy is being used to make the vaccine? All of them will probably be the result of a clever sounding but novel technique, all of them with a track record that is measured in months and not years. Will you be swayed by how large the trials were? Or how long the follow-up lasted? How effective must the vaccine be to convince you that it is worth receiving or recommending? Do you have the tools and experience to make a decision like that? I know I don’t. And should you and I even be put in a position to make that decision?

In the past, you and I may have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for advice. But given the somewhat murky and stormy relationship between the CDC and the president, the vaccine recommendation may be issued by the White House and not the CDC.

For those of us who were practicing medicine during the Swine Flu fiasco of 1976, the pace and the politics surrounding the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has a discomforting déjà vu quality about it. The fact that like this year 1976 was an election year that infused the development process with a sense of urgency above and beyond any of the concerns about the pandemic that never happened. Although causality was never proven, there was a surge in Guillain-Barré syndrome cases that had been linked temporally to the vaccine.

Of course, our pandemic is real, and it would be imprudent to wait a year or more to watch for long-term vaccine sequelae. However, I am more than a little concerned that fast tracking the development process may result in unfortunate consequences in the short term that could have been avoided with a more measured approach to trialing the vaccines.

The sad reality is that as a nation we tend to be impatient. We are drawn to quick fixes that come in a vial or a capsule. We are learning that simple measures like mask wearing and social distancing can make a difference in slowing the spread of the virus. It would be tragic to rush a vaccine into production that at best turns out to simply be an expensive alternative to the measures that we know work or at worst injures more of us than it saves.
 

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

When the pandemic was just emerging from its infancy and we were just beginning to think about social distancing, I was sitting around enjoying an adult beverage and some gluten free (not my choice) snacks with some friends. A retired nurse who had just celebrated her 80th birthday said, “I can’t wait until they’ve developed a vaccine.” A former electrical engineer sitting just short of 2 meters to her left responded, “Don’t save me a place near the front of the line for something that is being developed in a program called Warp Speed.”

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

How do you feel about the potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Are you going to roll up your sleeve as soon as the vaccine becomes available in your community? What are you going to suggest to your patients, your children? I suspect many of you will answer, “It depends.” What factors will you be considering when you try to decide between what is likely to be several competing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines?

Will it make any difference to you which biochemical-immune-bending strategy is being used to make the vaccine? All of them will probably be the result of a clever sounding but novel technique, all of them with a track record that is measured in months and not years. Will you be swayed by how large the trials were? Or how long the follow-up lasted? How effective must the vaccine be to convince you that it is worth receiving or recommending? Do you have the tools and experience to make a decision like that? I know I don’t. And should you and I even be put in a position to make that decision?

In the past, you and I may have relied on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for advice. But given the somewhat murky and stormy relationship between the CDC and the president, the vaccine recommendation may be issued by the White House and not the CDC.

For those of us who were practicing medicine during the Swine Flu fiasco of 1976, the pace and the politics surrounding the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has a discomforting déjà vu quality about it. The fact that like this year 1976 was an election year that infused the development process with a sense of urgency above and beyond any of the concerns about the pandemic that never happened. Although causality was never proven, there was a surge in Guillain-Barré syndrome cases that had been linked temporally to the vaccine.

Of course, our pandemic is real, and it would be imprudent to wait a year or more to watch for long-term vaccine sequelae. However, I am more than a little concerned that fast tracking the development process may result in unfortunate consequences in the short term that could have been avoided with a more measured approach to trialing the vaccines.

The sad reality is that as a nation we tend to be impatient. We are drawn to quick fixes that come in a vial or a capsule. We are learning that simple measures like mask wearing and social distancing can make a difference in slowing the spread of the virus. It would be tragic to rush a vaccine into production that at best turns out to simply be an expensive alternative to the measures that we know work or at worst injures more of us than it saves.
 

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

One of the take-away messages from a review of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is that clinicians treating this condition “need to be comfortable with uncertainty,” Melissa Hazen, MD, said at a synthesis of multiple published case series and personal experience summarized at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting.

She emphasized MIS-C patient care “requires flexibility,” and she advised clinicians managing these patients to open the lines of communication with the many specialists who often are required to deal with complications affecting an array of organ systems.

MIS-C might best be understood as the most serious manifestation of an immune-mediated response to COVID-19 infection that ranges from transient mild symptoms to the life-threatening multiple organ involvement that characterizes this newly recognized threat. Although “most children who encounter this pathogen only develop mild disease,” the spectrum of the disease can move in a subset of patients to a “Kawasaki-like illness” without hemodynamic instability and then to MIS-C “with highly elevated systemic inflammatory markers and multiple organ involvement,” explained Dr. Hazen, an attending physician in the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

A reliable profile of MIS-C is only beginning to emerge from the series of published case series, most of which have only recently reached publication, according to Dr. Hazen. In general, the description of the most common symptoms and their course has been relatively consistent.

In 186 cases of MIS-C collected in a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 148 (80%) were admitted to intensive care, 90 patients (48%) received vasoactive support, 37 (20%) received mechanical ventilation, and 4 (2%) died.¹ The median age was 8 years (range, 3-13 years) in this study. The case definition was fever for at least 24 hours, laboratory evidence of inflammation, multisystem organ involvement, and evidence of COVID-19 infection. In this cohort of 186 children, 92% had gastrointestinal, 80% had cardiovascular, 76% had hematologic, and 70% had respiratory system involvement.

In a different series of 95 cases collected in New York State, 79 (80%) were admitted to intensive care, 61 (62%) received vasoactive support, 10 (10%) received mechanical ventilation, 4 (4%) received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and 2 (2%) died. ² Thirty-one percent patients were aged 0-5 years, 42% were 6-12 years, and 26% were 13-20 years of age. In that series, for which the case definition was elevation of two or more inflammatory markers, virologic evidence of COVID-19 infection, 80% had gastrointestinal system involvement, and 53% had evidence of myocarditis.

In both of these series, as well as others published and unpublished, the peak in MIS-C cases has occurred about 3 to 4 weeks after peak COVID-19 activity, according to Diana Lee, MD, a pediatrician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. This pattern, reported by others, was observed in New York State, where 230 cases of MIS-C were collected from the beginning of May until the end of June, which reflected this 3- to 4-week delay in peak incidence.

“This does seem to be a rare syndrome since this [group of] 230 cases is amongst the entire population of children in New York State. So, yes, we should be keeping this in mind in our differential, but we should not forget all the other reasons that children can have a fever,” she said.

Both Dr. Hazen and Dr. Lee cautioned that MIS-C, despite a general consistency among published studies, remains a moving target in regard to how it is being characterized. In a 2-day period in May, the CDC, the World Health Organization, and New York State all issued descriptions of MIS-C, employing compatible but slightly different terminology and diagnostic criteria. Many questions regarding optimal methods of diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up remain unanswered.

Questions regarding the risk to the cardiovascular system, one of the organs most commonly affected in MIS-C, are among the most urgent. It is not now clear how best to monitor cardiovascular involvement, how to intervene, and how to follow patients in the postinfection period, according to Kevin G. Friedman, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an attending physician in the department of cardiology at Boston Children’s Hospital.

“The most frequent complication we have seen is ventricular dysfunction, which occurs in about half of these patients,” he reported. “Usually it is in the mild to moderate range, but occasionally patients have an ejection fraction of less than 40%.”

Coronary abnormalities, typically in the form of dilations or small aneurysms, occur in 10%-20% of children with MIS-C, according to Dr. Friedman. Giant aneurysms have been reported.

“Some of these findings can progress including in both the acute phase and, particularly for the coronary aneurysms, in the subacute phase. We recommend echocardiograms and EKGs at diagnosis and at 1-2 weeks to recheck coronary size or sooner if there are clinical indications,” Dr. Friedman advised.

Protocols like these are constantly under review as more information becomes available. There are as yet no guidelines, and practice differs across institutions, according to the investigators summarizing this information.

None of the speakers had any relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Feldstein LR et al. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in U.S. children and adolescents. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:334-46.

2. Dufort EM et al. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children in New York State. N Engl J Med 2020;383:347-58.

One of the take-away messages from a review of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is that clinicians treating this condition “need to be comfortable with uncertainty,” Melissa Hazen, MD, said at a synthesis of multiple published case series and personal experience summarized at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting.

She emphasized MIS-C patient care “requires flexibility,” and she advised clinicians managing these patients to open the lines of communication with the many specialists who often are required to deal with complications affecting an array of organ systems.

MIS-C might best be understood as the most serious manifestation of an immune-mediated response to COVID-19 infection that ranges from transient mild symptoms to the life-threatening multiple organ involvement that characterizes this newly recognized threat. Although “most children who encounter this pathogen only develop mild disease,” the spectrum of the disease can move in a subset of patients to a “Kawasaki-like illness” without hemodynamic instability and then to MIS-C “with highly elevated systemic inflammatory markers and multiple organ involvement,” explained Dr. Hazen, an attending physician in the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

A reliable profile of MIS-C is only beginning to emerge from the series of published case series, most of which have only recently reached publication, according to Dr. Hazen. In general, the description of the most common symptoms and their course has been relatively consistent.

In 186 cases of MIS-C collected in a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 148 (80%) were admitted to intensive care, 90 patients (48%) received vasoactive support, 37 (20%) received mechanical ventilation, and 4 (2%) died.¹ The median age was 8 years (range, 3-13 years) in this study. The case definition was fever for at least 24 hours, laboratory evidence of inflammation, multisystem organ involvement, and evidence of COVID-19 infection. In this cohort of 186 children, 92% had gastrointestinal, 80% had cardiovascular, 76% had hematologic, and 70% had respiratory system involvement.

In a different series of 95 cases collected in New York State, 79 (80%) were admitted to intensive care, 61 (62%) received vasoactive support, 10 (10%) received mechanical ventilation, 4 (4%) received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and 2 (2%) died. ² Thirty-one percent patients were aged 0-5 years, 42% were 6-12 years, and 26% were 13-20 years of age. In that series, for which the case definition was elevation of two or more inflammatory markers, virologic evidence of COVID-19 infection, 80% had gastrointestinal system involvement, and 53% had evidence of myocarditis.

In both of these series, as well as others published and unpublished, the peak in MIS-C cases has occurred about 3 to 4 weeks after peak COVID-19 activity, according to Diana Lee, MD, a pediatrician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. This pattern, reported by others, was observed in New York State, where 230 cases of MIS-C were collected from the beginning of May until the end of June, which reflected this 3- to 4-week delay in peak incidence.

“This does seem to be a rare syndrome since this [group of] 230 cases is amongst the entire population of children in New York State. So, yes, we should be keeping this in mind in our differential, but we should not forget all the other reasons that children can have a fever,” she said.

Both Dr. Hazen and Dr. Lee cautioned that MIS-C, despite a general consistency among published studies, remains a moving target in regard to how it is being characterized. In a 2-day period in May, the CDC, the World Health Organization, and New York State all issued descriptions of MIS-C, employing compatible but slightly different terminology and diagnostic criteria. Many questions regarding optimal methods of diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up remain unanswered.

Questions regarding the risk to the cardiovascular system, one of the organs most commonly affected in MIS-C, are among the most urgent. It is not now clear how best to monitor cardiovascular involvement, how to intervene, and how to follow patients in the postinfection period, according to Kevin G. Friedman, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an attending physician in the department of cardiology at Boston Children’s Hospital.

“The most frequent complication we have seen is ventricular dysfunction, which occurs in about half of these patients,” he reported. “Usually it is in the mild to moderate range, but occasionally patients have an ejection fraction of less than 40%.”

Coronary abnormalities, typically in the form of dilations or small aneurysms, occur in 10%-20% of children with MIS-C, according to Dr. Friedman. Giant aneurysms have been reported.

“Some of these findings can progress including in both the acute phase and, particularly for the coronary aneurysms, in the subacute phase. We recommend echocardiograms and EKGs at diagnosis and at 1-2 weeks to recheck coronary size or sooner if there are clinical indications,” Dr. Friedman advised.

Protocols like these are constantly under review as more information becomes available. There are as yet no guidelines, and practice differs across institutions, according to the investigators summarizing this information.

None of the speakers had any relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Feldstein LR et al. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in U.S. children and adolescents. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:334-46.

2. Dufort EM et al. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children in New York State. N Engl J Med 2020;383:347-58.

One of the take-away messages from a review of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is that clinicians treating this condition “need to be comfortable with uncertainty,” Melissa Hazen, MD, said at a synthesis of multiple published case series and personal experience summarized at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting.

She emphasized MIS-C patient care “requires flexibility,” and she advised clinicians managing these patients to open the lines of communication with the many specialists who often are required to deal with complications affecting an array of organ systems.

MIS-C might best be understood as the most serious manifestation of an immune-mediated response to COVID-19 infection that ranges from transient mild symptoms to the life-threatening multiple organ involvement that characterizes this newly recognized threat. Although “most children who encounter this pathogen only develop mild disease,” the spectrum of the disease can move in a subset of patients to a “Kawasaki-like illness” without hemodynamic instability and then to MIS-C “with highly elevated systemic inflammatory markers and multiple organ involvement,” explained Dr. Hazen, an attending physician in the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

A reliable profile of MIS-C is only beginning to emerge from the series of published case series, most of which have only recently reached publication, according to Dr. Hazen. In general, the description of the most common symptoms and their course has been relatively consistent.

In 186 cases of MIS-C collected in a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 148 (80%) were admitted to intensive care, 90 patients (48%) received vasoactive support, 37 (20%) received mechanical ventilation, and 4 (2%) died.¹ The median age was 8 years (range, 3-13 years) in this study. The case definition was fever for at least 24 hours, laboratory evidence of inflammation, multisystem organ involvement, and evidence of COVID-19 infection. In this cohort of 186 children, 92% had gastrointestinal, 80% had cardiovascular, 76% had hematologic, and 70% had respiratory system involvement.

In a different series of 95 cases collected in New York State, 79 (80%) were admitted to intensive care, 61 (62%) received vasoactive support, 10 (10%) received mechanical ventilation, 4 (4%) received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and 2 (2%) died. ² Thirty-one percent patients were aged 0-5 years, 42% were 6-12 years, and 26% were 13-20 years of age. In that series, for which the case definition was elevation of two or more inflammatory markers, virologic evidence of COVID-19 infection, 80% had gastrointestinal system involvement, and 53% had evidence of myocarditis.

In both of these series, as well as others published and unpublished, the peak in MIS-C cases has occurred about 3 to 4 weeks after peak COVID-19 activity, according to Diana Lee, MD, a pediatrician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. This pattern, reported by others, was observed in New York State, where 230 cases of MIS-C were collected from the beginning of May until the end of June, which reflected this 3- to 4-week delay in peak incidence.

“This does seem to be a rare syndrome since this [group of] 230 cases is amongst the entire population of children in New York State. So, yes, we should be keeping this in mind in our differential, but we should not forget all the other reasons that children can have a fever,” she said.

Both Dr. Hazen and Dr. Lee cautioned that MIS-C, despite a general consistency among published studies, remains a moving target in regard to how it is being characterized. In a 2-day period in May, the CDC, the World Health Organization, and New York State all issued descriptions of MIS-C, employing compatible but slightly different terminology and diagnostic criteria. Many questions regarding optimal methods of diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up remain unanswered.

Questions regarding the risk to the cardiovascular system, one of the organs most commonly affected in MIS-C, are among the most urgent. It is not now clear how best to monitor cardiovascular involvement, how to intervene, and how to follow patients in the postinfection period, according to Kevin G. Friedman, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an attending physician in the department of cardiology at Boston Children’s Hospital.

“The most frequent complication we have seen is ventricular dysfunction, which occurs in about half of these patients,” he reported. “Usually it is in the mild to moderate range, but occasionally patients have an ejection fraction of less than 40%.”

Coronary abnormalities, typically in the form of dilations or small aneurysms, occur in 10%-20% of children with MIS-C, according to Dr. Friedman. Giant aneurysms have been reported.

“Some of these findings can progress including in both the acute phase and, particularly for the coronary aneurysms, in the subacute phase. We recommend echocardiograms and EKGs at diagnosis and at 1-2 weeks to recheck coronary size or sooner if there are clinical indications,” Dr. Friedman advised.

Protocols like these are constantly under review as more information becomes available. There are as yet no guidelines, and practice differs across institutions, according to the investigators summarizing this information.

None of the speakers had any relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Feldstein LR et al. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in U.S. children and adolescents. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:334-46.

2. Dufort EM et al. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children in New York State. N Engl J Med 2020;383:347-58.

All infants born to a cohort of 31 COVID-19–positive mothers tested negative for the virus during the height of the New York surge, according to a study out of New York-Presbyterian Hospital.

South_agency/Getty Images

“It is suggested in the cumulative data that the virus does not confer additional risk to the fetus during labor or during the early postnatal period in both preterm and term infants,” concluded Jeffrey Perlman, MB ChB, and colleagues in Pediatrics.

But other experts suggest substantial gaps remain in our understanding of maternal transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

“Much more needs to be known,” Munish Gupta, MD, and colleagues from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an accompanying editorial.

The prospective study is the first to describe a cohort of U.S. COVID-19–related deliveries, with the prior neonatal impact of COVID-19 “almost exclusively” reported from China, noted the authors. They included a cohort of 326 women who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 on admission to labor and delivery at New York-Presbyterian Hospital between March 22 and April 15th, 2020. Of the 31 (10%) mothers who tested positive, 15 (48%) were asymptomatic and 16 (52%) were symptomatic.

Two babies were born prematurely (one by Cesarean) and were isolated in negative pressure rooms with continuous positive airway pressure. Both were moved out of isolation after two negative test results and “have exhibited an unremarkable clinical course,” the authors reported.

The other 29 term babies were cared for in their mothers’ rooms, with breastfeeding allowed, if desired. These babies and their mothers were discharged from the hospital between 24 and 48 hours after delivery.

“Visitor restriction for mothers who were positive for COVID-19 included 14 days of no visitation from the start of symptoms,” noted the team.

They added “since the prepublication release there have been a total of 47 mothers positive for COVID-19, resulting in 47 infants; 4 have been admitted to neonatal intensive care. In addition, 32 other infants have been tested for a variety of indications within the unit. All infants test results have been negative.”

The brief report outlined the institution’s checklist for delivery preparedness in either the operating room or labor delivery room, including personal protective equipment, resuscitation, transportation to the neonatal intensive care unit, and early postresuscitation care. “Suspected or confirmed COVID-19 alone in an otherwise uncomplicated pregnancy is not an indication for the resuscitation team or the neonatal fellow,” they noted, adding delivery room preparation and management should include contact precautions. “With scrupulous attention to infectious precautions, horizontal viral transmission should be minimized,” they advised.

Dr. Perlman and associates emphasized that rapid turnaround SARSCoV-2 testing is “crucial to minimize the likelihood of a provider becoming infected and/or infecting the infant.”

Although the findings are “clearly reassuring,” Dr. Gupta and colleagues have reservations. “To what extent does this report address concerns for infection risk with a rooming-in approach to care?” they asked in their accompanying editorial. “The answer is likely some, but not much.”

Many questions remain, they said, including: “What precautions were used to minimize infection risk during the postbirth hospital course? What was the approach to skin-to-skin care and direct mother-newborn contact? Were restrictions placed on family members? Were changes made to routine interventions such as hearing screens or circumcisions? What practices were in place around environmental cleaning? Most important, how did the newborns do after discharge?”

The current uncertainty around neonatal COVID-19 infection risk has led to “disparate” variations in care recommendations, they pointed out. Whereas China’s consensus guidelines recommend a 14-day separation of COVID-19–positive mothers from their healthy infants, a practice supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics “when possible,” the Italian Society of Neonatology, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and the Canadian Paediatric Society advise “rooming-in and breastfeeding with appropriate infection prevention measures.”

Dr. Gupta and colleagues pointed to the following as at least three “critical and time-sensitive needs for research around neonatal care and outcomes related to COVID-19”:

• Studies need to have much larger sample sizes and include diverse populations. This will allow for reliable measurement of outcomes.
• Descriptions of care practices must be in detail, especially about infection prevention; these should be presented in a way to compare the efficacy of different approaches.
• There needs to be follow-up information on outcomes of both the mother and the neonate after the birth hospitalization.

Asked to comment, Lillian Beard, MD, of George Washington University in Washington welcomed the data as “good news.”

SOURCE: Perlman J et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(2):e20201567.

All infants born to a cohort of 31 COVID-19–positive mothers tested negative for the virus during the height of the New York surge, according to a study out of New York-Presbyterian Hospital.

South_agency/Getty Images

“It is suggested in the cumulative data that the virus does not confer additional risk to the fetus during labor or during the early postnatal period in both preterm and term infants,” concluded Jeffrey Perlman, MB ChB, and colleagues in Pediatrics.

But other experts suggest substantial gaps remain in our understanding of maternal transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

“Much more needs to be known,” Munish Gupta, MD, and colleagues from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an accompanying editorial.

The prospective study is the first to describe a cohort of U.S. COVID-19–related deliveries, with the prior neonatal impact of COVID-19 “almost exclusively” reported from China, noted the authors. They included a cohort of 326 women who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 on admission to labor and delivery at New York-Presbyterian Hospital between March 22 and April 15th, 2020. Of the 31 (10%) mothers who tested positive, 15 (48%) were asymptomatic and 16 (52%) were symptomatic.

Two babies were born prematurely (one by Cesarean) and were isolated in negative pressure rooms with continuous positive airway pressure. Both were moved out of isolation after two negative test results and “have exhibited an unremarkable clinical course,” the authors reported.

The other 29 term babies were cared for in their mothers’ rooms, with breastfeeding allowed, if desired. These babies and their mothers were discharged from the hospital between 24 and 48 hours after delivery.

“Visitor restriction for mothers who were positive for COVID-19 included 14 days of no visitation from the start of symptoms,” noted the team.

They added “since the prepublication release there have been a total of 47 mothers positive for COVID-19, resulting in 47 infants; 4 have been admitted to neonatal intensive care. In addition, 32 other infants have been tested for a variety of indications within the unit. All infants test results have been negative.”

The brief report outlined the institution’s checklist for delivery preparedness in either the operating room or labor delivery room, including personal protective equipment, resuscitation, transportation to the neonatal intensive care unit, and early postresuscitation care. “Suspected or confirmed COVID-19 alone in an otherwise uncomplicated pregnancy is not an indication for the resuscitation team or the neonatal fellow,” they noted, adding delivery room preparation and management should include contact precautions. “With scrupulous attention to infectious precautions, horizontal viral transmission should be minimized,” they advised.

Dr. Perlman and associates emphasized that rapid turnaround SARSCoV-2 testing is “crucial to minimize the likelihood of a provider becoming infected and/or infecting the infant.”

Although the findings are “clearly reassuring,” Dr. Gupta and colleagues have reservations. “To what extent does this report address concerns for infection risk with a rooming-in approach to care?” they asked in their accompanying editorial. “The answer is likely some, but not much.”

Many questions remain, they said, including: “What precautions were used to minimize infection risk during the postbirth hospital course? What was the approach to skin-to-skin care and direct mother-newborn contact? Were restrictions placed on family members? Were changes made to routine interventions such as hearing screens or circumcisions? What practices were in place around environmental cleaning? Most important, how did the newborns do after discharge?”

The current uncertainty around neonatal COVID-19 infection risk has led to “disparate” variations in care recommendations, they pointed out. Whereas China’s consensus guidelines recommend a 14-day separation of COVID-19–positive mothers from their healthy infants, a practice supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics “when possible,” the Italian Society of Neonatology, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and the Canadian Paediatric Society advise “rooming-in and breastfeeding with appropriate infection prevention measures.”

Dr. Gupta and colleagues pointed to the following as at least three “critical and time-sensitive needs for research around neonatal care and outcomes related to COVID-19”:

• Studies need to have much larger sample sizes and include diverse populations. This will allow for reliable measurement of outcomes.
• Descriptions of care practices must be in detail, especially about infection prevention; these should be presented in a way to compare the efficacy of different approaches.
• There needs to be follow-up information on outcomes of both the mother and the neonate after the birth hospitalization.

Asked to comment, Lillian Beard, MD, of George Washington University in Washington welcomed the data as “good news.”

SOURCE: Perlman J et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(2):e20201567.

All infants born to a cohort of 31 COVID-19–positive mothers tested negative for the virus during the height of the New York surge, according to a study out of New York-Presbyterian Hospital.

South_agency/Getty Images

“It is suggested in the cumulative data that the virus does not confer additional risk to the fetus during labor or during the early postnatal period in both preterm and term infants,” concluded Jeffrey Perlman, MB ChB, and colleagues in Pediatrics.

But other experts suggest substantial gaps remain in our understanding of maternal transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

“Much more needs to be known,” Munish Gupta, MD, and colleagues from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an accompanying editorial.

The prospective study is the first to describe a cohort of U.S. COVID-19–related deliveries, with the prior neonatal impact of COVID-19 “almost exclusively” reported from China, noted the authors. They included a cohort of 326 women who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 on admission to labor and delivery at New York-Presbyterian Hospital between March 22 and April 15th, 2020. Of the 31 (10%) mothers who tested positive, 15 (48%) were asymptomatic and 16 (52%) were symptomatic.

Two babies were born prematurely (one by Cesarean) and were isolated in negative pressure rooms with continuous positive airway pressure. Both were moved out of isolation after two negative test results and “have exhibited an unremarkable clinical course,” the authors reported.

The other 29 term babies were cared for in their mothers’ rooms, with breastfeeding allowed, if desired. These babies and their mothers were discharged from the hospital between 24 and 48 hours after delivery.

“Visitor restriction for mothers who were positive for COVID-19 included 14 days of no visitation from the start of symptoms,” noted the team.

They added “since the prepublication release there have been a total of 47 mothers positive for COVID-19, resulting in 47 infants; 4 have been admitted to neonatal intensive care. In addition, 32 other infants have been tested for a variety of indications within the unit. All infants test results have been negative.”

The brief report outlined the institution’s checklist for delivery preparedness in either the operating room or labor delivery room, including personal protective equipment, resuscitation, transportation to the neonatal intensive care unit, and early postresuscitation care. “Suspected or confirmed COVID-19 alone in an otherwise uncomplicated pregnancy is not an indication for the resuscitation team or the neonatal fellow,” they noted, adding delivery room preparation and management should include contact precautions. “With scrupulous attention to infectious precautions, horizontal viral transmission should be minimized,” they advised.

Dr. Perlman and associates emphasized that rapid turnaround SARSCoV-2 testing is “crucial to minimize the likelihood of a provider becoming infected and/or infecting the infant.”

Although the findings are “clearly reassuring,” Dr. Gupta and colleagues have reservations. “To what extent does this report address concerns for infection risk with a rooming-in approach to care?” they asked in their accompanying editorial. “The answer is likely some, but not much.”

Many questions remain, they said, including: “What precautions were used to minimize infection risk during the postbirth hospital course? What was the approach to skin-to-skin care and direct mother-newborn contact? Were restrictions placed on family members? Were changes made to routine interventions such as hearing screens or circumcisions? What practices were in place around environmental cleaning? Most important, how did the newborns do after discharge?”

The current uncertainty around neonatal COVID-19 infection risk has led to “disparate” variations in care recommendations, they pointed out. Whereas China’s consensus guidelines recommend a 14-day separation of COVID-19–positive mothers from their healthy infants, a practice supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics “when possible,” the Italian Society of Neonatology, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and the Canadian Paediatric Society advise “rooming-in and breastfeeding with appropriate infection prevention measures.”

Dr. Gupta and colleagues pointed to the following as at least three “critical and time-sensitive needs for research around neonatal care and outcomes related to COVID-19”:

• Studies need to have much larger sample sizes and include diverse populations. This will allow for reliable measurement of outcomes.
• Descriptions of care practices must be in detail, especially about infection prevention; these should be presented in a way to compare the efficacy of different approaches.
• There needs to be follow-up information on outcomes of both the mother and the neonate after the birth hospitalization.

Asked to comment, Lillian Beard, MD, of George Washington University in Washington welcomed the data as “good news.”

SOURCE: Perlman J et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(2):e20201567.

Using point-of-care ultrasound, internists can reduce the number of tests performed in a hospital without affecting mortality, researchers say.

“It’s a safe and very useful tool,” Marco Barchiesi, MD, an internal medicine resident at Luigi Sacco Hospital in Milan, said in an interview. “We had a great reduction in chest x-rays because of the use of ultrasound.”

The finding addresses concerns that ultrasound used in primary care could consume more health care resources or put patients at risk.

Dr. Barchiesi and colleagues published their findings July 20 in the European Journal of Internal Medicine.

Point-of-care ultrasound has become increasingly common as miniaturization of devices has made them more portable. The approach has caught on particularly in emergency departments where quick decisions are of the essence.

Its use in internal medicine has been more controversial, with concerns raised that improperly trained practitioners may miss diagnoses or refer patients for unnecessary tests as a result of uncertainty about their findings.

To measure the effect of point-of-care ultrasound in an internal medicine hospital ward, Dr. Barchiesi and colleagues alternated months when point-of-care ultrasound was allowed with months when it was not allowed, for a total of 4 months each, on an internal medicine unit. They allowed the ultrasound to be used for invasive procedures and excluded patients whose critical condition made point-of-care ultrasound crucial.

The researchers analyzed data on 263 patients in the “on” months when point-of-care ultrasound was used, and 255 in the “off” months when it wasn’t used. The two groups were well balanced in age, sex, comorbidity, and clinical impairment.

During the on months, the internists ordered 113 diagnostic tests (0.43 per patient). During the off months they ordered 329 tests (1.29 per patient).

The odds of being referred for a chest x-ray were 87% less in the “on” months, compared with the off months, a statistically significant finding (P < .001). The risk for a chest CT scan and abdominal ultrasound were also reduced during the on months, but the risk for an abdominal CT was increased.

Nineteen patients died during the o” months and 10 during the off months, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .15). The median length of stay in the hospital was almost the same for the two groups: 9 days for the on months and 9 days for the off months. The difference was also not statistically significant (P = .094).

Point-of-care ultrasound is particularly accurate in identifying cardiac abnormalities and pleural fluid and pneumonia, and it can be used effectively for monitoring heart conditions, the researchers wrote. This could explain the reduction in chest x-rays and CT scans.

On the other hand, ultrasound cannot address such questions as staging in an abdominal malignancy, and unexpected findings are more common with abdominal than chest ultrasound. This could explain why the point-of-care ultrasound did not reduce the use of abdominal CT, the researchers speculated.

They acknowledged that the patients in their sample had an average age of 81 years, raising questions about how well their data could be applied to a younger population. And they noted that they used point-of-care ultrasound frequently, so they were particularly adept with it. “We use it almost every day in our clinical practice,” said Dr. Barchiesi.

Those factors may have played a key role in the success of point-of-care ultrasound in this study, said Michael Wagner, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, who has helped colleagues incorporate ultrasound into their practices.

Elderly patients often present with multiple comorbidities and atypical signs and symptoms, he said. “Sometimes they can be very confusing as to the underlying clinical picture. Ultrasound is being used frequently to better assess these complicated patients.”

Dr. Wagner said extensive training is required to use point-of-care ultrasound accurately.

Dr. Barchiesi also acknowledged that the devices used in this study were large portable machines, not the simpler and less expensive hand-held versions that are also available for similar purposes.

Point-of-care ultrasound is a promising innovation, said Thomas Melgar, MD, a professor of medicine at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. “The advantage is that the exam is being done by someone who knows the patient and specifically what they’re looking for. It’s done at the bedside so you don’t have to move the patient.”

The study could help address opposition to internal medicine residents being trained in the technique, he said, adding that “I think it’s very exciting.”

The study was partially supported by Philips, which provided the ultrasound devices. Dr. Barchiesi, Dr. Melgar, and Dr. Wagner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Using point-of-care ultrasound, internists can reduce the number of tests performed in a hospital without affecting mortality, researchers say.

“It’s a safe and very useful tool,” Marco Barchiesi, MD, an internal medicine resident at Luigi Sacco Hospital in Milan, said in an interview. “We had a great reduction in chest x-rays because of the use of ultrasound.”

The finding addresses concerns that ultrasound used in primary care could consume more health care resources or put patients at risk.

Dr. Barchiesi and colleagues published their findings July 20 in the European Journal of Internal Medicine.

Point-of-care ultrasound has become increasingly common as miniaturization of devices has made them more portable. The approach has caught on particularly in emergency departments where quick decisions are of the essence.

Its use in internal medicine has been more controversial, with concerns raised that improperly trained practitioners may miss diagnoses or refer patients for unnecessary tests as a result of uncertainty about their findings.

To measure the effect of point-of-care ultrasound in an internal medicine hospital ward, Dr. Barchiesi and colleagues alternated months when point-of-care ultrasound was allowed with months when it was not allowed, for a total of 4 months each, on an internal medicine unit. They allowed the ultrasound to be used for invasive procedures and excluded patients whose critical condition made point-of-care ultrasound crucial.

The researchers analyzed data on 263 patients in the “on” months when point-of-care ultrasound was used, and 255 in the “off” months when it wasn’t used. The two groups were well balanced in age, sex, comorbidity, and clinical impairment.

During the on months, the internists ordered 113 diagnostic tests (0.43 per patient). During the off months they ordered 329 tests (1.29 per patient).

The odds of being referred for a chest x-ray were 87% less in the “on” months, compared with the off months, a statistically significant finding (P < .001). The risk for a chest CT scan and abdominal ultrasound were also reduced during the on months, but the risk for an abdominal CT was increased.

Nineteen patients died during the o” months and 10 during the off months, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .15). The median length of stay in the hospital was almost the same for the two groups: 9 days for the on months and 9 days for the off months. The difference was also not statistically significant (P = .094).

Point-of-care ultrasound is particularly accurate in identifying cardiac abnormalities and pleural fluid and pneumonia, and it can be used effectively for monitoring heart conditions, the researchers wrote. This could explain the reduction in chest x-rays and CT scans.

On the other hand, ultrasound cannot address such questions as staging in an abdominal malignancy, and unexpected findings are more common with abdominal than chest ultrasound. This could explain why the point-of-care ultrasound did not reduce the use of abdominal CT, the researchers speculated.

They acknowledged that the patients in their sample had an average age of 81 years, raising questions about how well their data could be applied to a younger population. And they noted that they used point-of-care ultrasound frequently, so they were particularly adept with it. “We use it almost every day in our clinical practice,” said Dr. Barchiesi.

Those factors may have played a key role in the success of point-of-care ultrasound in this study, said Michael Wagner, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, who has helped colleagues incorporate ultrasound into their practices.

Elderly patients often present with multiple comorbidities and atypical signs and symptoms, he said. “Sometimes they can be very confusing as to the underlying clinical picture. Ultrasound is being used frequently to better assess these complicated patients.”

Dr. Wagner said extensive training is required to use point-of-care ultrasound accurately.

Dr. Barchiesi also acknowledged that the devices used in this study were large portable machines, not the simpler and less expensive hand-held versions that are also available for similar purposes.

Point-of-care ultrasound is a promising innovation, said Thomas Melgar, MD, a professor of medicine at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. “The advantage is that the exam is being done by someone who knows the patient and specifically what they’re looking for. It’s done at the bedside so you don’t have to move the patient.”

The study could help address opposition to internal medicine residents being trained in the technique, he said, adding that “I think it’s very exciting.”

The study was partially supported by Philips, which provided the ultrasound devices. Dr. Barchiesi, Dr. Melgar, and Dr. Wagner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Using point-of-care ultrasound, internists can reduce the number of tests performed in a hospital without affecting mortality, researchers say.

“It’s a safe and very useful tool,” Marco Barchiesi, MD, an internal medicine resident at Luigi Sacco Hospital in Milan, said in an interview. “We had a great reduction in chest x-rays because of the use of ultrasound.”

The finding addresses concerns that ultrasound used in primary care could consume more health care resources or put patients at risk.

Dr. Barchiesi and colleagues published their findings July 20 in the European Journal of Internal Medicine.

Point-of-care ultrasound has become increasingly common as miniaturization of devices has made them more portable. The approach has caught on particularly in emergency departments where quick decisions are of the essence.

Its use in internal medicine has been more controversial, with concerns raised that improperly trained practitioners may miss diagnoses or refer patients for unnecessary tests as a result of uncertainty about their findings.

To measure the effect of point-of-care ultrasound in an internal medicine hospital ward, Dr. Barchiesi and colleagues alternated months when point-of-care ultrasound was allowed with months when it was not allowed, for a total of 4 months each, on an internal medicine unit. They allowed the ultrasound to be used for invasive procedures and excluded patients whose critical condition made point-of-care ultrasound crucial.

The researchers analyzed data on 263 patients in the “on” months when point-of-care ultrasound was used, and 255 in the “off” months when it wasn’t used. The two groups were well balanced in age, sex, comorbidity, and clinical impairment.

During the on months, the internists ordered 113 diagnostic tests (0.43 per patient). During the off months they ordered 329 tests (1.29 per patient).

The odds of being referred for a chest x-ray were 87% less in the “on” months, compared with the off months, a statistically significant finding (P < .001). The risk for a chest CT scan and abdominal ultrasound were also reduced during the on months, but the risk for an abdominal CT was increased.

Nineteen patients died during the o” months and 10 during the off months, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .15). The median length of stay in the hospital was almost the same for the two groups: 9 days for the on months and 9 days for the off months. The difference was also not statistically significant (P = .094).

Point-of-care ultrasound is particularly accurate in identifying cardiac abnormalities and pleural fluid and pneumonia, and it can be used effectively for monitoring heart conditions, the researchers wrote. This could explain the reduction in chest x-rays and CT scans.

On the other hand, ultrasound cannot address such questions as staging in an abdominal malignancy, and unexpected findings are more common with abdominal than chest ultrasound. This could explain why the point-of-care ultrasound did not reduce the use of abdominal CT, the researchers speculated.

They acknowledged that the patients in their sample had an average age of 81 years, raising questions about how well their data could be applied to a younger population. And they noted that they used point-of-care ultrasound frequently, so they were particularly adept with it. “We use it almost every day in our clinical practice,” said Dr. Barchiesi.

Those factors may have played a key role in the success of point-of-care ultrasound in this study, said Michael Wagner, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, who has helped colleagues incorporate ultrasound into their practices.

Elderly patients often present with multiple comorbidities and atypical signs and symptoms, he said. “Sometimes they can be very confusing as to the underlying clinical picture. Ultrasound is being used frequently to better assess these complicated patients.”

Dr. Wagner said extensive training is required to use point-of-care ultrasound accurately.

Dr. Barchiesi also acknowledged that the devices used in this study were large portable machines, not the simpler and less expensive hand-held versions that are also available for similar purposes.

Point-of-care ultrasound is a promising innovation, said Thomas Melgar, MD, a professor of medicine at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. “The advantage is that the exam is being done by someone who knows the patient and specifically what they’re looking for. It’s done at the bedside so you don’t have to move the patient.”

The study could help address opposition to internal medicine residents being trained in the technique, he said, adding that “I think it’s very exciting.”

The study was partially supported by Philips, which provided the ultrasound devices. Dr. Barchiesi, Dr. Melgar, and Dr. Wagner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In early April, Maura Quinlan, MD, was working nights on the labor and delivery unit at Northwestern Medicine Prentice Women’s Hospital in Chicago. At the time, hospital policy was to test only patients with known COVID-19 symptoms for SARS-CoV-2. Women in labor wore N95 masks, but only while pushing – and practitioners didn’t always don proper protection in time.

Babies came and families rejoiced. But Dr. Quinlan looks back on those weeks with a degree of horror. “We were laboring a bunch of patients that probably had COVID,” she said, and they were doing so without proper protection.

She’s probably right. According to one study in the New England Journal of Medicine, 13.7% of 211 women who came into the labor and delivery unit at one New York City hospital between March 22 and April 2 were asymptomatic but infected, potentially putting staff and doctors at risk.

Dr. Quinlan already knew she and her fellow ob.gyns. had been walking a thin line and, upon seeing that research, her heart sank. In the middle of a pandemic, they had been racing to keep up with the reality of delivering babies. But despite their efforts to protect both practitioners and patients, some aspects slipped through the cracks. Today, every laboring patient admitted to Northwestern is now tested for the novel coronavirus.

Across the country, hospital labor and delivery wards have been working to find a careful and informed balance among multiple competing interests: the safety of their health care workers, the health of tiny and vulnerable new humans, and the stability of a birthing mother. Each hospital has been making the best decisions it can based on available data. The result is a patchwork of policies, but all of them center around rapid testing and appropriate protection.
 

Shifting recommendations

One case study of women in a New York City hospital during the height of the city’s surge found that, of seven confirmed COVID-19–positive patients, two were asymptomatic upon admission to the obstetrical service, and these same two patients ultimately required unplanned ICU admission. The women’s care prior to their positive diagnosis had exposed multiple health care workers, all of whom lacked appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), the study authors wrote. “Further, five of seven confirmed COVID-19–positive women were afebrile on initial screen, and four did not first report a cough. In some locations where testing availability remains limited, the minimal symptoms reported for some of these cases might have been insufficient to prompt COVID-19 testing.”

As studies like this pour in, societies continue to update their recommendations accordingly. The latest guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists came on July 1. The group suggests testing all labor and delivery patients, particularly in high-prevalence areas. If tests are in short supply, it recommends prioritizing testing pregnant women with suspected COVID-19 and those who develop symptoms during admission.

At Northwestern, the hospital requests patients stay home and quarantine for the weeks leading up to their delivery date. Then, they rapidly test every patient who comes in for delivery and aim to have results available within a few hours.

The hospital’s 30-room labor and delivery wing remains reserved for patients who test negative. Those with positive COVID-19 results are sent to a 6-bed COVID labor and delivery unit elsewhere in the hospital. “We were lucky we had the space to do that, because smaller community hospitals wouldn’t have a separate unused unit where they could put these women,” Dr. Quinlan said.

In the COVID unit, women deliver without a support person – no partner, doula, or family member can join. Doctors and nurses wear full PPE and work only in that ward. And because some research shows that pregnant women who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic may develop symptoms quickly after starting labor with no measurable illness, Dr. Quinlan must decide on a case-by-case basis what to do, if anything at all.

Delaying an induction could allow the infection to resolve or it could result in her patient moving from presymptomatic disease to full-blown pneumonia. Accelerating labor could bring on symptoms or it could allow a mother to deliver safely and get out of the hospital as quickly as possible. “There is an advantage to having the baby now if you feel okay – even if it’s alone – and getting home,” Dr. Quinlan said.

The hospital also tests the partners of women who are COVID-19 positive. Those with negative results can take the newborn home and try to maintain distance until the mother is no longer symptomatic.

In different parts of the country, hospitals have developed different approaches. Southern California is experiencing its own surge, but at the Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center there still haven’t been enough COVID-19 patients to warrant a separate labor and delivery unit.

At UCLA, staff swab patients when they enter the labor and delivery ward — those who test positive have specific room designations. For both COVID-19–positive patients and women who progress faster than test results can be returned, the goals are the same, said Rashmi Rao, MD, an ob.gyn. at UCLA: Deliver in the safest way possible for both mother and baby.

All women, positive or negative, must wear masks during labor – as much as they can tolerate, at least. For patients who are only mildly ill or asymptomatic, the only difference is that everyone wears protective gear. But if a patient’s oxygen levels dip, or her baby is in distress, the team moves more quickly to a cesarean delivery than they’d do with a healthy patient.

Just as hospital policies have been evolving, rules for visitors have been constantly changing too. Initially, UCLA allowed a support person to be present during delivery but had to leave immediately following. Now, each new mother is allowed one visitor for the duration of their stay. And the hospital suggests that patients who are COVID-19 positive recover in separate rooms from their babies and encourages them to maintain distance from their infants, except when breastfeeding.

“We respect and understand that this is a joyous occasion and we’re trying to keep families together as much as possible,” Dr. Rao said.
 

Care conundrums

How hospitals protect their smallest charges keeps changing too. Reports have been circulating about newborns being taken away from COVID-19-positive mothers, especially in marginalized communities. The stories have led many to worry they’d be forcibly separated from their babies. Most hospitals, however, leave it up to the woman and her doctors to decide how much separation is needed. “After delivery, it depends on how someone is feeling,” Dr. Rao said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that mothers who are COVID-19–positive pump breast milk and have a healthy caregiver use that milk, or formula, to bottle-feed the baby, with the new mother remaining 6 feet away from the child as much as she can. If that’s not possible, she should wear gloves and a mask while breastfeeding until she has been naturally afebrile for 72 hours and at least 1 week removed from the first appearance of her symptoms.

“It’s tragically hard,” said Dr. Quinlan, to keep a COVID-19–positive mother even 6 feet away from her newborn baby. “If a mother declines separation, we ask the acting pediatric team to discuss the theoretical risks and paucity of data.”

Until recently, research indicated that SARS-CoV-2 wasn’t being transmitted through the uterus from mothers to their babies. And despite a recent case study reporting transplacental transmission between a mother and her fetus in France, researchers still say that the risk of transference is low. To ensure newborn risk remains as low as possible, UCLA’s policy is to swab the baby when he/she is 24 hours old and keep watch for signs of infection: increased lethargy, difficulty waking, or gastrointestinal symptoms like vomiting.

Transmission via breast milk has also, to date, proven relatively unlikely. One study in The Lancet detected the novel coronavirus in breast milk, although it’s not clear that the virus can be passed on in the fluid, says Christina Chambers, PhD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Chambers is studying breast milk to see if the virus or antibodies to it are present. She is also investigating how infection with SARS-CoV-2 impacts women at different times in pregnancy, something that’s still an open question.

“[In] pregnant women with a deteriorating infection, the decisions are the same you would make with any delivery: Save the mom and save the baby,” Dr. Chambers said. “Beyond that, I am encouraged to see that pregnant women are prioritized to being tested,” something that will help researchers understand prevalence of disease in order to better understand whether some symptoms are more dangerous than others.

The situation is evolving so quickly that hospitals and providers are simply trying to stay abreast of the flood of new research. In the absence of definitive answers, they are using the information available and adjusting on the fly. “We are cautiously waiting for more data,” said Dr. Rao. “With the information we have we are doing the best we can to keep our patients safe. And we’re just going to keep at it.”

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

In early April, Maura Quinlan, MD, was working nights on the labor and delivery unit at Northwestern Medicine Prentice Women’s Hospital in Chicago. At the time, hospital policy was to test only patients with known COVID-19 symptoms for SARS-CoV-2. Women in labor wore N95 masks, but only while pushing – and practitioners didn’t always don proper protection in time.

Babies came and families rejoiced. But Dr. Quinlan looks back on those weeks with a degree of horror. “We were laboring a bunch of patients that probably had COVID,” she said, and they were doing so without proper protection.

She’s probably right. According to one study in the New England Journal of Medicine, 13.7% of 211 women who came into the labor and delivery unit at one New York City hospital between March 22 and April 2 were asymptomatic but infected, potentially putting staff and doctors at risk.

Dr. Quinlan already knew she and her fellow ob.gyns. had been walking a thin line and, upon seeing that research, her heart sank. In the middle of a pandemic, they had been racing to keep up with the reality of delivering babies. But despite their efforts to protect both practitioners and patients, some aspects slipped through the cracks. Today, every laboring patient admitted to Northwestern is now tested for the novel coronavirus.

Across the country, hospital labor and delivery wards have been working to find a careful and informed balance among multiple competing interests: the safety of their health care workers, the health of tiny and vulnerable new humans, and the stability of a birthing mother. Each hospital has been making the best decisions it can based on available data. The result is a patchwork of policies, but all of them center around rapid testing and appropriate protection.
 

Shifting recommendations

One case study of women in a New York City hospital during the height of the city’s surge found that, of seven confirmed COVID-19–positive patients, two were asymptomatic upon admission to the obstetrical service, and these same two patients ultimately required unplanned ICU admission. The women’s care prior to their positive diagnosis had exposed multiple health care workers, all of whom lacked appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), the study authors wrote. “Further, five of seven confirmed COVID-19–positive women were afebrile on initial screen, and four did not first report a cough. In some locations where testing availability remains limited, the minimal symptoms reported for some of these cases might have been insufficient to prompt COVID-19 testing.”

As studies like this pour in, societies continue to update their recommendations accordingly. The latest guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists came on July 1. The group suggests testing all labor and delivery patients, particularly in high-prevalence areas. If tests are in short supply, it recommends prioritizing testing pregnant women with suspected COVID-19 and those who develop symptoms during admission.

At Northwestern, the hospital requests patients stay home and quarantine for the weeks leading up to their delivery date. Then, they rapidly test every patient who comes in for delivery and aim to have results available within a few hours.

The hospital’s 30-room labor and delivery wing remains reserved for patients who test negative. Those with positive COVID-19 results are sent to a 6-bed COVID labor and delivery unit elsewhere in the hospital. “We were lucky we had the space to do that, because smaller community hospitals wouldn’t have a separate unused unit where they could put these women,” Dr. Quinlan said.

In the COVID unit, women deliver without a support person – no partner, doula, or family member can join. Doctors and nurses wear full PPE and work only in that ward. And because some research shows that pregnant women who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic may develop symptoms quickly after starting labor with no measurable illness, Dr. Quinlan must decide on a case-by-case basis what to do, if anything at all.

Delaying an induction could allow the infection to resolve or it could result in her patient moving from presymptomatic disease to full-blown pneumonia. Accelerating labor could bring on symptoms or it could allow a mother to deliver safely and get out of the hospital as quickly as possible. “There is an advantage to having the baby now if you feel okay – even if it’s alone – and getting home,” Dr. Quinlan said.

The hospital also tests the partners of women who are COVID-19 positive. Those with negative results can take the newborn home and try to maintain distance until the mother is no longer symptomatic.

In different parts of the country, hospitals have developed different approaches. Southern California is experiencing its own surge, but at the Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center there still haven’t been enough COVID-19 patients to warrant a separate labor and delivery unit.

At UCLA, staff swab patients when they enter the labor and delivery ward — those who test positive have specific room designations. For both COVID-19–positive patients and women who progress faster than test results can be returned, the goals are the same, said Rashmi Rao, MD, an ob.gyn. at UCLA: Deliver in the safest way possible for both mother and baby.

All women, positive or negative, must wear masks during labor – as much as they can tolerate, at least. For patients who are only mildly ill or asymptomatic, the only difference is that everyone wears protective gear. But if a patient’s oxygen levels dip, or her baby is in distress, the team moves more quickly to a cesarean delivery than they’d do with a healthy patient.

Just as hospital policies have been evolving, rules for visitors have been constantly changing too. Initially, UCLA allowed a support person to be present during delivery but had to leave immediately following. Now, each new mother is allowed one visitor for the duration of their stay. And the hospital suggests that patients who are COVID-19 positive recover in separate rooms from their babies and encourages them to maintain distance from their infants, except when breastfeeding.

“We respect and understand that this is a joyous occasion and we’re trying to keep families together as much as possible,” Dr. Rao said.
 

Care conundrums

How hospitals protect their smallest charges keeps changing too. Reports have been circulating about newborns being taken away from COVID-19-positive mothers, especially in marginalized communities. The stories have led many to worry they’d be forcibly separated from their babies. Most hospitals, however, leave it up to the woman and her doctors to decide how much separation is needed. “After delivery, it depends on how someone is feeling,” Dr. Rao said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that mothers who are COVID-19–positive pump breast milk and have a healthy caregiver use that milk, or formula, to bottle-feed the baby, with the new mother remaining 6 feet away from the child as much as she can. If that’s not possible, she should wear gloves and a mask while breastfeeding until she has been naturally afebrile for 72 hours and at least 1 week removed from the first appearance of her symptoms.

“It’s tragically hard,” said Dr. Quinlan, to keep a COVID-19–positive mother even 6 feet away from her newborn baby. “If a mother declines separation, we ask the acting pediatric team to discuss the theoretical risks and paucity of data.”

Until recently, research indicated that SARS-CoV-2 wasn’t being transmitted through the uterus from mothers to their babies. And despite a recent case study reporting transplacental transmission between a mother and her fetus in France, researchers still say that the risk of transference is low. To ensure newborn risk remains as low as possible, UCLA’s policy is to swab the baby when he/she is 24 hours old and keep watch for signs of infection: increased lethargy, difficulty waking, or gastrointestinal symptoms like vomiting.

Transmission via breast milk has also, to date, proven relatively unlikely. One study in The Lancet detected the novel coronavirus in breast milk, although it’s not clear that the virus can be passed on in the fluid, says Christina Chambers, PhD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Chambers is studying breast milk to see if the virus or antibodies to it are present. She is also investigating how infection with SARS-CoV-2 impacts women at different times in pregnancy, something that’s still an open question.

“[In] pregnant women with a deteriorating infection, the decisions are the same you would make with any delivery: Save the mom and save the baby,” Dr. Chambers said. “Beyond that, I am encouraged to see that pregnant women are prioritized to being tested,” something that will help researchers understand prevalence of disease in order to better understand whether some symptoms are more dangerous than others.

The situation is evolving so quickly that hospitals and providers are simply trying to stay abreast of the flood of new research. In the absence of definitive answers, they are using the information available and adjusting on the fly. “We are cautiously waiting for more data,” said Dr. Rao. “With the information we have we are doing the best we can to keep our patients safe. And we’re just going to keep at it.”

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

In early April, Maura Quinlan, MD, was working nights on the labor and delivery unit at Northwestern Medicine Prentice Women’s Hospital in Chicago. At the time, hospital policy was to test only patients with known COVID-19 symptoms for SARS-CoV-2. Women in labor wore N95 masks, but only while pushing – and practitioners didn’t always don proper protection in time.

Babies came and families rejoiced. But Dr. Quinlan looks back on those weeks with a degree of horror. “We were laboring a bunch of patients that probably had COVID,” she said, and they were doing so without proper protection.

She’s probably right. According to one study in the New England Journal of Medicine, 13.7% of 211 women who came into the labor and delivery unit at one New York City hospital between March 22 and April 2 were asymptomatic but infected, potentially putting staff and doctors at risk.

Dr. Quinlan already knew she and her fellow ob.gyns. had been walking a thin line and, upon seeing that research, her heart sank. In the middle of a pandemic, they had been racing to keep up with the reality of delivering babies. But despite their efforts to protect both practitioners and patients, some aspects slipped through the cracks. Today, every laboring patient admitted to Northwestern is now tested for the novel coronavirus.

Across the country, hospital labor and delivery wards have been working to find a careful and informed balance among multiple competing interests: the safety of their health care workers, the health of tiny and vulnerable new humans, and the stability of a birthing mother. Each hospital has been making the best decisions it can based on available data. The result is a patchwork of policies, but all of them center around rapid testing and appropriate protection.
 

Shifting recommendations

One case study of women in a New York City hospital during the height of the city’s surge found that, of seven confirmed COVID-19–positive patients, two were asymptomatic upon admission to the obstetrical service, and these same two patients ultimately required unplanned ICU admission. The women’s care prior to their positive diagnosis had exposed multiple health care workers, all of whom lacked appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), the study authors wrote. “Further, five of seven confirmed COVID-19–positive women were afebrile on initial screen, and four did not first report a cough. In some locations where testing availability remains limited, the minimal symptoms reported for some of these cases might have been insufficient to prompt COVID-19 testing.”

As studies like this pour in, societies continue to update their recommendations accordingly. The latest guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists came on July 1. The group suggests testing all labor and delivery patients, particularly in high-prevalence areas. If tests are in short supply, it recommends prioritizing testing pregnant women with suspected COVID-19 and those who develop symptoms during admission.

At Northwestern, the hospital requests patients stay home and quarantine for the weeks leading up to their delivery date. Then, they rapidly test every patient who comes in for delivery and aim to have results available within a few hours.

The hospital’s 30-room labor and delivery wing remains reserved for patients who test negative. Those with positive COVID-19 results are sent to a 6-bed COVID labor and delivery unit elsewhere in the hospital. “We were lucky we had the space to do that, because smaller community hospitals wouldn’t have a separate unused unit where they could put these women,” Dr. Quinlan said.

In the COVID unit, women deliver without a support person – no partner, doula, or family member can join. Doctors and nurses wear full PPE and work only in that ward. And because some research shows that pregnant women who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic may develop symptoms quickly after starting labor with no measurable illness, Dr. Quinlan must decide on a case-by-case basis what to do, if anything at all.

Delaying an induction could allow the infection to resolve or it could result in her patient moving from presymptomatic disease to full-blown pneumonia. Accelerating labor could bring on symptoms or it could allow a mother to deliver safely and get out of the hospital as quickly as possible. “There is an advantage to having the baby now if you feel okay – even if it’s alone – and getting home,” Dr. Quinlan said.

The hospital also tests the partners of women who are COVID-19 positive. Those with negative results can take the newborn home and try to maintain distance until the mother is no longer symptomatic.

In different parts of the country, hospitals have developed different approaches. Southern California is experiencing its own surge, but at the Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center there still haven’t been enough COVID-19 patients to warrant a separate labor and delivery unit.

At UCLA, staff swab patients when they enter the labor and delivery ward — those who test positive have specific room designations. For both COVID-19–positive patients and women who progress faster than test results can be returned, the goals are the same, said Rashmi Rao, MD, an ob.gyn. at UCLA: Deliver in the safest way possible for both mother and baby.

All women, positive or negative, must wear masks during labor – as much as they can tolerate, at least. For patients who are only mildly ill or asymptomatic, the only difference is that everyone wears protective gear. But if a patient’s oxygen levels dip, or her baby is in distress, the team moves more quickly to a cesarean delivery than they’d do with a healthy patient.

Just as hospital policies have been evolving, rules for visitors have been constantly changing too. Initially, UCLA allowed a support person to be present during delivery but had to leave immediately following. Now, each new mother is allowed one visitor for the duration of their stay. And the hospital suggests that patients who are COVID-19 positive recover in separate rooms from their babies and encourages them to maintain distance from their infants, except when breastfeeding.

“We respect and understand that this is a joyous occasion and we’re trying to keep families together as much as possible,” Dr. Rao said.
 

Care conundrums

How hospitals protect their smallest charges keeps changing too. Reports have been circulating about newborns being taken away from COVID-19-positive mothers, especially in marginalized communities. The stories have led many to worry they’d be forcibly separated from their babies. Most hospitals, however, leave it up to the woman and her doctors to decide how much separation is needed. “After delivery, it depends on how someone is feeling,” Dr. Rao said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that mothers who are COVID-19–positive pump breast milk and have a healthy caregiver use that milk, or formula, to bottle-feed the baby, with the new mother remaining 6 feet away from the child as much as she can. If that’s not possible, she should wear gloves and a mask while breastfeeding until she has been naturally afebrile for 72 hours and at least 1 week removed from the first appearance of her symptoms.

“It’s tragically hard,” said Dr. Quinlan, to keep a COVID-19–positive mother even 6 feet away from her newborn baby. “If a mother declines separation, we ask the acting pediatric team to discuss the theoretical risks and paucity of data.”

Until recently, research indicated that SARS-CoV-2 wasn’t being transmitted through the uterus from mothers to their babies. And despite a recent case study reporting transplacental transmission between a mother and her fetus in France, researchers still say that the risk of transference is low. To ensure newborn risk remains as low as possible, UCLA’s policy is to swab the baby when he/she is 24 hours old and keep watch for signs of infection: increased lethargy, difficulty waking, or gastrointestinal symptoms like vomiting.

Transmission via breast milk has also, to date, proven relatively unlikely. One study in The Lancet detected the novel coronavirus in breast milk, although it’s not clear that the virus can be passed on in the fluid, says Christina Chambers, PhD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Chambers is studying breast milk to see if the virus or antibodies to it are present. She is also investigating how infection with SARS-CoV-2 impacts women at different times in pregnancy, something that’s still an open question.

“[In] pregnant women with a deteriorating infection, the decisions are the same you would make with any delivery: Save the mom and save the baby,” Dr. Chambers said. “Beyond that, I am encouraged to see that pregnant women are prioritized to being tested,” something that will help researchers understand prevalence of disease in order to better understand whether some symptoms are more dangerous than others.

The situation is evolving so quickly that hospitals and providers are simply trying to stay abreast of the flood of new research. In the absence of definitive answers, they are using the information available and adjusting on the fly. “We are cautiously waiting for more data,” said Dr. Rao. “With the information we have we are doing the best we can to keep our patients safe. And we’re just going to keep at it.”

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