Neurology Reviews

More than 2 decades on, adult survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma report significantly more neurocognitive impairment than their siblings, but the differences may be related to risk factors in adulthood rather than to treatment in childhood, investigators say.

Among adults with a history of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma and their siblings as controls, the survivors reported significantly worse functioning than their brothers or sisters in four domains of neurocognitive functioning.

In multivariate analysis, however, while sex, race, activity level and smoking status were all significant predictors for worse neurocognitive impairment, there were no significant associations between chemotherapy drugs or chest radiation and neurocognitive impairment, said Annalynn M. Williams, PhD, from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis.

“Hodgkin lymphoma is the most common cancer diagnosed in adolescents, and for many years we’ve had high cure rates, resulting in a growing population of survivors who are now, unfortunately, at an increased risk for cardiovascular, respiratory, endocrine and neurologic late morbidity. The neurocognitive morbidity in this population, however, is unknown,” she said in oral abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
 

Survivors and sibs

To better characterize the potential late neurocognitive effects of intensive Hodgkin lymphoma therapy in childhood, Dr. Williams and colleagues polled survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma and randomly selected sibling controls who were participants in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS).

Participants were asked to complete questionnaires regarding four domains of neurocognitive impairment: task efficiency, emotional regulation, organization, and memory. The investigators defined impairment in each domain as a score lower than that of the 90th percentile of community controls from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort.

A total of 1,564 survivors and 725 controls completed the questionnaires and were included in the study.

The median age at follow-up was slightly higher among survivors, at 37 versus 32 years. The median age at diagnosis was 14, and the median time since diagnosis was 23 years.

In all, 10.8% of survivors reported impaired task efficiency, compared with 7.7% of controls. Problems with emotional regulation were reported by 16.6% of survivors versus 11.5% of siblings, and difficulties with organization and memory were reported by 12.1% versus10.3%, and 8.1% versus 5.7%, respectively.

In a model adjusted for age, sex, and race, the relative risks for neurocognitive impairment among survivors versus siblings, were as follows: task efficiency (RR,1.37); emotional regulation (RR, 1.56); organization (RR, 1.32); memory (RR, 1.72) (all significant by confidence interval).

In a model adjusted for sex, race, smoking status, exercise, age, time since diagnosis, and treatment exposures, risk factors for neurocognitive impairment among survivors included female versus male sex (significant for emotional regulation and memory deficits); non-White versus White (significant for task efficiency); former smoker versus never (significant for all domains except organization); current smoker versus never (significant for task efficiency and emotional regulation); and meeting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exercise criteria versus not (negatively significant for task efficiency and organization); (P < .05 for all above comparisons).

However, in a model adjusted for relapse, second malignancy, treatment exposures, age, sex, race, time since diagnosis, smoking status and physical activity, only relapse or second malignancy – surrogates for additional treatment exposures – were significantly associated with neurocognitive impairment, and then only in the domain of task efficiency.

Chronic conditions significantly associated with risk for impairment included cardiovascular disease (significant across all domains), respiratory comorbidities (significant for task efficiency), endocrine disorders (significant for task efficiency), and neurologic disorders (significant in all domains except organization).

“While these analyses give us a sense of the presence of neurocognitive impairment in a large sample of Hodgkin lymphoma survivors from across the U.S., these analyses are limited by the self-reported nature of the data,” Dr. Williams acknowledged.

“Because survivors self-report impairments, these likely represent overt, symptomatic neurocognitive impairments. Many more survivors may experience more subtle neurocognitive impairments, and additional research with objective measures of both chronic health conditions and neurocognitive functioning are warranted,” she added.
 

Smoking gun?

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, session comoderator Pallawi Torka, MD, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., who was not involved in the research, commented that the finding regarding a link between current and former smoking as risk factors for neurocognitive impairment was “intriguing.”

“Do you think that smoking is a cause or an effect of having that impairment in childhood survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma?” she asked.

“That’s a great question, and actually one we have spent a great deal of time discussing, and we’re still trying to tease that apart. We’re still not really sure where that association is coming from,” Dr. Williams replied.

She noted that, in a different sample of CCSS participants from whom biospecimens were collected, the investigators plan to see whether smoking drives inflammation and oxidative stress mechanisms that may be contributing to neurocognitive impairment, or whether smoking is a coping mechanism related to anxiety and depression, which have also been seen in survivors.

Kara Kelly, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Roswell Park, commented that some survivors report symptoms of cognitive dysfunction shortly after treatment, and asked whether there might be a relationship to Hodgkin-specific factors such as B symptoms, in which cytokine-mediated inflammation may play a role.

Dr. Williams said that, “unfortunately, in CCSS these survivors had to be at least 5 years from diagnosis, but in many cases were recruited years after their diagnosis and treatment, so we don’t have data on B symptoms.”

The CCSS is funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams, Dr. Palawi, and Dr. Kelly all reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Williams AM et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 370.

More than 2 decades on, adult survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma report significantly more neurocognitive impairment than their siblings, but the differences may be related to risk factors in adulthood rather than to treatment in childhood, investigators say.

Among adults with a history of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma and their siblings as controls, the survivors reported significantly worse functioning than their brothers or sisters in four domains of neurocognitive functioning.

In multivariate analysis, however, while sex, race, activity level and smoking status were all significant predictors for worse neurocognitive impairment, there were no significant associations between chemotherapy drugs or chest radiation and neurocognitive impairment, said Annalynn M. Williams, PhD, from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis.

“Hodgkin lymphoma is the most common cancer diagnosed in adolescents, and for many years we’ve had high cure rates, resulting in a growing population of survivors who are now, unfortunately, at an increased risk for cardiovascular, respiratory, endocrine and neurologic late morbidity. The neurocognitive morbidity in this population, however, is unknown,” she said in oral abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
 

Survivors and sibs

To better characterize the potential late neurocognitive effects of intensive Hodgkin lymphoma therapy in childhood, Dr. Williams and colleagues polled survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma and randomly selected sibling controls who were participants in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS).

Participants were asked to complete questionnaires regarding four domains of neurocognitive impairment: task efficiency, emotional regulation, organization, and memory. The investigators defined impairment in each domain as a score lower than that of the 90th percentile of community controls from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort.

A total of 1,564 survivors and 725 controls completed the questionnaires and were included in the study.

The median age at follow-up was slightly higher among survivors, at 37 versus 32 years. The median age at diagnosis was 14, and the median time since diagnosis was 23 years.

In all, 10.8% of survivors reported impaired task efficiency, compared with 7.7% of controls. Problems with emotional regulation were reported by 16.6% of survivors versus 11.5% of siblings, and difficulties with organization and memory were reported by 12.1% versus10.3%, and 8.1% versus 5.7%, respectively.

In a model adjusted for age, sex, and race, the relative risks for neurocognitive impairment among survivors versus siblings, were as follows: task efficiency (RR,1.37); emotional regulation (RR, 1.56); organization (RR, 1.32); memory (RR, 1.72) (all significant by confidence interval).

In a model adjusted for sex, race, smoking status, exercise, age, time since diagnosis, and treatment exposures, risk factors for neurocognitive impairment among survivors included female versus male sex (significant for emotional regulation and memory deficits); non-White versus White (significant for task efficiency); former smoker versus never (significant for all domains except organization); current smoker versus never (significant for task efficiency and emotional regulation); and meeting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exercise criteria versus not (negatively significant for task efficiency and organization); (P < .05 for all above comparisons).

However, in a model adjusted for relapse, second malignancy, treatment exposures, age, sex, race, time since diagnosis, smoking status and physical activity, only relapse or second malignancy – surrogates for additional treatment exposures – were significantly associated with neurocognitive impairment, and then only in the domain of task efficiency.

Chronic conditions significantly associated with risk for impairment included cardiovascular disease (significant across all domains), respiratory comorbidities (significant for task efficiency), endocrine disorders (significant for task efficiency), and neurologic disorders (significant in all domains except organization).

“While these analyses give us a sense of the presence of neurocognitive impairment in a large sample of Hodgkin lymphoma survivors from across the U.S., these analyses are limited by the self-reported nature of the data,” Dr. Williams acknowledged.

“Because survivors self-report impairments, these likely represent overt, symptomatic neurocognitive impairments. Many more survivors may experience more subtle neurocognitive impairments, and additional research with objective measures of both chronic health conditions and neurocognitive functioning are warranted,” she added.
 

Smoking gun?

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, session comoderator Pallawi Torka, MD, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., who was not involved in the research, commented that the finding regarding a link between current and former smoking as risk factors for neurocognitive impairment was “intriguing.”

“Do you think that smoking is a cause or an effect of having that impairment in childhood survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma?” she asked.

“That’s a great question, and actually one we have spent a great deal of time discussing, and we’re still trying to tease that apart. We’re still not really sure where that association is coming from,” Dr. Williams replied.

She noted that, in a different sample of CCSS participants from whom biospecimens were collected, the investigators plan to see whether smoking drives inflammation and oxidative stress mechanisms that may be contributing to neurocognitive impairment, or whether smoking is a coping mechanism related to anxiety and depression, which have also been seen in survivors.

Kara Kelly, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Roswell Park, commented that some survivors report symptoms of cognitive dysfunction shortly after treatment, and asked whether there might be a relationship to Hodgkin-specific factors such as B symptoms, in which cytokine-mediated inflammation may play a role.

Dr. Williams said that, “unfortunately, in CCSS these survivors had to be at least 5 years from diagnosis, but in many cases were recruited years after their diagnosis and treatment, so we don’t have data on B symptoms.”

The CCSS is funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams, Dr. Palawi, and Dr. Kelly all reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Williams AM et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 370.

More than 2 decades on, adult survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma report significantly more neurocognitive impairment than their siblings, but the differences may be related to risk factors in adulthood rather than to treatment in childhood, investigators say.

Among adults with a history of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma and their siblings as controls, the survivors reported significantly worse functioning than their brothers or sisters in four domains of neurocognitive functioning.

In multivariate analysis, however, while sex, race, activity level and smoking status were all significant predictors for worse neurocognitive impairment, there were no significant associations between chemotherapy drugs or chest radiation and neurocognitive impairment, said Annalynn M. Williams, PhD, from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis.

“Hodgkin lymphoma is the most common cancer diagnosed in adolescents, and for many years we’ve had high cure rates, resulting in a growing population of survivors who are now, unfortunately, at an increased risk for cardiovascular, respiratory, endocrine and neurologic late morbidity. The neurocognitive morbidity in this population, however, is unknown,” she said in oral abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
 

Survivors and sibs

To better characterize the potential late neurocognitive effects of intensive Hodgkin lymphoma therapy in childhood, Dr. Williams and colleagues polled survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma and randomly selected sibling controls who were participants in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS).

Participants were asked to complete questionnaires regarding four domains of neurocognitive impairment: task efficiency, emotional regulation, organization, and memory. The investigators defined impairment in each domain as a score lower than that of the 90th percentile of community controls from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort.

A total of 1,564 survivors and 725 controls completed the questionnaires and were included in the study.

The median age at follow-up was slightly higher among survivors, at 37 versus 32 years. The median age at diagnosis was 14, and the median time since diagnosis was 23 years.

In all, 10.8% of survivors reported impaired task efficiency, compared with 7.7% of controls. Problems with emotional regulation were reported by 16.6% of survivors versus 11.5% of siblings, and difficulties with organization and memory were reported by 12.1% versus10.3%, and 8.1% versus 5.7%, respectively.

In a model adjusted for age, sex, and race, the relative risks for neurocognitive impairment among survivors versus siblings, were as follows: task efficiency (RR,1.37); emotional regulation (RR, 1.56); organization (RR, 1.32); memory (RR, 1.72) (all significant by confidence interval).

In a model adjusted for sex, race, smoking status, exercise, age, time since diagnosis, and treatment exposures, risk factors for neurocognitive impairment among survivors included female versus male sex (significant for emotional regulation and memory deficits); non-White versus White (significant for task efficiency); former smoker versus never (significant for all domains except organization); current smoker versus never (significant for task efficiency and emotional regulation); and meeting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exercise criteria versus not (negatively significant for task efficiency and organization); (P < .05 for all above comparisons).

However, in a model adjusted for relapse, second malignancy, treatment exposures, age, sex, race, time since diagnosis, smoking status and physical activity, only relapse or second malignancy – surrogates for additional treatment exposures – were significantly associated with neurocognitive impairment, and then only in the domain of task efficiency.

Chronic conditions significantly associated with risk for impairment included cardiovascular disease (significant across all domains), respiratory comorbidities (significant for task efficiency), endocrine disorders (significant for task efficiency), and neurologic disorders (significant in all domains except organization).

“While these analyses give us a sense of the presence of neurocognitive impairment in a large sample of Hodgkin lymphoma survivors from across the U.S., these analyses are limited by the self-reported nature of the data,” Dr. Williams acknowledged.

“Because survivors self-report impairments, these likely represent overt, symptomatic neurocognitive impairments. Many more survivors may experience more subtle neurocognitive impairments, and additional research with objective measures of both chronic health conditions and neurocognitive functioning are warranted,” she added.
 

Smoking gun?

In the question-and-answer session following the presentation, session comoderator Pallawi Torka, MD, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., who was not involved in the research, commented that the finding regarding a link between current and former smoking as risk factors for neurocognitive impairment was “intriguing.”

“Do you think that smoking is a cause or an effect of having that impairment in childhood survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma?” she asked.

“That’s a great question, and actually one we have spent a great deal of time discussing, and we’re still trying to tease that apart. We’re still not really sure where that association is coming from,” Dr. Williams replied.

She noted that, in a different sample of CCSS participants from whom biospecimens were collected, the investigators plan to see whether smoking drives inflammation and oxidative stress mechanisms that may be contributing to neurocognitive impairment, or whether smoking is a coping mechanism related to anxiety and depression, which have also been seen in survivors.

Kara Kelly, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Roswell Park, commented that some survivors report symptoms of cognitive dysfunction shortly after treatment, and asked whether there might be a relationship to Hodgkin-specific factors such as B symptoms, in which cytokine-mediated inflammation may play a role.

Dr. Williams said that, “unfortunately, in CCSS these survivors had to be at least 5 years from diagnosis, but in many cases were recruited years after their diagnosis and treatment, so we don’t have data on B symptoms.”

The CCSS is funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams, Dr. Palawi, and Dr. Kelly all reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Williams AM et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 370.

Cases of poisoning – intentional and unintentional – from ingestion of alcohol-based hand sanitizer have soared during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the United Kingdom alone, alcohol-based hand sanitizer poisonings reported to the National Poisons Information Service jumped 157% – from 155 between January 1 and September 16, 2019, to 398 between Jan. 1 and Sept. 14, 2020, new research shows.

More needs to be done to protect those at risk of unintentional and intentional swallowing of alcohol-based hand sanitizer, including children, people with dementia/confusion, and those with mental health issues, according to Georgia Richards, DPhil student, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford (England).

“If providers are supplying alcohol-based hand sanitizers in the community to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the contents should be supplied in lockable and automated dispensers to reduce contamination and improve safety,” Ms. Richards said in an interview.

The study was published online Dec. 1 in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.
 

European, U.S. poisoning rates soar

In the paper Ms. Richards described two deaths that occurred in hospitals in England.

In one case, a 30-year-old woman, detained in a psychiatric unit who received the antidepressant venlafaxine was found dead in her hospital bed with a container of hand-sanitizing gel beside her.

“The gel was readily accessible to patients on the ward from a communal dispenser, and patients were allowed to fill cups or other containers with it to keep in their rooms,” Ms. Richards reported.

A postmortem analysis found a high level of alcohol in her blood (214 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood). The medical cause of death was listed as “ingestion of alcohol and venlafaxine.” The coroner concluded that the combination of these substances suppressed the patient’s breathing, leading to her death.

The other case involved a 76-year-old man who unintentionally swallowed an unknown quantity of alcohol-based hand-sanitizing foam attached to the foot of his hospital bed.

The patient had a history of agitation and depression and was treated with antidepressants. He had become increasingly confused over the preceding 9 months, possibly because of vascular dementia.

His blood ethanol concentration was 463 mg/dL (100 mmol/L) initially and 354 mg/dL (77mmol/L) 10 hours later. He was admitted to the ICU, where he received lorazepam and haloperidol and treated with ventilation, with a plan to allow the alcohol to be naturally metabolized.

The patient developed complications and died 6 days later. The primary causes of death were bronchopneumonia and acute alcohol toxicity, secondary to acute delirium and coronary artery disease.

Since COVID-19 started, alcohol-based hand sanitizers are among the most sought-after commodities around the world. The volume of these products – now found in homes, hospitals, schools, workplaces, and elsewhere – “may be a cause for concern,” Ms. Richards wrote.

Yet, warnings about the toxicity and lethality of intentional or unintentional ingestion of these products have not been widely disseminated, she noted.

To reduce the risk of harm, Ms. Richards suggested educating the public and health care professionals, improving warning labels on products, and increasing the awareness and reporting of such exposures to public health authorities.

“While governments and public health authorities have successfully heightened our awareness of, and need for, better hand hygiene during the COVID-19 outbreak, they must also make the public aware of the potential harms and encourage the reporting of such harms to poisons information centers,” she noted.

Increases in alcohol-based hand sanitizer poisoning during the pandemic have also been reported in the United States.

The American Association of Poison Control Centers reports that data from the National Poison Data System show 32,892 hand sanitizer exposure cases reported to the 55 U.S. poison control centers from Jan. 1 to Nov. 15, 2020 – an increase of 73%, compared with the same time period during the previous year.
 

An increase in self-harm

Weighing in on this issue, Robert Bassett, DO, associate medical director of the Poison Control Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that “cleaning agents and disinfectants have been around for eons and their potential for toxicity hasn’t changed.

“Now with COVID, and this hypervigilance when it comes to cleanliness, there is increased access and the exposure risk has gone up,” he said.

“One of the sad casualties of an overstressed health care system and a globally depressed environment is worsening behavioral health emergencies and, as part of that, the risk of self-harm goes up,” Dr. Bassett added.

“The consensus is that there has been an exacerbation of behavioral health emergencies and behavioral health needs since COVID started and hand sanitizers are readily accessible to someone who may be looking to self-harm,” he said.

This research had no specific funding. Ms. Richards is the editorial registrar of BMJ Evidence Based Medicine and is developing a website to track preventable deaths. Dr. Bassett disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cases of poisoning – intentional and unintentional – from ingestion of alcohol-based hand sanitizer have soared during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the United Kingdom alone, alcohol-based hand sanitizer poisonings reported to the National Poisons Information Service jumped 157% – from 155 between January 1 and September 16, 2019, to 398 between Jan. 1 and Sept. 14, 2020, new research shows.

More needs to be done to protect those at risk of unintentional and intentional swallowing of alcohol-based hand sanitizer, including children, people with dementia/confusion, and those with mental health issues, according to Georgia Richards, DPhil student, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford (England).

“If providers are supplying alcohol-based hand sanitizers in the community to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the contents should be supplied in lockable and automated dispensers to reduce contamination and improve safety,” Ms. Richards said in an interview.

The study was published online Dec. 1 in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.
 

European, U.S. poisoning rates soar

In the paper Ms. Richards described two deaths that occurred in hospitals in England.

In one case, a 30-year-old woman, detained in a psychiatric unit who received the antidepressant venlafaxine was found dead in her hospital bed with a container of hand-sanitizing gel beside her.

“The gel was readily accessible to patients on the ward from a communal dispenser, and patients were allowed to fill cups or other containers with it to keep in their rooms,” Ms. Richards reported.

A postmortem analysis found a high level of alcohol in her blood (214 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood). The medical cause of death was listed as “ingestion of alcohol and venlafaxine.” The coroner concluded that the combination of these substances suppressed the patient’s breathing, leading to her death.

The other case involved a 76-year-old man who unintentionally swallowed an unknown quantity of alcohol-based hand-sanitizing foam attached to the foot of his hospital bed.

The patient had a history of agitation and depression and was treated with antidepressants. He had become increasingly confused over the preceding 9 months, possibly because of vascular dementia.

His blood ethanol concentration was 463 mg/dL (100 mmol/L) initially and 354 mg/dL (77mmol/L) 10 hours later. He was admitted to the ICU, where he received lorazepam and haloperidol and treated with ventilation, with a plan to allow the alcohol to be naturally metabolized.

The patient developed complications and died 6 days later. The primary causes of death were bronchopneumonia and acute alcohol toxicity, secondary to acute delirium and coronary artery disease.

Since COVID-19 started, alcohol-based hand sanitizers are among the most sought-after commodities around the world. The volume of these products – now found in homes, hospitals, schools, workplaces, and elsewhere – “may be a cause for concern,” Ms. Richards wrote.

Yet, warnings about the toxicity and lethality of intentional or unintentional ingestion of these products have not been widely disseminated, she noted.

To reduce the risk of harm, Ms. Richards suggested educating the public and health care professionals, improving warning labels on products, and increasing the awareness and reporting of such exposures to public health authorities.

“While governments and public health authorities have successfully heightened our awareness of, and need for, better hand hygiene during the COVID-19 outbreak, they must also make the public aware of the potential harms and encourage the reporting of such harms to poisons information centers,” she noted.

Increases in alcohol-based hand sanitizer poisoning during the pandemic have also been reported in the United States.

The American Association of Poison Control Centers reports that data from the National Poison Data System show 32,892 hand sanitizer exposure cases reported to the 55 U.S. poison control centers from Jan. 1 to Nov. 15, 2020 – an increase of 73%, compared with the same time period during the previous year.
 

An increase in self-harm

Weighing in on this issue, Robert Bassett, DO, associate medical director of the Poison Control Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that “cleaning agents and disinfectants have been around for eons and their potential for toxicity hasn’t changed.

“Now with COVID, and this hypervigilance when it comes to cleanliness, there is increased access and the exposure risk has gone up,” he said.

“One of the sad casualties of an overstressed health care system and a globally depressed environment is worsening behavioral health emergencies and, as part of that, the risk of self-harm goes up,” Dr. Bassett added.

“The consensus is that there has been an exacerbation of behavioral health emergencies and behavioral health needs since COVID started and hand sanitizers are readily accessible to someone who may be looking to self-harm,” he said.

This research had no specific funding. Ms. Richards is the editorial registrar of BMJ Evidence Based Medicine and is developing a website to track preventable deaths. Dr. Bassett disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cases of poisoning – intentional and unintentional – from ingestion of alcohol-based hand sanitizer have soared during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the United Kingdom alone, alcohol-based hand sanitizer poisonings reported to the National Poisons Information Service jumped 157% – from 155 between January 1 and September 16, 2019, to 398 between Jan. 1 and Sept. 14, 2020, new research shows.

More needs to be done to protect those at risk of unintentional and intentional swallowing of alcohol-based hand sanitizer, including children, people with dementia/confusion, and those with mental health issues, according to Georgia Richards, DPhil student, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford (England).

“If providers are supplying alcohol-based hand sanitizers in the community to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the contents should be supplied in lockable and automated dispensers to reduce contamination and improve safety,” Ms. Richards said in an interview.

The study was published online Dec. 1 in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.
 

European, U.S. poisoning rates soar

In the paper Ms. Richards described two deaths that occurred in hospitals in England.

In one case, a 30-year-old woman, detained in a psychiatric unit who received the antidepressant venlafaxine was found dead in her hospital bed with a container of hand-sanitizing gel beside her.

“The gel was readily accessible to patients on the ward from a communal dispenser, and patients were allowed to fill cups or other containers with it to keep in their rooms,” Ms. Richards reported.

A postmortem analysis found a high level of alcohol in her blood (214 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood). The medical cause of death was listed as “ingestion of alcohol and venlafaxine.” The coroner concluded that the combination of these substances suppressed the patient’s breathing, leading to her death.

The other case involved a 76-year-old man who unintentionally swallowed an unknown quantity of alcohol-based hand-sanitizing foam attached to the foot of his hospital bed.

The patient had a history of agitation and depression and was treated with antidepressants. He had become increasingly confused over the preceding 9 months, possibly because of vascular dementia.

His blood ethanol concentration was 463 mg/dL (100 mmol/L) initially and 354 mg/dL (77mmol/L) 10 hours later. He was admitted to the ICU, where he received lorazepam and haloperidol and treated with ventilation, with a plan to allow the alcohol to be naturally metabolized.

The patient developed complications and died 6 days later. The primary causes of death were bronchopneumonia and acute alcohol toxicity, secondary to acute delirium and coronary artery disease.

Since COVID-19 started, alcohol-based hand sanitizers are among the most sought-after commodities around the world. The volume of these products – now found in homes, hospitals, schools, workplaces, and elsewhere – “may be a cause for concern,” Ms. Richards wrote.

Yet, warnings about the toxicity and lethality of intentional or unintentional ingestion of these products have not been widely disseminated, she noted.

To reduce the risk of harm, Ms. Richards suggested educating the public and health care professionals, improving warning labels on products, and increasing the awareness and reporting of such exposures to public health authorities.

“While governments and public health authorities have successfully heightened our awareness of, and need for, better hand hygiene during the COVID-19 outbreak, they must also make the public aware of the potential harms and encourage the reporting of such harms to poisons information centers,” she noted.

Increases in alcohol-based hand sanitizer poisoning during the pandemic have also been reported in the United States.

The American Association of Poison Control Centers reports that data from the National Poison Data System show 32,892 hand sanitizer exposure cases reported to the 55 U.S. poison control centers from Jan. 1 to Nov. 15, 2020 – an increase of 73%, compared with the same time period during the previous year.
 

An increase in self-harm

Weighing in on this issue, Robert Bassett, DO, associate medical director of the Poison Control Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that “cleaning agents and disinfectants have been around for eons and their potential for toxicity hasn’t changed.

“Now with COVID, and this hypervigilance when it comes to cleanliness, there is increased access and the exposure risk has gone up,” he said.

“One of the sad casualties of an overstressed health care system and a globally depressed environment is worsening behavioral health emergencies and, as part of that, the risk of self-harm goes up,” Dr. Bassett added.

“The consensus is that there has been an exacerbation of behavioral health emergencies and behavioral health needs since COVID started and hand sanitizers are readily accessible to someone who may be looking to self-harm,” he said.

This research had no specific funding. Ms. Richards is the editorial registrar of BMJ Evidence Based Medicine and is developing a website to track preventable deaths. Dr. Bassett disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Reports of signs of heart failure in adults with COVID-19 have been rare – just four such cases have been published since the outbreak started in China – and now a team of pediatric cardiologists in New York have reported a case of acute but reversible myocardial injury in an infant with COVID-19.

Madhu S. et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031

SOURCE: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.

Reports of signs of heart failure in adults with COVID-19 have been rare – just four such cases have been published since the outbreak started in China – and now a team of pediatric cardiologists in New York have reported a case of acute but reversible myocardial injury in an infant with COVID-19.

Madhu S. et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031

SOURCE: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.

Reports of signs of heart failure in adults with COVID-19 have been rare – just four such cases have been published since the outbreak started in China – and now a team of pediatric cardiologists in New York have reported a case of acute but reversible myocardial injury in an infant with COVID-19.

Madhu S. et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031

SOURCE: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.

Obesity and hypoxia at the time of hospital admission predicted more severe disease in children diagnosed with COVID-19, based on data from 281 patients at 8 locations.

Manifestations of COVID-19 in children include respiratory disease similar to that seen in adults, but the full spectrum of disease in children has been studied mainly in single settings or with a focus on one clinical manifestation, wrote Danielle M. Fernandes, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, the researchers identified 281 children hospitalized with COVID-19 and/or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) at 8 sites in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. A total of 143 (51%) had respiratory disease, 69 (25%) had MIS-C, and 69 (25%) had other manifestations of illness including 32 patients with gastrointestinal problems, 21 infants with fever, 6 cases of neurologic disease, 6 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis, and 4 patients with other indications. The median age of the patients was 10 years, 60% were male, 51% were Hispanic, and 23% were non-Hispanic Black. The most common comorbidities were obesity (34%) and asthma (14%).
 

Independent predictors of disease severity in children found

After controlling for multiple variables, obesity and hypoxia at hospital admission were significant independent predictors of severe respiratory disease, with odds ratios of 3.39 and 4.01, respectively. In addition, lower absolute lymphocyte count (OR, 8.33 per unit decrease in 10⁹ cells/L) and higher C-reactive protein (OR, 1.06 per unit increase in mg/dL) were significantly predictive of severe MIS-C (P = .001 and P = .017, respectively).

“The association between weight and severe respiratory COVID-19 is consistent with the adult literature; however, the mechanisms of this association require further study,” Dr. Fernandes and associates noted.

Overall, children with MIS-C were significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, compared with children with respiratory disease, an 18% difference. However, neither race/ethnicity nor socioeconomic status were significant predictors of disease severity, the researchers wrote.

During the study period, 7 patients (2%) died and 114 (41%) were admitted to the ICU.

“We found a wide array of clinical manifestations in children and youth hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Fernandes and associates wrote. Notably, gastrointestinal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and dermatologic symptoms have rarely been noted in adults with COVID-19, but occurred in more than 30% of the pediatric patients.

“We also found that SARS-CoV-2 can be an incidental finding in a substantial number of hospitalized pediatric patients,” the researchers said.

The findings were limited by several factors including a population of patients only from Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, and the possibility that decisions on hospital and ICU admission may have varied by location, the researchers said. In addition, approaches may have varied in the absence of data on the optimal treatment of MIS-C.

“This study builds on the growing body of evidence showing that mortality in hospitalized pediatric patients is low, compared with adults,” Dr. Fernandes and associates said. “However, it highlights that the young population is not universally spared from morbidity, and that even previously healthy children and youth can develop severe disease requiring supportive therapy.”
 

Findings confirm other clinical experience

The study was important to show that, “although most children are spared severe illness from COVID-19, some children are hospitalized both with acute COVID-19 respiratory disease, with MIS-C and with a range of other complications,” Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Dr. Randolph said she was not surprised by the study findings, “as we are also seeing these types of complications at Boston Children’s Hospital where I work.”

Additional research is needed on the outcomes of these patients, “especially the longer-term sequelae of having COVID-19 or MIS-C early in life,” she emphasized.

The take-home message to clinicians from the findings at this time is to be aware that children and adolescents can become severely ill from COVID-19–related complications, said Dr. Randolph. “Some of the laboratory values on presentation appear to be associated with disease severity.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Randolph disclosed funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lead the Overcoming COVID-19 Study in U.S. Children and Adults.

SOURCE: Fernandes DM et al. J Pediatr. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.11.016.

Obesity and hypoxia at the time of hospital admission predicted more severe disease in children diagnosed with COVID-19, based on data from 281 patients at 8 locations.

Manifestations of COVID-19 in children include respiratory disease similar to that seen in adults, but the full spectrum of disease in children has been studied mainly in single settings or with a focus on one clinical manifestation, wrote Danielle M. Fernandes, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, the researchers identified 281 children hospitalized with COVID-19 and/or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) at 8 sites in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. A total of 143 (51%) had respiratory disease, 69 (25%) had MIS-C, and 69 (25%) had other manifestations of illness including 32 patients with gastrointestinal problems, 21 infants with fever, 6 cases of neurologic disease, 6 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis, and 4 patients with other indications. The median age of the patients was 10 years, 60% were male, 51% were Hispanic, and 23% were non-Hispanic Black. The most common comorbidities were obesity (34%) and asthma (14%).
 

Independent predictors of disease severity in children found

After controlling for multiple variables, obesity and hypoxia at hospital admission were significant independent predictors of severe respiratory disease, with odds ratios of 3.39 and 4.01, respectively. In addition, lower absolute lymphocyte count (OR, 8.33 per unit decrease in 10⁹ cells/L) and higher C-reactive protein (OR, 1.06 per unit increase in mg/dL) were significantly predictive of severe MIS-C (P = .001 and P = .017, respectively).

“The association between weight and severe respiratory COVID-19 is consistent with the adult literature; however, the mechanisms of this association require further study,” Dr. Fernandes and associates noted.

Overall, children with MIS-C were significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, compared with children with respiratory disease, an 18% difference. However, neither race/ethnicity nor socioeconomic status were significant predictors of disease severity, the researchers wrote.

During the study period, 7 patients (2%) died and 114 (41%) were admitted to the ICU.

“We found a wide array of clinical manifestations in children and youth hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Fernandes and associates wrote. Notably, gastrointestinal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and dermatologic symptoms have rarely been noted in adults with COVID-19, but occurred in more than 30% of the pediatric patients.

“We also found that SARS-CoV-2 can be an incidental finding in a substantial number of hospitalized pediatric patients,” the researchers said.

The findings were limited by several factors including a population of patients only from Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, and the possibility that decisions on hospital and ICU admission may have varied by location, the researchers said. In addition, approaches may have varied in the absence of data on the optimal treatment of MIS-C.

“This study builds on the growing body of evidence showing that mortality in hospitalized pediatric patients is low, compared with adults,” Dr. Fernandes and associates said. “However, it highlights that the young population is not universally spared from morbidity, and that even previously healthy children and youth can develop severe disease requiring supportive therapy.”
 

Findings confirm other clinical experience

The study was important to show that, “although most children are spared severe illness from COVID-19, some children are hospitalized both with acute COVID-19 respiratory disease, with MIS-C and with a range of other complications,” Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Dr. Randolph said she was not surprised by the study findings, “as we are also seeing these types of complications at Boston Children’s Hospital where I work.”

Additional research is needed on the outcomes of these patients, “especially the longer-term sequelae of having COVID-19 or MIS-C early in life,” she emphasized.

The take-home message to clinicians from the findings at this time is to be aware that children and adolescents can become severely ill from COVID-19–related complications, said Dr. Randolph. “Some of the laboratory values on presentation appear to be associated with disease severity.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Randolph disclosed funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lead the Overcoming COVID-19 Study in U.S. Children and Adults.

SOURCE: Fernandes DM et al. J Pediatr. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.11.016.

Obesity and hypoxia at the time of hospital admission predicted more severe disease in children diagnosed with COVID-19, based on data from 281 patients at 8 locations.

Manifestations of COVID-19 in children include respiratory disease similar to that seen in adults, but the full spectrum of disease in children has been studied mainly in single settings or with a focus on one clinical manifestation, wrote Danielle M. Fernandes, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, the researchers identified 281 children hospitalized with COVID-19 and/or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) at 8 sites in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. A total of 143 (51%) had respiratory disease, 69 (25%) had MIS-C, and 69 (25%) had other manifestations of illness including 32 patients with gastrointestinal problems, 21 infants with fever, 6 cases of neurologic disease, 6 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis, and 4 patients with other indications. The median age of the patients was 10 years, 60% were male, 51% were Hispanic, and 23% were non-Hispanic Black. The most common comorbidities were obesity (34%) and asthma (14%).
 

Independent predictors of disease severity in children found

After controlling for multiple variables, obesity and hypoxia at hospital admission were significant independent predictors of severe respiratory disease, with odds ratios of 3.39 and 4.01, respectively. In addition, lower absolute lymphocyte count (OR, 8.33 per unit decrease in 10⁹ cells/L) and higher C-reactive protein (OR, 1.06 per unit increase in mg/dL) were significantly predictive of severe MIS-C (P = .001 and P = .017, respectively).

“The association between weight and severe respiratory COVID-19 is consistent with the adult literature; however, the mechanisms of this association require further study,” Dr. Fernandes and associates noted.

Overall, children with MIS-C were significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, compared with children with respiratory disease, an 18% difference. However, neither race/ethnicity nor socioeconomic status were significant predictors of disease severity, the researchers wrote.

During the study period, 7 patients (2%) died and 114 (41%) were admitted to the ICU.

“We found a wide array of clinical manifestations in children and youth hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Fernandes and associates wrote. Notably, gastrointestinal symptoms, ocular symptoms, and dermatologic symptoms have rarely been noted in adults with COVID-19, but occurred in more than 30% of the pediatric patients.

“We also found that SARS-CoV-2 can be an incidental finding in a substantial number of hospitalized pediatric patients,” the researchers said.

The findings were limited by several factors including a population of patients only from Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, and the possibility that decisions on hospital and ICU admission may have varied by location, the researchers said. In addition, approaches may have varied in the absence of data on the optimal treatment of MIS-C.

“This study builds on the growing body of evidence showing that mortality in hospitalized pediatric patients is low, compared with adults,” Dr. Fernandes and associates said. “However, it highlights that the young population is not universally spared from morbidity, and that even previously healthy children and youth can develop severe disease requiring supportive therapy.”
 

Findings confirm other clinical experience

The study was important to show that, “although most children are spared severe illness from COVID-19, some children are hospitalized both with acute COVID-19 respiratory disease, with MIS-C and with a range of other complications,” Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Dr. Randolph said she was not surprised by the study findings, “as we are also seeing these types of complications at Boston Children’s Hospital where I work.”

Additional research is needed on the outcomes of these patients, “especially the longer-term sequelae of having COVID-19 or MIS-C early in life,” she emphasized.

The take-home message to clinicians from the findings at this time is to be aware that children and adolescents can become severely ill from COVID-19–related complications, said Dr. Randolph. “Some of the laboratory values on presentation appear to be associated with disease severity.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Randolph disclosed funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lead the Overcoming COVID-19 Study in U.S. Children and Adults.

SOURCE: Fernandes DM et al. J Pediatr. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.11.016.

The National Board of Physicians and Surgeons (NBPAS) has announced that they are recertifying United Council of Neurologic Subspecialties (UCNS) diplomates as of Nov. 1, 2020. Recertification will include physicians who were initially board certified with UCNS in the subspecialties of autonomic disorders, behavioral neurology and neuropsychiatry, clinical neuromuscular pathology, geriatric neurology, headache medicine, neurocritical care, neuroimaging, and neuro-oncology.

In 2020, UCNS transitioned to a new continuous-certification (C-cert) model that requires its diplomates to pay an annual fee of $175 and complete a 25-question online quiz based on preselected journal articles with an 80% passing grade. In a press release outlining the details of the new C-cert program, UCNS said that diplomates began the transition last year by “attesting they have participated in subspecialty-specific continuing medical education (CME) requirements from the time their most recent certificate was issued through 2019.” Diplomates have a 2-year window, which began in 2019, to meet these transitional CME requirements and complete an attestation statement before their certification lapses. “Diplomates with a status of ‘meeting requirements’ will be issued a replacement certificate that shows their original certification date and will reflect there is no expiration date after they pay the first annual C-cert fee in 2020,” UCNS said in the press release.

“It is unfortunate that despite requests from diplomates and other stakeholders, UCNS has decided to impose new requirements and additional fees on diplomates who have unexpired certificates based on passing an examination that granted a 10-year certification,” Paul G. Mathew, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston and Director of Legislative Affairs at NBPAS, said in an interview. “A one-size-fits-all approach for learning with preselected articles is not ideal, and physicians should be able to choose CME and other learning activities that best suit their individual interests and practice.”

The added requirements and fees have caused some UCNS diplomates to consider letting their certification lapse, Dr. Mathew said, but the NBPAS decision offers them a new path to recertification. “Many physicians who would have otherwise let their certification lapse and would no longer be considered board certified in headache medicine and other UCNS subspecialties will now have the option to recertify with NBPAS,” he said.

NBPAS was formed in 2014 in response to controversial American Board of Medical Specialties Maintenance of Certification (MOC) programs. NBPAS recertifies diplomates of all specialties and subspecialties offered by the ABMS and its member boards, including board certification in neurology and neurologic subspecialties offered by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.

Board recertification with NBPAS requires an unrestricted license to practice medicine in the United States, an initial certification with ABPN, the American Osteopathic Association, and/or UCNS, a medical staff appointment/membership in good standing, active hospital privileges based on specialty, and 50 hours of relevant CME credits every 2 years.

“Although MOC compliance is not required for licensure, the vast majority of insurance carriers in the United States require to some extent that their physicians be MOC compliant. As such, the ABMS has a monopoly in that a physician cannot practice medicine without complying with MOC,” Dr. Mathew said. “That’s very gradually changing.”

So far, 13 states have passed legislation limiting ABMS MOC compliance as a requirement for credentialing or licensure, and 136 healthcare institutions have recognized NBPAS as a pathway for physician credentialing, according to an NBPAS press release.
 

Changing the rules

Alan Rapoport, MD, was asked to comment on the recertification situtaion. Dr. Rapoport is clinical professor of neurology at UCLA and the Editor in Chief of Neurology Reviews. “As Dr. Mathew aptly states, it is unfortunate that despite requests from diplomates and other stakeholders, UCNS has decided to impose new requirements and additional fees on diplomates who have unexpired certificates based on passing an examination that granted a 10-year certification,”

For context, Dr. Rapoport explained what has happened to him and about 200 neurologists and a few other specialists who took the first UCNS certifying exam in Headache Medicine. “I sat for the first exam in a testing center in 2006, after paying a large fee. I passed and was granted a certificate for a 10-year certification in Headache Medicine. Prior to the expiration of that certificate, I was told I had to pay about $1,800 and take a similar examination to certify for another 10 years. I was not sure I needed to do that, but I did so anyway and passed and was granted a new, dated certificate for another 10 years of certification in Headache Medicine. Shortly after that I began to get notices from UCNS saying that they were changing their certification process and I would soon have to read their designated articles, take an examination on that literature, pay $175 for this privilege of C-Cert yearly, all in spite of the fact that I had a valid certificate for 10 years of certification.”

After complaints from Dr. Rapoport and many others, “UCNS said we would only have to do this when we had 5 years left on our certification. When they advertised this new C-Cert plan on the AAN Headache Listserv, even though advertising was against the rules of the Listserv, I complained about it saying we had paid for a 10-year certification. Their response was to abruptly take me off the Listserv. Then they temporarily shut it down when others agreed with what I had written.”

Dr. Rapoport has the certificate that proves that he has 6 years left on his certification, but UCNS will not recognize this, he said. “I believe that to be unfair, unethical, and probably illegal, as do many senior Headache specialists in the country who have the same issue. The attorney for the UCNS, who is also the attorney for the AAN, has disregarded our objections to this move.”

Now the NBPAS will be recertifying Headache Medicine doctors and those of other specialties who are in a similar situation and do not want to pay for the privilege of taking exams yearly when they have already been certified. “I expect many specialists will switch to this new way of certifying,” Dr. Rapoport said.

“I believe the UCNS has cheapened the value of their certifications by not honoring them,” Dr. Rapoort said.

Dr. Mathew reports that he collects no salary for his role with NBPAS, but receives reimbursement for travel expenses, and occasionally receives honoraria for speaking on behalf of NBPAS.

The National Board of Physicians and Surgeons (NBPAS) has announced that they are recertifying United Council of Neurologic Subspecialties (UCNS) diplomates as of Nov. 1, 2020. Recertification will include physicians who were initially board certified with UCNS in the subspecialties of autonomic disorders, behavioral neurology and neuropsychiatry, clinical neuromuscular pathology, geriatric neurology, headache medicine, neurocritical care, neuroimaging, and neuro-oncology.

In 2020, UCNS transitioned to a new continuous-certification (C-cert) model that requires its diplomates to pay an annual fee of $175 and complete a 25-question online quiz based on preselected journal articles with an 80% passing grade. In a press release outlining the details of the new C-cert program, UCNS said that diplomates began the transition last year by “attesting they have participated in subspecialty-specific continuing medical education (CME) requirements from the time their most recent certificate was issued through 2019.” Diplomates have a 2-year window, which began in 2019, to meet these transitional CME requirements and complete an attestation statement before their certification lapses. “Diplomates with a status of ‘meeting requirements’ will be issued a replacement certificate that shows their original certification date and will reflect there is no expiration date after they pay the first annual C-cert fee in 2020,” UCNS said in the press release.

“It is unfortunate that despite requests from diplomates and other stakeholders, UCNS has decided to impose new requirements and additional fees on diplomates who have unexpired certificates based on passing an examination that granted a 10-year certification,” Paul G. Mathew, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston and Director of Legislative Affairs at NBPAS, said in an interview. “A one-size-fits-all approach for learning with preselected articles is not ideal, and physicians should be able to choose CME and other learning activities that best suit their individual interests and practice.”

The added requirements and fees have caused some UCNS diplomates to consider letting their certification lapse, Dr. Mathew said, but the NBPAS decision offers them a new path to recertification. “Many physicians who would have otherwise let their certification lapse and would no longer be considered board certified in headache medicine and other UCNS subspecialties will now have the option to recertify with NBPAS,” he said.

NBPAS was formed in 2014 in response to controversial American Board of Medical Specialties Maintenance of Certification (MOC) programs. NBPAS recertifies diplomates of all specialties and subspecialties offered by the ABMS and its member boards, including board certification in neurology and neurologic subspecialties offered by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.

Board recertification with NBPAS requires an unrestricted license to practice medicine in the United States, an initial certification with ABPN, the American Osteopathic Association, and/or UCNS, a medical staff appointment/membership in good standing, active hospital privileges based on specialty, and 50 hours of relevant CME credits every 2 years.

“Although MOC compliance is not required for licensure, the vast majority of insurance carriers in the United States require to some extent that their physicians be MOC compliant. As such, the ABMS has a monopoly in that a physician cannot practice medicine without complying with MOC,” Dr. Mathew said. “That’s very gradually changing.”

So far, 13 states have passed legislation limiting ABMS MOC compliance as a requirement for credentialing or licensure, and 136 healthcare institutions have recognized NBPAS as a pathway for physician credentialing, according to an NBPAS press release.
 

Changing the rules

Alan Rapoport, MD, was asked to comment on the recertification situtaion. Dr. Rapoport is clinical professor of neurology at UCLA and the Editor in Chief of Neurology Reviews. “As Dr. Mathew aptly states, it is unfortunate that despite requests from diplomates and other stakeholders, UCNS has decided to impose new requirements and additional fees on diplomates who have unexpired certificates based on passing an examination that granted a 10-year certification,”

For context, Dr. Rapoport explained what has happened to him and about 200 neurologists and a few other specialists who took the first UCNS certifying exam in Headache Medicine. “I sat for the first exam in a testing center in 2006, after paying a large fee. I passed and was granted a certificate for a 10-year certification in Headache Medicine. Prior to the expiration of that certificate, I was told I had to pay about $1,800 and take a similar examination to certify for another 10 years. I was not sure I needed to do that, but I did so anyway and passed and was granted a new, dated certificate for another 10 years of certification in Headache Medicine. Shortly after that I began to get notices from UCNS saying that they were changing their certification process and I would soon have to read their designated articles, take an examination on that literature, pay $175 for this privilege of C-Cert yearly, all in spite of the fact that I had a valid certificate for 10 years of certification.”

After complaints from Dr. Rapoport and many others, “UCNS said we would only have to do this when we had 5 years left on our certification. When they advertised this new C-Cert plan on the AAN Headache Listserv, even though advertising was against the rules of the Listserv, I complained about it saying we had paid for a 10-year certification. Their response was to abruptly take me off the Listserv. Then they temporarily shut it down when others agreed with what I had written.”

Dr. Rapoport has the certificate that proves that he has 6 years left on his certification, but UCNS will not recognize this, he said. “I believe that to be unfair, unethical, and probably illegal, as do many senior Headache specialists in the country who have the same issue. The attorney for the UCNS, who is also the attorney for the AAN, has disregarded our objections to this move.”

Now the NBPAS will be recertifying Headache Medicine doctors and those of other specialties who are in a similar situation and do not want to pay for the privilege of taking exams yearly when they have already been certified. “I expect many specialists will switch to this new way of certifying,” Dr. Rapoport said.

“I believe the UCNS has cheapened the value of their certifications by not honoring them,” Dr. Rapoort said.

Dr. Mathew reports that he collects no salary for his role with NBPAS, but receives reimbursement for travel expenses, and occasionally receives honoraria for speaking on behalf of NBPAS.

The National Board of Physicians and Surgeons (NBPAS) has announced that they are recertifying United Council of Neurologic Subspecialties (UCNS) diplomates as of Nov. 1, 2020. Recertification will include physicians who were initially board certified with UCNS in the subspecialties of autonomic disorders, behavioral neurology and neuropsychiatry, clinical neuromuscular pathology, geriatric neurology, headache medicine, neurocritical care, neuroimaging, and neuro-oncology.

In 2020, UCNS transitioned to a new continuous-certification (C-cert) model that requires its diplomates to pay an annual fee of $175 and complete a 25-question online quiz based on preselected journal articles with an 80% passing grade. In a press release outlining the details of the new C-cert program, UCNS said that diplomates began the transition last year by “attesting they have participated in subspecialty-specific continuing medical education (CME) requirements from the time their most recent certificate was issued through 2019.” Diplomates have a 2-year window, which began in 2019, to meet these transitional CME requirements and complete an attestation statement before their certification lapses. “Diplomates with a status of ‘meeting requirements’ will be issued a replacement certificate that shows their original certification date and will reflect there is no expiration date after they pay the first annual C-cert fee in 2020,” UCNS said in the press release.

“It is unfortunate that despite requests from diplomates and other stakeholders, UCNS has decided to impose new requirements and additional fees on diplomates who have unexpired certificates based on passing an examination that granted a 10-year certification,” Paul G. Mathew, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston and Director of Legislative Affairs at NBPAS, said in an interview. “A one-size-fits-all approach for learning with preselected articles is not ideal, and physicians should be able to choose CME and other learning activities that best suit their individual interests and practice.”

The added requirements and fees have caused some UCNS diplomates to consider letting their certification lapse, Dr. Mathew said, but the NBPAS decision offers them a new path to recertification. “Many physicians who would have otherwise let their certification lapse and would no longer be considered board certified in headache medicine and other UCNS subspecialties will now have the option to recertify with NBPAS,” he said.

NBPAS was formed in 2014 in response to controversial American Board of Medical Specialties Maintenance of Certification (MOC) programs. NBPAS recertifies diplomates of all specialties and subspecialties offered by the ABMS and its member boards, including board certification in neurology and neurologic subspecialties offered by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.

Board recertification with NBPAS requires an unrestricted license to practice medicine in the United States, an initial certification with ABPN, the American Osteopathic Association, and/or UCNS, a medical staff appointment/membership in good standing, active hospital privileges based on specialty, and 50 hours of relevant CME credits every 2 years.

“Although MOC compliance is not required for licensure, the vast majority of insurance carriers in the United States require to some extent that their physicians be MOC compliant. As such, the ABMS has a monopoly in that a physician cannot practice medicine without complying with MOC,” Dr. Mathew said. “That’s very gradually changing.”

So far, 13 states have passed legislation limiting ABMS MOC compliance as a requirement for credentialing or licensure, and 136 healthcare institutions have recognized NBPAS as a pathway for physician credentialing, according to an NBPAS press release.
 

Changing the rules

Alan Rapoport, MD, was asked to comment on the recertification situtaion. Dr. Rapoport is clinical professor of neurology at UCLA and the Editor in Chief of Neurology Reviews. “As Dr. Mathew aptly states, it is unfortunate that despite requests from diplomates and other stakeholders, UCNS has decided to impose new requirements and additional fees on diplomates who have unexpired certificates based on passing an examination that granted a 10-year certification,”

For context, Dr. Rapoport explained what has happened to him and about 200 neurologists and a few other specialists who took the first UCNS certifying exam in Headache Medicine. “I sat for the first exam in a testing center in 2006, after paying a large fee. I passed and was granted a certificate for a 10-year certification in Headache Medicine. Prior to the expiration of that certificate, I was told I had to pay about $1,800 and take a similar examination to certify for another 10 years. I was not sure I needed to do that, but I did so anyway and passed and was granted a new, dated certificate for another 10 years of certification in Headache Medicine. Shortly after that I began to get notices from UCNS saying that they were changing their certification process and I would soon have to read their designated articles, take an examination on that literature, pay $175 for this privilege of C-Cert yearly, all in spite of the fact that I had a valid certificate for 10 years of certification.”

After complaints from Dr. Rapoport and many others, “UCNS said we would only have to do this when we had 5 years left on our certification. When they advertised this new C-Cert plan on the AAN Headache Listserv, even though advertising was against the rules of the Listserv, I complained about it saying we had paid for a 10-year certification. Their response was to abruptly take me off the Listserv. Then they temporarily shut it down when others agreed with what I had written.”

Dr. Rapoport has the certificate that proves that he has 6 years left on his certification, but UCNS will not recognize this, he said. “I believe that to be unfair, unethical, and probably illegal, as do many senior Headache specialists in the country who have the same issue. The attorney for the UCNS, who is also the attorney for the AAN, has disregarded our objections to this move.”

Now the NBPAS will be recertifying Headache Medicine doctors and those of other specialties who are in a similar situation and do not want to pay for the privilege of taking exams yearly when they have already been certified. “I expect many specialists will switch to this new way of certifying,” Dr. Rapoport said.

“I believe the UCNS has cheapened the value of their certifications by not honoring them,” Dr. Rapoort said.

Dr. Mathew reports that he collects no salary for his role with NBPAS, but receives reimbursement for travel expenses, and occasionally receives honoraria for speaking on behalf of NBPAS.

Best of 2020: The MS Report  is a supplement to Neurology Reviews. 

In this supplement, Neurology Reviews collects the top MS research from 2020. Coverage includes MS highlights from the ACTRIMS, AAN, CMSC, and ECTRIMS annual meetings.

Read Now

Best of 2020: The MS Report  is a supplement to Neurology Reviews. 

In this supplement, Neurology Reviews collects the top MS research from 2020. Coverage includes MS highlights from the ACTRIMS, AAN, CMSC, and ECTRIMS annual meetings.

Read Now

Best of 2020: The MS Report  is a supplement to Neurology Reviews. 

In this supplement, Neurology Reviews collects the top MS research from 2020. Coverage includes MS highlights from the ACTRIMS, AAN, CMSC, and ECTRIMS annual meetings.

Read Now

Risk of intubation for COVID-19 in very sick hospitalized patients was increased over fivefold in those with diabetic retinopathy, compared with those without, in a small single-center study from the United Kingdom.

Importantly, the risk of intubation was independent of conventional risk factors for poor COVID-19 outcomes.

“People with preexisting diabetes-related vascular damage, such as retinopathy, might be predisposed to a more severe form of COVID-19 requiring ventilation in the intensive therapy unit,” said lead investigator Janaka Karalliedde, MBBS, PhD.

Dr. Karalliedde and colleagues note that this is “the first description of diabetic retinopathy as a potential risk factor for poor COVID-19 outcomes.”

“For this reason, looking for the presence or history of retinopathy or other vascular complications of diabetes may help health care professionals identify patients at high risk of severe COVID-19,” added Dr. Karalliedde, of Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London.

The study was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.
 

Preexisting diabetic retinopathy and COVID-19 outcomes

The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy is thought to be around 55% in people with type 1 diabetes and 30% in people with type 2 diabetes, on average.

Dr. Karalliedde is part of a research group at King’s College London that has been focused on how vascular disease may predispose to more severe COVID-19.

“COVID-19 affects the blood vessels all over the body,” he said, so they wondered whether having preexisting retinopathy “would predispose to a severe manifestation of COVID-19.”

The observational study included 187 patients with diabetes (179 patients with type 2 diabetes and 8 patients with type 1 diabetes) hospitalized with COVID-19 at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust between March 12 and April 7 (the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in the United Kingdom).  

“It was an ethnically diverse population who were very sick and provides a clinical observation of real life,” Dr. Karalliedde said.

Nearly half of patients were African Caribbean (44%), 39% were White, and 17% were of other ethnicities, including 8% who were Asian. The mean age of the cohort was 68 years (range, 22-97 years), and 60% were men.

Diabetic retinopathy was reported in 67 (36%) patients, of whom 80% had background retinopathy and 20% had more advanced retinopathy.

They then looked at whether the presence of retinopathy was associated with a more severe manifestation of COVID-19 as defined by the need for tracheal intubation.

Of the 187 patients, 26% were intubated and 45% of these patients had diabetic retinopathy.

The analysis showed those with diabetic retinopathy had an over-fivefold increased risk for intubation (odds ratio, 5.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-24.66).

Of the entire cohort, 32% of patients died, although no association was observed between retinopathy and mortality.

“A greater number of diabetes patients with COVID-19 ended up on the intensive therapy unit. Upon multivariate analysis, we found retinopathy was independently associated with ending up on the intensive therapy unit,” stressed Dr. Karalliedde.

However, they noted that, “due to the cross-sectional design of our study, we cannot prove causality [between retinopathy and intubation]. Further studies are required to understand the mechanisms that explain the associations between retinopathy and other indices of microangiopathy with severe COVID-19.”

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

Risk of intubation for COVID-19 in very sick hospitalized patients was increased over fivefold in those with diabetic retinopathy, compared with those without, in a small single-center study from the United Kingdom.

Importantly, the risk of intubation was independent of conventional risk factors for poor COVID-19 outcomes.

“People with preexisting diabetes-related vascular damage, such as retinopathy, might be predisposed to a more severe form of COVID-19 requiring ventilation in the intensive therapy unit,” said lead investigator Janaka Karalliedde, MBBS, PhD.

Dr. Karalliedde and colleagues note that this is “the first description of diabetic retinopathy as a potential risk factor for poor COVID-19 outcomes.”

“For this reason, looking for the presence or history of retinopathy or other vascular complications of diabetes may help health care professionals identify patients at high risk of severe COVID-19,” added Dr. Karalliedde, of Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London.

The study was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.
 

Preexisting diabetic retinopathy and COVID-19 outcomes

The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy is thought to be around 55% in people with type 1 diabetes and 30% in people with type 2 diabetes, on average.

Dr. Karalliedde is part of a research group at King’s College London that has been focused on how vascular disease may predispose to more severe COVID-19.

“COVID-19 affects the blood vessels all over the body,” he said, so they wondered whether having preexisting retinopathy “would predispose to a severe manifestation of COVID-19.”

The observational study included 187 patients with diabetes (179 patients with type 2 diabetes and 8 patients with type 1 diabetes) hospitalized with COVID-19 at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust between March 12 and April 7 (the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in the United Kingdom).  

“It was an ethnically diverse population who were very sick and provides a clinical observation of real life,” Dr. Karalliedde said.

Nearly half of patients were African Caribbean (44%), 39% were White, and 17% were of other ethnicities, including 8% who were Asian. The mean age of the cohort was 68 years (range, 22-97 years), and 60% were men.

Diabetic retinopathy was reported in 67 (36%) patients, of whom 80% had background retinopathy and 20% had more advanced retinopathy.

They then looked at whether the presence of retinopathy was associated with a more severe manifestation of COVID-19 as defined by the need for tracheal intubation.

Of the 187 patients, 26% were intubated and 45% of these patients had diabetic retinopathy.

The analysis showed those with diabetic retinopathy had an over-fivefold increased risk for intubation (odds ratio, 5.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-24.66).

Of the entire cohort, 32% of patients died, although no association was observed between retinopathy and mortality.

“A greater number of diabetes patients with COVID-19 ended up on the intensive therapy unit. Upon multivariate analysis, we found retinopathy was independently associated with ending up on the intensive therapy unit,” stressed Dr. Karalliedde.

However, they noted that, “due to the cross-sectional design of our study, we cannot prove causality [between retinopathy and intubation]. Further studies are required to understand the mechanisms that explain the associations between retinopathy and other indices of microangiopathy with severe COVID-19.”

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

Risk of intubation for COVID-19 in very sick hospitalized patients was increased over fivefold in those with diabetic retinopathy, compared with those without, in a small single-center study from the United Kingdom.

Importantly, the risk of intubation was independent of conventional risk factors for poor COVID-19 outcomes.

“People with preexisting diabetes-related vascular damage, such as retinopathy, might be predisposed to a more severe form of COVID-19 requiring ventilation in the intensive therapy unit,” said lead investigator Janaka Karalliedde, MBBS, PhD.

Dr. Karalliedde and colleagues note that this is “the first description of diabetic retinopathy as a potential risk factor for poor COVID-19 outcomes.”

“For this reason, looking for the presence or history of retinopathy or other vascular complications of diabetes may help health care professionals identify patients at high risk of severe COVID-19,” added Dr. Karalliedde, of Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London.

The study was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.
 

Preexisting diabetic retinopathy and COVID-19 outcomes

The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy is thought to be around 55% in people with type 1 diabetes and 30% in people with type 2 diabetes, on average.

Dr. Karalliedde is part of a research group at King’s College London that has been focused on how vascular disease may predispose to more severe COVID-19.

“COVID-19 affects the blood vessels all over the body,” he said, so they wondered whether having preexisting retinopathy “would predispose to a severe manifestation of COVID-19.”

The observational study included 187 patients with diabetes (179 patients with type 2 diabetes and 8 patients with type 1 diabetes) hospitalized with COVID-19 at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust between March 12 and April 7 (the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in the United Kingdom).  

“It was an ethnically diverse population who were very sick and provides a clinical observation of real life,” Dr. Karalliedde said.

Nearly half of patients were African Caribbean (44%), 39% were White, and 17% were of other ethnicities, including 8% who were Asian. The mean age of the cohort was 68 years (range, 22-97 years), and 60% were men.

Diabetic retinopathy was reported in 67 (36%) patients, of whom 80% had background retinopathy and 20% had more advanced retinopathy.

They then looked at whether the presence of retinopathy was associated with a more severe manifestation of COVID-19 as defined by the need for tracheal intubation.

Of the 187 patients, 26% were intubated and 45% of these patients had diabetic retinopathy.

The analysis showed those with diabetic retinopathy had an over-fivefold increased risk for intubation (odds ratio, 5.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-24.66).

Of the entire cohort, 32% of patients died, although no association was observed between retinopathy and mortality.

“A greater number of diabetes patients with COVID-19 ended up on the intensive therapy unit. Upon multivariate analysis, we found retinopathy was independently associated with ending up on the intensive therapy unit,” stressed Dr. Karalliedde.

However, they noted that, “due to the cross-sectional design of our study, we cannot prove causality [between retinopathy and intubation]. Further studies are required to understand the mechanisms that explain the associations between retinopathy and other indices of microangiopathy with severe COVID-19.”

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

Initial doses of a coronavirus vaccine could be sent out as early as mid-December, Vice President Mike Pence told governors during a call on Monday.

The distribution process could start during the week of Dec. 14, according to audio of a White House Coronavirus Task Force call obtained by CBS News. The call focused on the timeline of vaccine approval and distribution.

“With this morning’s news that Moderna is joining Pfizer in submitting an emergency-use authorization [to the Food and Drug Administration], we continue to be on pace,” Pence said.

The FDA is scheduled to make a decision about Pfizer’s emergency use authorization after an advisory panel meets on Dec. 10 to review the company’s application. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, didn’t commit to the Dec. 14 date, CBS News reported.

“We do all the number crunching ourselves,” Dr. Hahn said. “We look line by line by line on all the data, on all the patients and manufacturing. We do statistical analyses and we come to our own conclusions to support a decision of either thumbs-up or thumbs-down.”

According to a meeting agenda, Pfizer vaccine deliveries should start on Dec. 15, followed by the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 22, CBS News reported.

Between Dec. 13-19, Pfizer is slated to deliver 6.4 million doses, which is enough to immunize about 3 million people with two shots. An “undetermined number” are reserved for backup doses, the news outlet reported.

During the next week, Pfizer and Moderna are scheduled to produce enough doses to vaccinate an additional 10 million people. By the end of the month, about 30 million people should receive doses.

As vaccines begin to roll out, Mr. Pence said “we have a ways to go” in reassuring the public about immunization. He urged governors to use their “bully pulpit” to educate their states and “develop public confidence” in the vaccines.

During the call, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, supported the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Although the vaccine development and approval process was accelerated this year, he said, it “does not at all compromise safety, nor does it compromise scientific integrity.”

“Any misrepresentation that the vaccines had government interference or company interference is patently untrue,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Initial doses of a coronavirus vaccine could be sent out as early as mid-December, Vice President Mike Pence told governors during a call on Monday.

The distribution process could start during the week of Dec. 14, according to audio of a White House Coronavirus Task Force call obtained by CBS News. The call focused on the timeline of vaccine approval and distribution.

“With this morning’s news that Moderna is joining Pfizer in submitting an emergency-use authorization [to the Food and Drug Administration], we continue to be on pace,” Pence said.

The FDA is scheduled to make a decision about Pfizer’s emergency use authorization after an advisory panel meets on Dec. 10 to review the company’s application. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, didn’t commit to the Dec. 14 date, CBS News reported.

“We do all the number crunching ourselves,” Dr. Hahn said. “We look line by line by line on all the data, on all the patients and manufacturing. We do statistical analyses and we come to our own conclusions to support a decision of either thumbs-up or thumbs-down.”

According to a meeting agenda, Pfizer vaccine deliveries should start on Dec. 15, followed by the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 22, CBS News reported.

Between Dec. 13-19, Pfizer is slated to deliver 6.4 million doses, which is enough to immunize about 3 million people with two shots. An “undetermined number” are reserved for backup doses, the news outlet reported.

During the next week, Pfizer and Moderna are scheduled to produce enough doses to vaccinate an additional 10 million people. By the end of the month, about 30 million people should receive doses.

As vaccines begin to roll out, Mr. Pence said “we have a ways to go” in reassuring the public about immunization. He urged governors to use their “bully pulpit” to educate their states and “develop public confidence” in the vaccines.

During the call, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, supported the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Although the vaccine development and approval process was accelerated this year, he said, it “does not at all compromise safety, nor does it compromise scientific integrity.”

“Any misrepresentation that the vaccines had government interference or company interference is patently untrue,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Initial doses of a coronavirus vaccine could be sent out as early as mid-December, Vice President Mike Pence told governors during a call on Monday.

The distribution process could start during the week of Dec. 14, according to audio of a White House Coronavirus Task Force call obtained by CBS News. The call focused on the timeline of vaccine approval and distribution.

“With this morning’s news that Moderna is joining Pfizer in submitting an emergency-use authorization [to the Food and Drug Administration], we continue to be on pace,” Pence said.

The FDA is scheduled to make a decision about Pfizer’s emergency use authorization after an advisory panel meets on Dec. 10 to review the company’s application. FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, didn’t commit to the Dec. 14 date, CBS News reported.

“We do all the number crunching ourselves,” Dr. Hahn said. “We look line by line by line on all the data, on all the patients and manufacturing. We do statistical analyses and we come to our own conclusions to support a decision of either thumbs-up or thumbs-down.”

According to a meeting agenda, Pfizer vaccine deliveries should start on Dec. 15, followed by the Moderna vaccine on Dec. 22, CBS News reported.

Between Dec. 13-19, Pfizer is slated to deliver 6.4 million doses, which is enough to immunize about 3 million people with two shots. An “undetermined number” are reserved for backup doses, the news outlet reported.

During the next week, Pfizer and Moderna are scheduled to produce enough doses to vaccinate an additional 10 million people. By the end of the month, about 30 million people should receive doses.

As vaccines begin to roll out, Mr. Pence said “we have a ways to go” in reassuring the public about immunization. He urged governors to use their “bully pulpit” to educate their states and “develop public confidence” in the vaccines.

During the call, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, supported the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Although the vaccine development and approval process was accelerated this year, he said, it “does not at all compromise safety, nor does it compromise scientific integrity.”

“Any misrepresentation that the vaccines had government interference or company interference is patently untrue,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare officials stuck with their plan to increase payments for office visits for primary care and several other specialties that focus on helping patients manage complex conditions such as diabetes. In doing so, Medicare also finalized cuts for other fields, triggering a new wave of protests.

The final version of the 2021 Medicare physician fee schedule was unveiled on the night of Dec. 1. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted an unofficial copy of the rule, which will later be published in the Federal Register.

CMS said it completed work on this massive annual review of payments for clinicians later than it usually does because of the demands of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2021 physician fee rule will take effect within a 30-day period instead of the usual 60-day time frame.

The rule, which runs to more than 2,100 pages, makes myriad changes in Medicare policies, including rules on telehealth, and expands the roles of nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

The most contentious item proposed for 2021 was a reshuffling of payments among specialties as part of an overhaul of Medicare’s approach to valuing evaluation and management (E/M) services. There was broader support for other aspects of the E/M overhaul, which are intended to cut some of the administrative hassle clinicians face.

“This finalized policy marks the most significant updates to E/M codes in 30 years, reducing burden on doctors imposed by the coding system and rewarding time spent evaluating and managing their patients’ care,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “In the past, the system has rewarded interventions and procedures over time spent with patients – time taken preventing disease and managing chronic illnesses.”

In the final rule, CMS summarized these results of the E/M changes in Table 106. CMS largely stuck with the approach outlined in a draft rule released in August, with minor changes in the amounts of cuts and increases.

Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 final physician fee schedule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (16%), family practice (13%), general practice (7%), geriatrics (3%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (7%), rheumatology (15%), and urology (8%).

In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–8%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–6%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–6%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–10%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).

CMS had initially set these changes in 2021 pay in motion in the 2020 physician fee schedule. The agency subsequently faced significant opposition to its plans. Many physician groups sought to waive a “budget-neutral” approach to the E/M overhaul, which makes the offsetting of cuts necessary. They argued this would allow increased compensation for clinicians whose practices focus on office visits without requiring offsetting cuts from other fields of medicine.

The American Medical Association is among those urging Congress to prevent or postpone the payment reductions resulting from Medicare’s budget neutrality requirement as applied to the E/M overhaul.

In a Tuesday statement, AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, noted that many physicians are facing “substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19.”

By AMA’s calculations, CMS’ planned 2021 E/M overhaul could result in “a shocking reduction of 10.2% to Medicare payment rates,” according to Bailey’s statement. The AMA strongly supports other aspects of the E/M changes CMS finalized, which Bailey said will result in “simpler and more flexible” coding and documentation.

The Surgical Care Coalition, which represents about a dozen medical specialty associations, is asking members of Congress to block the full implementation of the E/M overhaul.

In a Dec. 1 statement, the coalition urged the passage of a bill (HR 8702) that has been introduced in the House by a bipartisan duo of physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.). Their bill would effectively block the cuts from going into effect on January 1, 2021. It would provide an additional Medicare payment for certain services in 2021 and 2022 if the otherwise applicable payment is less than it would have been in 2020.

The Medicare E/M overhaul “was a dangerous policy even before the pandemic, and enacting it during the worst health care crisis in a century is unconscionable. If Congress fails to act, it will further strain a health care system that’s already been pushed to the brink due to the COVID-19 pandemic and undermine patient care,” said John A. Wilson, MD, president of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, in a statement.

Also backing the Bera-Bucshon bill is the American College of Emergency Physicians. In a statement on Tuesday, ACEP President Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, urged Congress to act on this measure.

“Emergency physicians and other health care providers battling on the front lines of the ongoing pandemic are already under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “These cuts would have a devastating impact for the future of emergency medicine and could seriously impede patients’ access to emergency care when they need it most.”
 

“Long overdue”

But there also are champions for the approach CMS took in the E/M overhaul. The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has argued strongly for keeping the budget-neutral approach to the E/M overhaul.

In an Oct. 2 comment to CMS about the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, MedPAC Chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, said this approach would “help rebalance the fee schedule from services that have become overvalued to services that have become undervalued.”

This budget-neutral approach also “will go further in reducing the large gap in compensation between primary care physicians (who had a median income of $243,000 in 2018) and specialists such as surgeons (whose median income was $426,000 in 2018),” Dr. Chernew wrote.

In a Tuesday tweet, Robert B. Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians, said CMS had “finalized long overdue payment increases for primary and comprehensive care including an add-in for more complex visits.”

The American Academy of Family Physicians joined ACP in a November 30 letter to congressional leaders, urging them to allow Medicare “to increase investment in primary care, benefiting millions of Medicare patients and the program itself, and reject last minute efforts to prevent these essential and long-overdue changes from going fully into effect on January 1, 2021.”

In the letter, AAFP and ACP and their cosigners argued for a need to address “underinvestment” in primary care by finalizing the E/M overhaul.

“Given that six in ten American adults have a chronic disease and four in ten have two or more chronic conditions, why would we, as a country, accept such an inadequate investment in the very care model that stands to provide maximum value to these patients?” they wrote. “Since we know that individuals with a longitudinal relationship with a primary care physician have better health outcomes and use fewer health care resources, why would we continue to direct money to higher-cost, marginal value services?”

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

Medicare officials stuck with their plan to increase payments for office visits for primary care and several other specialties that focus on helping patients manage complex conditions such as diabetes. In doing so, Medicare also finalized cuts for other fields, triggering a new wave of protests.

The final version of the 2021 Medicare physician fee schedule was unveiled on the night of Dec. 1. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted an unofficial copy of the rule, which will later be published in the Federal Register.

CMS said it completed work on this massive annual review of payments for clinicians later than it usually does because of the demands of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2021 physician fee rule will take effect within a 30-day period instead of the usual 60-day time frame.

The rule, which runs to more than 2,100 pages, makes myriad changes in Medicare policies, including rules on telehealth, and expands the roles of nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

The most contentious item proposed for 2021 was a reshuffling of payments among specialties as part of an overhaul of Medicare’s approach to valuing evaluation and management (E/M) services. There was broader support for other aspects of the E/M overhaul, which are intended to cut some of the administrative hassle clinicians face.

“This finalized policy marks the most significant updates to E/M codes in 30 years, reducing burden on doctors imposed by the coding system and rewarding time spent evaluating and managing their patients’ care,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “In the past, the system has rewarded interventions and procedures over time spent with patients – time taken preventing disease and managing chronic illnesses.”

In the final rule, CMS summarized these results of the E/M changes in Table 106. CMS largely stuck with the approach outlined in a draft rule released in August, with minor changes in the amounts of cuts and increases.

Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 final physician fee schedule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (16%), family practice (13%), general practice (7%), geriatrics (3%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (7%), rheumatology (15%), and urology (8%).

In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–8%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–6%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–6%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–10%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).

CMS had initially set these changes in 2021 pay in motion in the 2020 physician fee schedule. The agency subsequently faced significant opposition to its plans. Many physician groups sought to waive a “budget-neutral” approach to the E/M overhaul, which makes the offsetting of cuts necessary. They argued this would allow increased compensation for clinicians whose practices focus on office visits without requiring offsetting cuts from other fields of medicine.

The American Medical Association is among those urging Congress to prevent or postpone the payment reductions resulting from Medicare’s budget neutrality requirement as applied to the E/M overhaul.

In a Tuesday statement, AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, noted that many physicians are facing “substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19.”

By AMA’s calculations, CMS’ planned 2021 E/M overhaul could result in “a shocking reduction of 10.2% to Medicare payment rates,” according to Bailey’s statement. The AMA strongly supports other aspects of the E/M changes CMS finalized, which Bailey said will result in “simpler and more flexible” coding and documentation.

The Surgical Care Coalition, which represents about a dozen medical specialty associations, is asking members of Congress to block the full implementation of the E/M overhaul.

In a Dec. 1 statement, the coalition urged the passage of a bill (HR 8702) that has been introduced in the House by a bipartisan duo of physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.). Their bill would effectively block the cuts from going into effect on January 1, 2021. It would provide an additional Medicare payment for certain services in 2021 and 2022 if the otherwise applicable payment is less than it would have been in 2020.

The Medicare E/M overhaul “was a dangerous policy even before the pandemic, and enacting it during the worst health care crisis in a century is unconscionable. If Congress fails to act, it will further strain a health care system that’s already been pushed to the brink due to the COVID-19 pandemic and undermine patient care,” said John A. Wilson, MD, president of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, in a statement.

Also backing the Bera-Bucshon bill is the American College of Emergency Physicians. In a statement on Tuesday, ACEP President Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, urged Congress to act on this measure.

“Emergency physicians and other health care providers battling on the front lines of the ongoing pandemic are already under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “These cuts would have a devastating impact for the future of emergency medicine and could seriously impede patients’ access to emergency care when they need it most.”
 

“Long overdue”

But there also are champions for the approach CMS took in the E/M overhaul. The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has argued strongly for keeping the budget-neutral approach to the E/M overhaul.

In an Oct. 2 comment to CMS about the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, MedPAC Chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, said this approach would “help rebalance the fee schedule from services that have become overvalued to services that have become undervalued.”

This budget-neutral approach also “will go further in reducing the large gap in compensation between primary care physicians (who had a median income of $243,000 in 2018) and specialists such as surgeons (whose median income was $426,000 in 2018),” Dr. Chernew wrote.

In a Tuesday tweet, Robert B. Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians, said CMS had “finalized long overdue payment increases for primary and comprehensive care including an add-in for more complex visits.”

The American Academy of Family Physicians joined ACP in a November 30 letter to congressional leaders, urging them to allow Medicare “to increase investment in primary care, benefiting millions of Medicare patients and the program itself, and reject last minute efforts to prevent these essential and long-overdue changes from going fully into effect on January 1, 2021.”

In the letter, AAFP and ACP and their cosigners argued for a need to address “underinvestment” in primary care by finalizing the E/M overhaul.

“Given that six in ten American adults have a chronic disease and four in ten have two or more chronic conditions, why would we, as a country, accept such an inadequate investment in the very care model that stands to provide maximum value to these patients?” they wrote. “Since we know that individuals with a longitudinal relationship with a primary care physician have better health outcomes and use fewer health care resources, why would we continue to direct money to higher-cost, marginal value services?”

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

Medicare officials stuck with their plan to increase payments for office visits for primary care and several other specialties that focus on helping patients manage complex conditions such as diabetes. In doing so, Medicare also finalized cuts for other fields, triggering a new wave of protests.

The final version of the 2021 Medicare physician fee schedule was unveiled on the night of Dec. 1. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted an unofficial copy of the rule, which will later be published in the Federal Register.

CMS said it completed work on this massive annual review of payments for clinicians later than it usually does because of the demands of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2021 physician fee rule will take effect within a 30-day period instead of the usual 60-day time frame.

The rule, which runs to more than 2,100 pages, makes myriad changes in Medicare policies, including rules on telehealth, and expands the roles of nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

The most contentious item proposed for 2021 was a reshuffling of payments among specialties as part of an overhaul of Medicare’s approach to valuing evaluation and management (E/M) services. There was broader support for other aspects of the E/M overhaul, which are intended to cut some of the administrative hassle clinicians face.

“This finalized policy marks the most significant updates to E/M codes in 30 years, reducing burden on doctors imposed by the coding system and rewarding time spent evaluating and managing their patients’ care,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “In the past, the system has rewarded interventions and procedures over time spent with patients – time taken preventing disease and managing chronic illnesses.”

In the final rule, CMS summarized these results of the E/M changes in Table 106. CMS largely stuck with the approach outlined in a draft rule released in August, with minor changes in the amounts of cuts and increases.

Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 final physician fee schedule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (16%), family practice (13%), general practice (7%), geriatrics (3%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (7%), rheumatology (15%), and urology (8%).

In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–8%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–6%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–6%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–10%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).

CMS had initially set these changes in 2021 pay in motion in the 2020 physician fee schedule. The agency subsequently faced significant opposition to its plans. Many physician groups sought to waive a “budget-neutral” approach to the E/M overhaul, which makes the offsetting of cuts necessary. They argued this would allow increased compensation for clinicians whose practices focus on office visits without requiring offsetting cuts from other fields of medicine.

The American Medical Association is among those urging Congress to prevent or postpone the payment reductions resulting from Medicare’s budget neutrality requirement as applied to the E/M overhaul.

In a Tuesday statement, AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, noted that many physicians are facing “substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19.”

By AMA’s calculations, CMS’ planned 2021 E/M overhaul could result in “a shocking reduction of 10.2% to Medicare payment rates,” according to Bailey’s statement. The AMA strongly supports other aspects of the E/M changes CMS finalized, which Bailey said will result in “simpler and more flexible” coding and documentation.

The Surgical Care Coalition, which represents about a dozen medical specialty associations, is asking members of Congress to block the full implementation of the E/M overhaul.

In a Dec. 1 statement, the coalition urged the passage of a bill (HR 8702) that has been introduced in the House by a bipartisan duo of physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.). Their bill would effectively block the cuts from going into effect on January 1, 2021. It would provide an additional Medicare payment for certain services in 2021 and 2022 if the otherwise applicable payment is less than it would have been in 2020.

The Medicare E/M overhaul “was a dangerous policy even before the pandemic, and enacting it during the worst health care crisis in a century is unconscionable. If Congress fails to act, it will further strain a health care system that’s already been pushed to the brink due to the COVID-19 pandemic and undermine patient care,” said John A. Wilson, MD, president of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, in a statement.

Also backing the Bera-Bucshon bill is the American College of Emergency Physicians. In a statement on Tuesday, ACEP President Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, urged Congress to act on this measure.

“Emergency physicians and other health care providers battling on the front lines of the ongoing pandemic are already under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “These cuts would have a devastating impact for the future of emergency medicine and could seriously impede patients’ access to emergency care when they need it most.”
 

“Long overdue”

But there also are champions for the approach CMS took in the E/M overhaul. The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has argued strongly for keeping the budget-neutral approach to the E/M overhaul.

In an Oct. 2 comment to CMS about the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, MedPAC Chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, said this approach would “help rebalance the fee schedule from services that have become overvalued to services that have become undervalued.”

This budget-neutral approach also “will go further in reducing the large gap in compensation between primary care physicians (who had a median income of $243,000 in 2018) and specialists such as surgeons (whose median income was $426,000 in 2018),” Dr. Chernew wrote.

In a Tuesday tweet, Robert B. Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians, said CMS had “finalized long overdue payment increases for primary and comprehensive care including an add-in for more complex visits.”

The American Academy of Family Physicians joined ACP in a November 30 letter to congressional leaders, urging them to allow Medicare “to increase investment in primary care, benefiting millions of Medicare patients and the program itself, and reject last minute efforts to prevent these essential and long-overdue changes from going fully into effect on January 1, 2021.”

In the letter, AAFP and ACP and their cosigners argued for a need to address “underinvestment” in primary care by finalizing the E/M overhaul.

“Given that six in ten American adults have a chronic disease and four in ten have two or more chronic conditions, why would we, as a country, accept such an inadequate investment in the very care model that stands to provide maximum value to these patients?” they wrote. “Since we know that individuals with a longitudinal relationship with a primary care physician have better health outcomes and use fewer health care resources, why would we continue to direct money to higher-cost, marginal value services?”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two shorter quarantine options – 10 days or 7 days – for people exposed to COVID-19. Citing new evidence and an “acceptable risk” of transmission, the agency hopes reducing the 14-day quarantine will increase overall compliance and improve public health and economic constraints.

The agency also suggested people postpone travel during the upcoming winter holidays and stay home because of the pandemic.

These shorter quarantine options do not replace initial CDC guidance. “CDC continues to recommend quarantining for 14 days as the best way to reduce risk for spreading COVID-19,” said Henry Walke, MD, MPH, the CDC’s COVID-19 incident manager, during a media briefing on Wednesday.

However, “after reviewing and analyzing new research and data, CDC has identified two acceptable alternative quarantine periods.”

People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.

The agency also suggests people still monitor for symptoms for a full 14 days.

Reducing the length of quarantine “may make it easier for people to take this critical public health action, by reducing the economic hardship associated with a longer period, especially if they cannot work during that time,” Dr. Walke said. “In addition, a shorter quarantine period can lessen stress on the public health system and communities, especially when new infections are rapidly rising.”

The federal guidance leaves flexibility for local jurisdictions to make their own quarantine recommendations, as warranted, he added.
 

An ‘acceptable risk’ calculation

Modeling by the CDC and academic and public health partners led to the new quarantine recommendations, said John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for the CDC’s COVID-19 response. Multiple studies “point in the same direction, which is that we can safely reduce the length of quarantine but accept there is a small residual risk that a person who is leaving quarantine early could transmit to someone else.”

The residual risk is approximately 1%, with an upper limit of 10%, when people quarantine for 10 days. A 7-day quarantine carries a residual risk of about 5% and an upper limit of 12%.

“Ten days is where the risk got into a sweet spot we like, at about 1%,” Dr. Brooks said. “That is a very acceptable risk, I think, for many people.”

Although it remains unknown what proportion of people spending 14 days in quarantine leave early, “we are hearing anecdotally from our partners in public health that many people are discontinuing quarantine ahead of time because there is pressure to go back to work, to get people back into school – and it imposes a burden on the individual,” Dr. Brooks said.

“One of our hopes is that ... if we reduce the amount of time they have to spend in quarantine, people will be more compliant,” he added.

A reporter asked why the CDC is shortening quarantines when the pandemic numbers are increasing nationwide. The timing has to do with capacity, Dr. Brooks said. “We are in situation where the number of cases is rising, the number of contacts is rising and the number of people who require quarantine is rising. That is a lot of burden, not just on the people who have to quarantine, but on public health.”
 

Home for the holidays

Similar to its pre-Thanksgiving advisory, the CDC also recommends people avoid travel during the upcoming winter holidays. “The best way to protect yourself and others is to postpone travel and stay home,” Dr. Walke said.

If people do decide to travel, the agency recommends COVID-19 testing 1-3 days prior to travel and again 3-5 days afterward, as well as reducing nonessential activities for a full 7 days after returning home. Furthermore, if someone does not have follow-up testing, the CDC recommends reducing nonessential activities for 10 days.

Testing does not eliminate all risk, Dr. Walke said, “but when combined with reducing nonessential activities, symptom screening and continuing with precautions like wearing masks, social distancing and hand washing, it can make travel safer.”

“We are trying to reduce the number of infections by postponing travel over the winter holiday,” Cindy Friedman, MD, chief of the CDC Travelers’ Health Branch, said during the media briefing.

“Travel volume was high during Thanksgiving,” she said, “and even if only a small percentage of those travelers were asymptomatically infected, this can translate into hundreds of thousands of additional infections moving from one community to another.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two shorter quarantine options – 10 days or 7 days – for people exposed to COVID-19. Citing new evidence and an “acceptable risk” of transmission, the agency hopes reducing the 14-day quarantine will increase overall compliance and improve public health and economic constraints.

The agency also suggested people postpone travel during the upcoming winter holidays and stay home because of the pandemic.

These shorter quarantine options do not replace initial CDC guidance. “CDC continues to recommend quarantining for 14 days as the best way to reduce risk for spreading COVID-19,” said Henry Walke, MD, MPH, the CDC’s COVID-19 incident manager, during a media briefing on Wednesday.

However, “after reviewing and analyzing new research and data, CDC has identified two acceptable alternative quarantine periods.”

People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.

The agency also suggests people still monitor for symptoms for a full 14 days.

Reducing the length of quarantine “may make it easier for people to take this critical public health action, by reducing the economic hardship associated with a longer period, especially if they cannot work during that time,” Dr. Walke said. “In addition, a shorter quarantine period can lessen stress on the public health system and communities, especially when new infections are rapidly rising.”

The federal guidance leaves flexibility for local jurisdictions to make their own quarantine recommendations, as warranted, he added.
 

An ‘acceptable risk’ calculation

Modeling by the CDC and academic and public health partners led to the new quarantine recommendations, said John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for the CDC’s COVID-19 response. Multiple studies “point in the same direction, which is that we can safely reduce the length of quarantine but accept there is a small residual risk that a person who is leaving quarantine early could transmit to someone else.”

The residual risk is approximately 1%, with an upper limit of 10%, when people quarantine for 10 days. A 7-day quarantine carries a residual risk of about 5% and an upper limit of 12%.

“Ten days is where the risk got into a sweet spot we like, at about 1%,” Dr. Brooks said. “That is a very acceptable risk, I think, for many people.”

Although it remains unknown what proportion of people spending 14 days in quarantine leave early, “we are hearing anecdotally from our partners in public health that many people are discontinuing quarantine ahead of time because there is pressure to go back to work, to get people back into school – and it imposes a burden on the individual,” Dr. Brooks said.

“One of our hopes is that ... if we reduce the amount of time they have to spend in quarantine, people will be more compliant,” he added.

A reporter asked why the CDC is shortening quarantines when the pandemic numbers are increasing nationwide. The timing has to do with capacity, Dr. Brooks said. “We are in situation where the number of cases is rising, the number of contacts is rising and the number of people who require quarantine is rising. That is a lot of burden, not just on the people who have to quarantine, but on public health.”
 

Home for the holidays

Similar to its pre-Thanksgiving advisory, the CDC also recommends people avoid travel during the upcoming winter holidays. “The best way to protect yourself and others is to postpone travel and stay home,” Dr. Walke said.

If people do decide to travel, the agency recommends COVID-19 testing 1-3 days prior to travel and again 3-5 days afterward, as well as reducing nonessential activities for a full 7 days after returning home. Furthermore, if someone does not have follow-up testing, the CDC recommends reducing nonessential activities for 10 days.

Testing does not eliminate all risk, Dr. Walke said, “but when combined with reducing nonessential activities, symptom screening and continuing with precautions like wearing masks, social distancing and hand washing, it can make travel safer.”

“We are trying to reduce the number of infections by postponing travel over the winter holiday,” Cindy Friedman, MD, chief of the CDC Travelers’ Health Branch, said during the media briefing.

“Travel volume was high during Thanksgiving,” she said, “and even if only a small percentage of those travelers were asymptomatically infected, this can translate into hundreds of thousands of additional infections moving from one community to another.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two shorter quarantine options – 10 days or 7 days – for people exposed to COVID-19. Citing new evidence and an “acceptable risk” of transmission, the agency hopes reducing the 14-day quarantine will increase overall compliance and improve public health and economic constraints.

The agency also suggested people postpone travel during the upcoming winter holidays and stay home because of the pandemic.

These shorter quarantine options do not replace initial CDC guidance. “CDC continues to recommend quarantining for 14 days as the best way to reduce risk for spreading COVID-19,” said Henry Walke, MD, MPH, the CDC’s COVID-19 incident manager, during a media briefing on Wednesday.

However, “after reviewing and analyzing new research and data, CDC has identified two acceptable alternative quarantine periods.”

People can now quarantine for 10 days without a COVID-19 test if they have no symptoms. Alternatively, a quarantine can end after 7 days for someone with a negative test and no symptoms. The agency recommends a polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen assay within 48 hours before the end of a quarantine.

The agency also suggests people still monitor for symptoms for a full 14 days.

Reducing the length of quarantine “may make it easier for people to take this critical public health action, by reducing the economic hardship associated with a longer period, especially if they cannot work during that time,” Dr. Walke said. “In addition, a shorter quarantine period can lessen stress on the public health system and communities, especially when new infections are rapidly rising.”

The federal guidance leaves flexibility for local jurisdictions to make their own quarantine recommendations, as warranted, he added.
 

An ‘acceptable risk’ calculation

Modeling by the CDC and academic and public health partners led to the new quarantine recommendations, said John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for the CDC’s COVID-19 response. Multiple studies “point in the same direction, which is that we can safely reduce the length of quarantine but accept there is a small residual risk that a person who is leaving quarantine early could transmit to someone else.”

The residual risk is approximately 1%, with an upper limit of 10%, when people quarantine for 10 days. A 7-day quarantine carries a residual risk of about 5% and an upper limit of 12%.

“Ten days is where the risk got into a sweet spot we like, at about 1%,” Dr. Brooks said. “That is a very acceptable risk, I think, for many people.”

Although it remains unknown what proportion of people spending 14 days in quarantine leave early, “we are hearing anecdotally from our partners in public health that many people are discontinuing quarantine ahead of time because there is pressure to go back to work, to get people back into school – and it imposes a burden on the individual,” Dr. Brooks said.

“One of our hopes is that ... if we reduce the amount of time they have to spend in quarantine, people will be more compliant,” he added.

A reporter asked why the CDC is shortening quarantines when the pandemic numbers are increasing nationwide. The timing has to do with capacity, Dr. Brooks said. “We are in situation where the number of cases is rising, the number of contacts is rising and the number of people who require quarantine is rising. That is a lot of burden, not just on the people who have to quarantine, but on public health.”
 

Home for the holidays

Similar to its pre-Thanksgiving advisory, the CDC also recommends people avoid travel during the upcoming winter holidays. “The best way to protect yourself and others is to postpone travel and stay home,” Dr. Walke said.

If people do decide to travel, the agency recommends COVID-19 testing 1-3 days prior to travel and again 3-5 days afterward, as well as reducing nonessential activities for a full 7 days after returning home. Furthermore, if someone does not have follow-up testing, the CDC recommends reducing nonessential activities for 10 days.

Testing does not eliminate all risk, Dr. Walke said, “but when combined with reducing nonessential activities, symptom screening and continuing with precautions like wearing masks, social distancing and hand washing, it can make travel safer.”

“We are trying to reduce the number of infections by postponing travel over the winter holiday,” Cindy Friedman, MD, chief of the CDC Travelers’ Health Branch, said during the media briefing.

“Travel volume was high during Thanksgiving,” she said, “and even if only a small percentage of those travelers were asymptomatically infected, this can translate into hundreds of thousands of additional infections moving from one community to another.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.