Neurology Reviews

After a 50-year hiatus, psychedelic drugs are undergoing a research renaissance. Roland R. Griffiths, PhD, professor in the Departments of Psychiatry and Neuroscience and the Oliver Lee McCabe III, Professor in the Neuropsychopharmacology of Consciousness, and director of the Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, discusses the status of these drugs in the United States and their potential to treat psychiatric disorders.

Classic psychedelics are compounds that bind to the 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A (5-HT2A) receptor and include the naturally occurring compounds psilocybin, N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT, a component of ayahuasca) and mescaline (peyote cactus), as well as the synthesized compound lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD).

Other drugs, such as ketamine, are sometimes referred to as “psychedelics” because they can produce subjective experiences that are similar to those of people who receive classic psychedelics. However, unlike classic psychedelics, the effects of ketamine tend to be short lived. Ketamine also has addictive potential and can be lethal in high doses, which is not the case with psilocybin.

Another compound sometimes referred to as a “psychedelic” is 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), also known as “ecstasy.” The Food and Drug Administration granted breakthrough approval for the study of MDMA for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). FDA-approved registration trials are ongoing. MDMA differs from classic psychedelics in risk profile and pharmacology. In particular, MDMA was widely abused as part of the “rave culture,” while classic psychedelic agents do not lend themselves to that type of misuse.
 

What is the current legal status of psychedelic agents in the United States? Can clinicians prescribe them, or are they available only in a research setting?

All classic psychedelics are considered to be “Schedule 1” which means they are illegal to possess and use except for research and only if approved by the FDA and under licensure of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), so they are not available for clinical use.

In anticipation of the possibility that phase 3 research may support the efficacy and safety of psilocybin for one or more medical or mental health disorders, our team has reviewed available evidence regarding its abuse liability and concluded that, if psilocybin were approved as medication, it could possibly be included in the Schedule IV category, with additional FDA-mandated risk management provisions. However, this is not yet the case.
 

Which psychedelic agents are under investigation in the United States, and for which indications?

Psilocybin is under investigation in our center, as well as elsewhere in the United States. We have previously found it to be effective for smoking cessation, and we are conducting another study that is currently recruiting volunteers for this indication. We are also recruiting volunteers for studies on the use of psilocybin for major depression, Alzheimer’s disease, and anorexia nervosa. Further information about our studies can be found on the Web site for our center, the Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research.

Two companies – the Usona Institute and COMPASS Pathways – have received FDA Breakthrough Therapy Designation for their programs seeking approval of psilocybin as a treatment major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression (TRD), respectively. In addition, an international multicenter study currently underway, which includes US centers in Houston, Baltimore, New York, San Diego, and Atlanta, is investigating psilocybin for TRD.

A number of studies, including one conducted at our center, have investigated psilocybin for depression and anxiety in patients with cancer and found it effective.

Additional research showed that psilocybin alleviated symptoms of cancer-related anxiety and depression, both in the short-term and 5 years later.

LSD has been studied and found promising in the treatment of alcohol use disorder. Additional studies of LSD that are being conducted in Basel Switzerland and at the University of Chicago are examining its impact on mood in healthy volunteers.

Ayahuasca has been studied extensively for depression and anxiety and is also currently under investigation for PTSD. We found that its use in a naturalistic group setting was associated with unintended improvements in depression and anxiety.

Lastly, a lesser-known psychedelic agent is Salvinorin A, which our center has been studying, is the psychoactive constituent of the Salvia divinorum plant. While this is not a “classic” psychedelic compound, it is nevertheless the focus of much scientific interest because its effects are mediated at opioid receptors, rather than 5-HT2A receptors, and may prove to be a novel nonaddictive opioid that may ultimately be a promising treatment for pain and addiction.
 

What is the typical treatment regimen for psychedelic agents?

It is hard to speak of a “treatment regimen” in agents that are not used in clinical practice. Ongoing clinical trials with psilocybin generally involve one or two 6- to 8-hour sessions involving the oral administration of a moderately high dose under psychologically supported conditions.

Based on the current evidence base, which agents show the most promise?

Psilocybin is currently the most promising classic psychedelic undergoing clinical trials.

Do psychedelics have to be administered in a controlled setting in order to be effective?

Although many people have had meaningful experiences whether inside or outside of a controlled setting, there are serious potential risks associated with use of psilocybin and other classic psychedelics. The safety of psilocybin has been established in clinical studies in which participants have been carefully screened physically and psychologically, are psychologically prepared before their first session, and are psychologically supported during and after sessions. In vulnerable individuals, psilocybin has been associated with enduring psychiatric problems and sometimes persisting visual perceptual conditions. When taken in uncontrolled conditions, classic psychedelics can produce confusion and disorientation resulting in behavior dangerous to the participant and others – including life-threatening risk. Thus, for safety reasons, the optimal environment for using these agents is in a controlled setting.

Do results differ between patients who have used psychedelic agents previously and those who have not?

We have not found any difference between psychedelic-naive volunteers and those who have used psychedelics in the past.

Do you provide patient education prior to treatment initiation?

All of our study participants are thoroughly screened for medical concerns or mental health history such as psychosis, which would preclude their participation. They are educated about the effects of these agents and what they might expect and typically receive several hours of psychological preparation before the first session. They are also provided with psychological support after sessions. Additionally, we spend time developing trust and rapport prior to the first session.

How durable are the effects of psychedelic treatment?

Studies in patients and healthy participants suggest that the positive effects of psilocybin are long lasting, with most individuals reporting positive changes in moods, attitudes, and behavior that they attribute to psilocybin and which endure months or years after the session. The qualities of the acute session experience can vary widely ranging from experiences of transcendence or psychological insight to experiences of intense anxiety or fear.

An enduring shift in worldview and sense of self, as well as psychological insight, may increase psychological flexibility, thereby allowing individuals to subsequently avoid maladaptive patterns of behavior or thought and to make more healthy choices.

Our research has shown that the benefits of these experiences can last as long as 14 months, often longer, and that many participants characterize their psilocybin experience as among the most profound and personally meaningful experience of their lives.
 

Do participants experience any adverse effects? If so, how are they managed?

Sometimes, despite all the preparation, screening, and support we provide, some participants can have frightening experiences, such as fear and anxiety during the session. When that occurs, it is often shorted lived. The psychological preparation we provide before the session and the psychological support we provide during the session are important for managing such effects.

We provide support and encourage participants to stay with that experience, which may open to experiences of deep meaning or insight. A number of people report that these psychologically challenging states are a valuable part of the overall experience.

We conducted a survey of roughly 2,000 people who took high doses of psilocybin mushrooms and then had a challenging experience. About 10% reported they put themselves or others at risk of physical harm. Of more concern, of those whose experience occurred more than 1 year before, 8% sought treatment for enduring psychological symptoms. These findings underscore potential risks of psilocybin use but do not provide an estimate of the actual incidence of such effects.

Importantly, in our research at Johns Hopkins, we have not observed such effects in over 700 sessions that we have conducted with almost 400 participants, likely because we thoroughly screen and prepare participants and support them after they have completed the study. The potential for serious lasting harm represents a concern and points to the importance of adequate screening and aftercare.
 

What are the implications for future therapeutics?

We are living in exciting times, in terms of psychedelic research. The potential for a single treatment with a classic psychedelic to produce rapid and sustained therapeutic effects, possibly across a range of psychiatric conditions, is unprecedented in psychiatry. The effect appears to be an “inverse PTSD effect.”

In PTSD, a single exposure to a traumatic event can rewire the nervous system to the point that it produces enduring harm and toxicity. In the case of psychedelics, a single exposure appears to have enduring positive effects in worldview, mood, attitude, behavior, and overall life satisfaction. We can look forward to continued growth and expansion of this research including the refinement of protocols for a variety of therapeutic indications and to the development of a variety of new classic psychedelic compounds.
 

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

After a 50-year hiatus, psychedelic drugs are undergoing a research renaissance. Roland R. Griffiths, PhD, professor in the Departments of Psychiatry and Neuroscience and the Oliver Lee McCabe III, Professor in the Neuropsychopharmacology of Consciousness, and director of the Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, discusses the status of these drugs in the United States and their potential to treat psychiatric disorders.

Classic psychedelics are compounds that bind to the 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A (5-HT2A) receptor and include the naturally occurring compounds psilocybin, N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT, a component of ayahuasca) and mescaline (peyote cactus), as well as the synthesized compound lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD).

Other drugs, such as ketamine, are sometimes referred to as “psychedelics” because they can produce subjective experiences that are similar to those of people who receive classic psychedelics. However, unlike classic psychedelics, the effects of ketamine tend to be short lived. Ketamine also has addictive potential and can be lethal in high doses, which is not the case with psilocybin.

Another compound sometimes referred to as a “psychedelic” is 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), also known as “ecstasy.” The Food and Drug Administration granted breakthrough approval for the study of MDMA for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). FDA-approved registration trials are ongoing. MDMA differs from classic psychedelics in risk profile and pharmacology. In particular, MDMA was widely abused as part of the “rave culture,” while classic psychedelic agents do not lend themselves to that type of misuse.
 

What is the current legal status of psychedelic agents in the United States? Can clinicians prescribe them, or are they available only in a research setting?

All classic psychedelics are considered to be “Schedule 1” which means they are illegal to possess and use except for research and only if approved by the FDA and under licensure of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), so they are not available for clinical use.

In anticipation of the possibility that phase 3 research may support the efficacy and safety of psilocybin for one or more medical or mental health disorders, our team has reviewed available evidence regarding its abuse liability and concluded that, if psilocybin were approved as medication, it could possibly be included in the Schedule IV category, with additional FDA-mandated risk management provisions. However, this is not yet the case.
 

Which psychedelic agents are under investigation in the United States, and for which indications?

Psilocybin is under investigation in our center, as well as elsewhere in the United States. We have previously found it to be effective for smoking cessation, and we are conducting another study that is currently recruiting volunteers for this indication. We are also recruiting volunteers for studies on the use of psilocybin for major depression, Alzheimer’s disease, and anorexia nervosa. Further information about our studies can be found on the Web site for our center, the Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research.

Two companies – the Usona Institute and COMPASS Pathways – have received FDA Breakthrough Therapy Designation for their programs seeking approval of psilocybin as a treatment major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression (TRD), respectively. In addition, an international multicenter study currently underway, which includes US centers in Houston, Baltimore, New York, San Diego, and Atlanta, is investigating psilocybin for TRD.

A number of studies, including one conducted at our center, have investigated psilocybin for depression and anxiety in patients with cancer and found it effective.

Additional research showed that psilocybin alleviated symptoms of cancer-related anxiety and depression, both in the short-term and 5 years later.

LSD has been studied and found promising in the treatment of alcohol use disorder. Additional studies of LSD that are being conducted in Basel Switzerland and at the University of Chicago are examining its impact on mood in healthy volunteers.

Ayahuasca has been studied extensively for depression and anxiety and is also currently under investigation for PTSD. We found that its use in a naturalistic group setting was associated with unintended improvements in depression and anxiety.

Lastly, a lesser-known psychedelic agent is Salvinorin A, which our center has been studying, is the psychoactive constituent of the Salvia divinorum plant. While this is not a “classic” psychedelic compound, it is nevertheless the focus of much scientific interest because its effects are mediated at opioid receptors, rather than 5-HT2A receptors, and may prove to be a novel nonaddictive opioid that may ultimately be a promising treatment for pain and addiction.
 

What is the typical treatment regimen for psychedelic agents?

It is hard to speak of a “treatment regimen” in agents that are not used in clinical practice. Ongoing clinical trials with psilocybin generally involve one or two 6- to 8-hour sessions involving the oral administration of a moderately high dose under psychologically supported conditions.

Based on the current evidence base, which agents show the most promise?

Psilocybin is currently the most promising classic psychedelic undergoing clinical trials.

Do psychedelics have to be administered in a controlled setting in order to be effective?

Although many people have had meaningful experiences whether inside or outside of a controlled setting, there are serious potential risks associated with use of psilocybin and other classic psychedelics. The safety of psilocybin has been established in clinical studies in which participants have been carefully screened physically and psychologically, are psychologically prepared before their first session, and are psychologically supported during and after sessions. In vulnerable individuals, psilocybin has been associated with enduring psychiatric problems and sometimes persisting visual perceptual conditions. When taken in uncontrolled conditions, classic psychedelics can produce confusion and disorientation resulting in behavior dangerous to the participant and others – including life-threatening risk. Thus, for safety reasons, the optimal environment for using these agents is in a controlled setting.

Do results differ between patients who have used psychedelic agents previously and those who have not?

We have not found any difference between psychedelic-naive volunteers and those who have used psychedelics in the past.

Do you provide patient education prior to treatment initiation?

All of our study participants are thoroughly screened for medical concerns or mental health history such as psychosis, which would preclude their participation. They are educated about the effects of these agents and what they might expect and typically receive several hours of psychological preparation before the first session. They are also provided with psychological support after sessions. Additionally, we spend time developing trust and rapport prior to the first session.

How durable are the effects of psychedelic treatment?

Studies in patients and healthy participants suggest that the positive effects of psilocybin are long lasting, with most individuals reporting positive changes in moods, attitudes, and behavior that they attribute to psilocybin and which endure months or years after the session. The qualities of the acute session experience can vary widely ranging from experiences of transcendence or psychological insight to experiences of intense anxiety or fear.

An enduring shift in worldview and sense of self, as well as psychological insight, may increase psychological flexibility, thereby allowing individuals to subsequently avoid maladaptive patterns of behavior or thought and to make more healthy choices.

Our research has shown that the benefits of these experiences can last as long as 14 months, often longer, and that many participants characterize their psilocybin experience as among the most profound and personally meaningful experience of their lives.
 

Do participants experience any adverse effects? If so, how are they managed?

Sometimes, despite all the preparation, screening, and support we provide, some participants can have frightening experiences, such as fear and anxiety during the session. When that occurs, it is often shorted lived. The psychological preparation we provide before the session and the psychological support we provide during the session are important for managing such effects.

We provide support and encourage participants to stay with that experience, which may open to experiences of deep meaning or insight. A number of people report that these psychologically challenging states are a valuable part of the overall experience.

We conducted a survey of roughly 2,000 people who took high doses of psilocybin mushrooms and then had a challenging experience. About 10% reported they put themselves or others at risk of physical harm. Of more concern, of those whose experience occurred more than 1 year before, 8% sought treatment for enduring psychological symptoms. These findings underscore potential risks of psilocybin use but do not provide an estimate of the actual incidence of such effects.

Importantly, in our research at Johns Hopkins, we have not observed such effects in over 700 sessions that we have conducted with almost 400 participants, likely because we thoroughly screen and prepare participants and support them after they have completed the study. The potential for serious lasting harm represents a concern and points to the importance of adequate screening and aftercare.
 

What are the implications for future therapeutics?

We are living in exciting times, in terms of psychedelic research. The potential for a single treatment with a classic psychedelic to produce rapid and sustained therapeutic effects, possibly across a range of psychiatric conditions, is unprecedented in psychiatry. The effect appears to be an “inverse PTSD effect.”

In PTSD, a single exposure to a traumatic event can rewire the nervous system to the point that it produces enduring harm and toxicity. In the case of psychedelics, a single exposure appears to have enduring positive effects in worldview, mood, attitude, behavior, and overall life satisfaction. We can look forward to continued growth and expansion of this research including the refinement of protocols for a variety of therapeutic indications and to the development of a variety of new classic psychedelic compounds.
 

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

After a 50-year hiatus, psychedelic drugs are undergoing a research renaissance. Roland R. Griffiths, PhD, professor in the Departments of Psychiatry and Neuroscience and the Oliver Lee McCabe III, Professor in the Neuropsychopharmacology of Consciousness, and director of the Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, discusses the status of these drugs in the United States and their potential to treat psychiatric disorders.

Classic psychedelics are compounds that bind to the 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A (5-HT2A) receptor and include the naturally occurring compounds psilocybin, N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT, a component of ayahuasca) and mescaline (peyote cactus), as well as the synthesized compound lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD).

Other drugs, such as ketamine, are sometimes referred to as “psychedelics” because they can produce subjective experiences that are similar to those of people who receive classic psychedelics. However, unlike classic psychedelics, the effects of ketamine tend to be short lived. Ketamine also has addictive potential and can be lethal in high doses, which is not the case with psilocybin.

Another compound sometimes referred to as a “psychedelic” is 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), also known as “ecstasy.” The Food and Drug Administration granted breakthrough approval for the study of MDMA for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). FDA-approved registration trials are ongoing. MDMA differs from classic psychedelics in risk profile and pharmacology. In particular, MDMA was widely abused as part of the “rave culture,” while classic psychedelic agents do not lend themselves to that type of misuse.
 

What is the current legal status of psychedelic agents in the United States? Can clinicians prescribe them, or are they available only in a research setting?

All classic psychedelics are considered to be “Schedule 1” which means they are illegal to possess and use except for research and only if approved by the FDA and under licensure of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), so they are not available for clinical use.

In anticipation of the possibility that phase 3 research may support the efficacy and safety of psilocybin for one or more medical or mental health disorders, our team has reviewed available evidence regarding its abuse liability and concluded that, if psilocybin were approved as medication, it could possibly be included in the Schedule IV category, with additional FDA-mandated risk management provisions. However, this is not yet the case.
 

Which psychedelic agents are under investigation in the United States, and for which indications?

Psilocybin is under investigation in our center, as well as elsewhere in the United States. We have previously found it to be effective for smoking cessation, and we are conducting another study that is currently recruiting volunteers for this indication. We are also recruiting volunteers for studies on the use of psilocybin for major depression, Alzheimer’s disease, and anorexia nervosa. Further information about our studies can be found on the Web site for our center, the Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research.

Two companies – the Usona Institute and COMPASS Pathways – have received FDA Breakthrough Therapy Designation for their programs seeking approval of psilocybin as a treatment major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression (TRD), respectively. In addition, an international multicenter study currently underway, which includes US centers in Houston, Baltimore, New York, San Diego, and Atlanta, is investigating psilocybin for TRD.

A number of studies, including one conducted at our center, have investigated psilocybin for depression and anxiety in patients with cancer and found it effective.

Additional research showed that psilocybin alleviated symptoms of cancer-related anxiety and depression, both in the short-term and 5 years later.

LSD has been studied and found promising in the treatment of alcohol use disorder. Additional studies of LSD that are being conducted in Basel Switzerland and at the University of Chicago are examining its impact on mood in healthy volunteers.

Ayahuasca has been studied extensively for depression and anxiety and is also currently under investigation for PTSD. We found that its use in a naturalistic group setting was associated with unintended improvements in depression and anxiety.

Lastly, a lesser-known psychedelic agent is Salvinorin A, which our center has been studying, is the psychoactive constituent of the Salvia divinorum plant. While this is not a “classic” psychedelic compound, it is nevertheless the focus of much scientific interest because its effects are mediated at opioid receptors, rather than 5-HT2A receptors, and may prove to be a novel nonaddictive opioid that may ultimately be a promising treatment for pain and addiction.
 

What is the typical treatment regimen for psychedelic agents?

It is hard to speak of a “treatment regimen” in agents that are not used in clinical practice. Ongoing clinical trials with psilocybin generally involve one or two 6- to 8-hour sessions involving the oral administration of a moderately high dose under psychologically supported conditions.

Based on the current evidence base, which agents show the most promise?

Psilocybin is currently the most promising classic psychedelic undergoing clinical trials.

Do psychedelics have to be administered in a controlled setting in order to be effective?

Although many people have had meaningful experiences whether inside or outside of a controlled setting, there are serious potential risks associated with use of psilocybin and other classic psychedelics. The safety of psilocybin has been established in clinical studies in which participants have been carefully screened physically and psychologically, are psychologically prepared before their first session, and are psychologically supported during and after sessions. In vulnerable individuals, psilocybin has been associated with enduring psychiatric problems and sometimes persisting visual perceptual conditions. When taken in uncontrolled conditions, classic psychedelics can produce confusion and disorientation resulting in behavior dangerous to the participant and others – including life-threatening risk. Thus, for safety reasons, the optimal environment for using these agents is in a controlled setting.

Do results differ between patients who have used psychedelic agents previously and those who have not?

We have not found any difference between psychedelic-naive volunteers and those who have used psychedelics in the past.

Do you provide patient education prior to treatment initiation?

All of our study participants are thoroughly screened for medical concerns or mental health history such as psychosis, which would preclude their participation. They are educated about the effects of these agents and what they might expect and typically receive several hours of psychological preparation before the first session. They are also provided with psychological support after sessions. Additionally, we spend time developing trust and rapport prior to the first session.

How durable are the effects of psychedelic treatment?

Studies in patients and healthy participants suggest that the positive effects of psilocybin are long lasting, with most individuals reporting positive changes in moods, attitudes, and behavior that they attribute to psilocybin and which endure months or years after the session. The qualities of the acute session experience can vary widely ranging from experiences of transcendence or psychological insight to experiences of intense anxiety or fear.

An enduring shift in worldview and sense of self, as well as psychological insight, may increase psychological flexibility, thereby allowing individuals to subsequently avoid maladaptive patterns of behavior or thought and to make more healthy choices.

Our research has shown that the benefits of these experiences can last as long as 14 months, often longer, and that many participants characterize their psilocybin experience as among the most profound and personally meaningful experience of their lives.
 

Do participants experience any adverse effects? If so, how are they managed?

Sometimes, despite all the preparation, screening, and support we provide, some participants can have frightening experiences, such as fear and anxiety during the session. When that occurs, it is often shorted lived. The psychological preparation we provide before the session and the psychological support we provide during the session are important for managing such effects.

We provide support and encourage participants to stay with that experience, which may open to experiences of deep meaning or insight. A number of people report that these psychologically challenging states are a valuable part of the overall experience.

We conducted a survey of roughly 2,000 people who took high doses of psilocybin mushrooms and then had a challenging experience. About 10% reported they put themselves or others at risk of physical harm. Of more concern, of those whose experience occurred more than 1 year before, 8% sought treatment for enduring psychological symptoms. These findings underscore potential risks of psilocybin use but do not provide an estimate of the actual incidence of such effects.

Importantly, in our research at Johns Hopkins, we have not observed such effects in over 700 sessions that we have conducted with almost 400 participants, likely because we thoroughly screen and prepare participants and support them after they have completed the study. The potential for serious lasting harm represents a concern and points to the importance of adequate screening and aftercare.
 

What are the implications for future therapeutics?

We are living in exciting times, in terms of psychedelic research. The potential for a single treatment with a classic psychedelic to produce rapid and sustained therapeutic effects, possibly across a range of psychiatric conditions, is unprecedented in psychiatry. The effect appears to be an “inverse PTSD effect.”

In PTSD, a single exposure to a traumatic event can rewire the nervous system to the point that it produces enduring harm and toxicity. In the case of psychedelics, a single exposure appears to have enduring positive effects in worldview, mood, attitude, behavior, and overall life satisfaction. We can look forward to continued growth and expansion of this research including the refinement of protocols for a variety of therapeutic indications and to the development of a variety of new classic psychedelic compounds.
 

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

Late-onset epilepsy is linked to a substantial increased risk of subsequent dementia. Results of a retrospective analysis show that patients who develop epilepsy at age 67 or older have a threefold increased risk of subsequent dementia versus their counterparts without epilepsy.

“This is an exciting area, as we are finding that just as the risk of seizures is increased in neurodegenerative diseases, the risk of dementia is increased after late-onset epilepsy and seizures,” study investigator Emily L. Johnson, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “Several other cohort studies are finding similar results, including the Veterans’ Health Study and the Framingham Study,” she added.

The study was published online Oct. 23 in Neurology
 

Bidirectional relationship?

Previous research has established that dementia is a risk factor for epilepsy, but recent studies also suggest an increased risk of incident dementia among patients with adult-onset epilepsy. Several risk factors for late-onset epilepsy, including diabetes and hypertension, also are risk factors for dementia. However, the effect of late-onset epilepsy on dementia risk in patients with these comorbidities has not been clarified.

To investigate, the researchers examined data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Participants include Black and White men and women from four U.S. communities. Baseline visits in this longitudinal cohort study began between 1987 and 1989, and follow-up included seven additional visits and regular phone calls.

The investigators identified participants with late-onset epilepsy by searching for Medicare claims related to seizures or epilepsy filed between 1991 and 2015. Those with two or more such claims and age of onset of 67 years or greater were considered to have late-onset epilepsy. Participants with preexisting conditions such as brain tumors or multiple sclerosis were excluded.

ARIC participants who presented in person for visits 2, 4, 5, and 6 underwent cognitive testing with the Delayed Word Recall Test, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, and the Word Fluency Test.

Testing at visits 5 and 6 also included other tests, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Boston Naming test, and the Wechsler Memory Scale-III. Dr. Johnson and colleagues excluded data for visit 7 from the analysis because dementia adjudication was not yet complete.

The researchers identified participants with dementia using data from visits 5 and 6 and ascertained time of dementia onset through participant and informant interviews, phone calls, and hospital discharge data. Participants also were screened for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at visits 5 and 6.

Data were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model and multinomial logistic regression. In subsequent analyses, researchers adjusted the data for age, sex, race, smoking status, alcohol use, hypertension, diabetes, body mass index (BMI), APOE4 status, and prevalent stroke.

The researchers found that of 9,033 study participants, 671 had late-onset epilepsy. The late-onset epilepsy group was older at baseline (56.5 vs. 55.1 years) and more likely to have hypertension (38.9% vs. 33.3%), diabetes (16.1% vs. 9.6%), and two alleles of APOE4 genotype (3.9% vs. 2.5%), compared with those without the disorder.

In all, 1,687 participants developed dementia during follow-up. The rate of incident dementia was 41.6% in participants with late-onset epilepsy and 16.8% in participants without late-onset epilepsy. The adjusted hazard ratio of subsequent dementia in participants with late-onset epilepsy versus those without the disorder was 3.05 (95% confidence interval, 2.65-3.51).

The median time to dementia ascertainment after late-onset epilepsy was 3.66 years.
 

Counterintuitive finding

The relationship between late-onset epilepsy and subsequent dementia was stronger in patients without stroke. The investigators offered a possible explanation for this counterintuitive finding. “We observed an interaction between [late-onset epilepsy] and stroke, with a lower (but still substantial) association between [late-onset epilepsy] and dementia in those with a history of stroke. This may be due to the known strong association between stroke and dementia, which may wash out the contributions of [late-onset epilepsy] to cognitive impairment,” the researchers wrote.

“There may also be under-capturing of dementia diagnoses among participants with stroke in the ascertainment from [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] codes, as physicians may be reluctant to make a separate code for ‘dementia’ in those with cognitive impairment after stroke,” they added.

When the researchers restricted the analysis only to participants who attended visits 5 and 6 and had late-onset epilepsy ascertainment available, they found that the relative risk ratio for dementia at visit 6 was 2.90 (95% CI, 1.22-6.92; P = .009). The RRR for MCI was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.39-2.38; P = .803). The greater functional impairment in patients with late-onset epilepsy may explain the lack of a relationship between late-onset epilepsy and MCI.

“It will be important for neurologists to be aware of the possibility of cognitive impairment following late-onset epilepsy and to check in with patients and family members to see if there are concerns,” said Dr. Johnson.

“We should also be talking about the importance of lowering other risk factors for dementia by making sure cardiovascular risk factors are controlled and encouraging physical and cognitive activity,” she added.

The results require confirmation in a clinical population, the investigators noted. In addition, future research is necessary to clarify whether seizures directly increase the risk of dementia or whether shared neuropathology between epilepsy and dementia explains the risk.

“In the near future, I plan to enroll participants with late-onset epilepsy in an observational study to better understand factors that may contribute to cognitive change. Collaborations will be key as we seek to further understand what causes these changes and what could be done to prevent them,” Dr. Johnson added.
 

Strengths and weaknesses

In an accompanying editorial, W. Allen Hauser, MD, professor emeritus of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University in New York, and colleagues noted that the findings support a bidirectional relationship between dementia and epilepsy, adding that accumulation of amyloid beta peptide is a plausible underlying pathophysiology that may explain this relationship.

Future research should clarify the effect of factors such as seizure type, seizure frequency, and age of onset on the risk of dementia among patients with epilepsy, the editorialists wrote. Such investigations could help elucidate the underlying mechanisms of these conditions and help to improve treatment, they added.

Commenting on the findings, Ilo Leppik, MD, professor of neurology and pharmacy at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis described the research as “a very well-done study by qualified researchers in the field. … For the last century, medicine has unfortunately become compartmentalized by specialty and then subspecialty. The brain and disorders of the brain do not recognize these silos. … It is not a stretch of the known science to begin to understand that epilepsy and dementia have common anatomical and physiological underpinnings.”

The long period of prospectively gathering data and the measurement of cognitive function through various modalities are among the study’s great strengths, said Dr. Leppik. However, the study’s weakness is its reliance on Medicare claims data, which mainly would reflect convulsive seizures.

“What is missing is how many persons had subtle focal-unaware seizures that may not be identified unless a careful history is taken,” said Dr. Leppik. “Thus, this study likely underestimates the frequency of epilepsy.”

Neurologists who evaluate a person with early dementia should be on the lookout for a history of subtle seizures, said Dr. Leppik. Animal studies suggest treatment with levetiracetam or brivaracetam may slow the course of dementia, and a clinical study in participants with early dementia is underway.

“Treatment with an antiseizure drug may prove to be beneficial, especially if evidence for the presence of subtle epilepsy can be found,” Dr. Leppik added.

Greater collaboration between epileptologists and dementia specialists and larger studies of antiseizure drugs are necessary, he noted. “These studies can incorporate sophisticated structural and biochemical [analyses] to better identify the relationships between brain mechanisms that likely underlie both seizures and dementia. The ultimate promise is that early treatment of seizures may alter the course of dementia,” Dr. Leppik said.

The study by Dr. Johnson and colleagues was supported by a contract from the National Institute on Aging; ARIC from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The authors and Dr. Leppik have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Late-onset epilepsy is linked to a substantial increased risk of subsequent dementia. Results of a retrospective analysis show that patients who develop epilepsy at age 67 or older have a threefold increased risk of subsequent dementia versus their counterparts without epilepsy.

“This is an exciting area, as we are finding that just as the risk of seizures is increased in neurodegenerative diseases, the risk of dementia is increased after late-onset epilepsy and seizures,” study investigator Emily L. Johnson, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “Several other cohort studies are finding similar results, including the Veterans’ Health Study and the Framingham Study,” she added.

The study was published online Oct. 23 in Neurology
 

Bidirectional relationship?

Previous research has established that dementia is a risk factor for epilepsy, but recent studies also suggest an increased risk of incident dementia among patients with adult-onset epilepsy. Several risk factors for late-onset epilepsy, including diabetes and hypertension, also are risk factors for dementia. However, the effect of late-onset epilepsy on dementia risk in patients with these comorbidities has not been clarified.

To investigate, the researchers examined data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Participants include Black and White men and women from four U.S. communities. Baseline visits in this longitudinal cohort study began between 1987 and 1989, and follow-up included seven additional visits and regular phone calls.

The investigators identified participants with late-onset epilepsy by searching for Medicare claims related to seizures or epilepsy filed between 1991 and 2015. Those with two or more such claims and age of onset of 67 years or greater were considered to have late-onset epilepsy. Participants with preexisting conditions such as brain tumors or multiple sclerosis were excluded.

ARIC participants who presented in person for visits 2, 4, 5, and 6 underwent cognitive testing with the Delayed Word Recall Test, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, and the Word Fluency Test.

Testing at visits 5 and 6 also included other tests, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Boston Naming test, and the Wechsler Memory Scale-III. Dr. Johnson and colleagues excluded data for visit 7 from the analysis because dementia adjudication was not yet complete.

The researchers identified participants with dementia using data from visits 5 and 6 and ascertained time of dementia onset through participant and informant interviews, phone calls, and hospital discharge data. Participants also were screened for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at visits 5 and 6.

Data were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model and multinomial logistic regression. In subsequent analyses, researchers adjusted the data for age, sex, race, smoking status, alcohol use, hypertension, diabetes, body mass index (BMI), APOE4 status, and prevalent stroke.

The researchers found that of 9,033 study participants, 671 had late-onset epilepsy. The late-onset epilepsy group was older at baseline (56.5 vs. 55.1 years) and more likely to have hypertension (38.9% vs. 33.3%), diabetes (16.1% vs. 9.6%), and two alleles of APOE4 genotype (3.9% vs. 2.5%), compared with those without the disorder.

In all, 1,687 participants developed dementia during follow-up. The rate of incident dementia was 41.6% in participants with late-onset epilepsy and 16.8% in participants without late-onset epilepsy. The adjusted hazard ratio of subsequent dementia in participants with late-onset epilepsy versus those without the disorder was 3.05 (95% confidence interval, 2.65-3.51).

The median time to dementia ascertainment after late-onset epilepsy was 3.66 years.
 

Counterintuitive finding

The relationship between late-onset epilepsy and subsequent dementia was stronger in patients without stroke. The investigators offered a possible explanation for this counterintuitive finding. “We observed an interaction between [late-onset epilepsy] and stroke, with a lower (but still substantial) association between [late-onset epilepsy] and dementia in those with a history of stroke. This may be due to the known strong association between stroke and dementia, which may wash out the contributions of [late-onset epilepsy] to cognitive impairment,” the researchers wrote.

“There may also be under-capturing of dementia diagnoses among participants with stroke in the ascertainment from [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] codes, as physicians may be reluctant to make a separate code for ‘dementia’ in those with cognitive impairment after stroke,” they added.

When the researchers restricted the analysis only to participants who attended visits 5 and 6 and had late-onset epilepsy ascertainment available, they found that the relative risk ratio for dementia at visit 6 was 2.90 (95% CI, 1.22-6.92; P = .009). The RRR for MCI was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.39-2.38; P = .803). The greater functional impairment in patients with late-onset epilepsy may explain the lack of a relationship between late-onset epilepsy and MCI.

“It will be important for neurologists to be aware of the possibility of cognitive impairment following late-onset epilepsy and to check in with patients and family members to see if there are concerns,” said Dr. Johnson.

“We should also be talking about the importance of lowering other risk factors for dementia by making sure cardiovascular risk factors are controlled and encouraging physical and cognitive activity,” she added.

The results require confirmation in a clinical population, the investigators noted. In addition, future research is necessary to clarify whether seizures directly increase the risk of dementia or whether shared neuropathology between epilepsy and dementia explains the risk.

“In the near future, I plan to enroll participants with late-onset epilepsy in an observational study to better understand factors that may contribute to cognitive change. Collaborations will be key as we seek to further understand what causes these changes and what could be done to prevent them,” Dr. Johnson added.
 

Strengths and weaknesses

In an accompanying editorial, W. Allen Hauser, MD, professor emeritus of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University in New York, and colleagues noted that the findings support a bidirectional relationship between dementia and epilepsy, adding that accumulation of amyloid beta peptide is a plausible underlying pathophysiology that may explain this relationship.

Future research should clarify the effect of factors such as seizure type, seizure frequency, and age of onset on the risk of dementia among patients with epilepsy, the editorialists wrote. Such investigations could help elucidate the underlying mechanisms of these conditions and help to improve treatment, they added.

Commenting on the findings, Ilo Leppik, MD, professor of neurology and pharmacy at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis described the research as “a very well-done study by qualified researchers in the field. … For the last century, medicine has unfortunately become compartmentalized by specialty and then subspecialty. The brain and disorders of the brain do not recognize these silos. … It is not a stretch of the known science to begin to understand that epilepsy and dementia have common anatomical and physiological underpinnings.”

The long period of prospectively gathering data and the measurement of cognitive function through various modalities are among the study’s great strengths, said Dr. Leppik. However, the study’s weakness is its reliance on Medicare claims data, which mainly would reflect convulsive seizures.

“What is missing is how many persons had subtle focal-unaware seizures that may not be identified unless a careful history is taken,” said Dr. Leppik. “Thus, this study likely underestimates the frequency of epilepsy.”

Neurologists who evaluate a person with early dementia should be on the lookout for a history of subtle seizures, said Dr. Leppik. Animal studies suggest treatment with levetiracetam or brivaracetam may slow the course of dementia, and a clinical study in participants with early dementia is underway.

“Treatment with an antiseizure drug may prove to be beneficial, especially if evidence for the presence of subtle epilepsy can be found,” Dr. Leppik added.

Greater collaboration between epileptologists and dementia specialists and larger studies of antiseizure drugs are necessary, he noted. “These studies can incorporate sophisticated structural and biochemical [analyses] to better identify the relationships between brain mechanisms that likely underlie both seizures and dementia. The ultimate promise is that early treatment of seizures may alter the course of dementia,” Dr. Leppik said.

The study by Dr. Johnson and colleagues was supported by a contract from the National Institute on Aging; ARIC from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The authors and Dr. Leppik have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Late-onset epilepsy is linked to a substantial increased risk of subsequent dementia. Results of a retrospective analysis show that patients who develop epilepsy at age 67 or older have a threefold increased risk of subsequent dementia versus their counterparts without epilepsy.

“This is an exciting area, as we are finding that just as the risk of seizures is increased in neurodegenerative diseases, the risk of dementia is increased after late-onset epilepsy and seizures,” study investigator Emily L. Johnson, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “Several other cohort studies are finding similar results, including the Veterans’ Health Study and the Framingham Study,” she added.

The study was published online Oct. 23 in Neurology
 

Bidirectional relationship?

Previous research has established that dementia is a risk factor for epilepsy, but recent studies also suggest an increased risk of incident dementia among patients with adult-onset epilepsy. Several risk factors for late-onset epilepsy, including diabetes and hypertension, also are risk factors for dementia. However, the effect of late-onset epilepsy on dementia risk in patients with these comorbidities has not been clarified.

To investigate, the researchers examined data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Participants include Black and White men and women from four U.S. communities. Baseline visits in this longitudinal cohort study began between 1987 and 1989, and follow-up included seven additional visits and regular phone calls.

The investigators identified participants with late-onset epilepsy by searching for Medicare claims related to seizures or epilepsy filed between 1991 and 2015. Those with two or more such claims and age of onset of 67 years or greater were considered to have late-onset epilepsy. Participants with preexisting conditions such as brain tumors or multiple sclerosis were excluded.

ARIC participants who presented in person for visits 2, 4, 5, and 6 underwent cognitive testing with the Delayed Word Recall Test, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, and the Word Fluency Test.

Testing at visits 5 and 6 also included other tests, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Boston Naming test, and the Wechsler Memory Scale-III. Dr. Johnson and colleagues excluded data for visit 7 from the analysis because dementia adjudication was not yet complete.

The researchers identified participants with dementia using data from visits 5 and 6 and ascertained time of dementia onset through participant and informant interviews, phone calls, and hospital discharge data. Participants also were screened for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at visits 5 and 6.

Data were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model and multinomial logistic regression. In subsequent analyses, researchers adjusted the data for age, sex, race, smoking status, alcohol use, hypertension, diabetes, body mass index (BMI), APOE4 status, and prevalent stroke.

The researchers found that of 9,033 study participants, 671 had late-onset epilepsy. The late-onset epilepsy group was older at baseline (56.5 vs. 55.1 years) and more likely to have hypertension (38.9% vs. 33.3%), diabetes (16.1% vs. 9.6%), and two alleles of APOE4 genotype (3.9% vs. 2.5%), compared with those without the disorder.

In all, 1,687 participants developed dementia during follow-up. The rate of incident dementia was 41.6% in participants with late-onset epilepsy and 16.8% in participants without late-onset epilepsy. The adjusted hazard ratio of subsequent dementia in participants with late-onset epilepsy versus those without the disorder was 3.05 (95% confidence interval, 2.65-3.51).

The median time to dementia ascertainment after late-onset epilepsy was 3.66 years.
 

Counterintuitive finding

The relationship between late-onset epilepsy and subsequent dementia was stronger in patients without stroke. The investigators offered a possible explanation for this counterintuitive finding. “We observed an interaction between [late-onset epilepsy] and stroke, with a lower (but still substantial) association between [late-onset epilepsy] and dementia in those with a history of stroke. This may be due to the known strong association between stroke and dementia, which may wash out the contributions of [late-onset epilepsy] to cognitive impairment,” the researchers wrote.

“There may also be under-capturing of dementia diagnoses among participants with stroke in the ascertainment from [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] codes, as physicians may be reluctant to make a separate code for ‘dementia’ in those with cognitive impairment after stroke,” they added.

When the researchers restricted the analysis only to participants who attended visits 5 and 6 and had late-onset epilepsy ascertainment available, they found that the relative risk ratio for dementia at visit 6 was 2.90 (95% CI, 1.22-6.92; P = .009). The RRR for MCI was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.39-2.38; P = .803). The greater functional impairment in patients with late-onset epilepsy may explain the lack of a relationship between late-onset epilepsy and MCI.

“It will be important for neurologists to be aware of the possibility of cognitive impairment following late-onset epilepsy and to check in with patients and family members to see if there are concerns,” said Dr. Johnson.

“We should also be talking about the importance of lowering other risk factors for dementia by making sure cardiovascular risk factors are controlled and encouraging physical and cognitive activity,” she added.

The results require confirmation in a clinical population, the investigators noted. In addition, future research is necessary to clarify whether seizures directly increase the risk of dementia or whether shared neuropathology between epilepsy and dementia explains the risk.

“In the near future, I plan to enroll participants with late-onset epilepsy in an observational study to better understand factors that may contribute to cognitive change. Collaborations will be key as we seek to further understand what causes these changes and what could be done to prevent them,” Dr. Johnson added.
 

Strengths and weaknesses

In an accompanying editorial, W. Allen Hauser, MD, professor emeritus of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University in New York, and colleagues noted that the findings support a bidirectional relationship between dementia and epilepsy, adding that accumulation of amyloid beta peptide is a plausible underlying pathophysiology that may explain this relationship.

Future research should clarify the effect of factors such as seizure type, seizure frequency, and age of onset on the risk of dementia among patients with epilepsy, the editorialists wrote. Such investigations could help elucidate the underlying mechanisms of these conditions and help to improve treatment, they added.

Commenting on the findings, Ilo Leppik, MD, professor of neurology and pharmacy at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis described the research as “a very well-done study by qualified researchers in the field. … For the last century, medicine has unfortunately become compartmentalized by specialty and then subspecialty. The brain and disorders of the brain do not recognize these silos. … It is not a stretch of the known science to begin to understand that epilepsy and dementia have common anatomical and physiological underpinnings.”

The long period of prospectively gathering data and the measurement of cognitive function through various modalities are among the study’s great strengths, said Dr. Leppik. However, the study’s weakness is its reliance on Medicare claims data, which mainly would reflect convulsive seizures.

“What is missing is how many persons had subtle focal-unaware seizures that may not be identified unless a careful history is taken,” said Dr. Leppik. “Thus, this study likely underestimates the frequency of epilepsy.”

Neurologists who evaluate a person with early dementia should be on the lookout for a history of subtle seizures, said Dr. Leppik. Animal studies suggest treatment with levetiracetam or brivaracetam may slow the course of dementia, and a clinical study in participants with early dementia is underway.

“Treatment with an antiseizure drug may prove to be beneficial, especially if evidence for the presence of subtle epilepsy can be found,” Dr. Leppik added.

Greater collaboration between epileptologists and dementia specialists and larger studies of antiseizure drugs are necessary, he noted. “These studies can incorporate sophisticated structural and biochemical [analyses] to better identify the relationships between brain mechanisms that likely underlie both seizures and dementia. The ultimate promise is that early treatment of seizures may alter the course of dementia,” Dr. Leppik said.

The study by Dr. Johnson and colleagues was supported by a contract from the National Institute on Aging; ARIC from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The authors and Dr. Leppik have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion stroke, direct transfer to a comprehensive stroke center capable of endovascular therapy that is farther away than a local primary stroke center does not necessarily produce better functional stroke outcomes, a new study has shown.

In the RACECAT trial, functional outcomes were similar for patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion stroke who were located in areas not currently served by a comprehensive stroke center, whether they were first taken to a local primary stroke center or whether they were transported over a longer distance to a comprehensive center.

“Under the particular conditions in our study where we had a very well-organized system, a ‘mothership’ transfer protocol for patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion has not proven superior over the ‘drip-and-ship’ protocol, but the opposite is also true,” lead investigator Marc Ribo, MD, concluded.

Dr. Ribo, assistant professor of neurology at Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, presented the RACECAT results at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Dr. Ribo said in an interview that there is a feeling among the stroke community that patients with a suspected large-vessel occlusion should be transferred directly to a comprehensive stroke center capable of performing endovascular thrombectomy, even if there is a nearer, smaller primary stroke center where patients are usually taken first for thrombolysis.

“Many stroke neurologists believe we are losing time by sending patients with severe stroke to a local hospital and that we should skip this step, but this is controversial area,” he commented. “Our findings suggest that we should not automatically bypass local stroke centers.”

Dr. Ribo pointed out that the local centers performed very well in the study, with very fast “in/out” times for patients who were subsequently transferred for thrombectomy.

“On the basis of our results, we recommend that if a local stroke center can perform well like ours did – if they are within the time indicators for treating and transferring patients – then they should keep receiving these patients. But if they are not performing well in this regard, then they should probably be bypassed,” he commented.

The RACECAT trial was well received by stroke experts at an ESO-WSO 2020 press conference at which it was discussed.

Stefan Kiechl, MD, Medical University Innsbruck (Austria), described the trial as “outstanding,” adding: “It has addressed a very important question. It is a big achievement in stroke medicine.”

Patrik Michel, MD, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said that “this is a very important and highly sophisticated trial in terms of design and execution. The message is that it doesn’t matter which pathway is used, but it is important to have a well-organized network with highly trained paramedics.”
 

RACECAT

The RACECAT trial was conducted in the Catalonia region of Spain. Twenty-seven hospitals participated, including 7 comprehensive stroke centers and 20 local stroke centers.

The trial included stroke patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion stroke, as determined on the basis of evaluation by paramedics using the criteria of a Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE) scale score above 4 and on the basis of a call to a vascular neurologist. For inclusion in the study, patients had to be in a geographical area not served by a comprehensive stroke center and to have an estimated arrival time to a comprehensive center of less than 7 hours from symptom onset in order that thrombectomy would be possible.

Of 7,475 stroke code patients evaluated, 1,401 met the inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to be transferred to a local hospital or to a comprehensive stroke center farther away.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The patients had severe strokes with an average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 17. It was later confirmed that 46% of the patients enrolled in the study had a large-vessel occlusion stroke.

Results showed that time from symptom onset to hospital arrival was 142 minutes for those taken to a local center and 216 minutes for those taken to a comprehensive stroke center. Of those taken to a local hospital, 86% arrived within 4 hours of symptom onset and so were potential candidates for thrombolysis, compared with 76% of those taken to a comprehensive center.

Of the patients taken to a local hospital, 60% were given thrombolysis versus 43% of those taken immediately to a comprehensive center. On the other hand, 50% of patients who were taken directly to a comprehensive center underwent thrombectomy, compared with 40% who were first taken to a local center.

For patients who received thrombolysis, time to tissue plasminogen activator administration was 120 minutes for those treated at a local hospital versus 155 minutes for those taken directly to a comprehensive center.

For patients who received thrombectomy, time from symptom onset to groin puncture was 270 minutes if they were first taken to a local hospital and were then transferred, versus 214 minutes for those taken directly to the comprehensive center.

The primary efficacy endpoint was functional outcome using Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) shift analysis at 90 days for ischemic stroke patients. This showed a “completely flat” result, Dr. Ribo reported, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.029 for patients taken to a comprehensive center in comparison with those taken to a local center.

“There was absolutely no trend towards benefit in one group over the other,” he said.
 

What about hemorrhagic stroke?

The study also evaluated functional outcomes for the whole population enrolled. “If we make the decision just based on thrombectomy-eligible patients, we may harm the rest of the patients, so we did this study to look at the whole population of severe stroke patients,” Dr. Ribo said.

Of the study population, 25% of patients were found to have had a hemorrhagic stroke.

“The problem is, at the prehospital level, it is impossible to know if a patient is having a large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke or a hemorrhagic stroke,” Dr. Ribo explained. “We have to make a decision for the whole population, and while a longer transport time to get to a comprehensive stroke center might help a patient with a large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke, it might not be so appropriate for patients with a hemorrhagic stroke who need to have their blood pressure stabilized as soon as possible.”

For the whole population, the mRS shift analysis at 90 days was also neutral, with an aHR of 0.965.

When considering only patients with hemorrhagic stroke, the adjusted hazard ratio for the mRS shift analysis at 90 days was 1.216, which was still nonsignificant (95% confidence interval, 0.864-1.709). This included a nonsignificant increase in mortality among those taken directly to a comprehensive center.

“If we had better tools for a certain diagnosis in the field, then we could consider taking large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke patients to a comprehensive center and hemorrhagic stroke patients to the local stroke center, but so far, we don’t have this option apart from a few places using mobile stroke units with CT scanners,” Dr. Ribo noted.

Transfer times to comprehensive centers in the study ranged from 30 minutes to 2.5 hours. “There might well be a difference in outcomes for short and long transfers, and we may be able to offer different transfer protocols in these different situations, and we are looking at that, but the study was only stopped in June, and we haven’t had a chance to analyze those results yet,” Dr. Ribo added.

Complications during transport occurred in 0.5% of those taken to a local hospital and in 1% of those taken directly to a comprehensive center. “We were concerned about complications with longer transfers, but these numbers are quite low. Intubations were very low – just one patient taken to a local center, versus three or four in the longer transfer group,” he added.

For both local and comprehensive centers, treatment times were impressive in the study. For local hospitals, the average in/out time was just 60 minutes for patients who went to a comprehensive center; for patients receiving thrombolysis, the average door to needle time was around 30 minutes.

Time to thrombectomy in the comprehensive center for patients transferred from a local hospital was also very fast, with an average door to groin puncture time of less than 40 minutes. “This shows we have a very well-oiled system,” Dr. Ribo said.

“There is always going to be a balance between a quicker time to thrombolysis by taking a patient to the closest hospital but a quicker time to thrombectomy if patients are taken straight to the comprehensive center,” he concluded. “But in our system, where we are achieving fast treatment and transfer times, our results show that patients had timely access to reperfusion therapies regardless of transfer protocol, and under these circumstances, it is fine for the emergency services to take stroke patients to the closest stroke center.”
 

Results applicable elsewhere?

During the discussion at an ESO-WSO 2020 press conference, other experts pointed out that the Catalonia group is a leader in this field, being the pioneers of the RACE score used in this study for paramedics to identify suspected large-vessel occlusions. This led to questions about the applicability of the results.

“The performance by paramedics was very good using the RACE scale, and the performance times were very impressive. Are these results applicable elsewhere?” Dr. Kiechl asked.

Dr. Ribo said the combination of the RACE score and a call with a vascular neurologist was of “great value” in identifying appropriate patients. Half of the patients selected in this way for the trial were confirmed to have a large-vessel occlusion. “That is a good result,” he added.

He noted that the performance of the local hospitals improved dramatically during the study. “They had an incentive to work on their times. They could have lost most of their stroke patients if their results came out worse. We told them they had an opportunity to show that they have a role in treating these patients, and they took that opportunity.”

Dr. Ribo said there were lessons here for those involved in acute stroke care. “When creating stroke transfer policies in local networks, the performances of individual centers need to be taken into account. If primary stroke centers are motivated and can work in a well-coordinated way and perform to within the recommended times, then they can keep receiving stroke code patients. This should be possible in most developed countries.”

Noting that the in/out time of 60 minutes at local hospitals was “very impressive,” Dr. Kiechl asked how such fast times were achieved.

Dr. Ribo responded that, to a great extent, this was because of ambulance staff. “We have trained the paramedics to anticipate a second transfer after delivering the patient to the local hospital so they can prepare for this rather than waiting for a second call.”

Dr. Ribo pointed out that there were other advantages in taking patients to local centers first. “For those that do not need to be transferred on, they will be closer to relatives. It is very difficult for the family if the patient is hundreds of miles away. And there may be a cost advantage. We did look at costs, but haven’t got that data yet.”

He said: “If local stroke centers do not treat so many stroke code patients, they will lose their expertise, and that will be detrimental to the remaining patients who are taken there. We want to try to maintain a good standard of stroke care across a decent spread of hospitals—not just a couple of major comprehensive centers,” he added.

Commenting on the study, Jesse Dawson, MD, University of Glasgow, who was chair of the plenary session at which the study was presented, said: “RACECAT is very interesting but needs a lot of thought to dissect. My takeaway is that we know that time to reperfusion is key, and we need to get these times as low as possible, but we don’t need to chase a particular care pathway. Thus, if your country/geography suits ‘drip and ship’ better, this is acceptable. If direct to endovascular is possible or you are close to such a center, then this is ideal. But within those paradigms, be as fast as possible.”

He added that results of the subgroups with regard to transfer time will be helpful.

The RACECAT study was funded by Fundacio Ictus Malaltia Vascular.

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

For patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion stroke, direct transfer to a comprehensive stroke center capable of endovascular therapy that is farther away than a local primary stroke center does not necessarily produce better functional stroke outcomes, a new study has shown.

In the RACECAT trial, functional outcomes were similar for patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion stroke who were located in areas not currently served by a comprehensive stroke center, whether they were first taken to a local primary stroke center or whether they were transported over a longer distance to a comprehensive center.

“Under the particular conditions in our study where we had a very well-organized system, a ‘mothership’ transfer protocol for patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion has not proven superior over the ‘drip-and-ship’ protocol, but the opposite is also true,” lead investigator Marc Ribo, MD, concluded.

Dr. Ribo, assistant professor of neurology at Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, presented the RACECAT results at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Dr. Ribo said in an interview that there is a feeling among the stroke community that patients with a suspected large-vessel occlusion should be transferred directly to a comprehensive stroke center capable of performing endovascular thrombectomy, even if there is a nearer, smaller primary stroke center where patients are usually taken first for thrombolysis.

“Many stroke neurologists believe we are losing time by sending patients with severe stroke to a local hospital and that we should skip this step, but this is controversial area,” he commented. “Our findings suggest that we should not automatically bypass local stroke centers.”

Dr. Ribo pointed out that the local centers performed very well in the study, with very fast “in/out” times for patients who were subsequently transferred for thrombectomy.

“On the basis of our results, we recommend that if a local stroke center can perform well like ours did – if they are within the time indicators for treating and transferring patients – then they should keep receiving these patients. But if they are not performing well in this regard, then they should probably be bypassed,” he commented.

The RACECAT trial was well received by stroke experts at an ESO-WSO 2020 press conference at which it was discussed.

Stefan Kiechl, MD, Medical University Innsbruck (Austria), described the trial as “outstanding,” adding: “It has addressed a very important question. It is a big achievement in stroke medicine.”

Patrik Michel, MD, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said that “this is a very important and highly sophisticated trial in terms of design and execution. The message is that it doesn’t matter which pathway is used, but it is important to have a well-organized network with highly trained paramedics.”
 

RACECAT

The RACECAT trial was conducted in the Catalonia region of Spain. Twenty-seven hospitals participated, including 7 comprehensive stroke centers and 20 local stroke centers.

The trial included stroke patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion stroke, as determined on the basis of evaluation by paramedics using the criteria of a Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE) scale score above 4 and on the basis of a call to a vascular neurologist. For inclusion in the study, patients had to be in a geographical area not served by a comprehensive stroke center and to have an estimated arrival time to a comprehensive center of less than 7 hours from symptom onset in order that thrombectomy would be possible.

Of 7,475 stroke code patients evaluated, 1,401 met the inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to be transferred to a local hospital or to a comprehensive stroke center farther away.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The patients had severe strokes with an average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 17. It was later confirmed that 46% of the patients enrolled in the study had a large-vessel occlusion stroke.

Results showed that time from symptom onset to hospital arrival was 142 minutes for those taken to a local center and 216 minutes for those taken to a comprehensive stroke center. Of those taken to a local hospital, 86% arrived within 4 hours of symptom onset and so were potential candidates for thrombolysis, compared with 76% of those taken to a comprehensive center.

Of the patients taken to a local hospital, 60% were given thrombolysis versus 43% of those taken immediately to a comprehensive center. On the other hand, 50% of patients who were taken directly to a comprehensive center underwent thrombectomy, compared with 40% who were first taken to a local center.

For patients who received thrombolysis, time to tissue plasminogen activator administration was 120 minutes for those treated at a local hospital versus 155 minutes for those taken directly to a comprehensive center.

For patients who received thrombectomy, time from symptom onset to groin puncture was 270 minutes if they were first taken to a local hospital and were then transferred, versus 214 minutes for those taken directly to the comprehensive center.

The primary efficacy endpoint was functional outcome using Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) shift analysis at 90 days for ischemic stroke patients. This showed a “completely flat” result, Dr. Ribo reported, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.029 for patients taken to a comprehensive center in comparison with those taken to a local center.

“There was absolutely no trend towards benefit in one group over the other,” he said.
 

What about hemorrhagic stroke?

The study also evaluated functional outcomes for the whole population enrolled. “If we make the decision just based on thrombectomy-eligible patients, we may harm the rest of the patients, so we did this study to look at the whole population of severe stroke patients,” Dr. Ribo said.

Of the study population, 25% of patients were found to have had a hemorrhagic stroke.

“The problem is, at the prehospital level, it is impossible to know if a patient is having a large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke or a hemorrhagic stroke,” Dr. Ribo explained. “We have to make a decision for the whole population, and while a longer transport time to get to a comprehensive stroke center might help a patient with a large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke, it might not be so appropriate for patients with a hemorrhagic stroke who need to have their blood pressure stabilized as soon as possible.”

For the whole population, the mRS shift analysis at 90 days was also neutral, with an aHR of 0.965.

When considering only patients with hemorrhagic stroke, the adjusted hazard ratio for the mRS shift analysis at 90 days was 1.216, which was still nonsignificant (95% confidence interval, 0.864-1.709). This included a nonsignificant increase in mortality among those taken directly to a comprehensive center.

“If we had better tools for a certain diagnosis in the field, then we could consider taking large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke patients to a comprehensive center and hemorrhagic stroke patients to the local stroke center, but so far, we don’t have this option apart from a few places using mobile stroke units with CT scanners,” Dr. Ribo noted.

Transfer times to comprehensive centers in the study ranged from 30 minutes to 2.5 hours. “There might well be a difference in outcomes for short and long transfers, and we may be able to offer different transfer protocols in these different situations, and we are looking at that, but the study was only stopped in June, and we haven’t had a chance to analyze those results yet,” Dr. Ribo added.

Complications during transport occurred in 0.5% of those taken to a local hospital and in 1% of those taken directly to a comprehensive center. “We were concerned about complications with longer transfers, but these numbers are quite low. Intubations were very low – just one patient taken to a local center, versus three or four in the longer transfer group,” he added.

For both local and comprehensive centers, treatment times were impressive in the study. For local hospitals, the average in/out time was just 60 minutes for patients who went to a comprehensive center; for patients receiving thrombolysis, the average door to needle time was around 30 minutes.

Time to thrombectomy in the comprehensive center for patients transferred from a local hospital was also very fast, with an average door to groin puncture time of less than 40 minutes. “This shows we have a very well-oiled system,” Dr. Ribo said.

“There is always going to be a balance between a quicker time to thrombolysis by taking a patient to the closest hospital but a quicker time to thrombectomy if patients are taken straight to the comprehensive center,” he concluded. “But in our system, where we are achieving fast treatment and transfer times, our results show that patients had timely access to reperfusion therapies regardless of transfer protocol, and under these circumstances, it is fine for the emergency services to take stroke patients to the closest stroke center.”
 

Results applicable elsewhere?

During the discussion at an ESO-WSO 2020 press conference, other experts pointed out that the Catalonia group is a leader in this field, being the pioneers of the RACE score used in this study for paramedics to identify suspected large-vessel occlusions. This led to questions about the applicability of the results.

“The performance by paramedics was very good using the RACE scale, and the performance times were very impressive. Are these results applicable elsewhere?” Dr. Kiechl asked.

Dr. Ribo said the combination of the RACE score and a call with a vascular neurologist was of “great value” in identifying appropriate patients. Half of the patients selected in this way for the trial were confirmed to have a large-vessel occlusion. “That is a good result,” he added.

He noted that the performance of the local hospitals improved dramatically during the study. “They had an incentive to work on their times. They could have lost most of their stroke patients if their results came out worse. We told them they had an opportunity to show that they have a role in treating these patients, and they took that opportunity.”

Dr. Ribo said there were lessons here for those involved in acute stroke care. “When creating stroke transfer policies in local networks, the performances of individual centers need to be taken into account. If primary stroke centers are motivated and can work in a well-coordinated way and perform to within the recommended times, then they can keep receiving stroke code patients. This should be possible in most developed countries.”

Noting that the in/out time of 60 minutes at local hospitals was “very impressive,” Dr. Kiechl asked how such fast times were achieved.

Dr. Ribo responded that, to a great extent, this was because of ambulance staff. “We have trained the paramedics to anticipate a second transfer after delivering the patient to the local hospital so they can prepare for this rather than waiting for a second call.”

Dr. Ribo pointed out that there were other advantages in taking patients to local centers first. “For those that do not need to be transferred on, they will be closer to relatives. It is very difficult for the family if the patient is hundreds of miles away. And there may be a cost advantage. We did look at costs, but haven’t got that data yet.”

He said: “If local stroke centers do not treat so many stroke code patients, they will lose their expertise, and that will be detrimental to the remaining patients who are taken there. We want to try to maintain a good standard of stroke care across a decent spread of hospitals—not just a couple of major comprehensive centers,” he added.

Commenting on the study, Jesse Dawson, MD, University of Glasgow, who was chair of the plenary session at which the study was presented, said: “RACECAT is very interesting but needs a lot of thought to dissect. My takeaway is that we know that time to reperfusion is key, and we need to get these times as low as possible, but we don’t need to chase a particular care pathway. Thus, if your country/geography suits ‘drip and ship’ better, this is acceptable. If direct to endovascular is possible or you are close to such a center, then this is ideal. But within those paradigms, be as fast as possible.”

He added that results of the subgroups with regard to transfer time will be helpful.

The RACECAT study was funded by Fundacio Ictus Malaltia Vascular.

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

For patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion stroke, direct transfer to a comprehensive stroke center capable of endovascular therapy that is farther away than a local primary stroke center does not necessarily produce better functional stroke outcomes, a new study has shown.

In the RACECAT trial, functional outcomes were similar for patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion stroke who were located in areas not currently served by a comprehensive stroke center, whether they were first taken to a local primary stroke center or whether they were transported over a longer distance to a comprehensive center.

“Under the particular conditions in our study where we had a very well-organized system, a ‘mothership’ transfer protocol for patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion has not proven superior over the ‘drip-and-ship’ protocol, but the opposite is also true,” lead investigator Marc Ribo, MD, concluded.

Dr. Ribo, assistant professor of neurology at Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, presented the RACECAT results at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Dr. Ribo said in an interview that there is a feeling among the stroke community that patients with a suspected large-vessel occlusion should be transferred directly to a comprehensive stroke center capable of performing endovascular thrombectomy, even if there is a nearer, smaller primary stroke center where patients are usually taken first for thrombolysis.

“Many stroke neurologists believe we are losing time by sending patients with severe stroke to a local hospital and that we should skip this step, but this is controversial area,” he commented. “Our findings suggest that we should not automatically bypass local stroke centers.”

Dr. Ribo pointed out that the local centers performed very well in the study, with very fast “in/out” times for patients who were subsequently transferred for thrombectomy.

“On the basis of our results, we recommend that if a local stroke center can perform well like ours did – if they are within the time indicators for treating and transferring patients – then they should keep receiving these patients. But if they are not performing well in this regard, then they should probably be bypassed,” he commented.

The RACECAT trial was well received by stroke experts at an ESO-WSO 2020 press conference at which it was discussed.

Stefan Kiechl, MD, Medical University Innsbruck (Austria), described the trial as “outstanding,” adding: “It has addressed a very important question. It is a big achievement in stroke medicine.”

Patrik Michel, MD, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said that “this is a very important and highly sophisticated trial in terms of design and execution. The message is that it doesn’t matter which pathway is used, but it is important to have a well-organized network with highly trained paramedics.”
 

RACECAT

The RACECAT trial was conducted in the Catalonia region of Spain. Twenty-seven hospitals participated, including 7 comprehensive stroke centers and 20 local stroke centers.

The trial included stroke patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion stroke, as determined on the basis of evaluation by paramedics using the criteria of a Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE) scale score above 4 and on the basis of a call to a vascular neurologist. For inclusion in the study, patients had to be in a geographical area not served by a comprehensive stroke center and to have an estimated arrival time to a comprehensive center of less than 7 hours from symptom onset in order that thrombectomy would be possible.

Of 7,475 stroke code patients evaluated, 1,401 met the inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to be transferred to a local hospital or to a comprehensive stroke center farther away.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The patients had severe strokes with an average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 17. It was later confirmed that 46% of the patients enrolled in the study had a large-vessel occlusion stroke.

Results showed that time from symptom onset to hospital arrival was 142 minutes for those taken to a local center and 216 minutes for those taken to a comprehensive stroke center. Of those taken to a local hospital, 86% arrived within 4 hours of symptom onset and so were potential candidates for thrombolysis, compared with 76% of those taken to a comprehensive center.

Of the patients taken to a local hospital, 60% were given thrombolysis versus 43% of those taken immediately to a comprehensive center. On the other hand, 50% of patients who were taken directly to a comprehensive center underwent thrombectomy, compared with 40% who were first taken to a local center.

For patients who received thrombolysis, time to tissue plasminogen activator administration was 120 minutes for those treated at a local hospital versus 155 minutes for those taken directly to a comprehensive center.

For patients who received thrombectomy, time from symptom onset to groin puncture was 270 minutes if they were first taken to a local hospital and were then transferred, versus 214 minutes for those taken directly to the comprehensive center.

The primary efficacy endpoint was functional outcome using Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) shift analysis at 90 days for ischemic stroke patients. This showed a “completely flat” result, Dr. Ribo reported, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.029 for patients taken to a comprehensive center in comparison with those taken to a local center.

“There was absolutely no trend towards benefit in one group over the other,” he said.
 

What about hemorrhagic stroke?

The study also evaluated functional outcomes for the whole population enrolled. “If we make the decision just based on thrombectomy-eligible patients, we may harm the rest of the patients, so we did this study to look at the whole population of severe stroke patients,” Dr. Ribo said.

Of the study population, 25% of patients were found to have had a hemorrhagic stroke.

“The problem is, at the prehospital level, it is impossible to know if a patient is having a large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke or a hemorrhagic stroke,” Dr. Ribo explained. “We have to make a decision for the whole population, and while a longer transport time to get to a comprehensive stroke center might help a patient with a large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke, it might not be so appropriate for patients with a hemorrhagic stroke who need to have their blood pressure stabilized as soon as possible.”

For the whole population, the mRS shift analysis at 90 days was also neutral, with an aHR of 0.965.

When considering only patients with hemorrhagic stroke, the adjusted hazard ratio for the mRS shift analysis at 90 days was 1.216, which was still nonsignificant (95% confidence interval, 0.864-1.709). This included a nonsignificant increase in mortality among those taken directly to a comprehensive center.

“If we had better tools for a certain diagnosis in the field, then we could consider taking large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke patients to a comprehensive center and hemorrhagic stroke patients to the local stroke center, but so far, we don’t have this option apart from a few places using mobile stroke units with CT scanners,” Dr. Ribo noted.

Transfer times to comprehensive centers in the study ranged from 30 minutes to 2.5 hours. “There might well be a difference in outcomes for short and long transfers, and we may be able to offer different transfer protocols in these different situations, and we are looking at that, but the study was only stopped in June, and we haven’t had a chance to analyze those results yet,” Dr. Ribo added.

Complications during transport occurred in 0.5% of those taken to a local hospital and in 1% of those taken directly to a comprehensive center. “We were concerned about complications with longer transfers, but these numbers are quite low. Intubations were very low – just one patient taken to a local center, versus three or four in the longer transfer group,” he added.

For both local and comprehensive centers, treatment times were impressive in the study. For local hospitals, the average in/out time was just 60 minutes for patients who went to a comprehensive center; for patients receiving thrombolysis, the average door to needle time was around 30 minutes.

Time to thrombectomy in the comprehensive center for patients transferred from a local hospital was also very fast, with an average door to groin puncture time of less than 40 minutes. “This shows we have a very well-oiled system,” Dr. Ribo said.

“There is always going to be a balance between a quicker time to thrombolysis by taking a patient to the closest hospital but a quicker time to thrombectomy if patients are taken straight to the comprehensive center,” he concluded. “But in our system, where we are achieving fast treatment and transfer times, our results show that patients had timely access to reperfusion therapies regardless of transfer protocol, and under these circumstances, it is fine for the emergency services to take stroke patients to the closest stroke center.”
 

Results applicable elsewhere?

During the discussion at an ESO-WSO 2020 press conference, other experts pointed out that the Catalonia group is a leader in this field, being the pioneers of the RACE score used in this study for paramedics to identify suspected large-vessel occlusions. This led to questions about the applicability of the results.

“The performance by paramedics was very good using the RACE scale, and the performance times were very impressive. Are these results applicable elsewhere?” Dr. Kiechl asked.

Dr. Ribo said the combination of the RACE score and a call with a vascular neurologist was of “great value” in identifying appropriate patients. Half of the patients selected in this way for the trial were confirmed to have a large-vessel occlusion. “That is a good result,” he added.

He noted that the performance of the local hospitals improved dramatically during the study. “They had an incentive to work on their times. They could have lost most of their stroke patients if their results came out worse. We told them they had an opportunity to show that they have a role in treating these patients, and they took that opportunity.”

Dr. Ribo said there were lessons here for those involved in acute stroke care. “When creating stroke transfer policies in local networks, the performances of individual centers need to be taken into account. If primary stroke centers are motivated and can work in a well-coordinated way and perform to within the recommended times, then they can keep receiving stroke code patients. This should be possible in most developed countries.”

Noting that the in/out time of 60 minutes at local hospitals was “very impressive,” Dr. Kiechl asked how such fast times were achieved.

Dr. Ribo responded that, to a great extent, this was because of ambulance staff. “We have trained the paramedics to anticipate a second transfer after delivering the patient to the local hospital so they can prepare for this rather than waiting for a second call.”

Dr. Ribo pointed out that there were other advantages in taking patients to local centers first. “For those that do not need to be transferred on, they will be closer to relatives. It is very difficult for the family if the patient is hundreds of miles away. And there may be a cost advantage. We did look at costs, but haven’t got that data yet.”

He said: “If local stroke centers do not treat so many stroke code patients, they will lose their expertise, and that will be detrimental to the remaining patients who are taken there. We want to try to maintain a good standard of stroke care across a decent spread of hospitals—not just a couple of major comprehensive centers,” he added.

Commenting on the study, Jesse Dawson, MD, University of Glasgow, who was chair of the plenary session at which the study was presented, said: “RACECAT is very interesting but needs a lot of thought to dissect. My takeaway is that we know that time to reperfusion is key, and we need to get these times as low as possible, but we don’t need to chase a particular care pathway. Thus, if your country/geography suits ‘drip and ship’ better, this is acceptable. If direct to endovascular is possible or you are close to such a center, then this is ideal. But within those paradigms, be as fast as possible.”

He added that results of the subgroups with regard to transfer time will be helpful.

The RACECAT study was funded by Fundacio Ictus Malaltia Vascular.

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

When Steven Horowitz, MD, began experiencing neck and arm pain, numbness, and tingling following a bike ride several years ago, he immediately sought care at an elite medical center in California. As he recalls, an incompetent clinical exam and no access to highly abnormal test results done in the ED almost cost him his health. Had he listened to the doctors at that facility, he believes he would have become quadriplegic.

His training as a neurologist likely saved his life: “I was able to recover because, after arriving home, I reviewed my blood work and MRI online and recognized multiple problems.” He was able to get excellent care at his own local health care facility in Maine. The staff and leadership at the hospital in California wouldn’t admit wrongdoing, and efforts to seek recourse have proved fruitless, he said.

A lingering question nags at him: What if he had been an ordinary patient without medical expertise? What do his experiences say about the health care system’s management of medical omissions and errors?

Dr. Horowitz, 78 years old and retired, continues to teach medical students as an adjunct clinical professor of neurology at the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. He is also on the teaching faculty of the Maine Medical Center. He was professor and chief of neurology at a major university in the Midwest for many years.

In 2018, he visited his daughter on the West Coast, enjoying a day of biking. The neck pain began 5 or 6 hours after the ride and spread to his arms. “There was also numbness and tingling,” he said.
 

“I told them I was a neurologist”

The next day the pain got worse. Dr. Horowitz went to the ED of a nearby medical center with his daughter and immediately disclosed that he was a neurologist. “I did this for several reasons,” he explained. He wanted to alert staff that he had a cervical spine problem because “I wanted them to do a cervical MRI scan, and I wanted to read it because I’m capable of doing that.” He also related a past history of infection and antibiotic use and asked for C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate tests in addition to regular blood work. “Those inflammatory markers, if abnormal, would indicate an infection,” said Dr. Horowitz.

No reflex hammer or Babinski test

During the reflex exam with a spine consultant, Dr. Horowitz noticed that the consultant wasn’t using a reflex hammer, the clinical equivalent of evaluating the heart or lungs without a stethoscope. “I asked where the reflex hammer was, and he said he didn’t need one or own one. He used the inside of his hand. Apparently, there was some mild weakness in some muscle groups, but he didn’t address that,” said Dr. Horowitz. The consultant also didn’t test for the Babinski sign until reminded of it.

He took out a stethoscope and struck the middle of the soles of Dr. Horowitz’s feet. “I thought to myself, this consultant is the consultant for the spine service? How is it possible that he has a stethoscope and not a reflex hammer and didn’t know how to test for the Babinski sign?” The consultant also didn’t examine for gait, coordination, or hand dexterity. “He took his finger and touched my feet and legs. That was his sensory exam. He didn’t use a pin or a tuning fork” or other methods including touch, temperature, position sense, and vibration to assess sensory abnormalities that might signal spinal cord dysfunction.

An MRI at the hospital revealed a mass at the back of the neck. No contrast material was used during the MRI even though this step would have signaled the presence of infection. “Gadolinium should have been injected during the MRI because that would have strongly suggested that this mass in my neck was not a little blood clot and more likely an infection. They would have realized something more complicated than degenerative arthritis was going on. They told me that I had advanced spondylosis and that the mass was a hematoma. They told me not to worry about the blood results. Then they discharged me.”
 

A life-threatening discovery

Dr. Horowitz didn’t see the results of the blood work-up until returning to Maine a few days later, when he checked the online report. There was a highly elevated CRP level – 30 times above the normal limit – and elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and white blood cell counts. “This showed that there was an infective process going on. And it wasn’t just a localized process, it was in my bloodstream,” he said.

Alarmed by the elevated markers, he immediately went to his local hospital. “Not only did I have arthritis, but my spinal cord was compressed.” Urgent surgery was performed, including a C2-7 fusion. The mass in the back of his neck turned out to be an abscess.

His training and experience as a physician/neurologist saved him from further damage, he said. “Because the compression of the spine was at the C2, C3, C4 level, not only would I have become quadriplegic, but my diaphragm would likely have been paralyzed and I would have needed a ventilator.”

Following a month’s care in the hospital and a rehabilitation center, he wrote to the CEO of the California hospital where he received his initial care.

“I wrote about the incompetent exam, the missed infection, a discharge without information. I wrote all that out to the CEO and sent the letter registered so that he would receive it.” The CEO forwarded the letter to a patient risk manager, who interviewed staff and supervisors in the ED, radiology, and the spine program. They responded 3 months later. According to Dr. Horowitz, the spine supervisor said, “The consultant performed the exam to the best of his ability.” No one admitted to any errors in care or the lack of recognition of the infection, although the neuroradiologist did apologize for not allowing Dr. Horowitz to read his own MRI in a timely manner.

“They had promised to wheel a portable computer into my alcove so I could view the MRI.” Several hours later, after persistent complaints, he was given 1 minute to look over at least 300 images at a desktop computer in the crowded ED. They gave him the MRI images on a disk, but he wasn’t able to read it on his iMac computer.

According to Dr. Horowitz, the ED should have called in an infectious disease consultant and a neurologist or neurosurgeon to do a more complete neurologic exam. “Instead of discharging me, they should have admitted me, telling me that I had spinal cord compression, an infection, and a mass in my neck—that they don’t know what this is about, and I shouldn’t go home.”

Eventually, after long-term intravenous antibiotics and extensive physical therapy, Dr. Horowitz recovered. “I definitely had PTSD afterwards. How could a non-eventful bike ride result in an unrecognized threatening illness? I thought a healing opportunity for me and an educational opportunity for the medical staff and students at this medical center would be for me to present my case to them at a conference at their facility the next time I visited my daughter in California. I thought an experienced clinician discussing his own illness in his own specialty would be unique.”

The hospital ignored his offer.

By happenstance, a year and a half later, Dr. Horowitz made contact with a hospital administrator after hearing her speak during a TED Radio Hour in his car. “We had several telephone conversations and email correspondences in October and November 2019 but none since,” he said. In one email, she wrote that “hospitals don’t seem to know what to do with the opportunity you present. I don’t think the challenge is unique to [this institution]. A forum for these kinds of discussions – constructive, insightful patient feedback – does not exist.”

Dr. Horowitz hasn’t considered a malpractice lawsuit. “The only result would be a monetary reward based on damages. Since permanent clinical damage did not occur, the suit would have been time consuming and the reward limited. I was able to recover because I was able to review the blood work and recognize my own problem and get excellent care at my own local health care facility. I was really hoping the doctors at the California hospital would learn from this episode.”

Dr. Horowitz also wrote the Medical Board of California a detailed letter, citing relevant medical literature, guidelines on spinal care, and his test results. Nearly 2 years later, he finally got a response. The board said there was no “clear and convincing evidence that negligence took place.” In Dr. Horowitz’s opinion, “the fact that CRP was 30 times past normal is ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ That the consultant didn’t have a reflex hammer is also ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ That the clinical neurologic exam was incompetent, by any measure, is ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ Even the Medical Board, tasked with patient protection, didn’t recognize negligent medical care. They might have if I had become quadriplegic.”
 

A new normal?

Dr. Horowitz, who wrote of his experience in The Washington Post, said it reflects a persistent, systemic problem in health care: the inability to address medical errors and correct them. In the article, he addressed a phenomenon called the “the normalization of deviance.” Diane Vaughn wrote about this phenomenon in a 1997 book about the Space Shuttle disaster. Multiple flaws were noted in previous shuttle launches but then rationalized and “normalized” when they didn’t cause a disaster – until they ultimately did.

“That’s relevant to my situation,” Dr. Horowitz said. “The spine supervisor at this hospital excused the consultant by saying, ‘he did the exam to the best of his ability.’ Further, the response to my complaints came from hospital representatives rather than physicians, meaning that the ‘normalization’ was institutional, and it was willing to accept his poor performance without sanctions.”

He imagines that he could not be the only case handled poorly by this hospital or that particular consultant. “He could have done the same thing to another patient who didn’t have my medical knowledge,” added Dr. Horowitz.

In her book, Ms. Vaughan noted that whistleblower activity is sometimes the only device that reveals normalization of deviance.

Dr. Horowitz sees himself as a whistleblower for these types of mistakes. “The question is, how do we deal with medical errors even in sophisticated patients who see these errors, and how do you manage this in the average patient? I don’t want to see this type of medical care rendered for any patient, hence my attempt to make this situation public.”
 

A teachable moment lost?

Commenting on this case, Alan Rapoport, MD, said, “[it]illustrates inadequate physician evaluation in the ED, poor communication from the examining doctor about abnormal lab and MRI findings, unwillingness to call in consultants to properly evaluate the situation, and no recognition of the need to admit the patient.”

Dr. Rapoport is the editor in chief of Neurology Reviews and a clinical professor of neurology at UCLA in Los Angeles. He is a past president of the International Headache Society.

He noted that the patient is in his late 70s and needed to fly across the country to arrive at home. “Months later, when this situation was explained to the hospital via the mail, they totally failed to recognize their inadequacies and apologize for their mistakes. They were probably concerned about being sued, but I believe that their actions increased their chances of a lawsuit,” Dr. Rapoport said.

“When a teaching remedy was offered by the patient to the hospital so the doctors involved could learn from the experience, the hospital was not interested. The only party that learned from this unfortunate episode was the patient, not the doctors, or the ER, or the hospital administration,” Dr. Rapoport said.

He continued, “It is scary to think that an excellent hospital would act in this manner and refuse to learn from their mistakes. The California medical board was notified and did not investigate. It is not too late for the hospital to apologize, communicate their shortcomings, and fix the problem at multiple levels in the hospital.”

Dr. Rapoport consulted Morris Levin, MD, a professor of neurology and director of the Headache Program at UCSF, to ask what he thought, theoretically, about how a hospital should respond when they make a mistake and how much they should divulge. Dr. Levin is involved in Medical Ethics and often lectures about it at conferences.

Dr. Levin said, “When medical errors are made, to me, it is ethically sound to identify them and ‘fess up.’ There has always been reluctance to do so because of fears of lawsuits, but it turns out that when institutions do disclose errors, their liability costs actually go down.” Dr. Levin cited the University of Michigan, which tried a full disclosure policy as an experiment. “It led to reduced costs, not to mention a boost in patient satisfaction,” Dr. Levin noted.

He continued, “I think patients want and deserve to know the truth. I also believe they understand that medical errors can and will happen. It is my observation that patients have several key concerns: 1) how the error(s) happened, 2) how the error affected their health and what can be done to restore them to optimal health, and 3) what the institution is going to do to prevent this kind of error from happening to others.”

Dr. Rapoport concurs with Dr. Levin. “I am glad Dr. Horowitz has fully recovered and at least he has learned from the experience. I do not think the hospital and doctors did,” Dr. Rapoport said.

This article was updated 11/12/20.

When Steven Horowitz, MD, began experiencing neck and arm pain, numbness, and tingling following a bike ride several years ago, he immediately sought care at an elite medical center in California. As he recalls, an incompetent clinical exam and no access to highly abnormal test results done in the ED almost cost him his health. Had he listened to the doctors at that facility, he believes he would have become quadriplegic.

His training as a neurologist likely saved his life: “I was able to recover because, after arriving home, I reviewed my blood work and MRI online and recognized multiple problems.” He was able to get excellent care at his own local health care facility in Maine. The staff and leadership at the hospital in California wouldn’t admit wrongdoing, and efforts to seek recourse have proved fruitless, he said.

A lingering question nags at him: What if he had been an ordinary patient without medical expertise? What do his experiences say about the health care system’s management of medical omissions and errors?

Dr. Horowitz, 78 years old and retired, continues to teach medical students as an adjunct clinical professor of neurology at the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. He is also on the teaching faculty of the Maine Medical Center. He was professor and chief of neurology at a major university in the Midwest for many years.

In 2018, he visited his daughter on the West Coast, enjoying a day of biking. The neck pain began 5 or 6 hours after the ride and spread to his arms. “There was also numbness and tingling,” he said.
 

“I told them I was a neurologist”

The next day the pain got worse. Dr. Horowitz went to the ED of a nearby medical center with his daughter and immediately disclosed that he was a neurologist. “I did this for several reasons,” he explained. He wanted to alert staff that he had a cervical spine problem because “I wanted them to do a cervical MRI scan, and I wanted to read it because I’m capable of doing that.” He also related a past history of infection and antibiotic use and asked for C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate tests in addition to regular blood work. “Those inflammatory markers, if abnormal, would indicate an infection,” said Dr. Horowitz.

No reflex hammer or Babinski test

During the reflex exam with a spine consultant, Dr. Horowitz noticed that the consultant wasn’t using a reflex hammer, the clinical equivalent of evaluating the heart or lungs without a stethoscope. “I asked where the reflex hammer was, and he said he didn’t need one or own one. He used the inside of his hand. Apparently, there was some mild weakness in some muscle groups, but he didn’t address that,” said Dr. Horowitz. The consultant also didn’t test for the Babinski sign until reminded of it.

He took out a stethoscope and struck the middle of the soles of Dr. Horowitz’s feet. “I thought to myself, this consultant is the consultant for the spine service? How is it possible that he has a stethoscope and not a reflex hammer and didn’t know how to test for the Babinski sign?” The consultant also didn’t examine for gait, coordination, or hand dexterity. “He took his finger and touched my feet and legs. That was his sensory exam. He didn’t use a pin or a tuning fork” or other methods including touch, temperature, position sense, and vibration to assess sensory abnormalities that might signal spinal cord dysfunction.

An MRI at the hospital revealed a mass at the back of the neck. No contrast material was used during the MRI even though this step would have signaled the presence of infection. “Gadolinium should have been injected during the MRI because that would have strongly suggested that this mass in my neck was not a little blood clot and more likely an infection. They would have realized something more complicated than degenerative arthritis was going on. They told me that I had advanced spondylosis and that the mass was a hematoma. They told me not to worry about the blood results. Then they discharged me.”
 

A life-threatening discovery

Dr. Horowitz didn’t see the results of the blood work-up until returning to Maine a few days later, when he checked the online report. There was a highly elevated CRP level – 30 times above the normal limit – and elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and white blood cell counts. “This showed that there was an infective process going on. And it wasn’t just a localized process, it was in my bloodstream,” he said.

Alarmed by the elevated markers, he immediately went to his local hospital. “Not only did I have arthritis, but my spinal cord was compressed.” Urgent surgery was performed, including a C2-7 fusion. The mass in the back of his neck turned out to be an abscess.

His training and experience as a physician/neurologist saved him from further damage, he said. “Because the compression of the spine was at the C2, C3, C4 level, not only would I have become quadriplegic, but my diaphragm would likely have been paralyzed and I would have needed a ventilator.”

Following a month’s care in the hospital and a rehabilitation center, he wrote to the CEO of the California hospital where he received his initial care.

“I wrote about the incompetent exam, the missed infection, a discharge without information. I wrote all that out to the CEO and sent the letter registered so that he would receive it.” The CEO forwarded the letter to a patient risk manager, who interviewed staff and supervisors in the ED, radiology, and the spine program. They responded 3 months later. According to Dr. Horowitz, the spine supervisor said, “The consultant performed the exam to the best of his ability.” No one admitted to any errors in care or the lack of recognition of the infection, although the neuroradiologist did apologize for not allowing Dr. Horowitz to read his own MRI in a timely manner.

“They had promised to wheel a portable computer into my alcove so I could view the MRI.” Several hours later, after persistent complaints, he was given 1 minute to look over at least 300 images at a desktop computer in the crowded ED. They gave him the MRI images on a disk, but he wasn’t able to read it on his iMac computer.

According to Dr. Horowitz, the ED should have called in an infectious disease consultant and a neurologist or neurosurgeon to do a more complete neurologic exam. “Instead of discharging me, they should have admitted me, telling me that I had spinal cord compression, an infection, and a mass in my neck—that they don’t know what this is about, and I shouldn’t go home.”

Eventually, after long-term intravenous antibiotics and extensive physical therapy, Dr. Horowitz recovered. “I definitely had PTSD afterwards. How could a non-eventful bike ride result in an unrecognized threatening illness? I thought a healing opportunity for me and an educational opportunity for the medical staff and students at this medical center would be for me to present my case to them at a conference at their facility the next time I visited my daughter in California. I thought an experienced clinician discussing his own illness in his own specialty would be unique.”

The hospital ignored his offer.

By happenstance, a year and a half later, Dr. Horowitz made contact with a hospital administrator after hearing her speak during a TED Radio Hour in his car. “We had several telephone conversations and email correspondences in October and November 2019 but none since,” he said. In one email, she wrote that “hospitals don’t seem to know what to do with the opportunity you present. I don’t think the challenge is unique to [this institution]. A forum for these kinds of discussions – constructive, insightful patient feedback – does not exist.”

Dr. Horowitz hasn’t considered a malpractice lawsuit. “The only result would be a monetary reward based on damages. Since permanent clinical damage did not occur, the suit would have been time consuming and the reward limited. I was able to recover because I was able to review the blood work and recognize my own problem and get excellent care at my own local health care facility. I was really hoping the doctors at the California hospital would learn from this episode.”

Dr. Horowitz also wrote the Medical Board of California a detailed letter, citing relevant medical literature, guidelines on spinal care, and his test results. Nearly 2 years later, he finally got a response. The board said there was no “clear and convincing evidence that negligence took place.” In Dr. Horowitz’s opinion, “the fact that CRP was 30 times past normal is ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ That the consultant didn’t have a reflex hammer is also ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ That the clinical neurologic exam was incompetent, by any measure, is ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ Even the Medical Board, tasked with patient protection, didn’t recognize negligent medical care. They might have if I had become quadriplegic.”
 

A new normal?

Dr. Horowitz, who wrote of his experience in The Washington Post, said it reflects a persistent, systemic problem in health care: the inability to address medical errors and correct them. In the article, he addressed a phenomenon called the “the normalization of deviance.” Diane Vaughn wrote about this phenomenon in a 1997 book about the Space Shuttle disaster. Multiple flaws were noted in previous shuttle launches but then rationalized and “normalized” when they didn’t cause a disaster – until they ultimately did.

“That’s relevant to my situation,” Dr. Horowitz said. “The spine supervisor at this hospital excused the consultant by saying, ‘he did the exam to the best of his ability.’ Further, the response to my complaints came from hospital representatives rather than physicians, meaning that the ‘normalization’ was institutional, and it was willing to accept his poor performance without sanctions.”

He imagines that he could not be the only case handled poorly by this hospital or that particular consultant. “He could have done the same thing to another patient who didn’t have my medical knowledge,” added Dr. Horowitz.

In her book, Ms. Vaughan noted that whistleblower activity is sometimes the only device that reveals normalization of deviance.

Dr. Horowitz sees himself as a whistleblower for these types of mistakes. “The question is, how do we deal with medical errors even in sophisticated patients who see these errors, and how do you manage this in the average patient? I don’t want to see this type of medical care rendered for any patient, hence my attempt to make this situation public.”
 

A teachable moment lost?

Commenting on this case, Alan Rapoport, MD, said, “[it]illustrates inadequate physician evaluation in the ED, poor communication from the examining doctor about abnormal lab and MRI findings, unwillingness to call in consultants to properly evaluate the situation, and no recognition of the need to admit the patient.”

Dr. Rapoport is the editor in chief of Neurology Reviews and a clinical professor of neurology at UCLA in Los Angeles. He is a past president of the International Headache Society.

He noted that the patient is in his late 70s and needed to fly across the country to arrive at home. “Months later, when this situation was explained to the hospital via the mail, they totally failed to recognize their inadequacies and apologize for their mistakes. They were probably concerned about being sued, but I believe that their actions increased their chances of a lawsuit,” Dr. Rapoport said.

“When a teaching remedy was offered by the patient to the hospital so the doctors involved could learn from the experience, the hospital was not interested. The only party that learned from this unfortunate episode was the patient, not the doctors, or the ER, or the hospital administration,” Dr. Rapoport said.

He continued, “It is scary to think that an excellent hospital would act in this manner and refuse to learn from their mistakes. The California medical board was notified and did not investigate. It is not too late for the hospital to apologize, communicate their shortcomings, and fix the problem at multiple levels in the hospital.”

Dr. Rapoport consulted Morris Levin, MD, a professor of neurology and director of the Headache Program at UCSF, to ask what he thought, theoretically, about how a hospital should respond when they make a mistake and how much they should divulge. Dr. Levin is involved in Medical Ethics and often lectures about it at conferences.

Dr. Levin said, “When medical errors are made, to me, it is ethically sound to identify them and ‘fess up.’ There has always been reluctance to do so because of fears of lawsuits, but it turns out that when institutions do disclose errors, their liability costs actually go down.” Dr. Levin cited the University of Michigan, which tried a full disclosure policy as an experiment. “It led to reduced costs, not to mention a boost in patient satisfaction,” Dr. Levin noted.

He continued, “I think patients want and deserve to know the truth. I also believe they understand that medical errors can and will happen. It is my observation that patients have several key concerns: 1) how the error(s) happened, 2) how the error affected their health and what can be done to restore them to optimal health, and 3) what the institution is going to do to prevent this kind of error from happening to others.”

Dr. Rapoport concurs with Dr. Levin. “I am glad Dr. Horowitz has fully recovered and at least he has learned from the experience. I do not think the hospital and doctors did,” Dr. Rapoport said.

This article was updated 11/12/20.

When Steven Horowitz, MD, began experiencing neck and arm pain, numbness, and tingling following a bike ride several years ago, he immediately sought care at an elite medical center in California. As he recalls, an incompetent clinical exam and no access to highly abnormal test results done in the ED almost cost him his health. Had he listened to the doctors at that facility, he believes he would have become quadriplegic.

His training as a neurologist likely saved his life: “I was able to recover because, after arriving home, I reviewed my blood work and MRI online and recognized multiple problems.” He was able to get excellent care at his own local health care facility in Maine. The staff and leadership at the hospital in California wouldn’t admit wrongdoing, and efforts to seek recourse have proved fruitless, he said.

A lingering question nags at him: What if he had been an ordinary patient without medical expertise? What do his experiences say about the health care system’s management of medical omissions and errors?

Dr. Horowitz, 78 years old and retired, continues to teach medical students as an adjunct clinical professor of neurology at the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. He is also on the teaching faculty of the Maine Medical Center. He was professor and chief of neurology at a major university in the Midwest for many years.

In 2018, he visited his daughter on the West Coast, enjoying a day of biking. The neck pain began 5 or 6 hours after the ride and spread to his arms. “There was also numbness and tingling,” he said.
 

“I told them I was a neurologist”

The next day the pain got worse. Dr. Horowitz went to the ED of a nearby medical center with his daughter and immediately disclosed that he was a neurologist. “I did this for several reasons,” he explained. He wanted to alert staff that he had a cervical spine problem because “I wanted them to do a cervical MRI scan, and I wanted to read it because I’m capable of doing that.” He also related a past history of infection and antibiotic use and asked for C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate tests in addition to regular blood work. “Those inflammatory markers, if abnormal, would indicate an infection,” said Dr. Horowitz.

No reflex hammer or Babinski test

During the reflex exam with a spine consultant, Dr. Horowitz noticed that the consultant wasn’t using a reflex hammer, the clinical equivalent of evaluating the heart or lungs without a stethoscope. “I asked where the reflex hammer was, and he said he didn’t need one or own one. He used the inside of his hand. Apparently, there was some mild weakness in some muscle groups, but he didn’t address that,” said Dr. Horowitz. The consultant also didn’t test for the Babinski sign until reminded of it.

He took out a stethoscope and struck the middle of the soles of Dr. Horowitz’s feet. “I thought to myself, this consultant is the consultant for the spine service? How is it possible that he has a stethoscope and not a reflex hammer and didn’t know how to test for the Babinski sign?” The consultant also didn’t examine for gait, coordination, or hand dexterity. “He took his finger and touched my feet and legs. That was his sensory exam. He didn’t use a pin or a tuning fork” or other methods including touch, temperature, position sense, and vibration to assess sensory abnormalities that might signal spinal cord dysfunction.

An MRI at the hospital revealed a mass at the back of the neck. No contrast material was used during the MRI even though this step would have signaled the presence of infection. “Gadolinium should have been injected during the MRI because that would have strongly suggested that this mass in my neck was not a little blood clot and more likely an infection. They would have realized something more complicated than degenerative arthritis was going on. They told me that I had advanced spondylosis and that the mass was a hematoma. They told me not to worry about the blood results. Then they discharged me.”
 

A life-threatening discovery

Dr. Horowitz didn’t see the results of the blood work-up until returning to Maine a few days later, when he checked the online report. There was a highly elevated CRP level – 30 times above the normal limit – and elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and white blood cell counts. “This showed that there was an infective process going on. And it wasn’t just a localized process, it was in my bloodstream,” he said.

Alarmed by the elevated markers, he immediately went to his local hospital. “Not only did I have arthritis, but my spinal cord was compressed.” Urgent surgery was performed, including a C2-7 fusion. The mass in the back of his neck turned out to be an abscess.

His training and experience as a physician/neurologist saved him from further damage, he said. “Because the compression of the spine was at the C2, C3, C4 level, not only would I have become quadriplegic, but my diaphragm would likely have been paralyzed and I would have needed a ventilator.”

Following a month’s care in the hospital and a rehabilitation center, he wrote to the CEO of the California hospital where he received his initial care.

“I wrote about the incompetent exam, the missed infection, a discharge without information. I wrote all that out to the CEO and sent the letter registered so that he would receive it.” The CEO forwarded the letter to a patient risk manager, who interviewed staff and supervisors in the ED, radiology, and the spine program. They responded 3 months later. According to Dr. Horowitz, the spine supervisor said, “The consultant performed the exam to the best of his ability.” No one admitted to any errors in care or the lack of recognition of the infection, although the neuroradiologist did apologize for not allowing Dr. Horowitz to read his own MRI in a timely manner.

“They had promised to wheel a portable computer into my alcove so I could view the MRI.” Several hours later, after persistent complaints, he was given 1 minute to look over at least 300 images at a desktop computer in the crowded ED. They gave him the MRI images on a disk, but he wasn’t able to read it on his iMac computer.

According to Dr. Horowitz, the ED should have called in an infectious disease consultant and a neurologist or neurosurgeon to do a more complete neurologic exam. “Instead of discharging me, they should have admitted me, telling me that I had spinal cord compression, an infection, and a mass in my neck—that they don’t know what this is about, and I shouldn’t go home.”

Eventually, after long-term intravenous antibiotics and extensive physical therapy, Dr. Horowitz recovered. “I definitely had PTSD afterwards. How could a non-eventful bike ride result in an unrecognized threatening illness? I thought a healing opportunity for me and an educational opportunity for the medical staff and students at this medical center would be for me to present my case to them at a conference at their facility the next time I visited my daughter in California. I thought an experienced clinician discussing his own illness in his own specialty would be unique.”

The hospital ignored his offer.

By happenstance, a year and a half later, Dr. Horowitz made contact with a hospital administrator after hearing her speak during a TED Radio Hour in his car. “We had several telephone conversations and email correspondences in October and November 2019 but none since,” he said. In one email, she wrote that “hospitals don’t seem to know what to do with the opportunity you present. I don’t think the challenge is unique to [this institution]. A forum for these kinds of discussions – constructive, insightful patient feedback – does not exist.”

Dr. Horowitz hasn’t considered a malpractice lawsuit. “The only result would be a monetary reward based on damages. Since permanent clinical damage did not occur, the suit would have been time consuming and the reward limited. I was able to recover because I was able to review the blood work and recognize my own problem and get excellent care at my own local health care facility. I was really hoping the doctors at the California hospital would learn from this episode.”

Dr. Horowitz also wrote the Medical Board of California a detailed letter, citing relevant medical literature, guidelines on spinal care, and his test results. Nearly 2 years later, he finally got a response. The board said there was no “clear and convincing evidence that negligence took place.” In Dr. Horowitz’s opinion, “the fact that CRP was 30 times past normal is ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ That the consultant didn’t have a reflex hammer is also ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ That the clinical neurologic exam was incompetent, by any measure, is ‘clear and convincing evidence.’ Even the Medical Board, tasked with patient protection, didn’t recognize negligent medical care. They might have if I had become quadriplegic.”
 

A new normal?

Dr. Horowitz, who wrote of his experience in The Washington Post, said it reflects a persistent, systemic problem in health care: the inability to address medical errors and correct them. In the article, he addressed a phenomenon called the “the normalization of deviance.” Diane Vaughn wrote about this phenomenon in a 1997 book about the Space Shuttle disaster. Multiple flaws were noted in previous shuttle launches but then rationalized and “normalized” when they didn’t cause a disaster – until they ultimately did.

“That’s relevant to my situation,” Dr. Horowitz said. “The spine supervisor at this hospital excused the consultant by saying, ‘he did the exam to the best of his ability.’ Further, the response to my complaints came from hospital representatives rather than physicians, meaning that the ‘normalization’ was institutional, and it was willing to accept his poor performance without sanctions.”

He imagines that he could not be the only case handled poorly by this hospital or that particular consultant. “He could have done the same thing to another patient who didn’t have my medical knowledge,” added Dr. Horowitz.

In her book, Ms. Vaughan noted that whistleblower activity is sometimes the only device that reveals normalization of deviance.

Dr. Horowitz sees himself as a whistleblower for these types of mistakes. “The question is, how do we deal with medical errors even in sophisticated patients who see these errors, and how do you manage this in the average patient? I don’t want to see this type of medical care rendered for any patient, hence my attempt to make this situation public.”
 

A teachable moment lost?

Commenting on this case, Alan Rapoport, MD, said, “[it]illustrates inadequate physician evaluation in the ED, poor communication from the examining doctor about abnormal lab and MRI findings, unwillingness to call in consultants to properly evaluate the situation, and no recognition of the need to admit the patient.”

Dr. Rapoport is the editor in chief of Neurology Reviews and a clinical professor of neurology at UCLA in Los Angeles. He is a past president of the International Headache Society.

He noted that the patient is in his late 70s and needed to fly across the country to arrive at home. “Months later, when this situation was explained to the hospital via the mail, they totally failed to recognize their inadequacies and apologize for their mistakes. They were probably concerned about being sued, but I believe that their actions increased their chances of a lawsuit,” Dr. Rapoport said.

“When a teaching remedy was offered by the patient to the hospital so the doctors involved could learn from the experience, the hospital was not interested. The only party that learned from this unfortunate episode was the patient, not the doctors, or the ER, or the hospital administration,” Dr. Rapoport said.

He continued, “It is scary to think that an excellent hospital would act in this manner and refuse to learn from their mistakes. The California medical board was notified and did not investigate. It is not too late for the hospital to apologize, communicate their shortcomings, and fix the problem at multiple levels in the hospital.”

Dr. Rapoport consulted Morris Levin, MD, a professor of neurology and director of the Headache Program at UCSF, to ask what he thought, theoretically, about how a hospital should respond when they make a mistake and how much they should divulge. Dr. Levin is involved in Medical Ethics and often lectures about it at conferences.

Dr. Levin said, “When medical errors are made, to me, it is ethically sound to identify them and ‘fess up.’ There has always been reluctance to do so because of fears of lawsuits, but it turns out that when institutions do disclose errors, their liability costs actually go down.” Dr. Levin cited the University of Michigan, which tried a full disclosure policy as an experiment. “It led to reduced costs, not to mention a boost in patient satisfaction,” Dr. Levin noted.

He continued, “I think patients want and deserve to know the truth. I also believe they understand that medical errors can and will happen. It is my observation that patients have several key concerns: 1) how the error(s) happened, 2) how the error affected their health and what can be done to restore them to optimal health, and 3) what the institution is going to do to prevent this kind of error from happening to others.”

Dr. Rapoport concurs with Dr. Levin. “I am glad Dr. Horowitz has fully recovered and at least he has learned from the experience. I do not think the hospital and doctors did,” Dr. Rapoport said.

This article was updated 11/12/20.

About 1 in 11 patients discharged after COVID-19 treatment is readmitted to the same hospital, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Older age and chronic diseases are associated with increased risk, said senior author Adi V. Gundlapalli, MD, PhD, chief public health informatics officer of the CDC’s Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services.

Gundlapalli and colleagues published the finding November 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

To get a picture of readmission after COVID-19 hospitalization, the researchers analyzed records of 126,137 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March and July and included in the Premier Healthcare Database, which covers discharge records from 865 nongovernmental, community, and teaching hospitals.

Overall, 15% of the patients died during hospitalization. Of those who survived to discharge, 9% were readmitted to the same hospital within 2 months of discharge; 1.6% of patients were readmitted more than once. The median interval from discharge to first readmission was 8 days (interquartile range, 3-20 days). This short interval suggests that patients are probably not suffering a relapse, Gundlapalli said in an interview. More likely they experienced some adverse event, such as difficulty breathing, that led their caretakers to send them back to the hospital.

Forty-five percent of the primary discharge diagnoses after readmission were infectious and parasitic diseases, primarily COVID-19. The next most common were circulatory system symptoms (11%) and digestive symptoms (7%).

After controlling for covariates, the researchers found that patients were more likely to be readmitted if they had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.4), heart failure (OR, 1.6), diabetes (OR, 1.2), or chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.6).

They also found increased odds among patients discharged from the index hospitalization to a skilled nursing facility (OR, 1.4) or with home health organization support (OR, 1.3), compared with being discharged to home or self-care. Looked at another way, the rate of readmission was 15% among those discharged to a skilled nursing facility, 12% among those needing home health care and 7% of those discharged to home or self-care.

The researchers also found that people who had been hospitalized within 3 months prior to the index hospitalization were 2.6 times more likely to be readmitted than were those without prior inpatient care.

Further, the odds of readmission increased significantly among people over 65 years of age, compared with people aged 18 to 39 years.

“The results are not surprising,” Gundlapalli said. “We have known from before that elderly patients, especially with chronic conditions, certain clinical conditions, and those who have been hospitalized before, are at risk for readmission.”

But admitting COVID-19 patients requires special planning because they must be isolated and because more personal protective equipment (PPE) is required, he pointed out.

One unexpected finding from the report is that non-Hispanic White people were more likely to be readmitted than were people of other racial or ethnic groups. This contrasts with other research showing Hispanic and Black individuals are more severely affected by COVID-19 than White people. More research is needed to explain this result, Gundlapalli said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About 1 in 11 patients discharged after COVID-19 treatment is readmitted to the same hospital, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Older age and chronic diseases are associated with increased risk, said senior author Adi V. Gundlapalli, MD, PhD, chief public health informatics officer of the CDC’s Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services.

Gundlapalli and colleagues published the finding November 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

To get a picture of readmission after COVID-19 hospitalization, the researchers analyzed records of 126,137 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March and July and included in the Premier Healthcare Database, which covers discharge records from 865 nongovernmental, community, and teaching hospitals.

Overall, 15% of the patients died during hospitalization. Of those who survived to discharge, 9% were readmitted to the same hospital within 2 months of discharge; 1.6% of patients were readmitted more than once. The median interval from discharge to first readmission was 8 days (interquartile range, 3-20 days). This short interval suggests that patients are probably not suffering a relapse, Gundlapalli said in an interview. More likely they experienced some adverse event, such as difficulty breathing, that led their caretakers to send them back to the hospital.

Forty-five percent of the primary discharge diagnoses after readmission were infectious and parasitic diseases, primarily COVID-19. The next most common were circulatory system symptoms (11%) and digestive symptoms (7%).

After controlling for covariates, the researchers found that patients were more likely to be readmitted if they had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.4), heart failure (OR, 1.6), diabetes (OR, 1.2), or chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.6).

They also found increased odds among patients discharged from the index hospitalization to a skilled nursing facility (OR, 1.4) or with home health organization support (OR, 1.3), compared with being discharged to home or self-care. Looked at another way, the rate of readmission was 15% among those discharged to a skilled nursing facility, 12% among those needing home health care and 7% of those discharged to home or self-care.

The researchers also found that people who had been hospitalized within 3 months prior to the index hospitalization were 2.6 times more likely to be readmitted than were those without prior inpatient care.

Further, the odds of readmission increased significantly among people over 65 years of age, compared with people aged 18 to 39 years.

“The results are not surprising,” Gundlapalli said. “We have known from before that elderly patients, especially with chronic conditions, certain clinical conditions, and those who have been hospitalized before, are at risk for readmission.”

But admitting COVID-19 patients requires special planning because they must be isolated and because more personal protective equipment (PPE) is required, he pointed out.

One unexpected finding from the report is that non-Hispanic White people were more likely to be readmitted than were people of other racial or ethnic groups. This contrasts with other research showing Hispanic and Black individuals are more severely affected by COVID-19 than White people. More research is needed to explain this result, Gundlapalli said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About 1 in 11 patients discharged after COVID-19 treatment is readmitted to the same hospital, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Older age and chronic diseases are associated with increased risk, said senior author Adi V. Gundlapalli, MD, PhD, chief public health informatics officer of the CDC’s Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services.

Gundlapalli and colleagues published the finding November 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

To get a picture of readmission after COVID-19 hospitalization, the researchers analyzed records of 126,137 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March and July and included in the Premier Healthcare Database, which covers discharge records from 865 nongovernmental, community, and teaching hospitals.

Overall, 15% of the patients died during hospitalization. Of those who survived to discharge, 9% were readmitted to the same hospital within 2 months of discharge; 1.6% of patients were readmitted more than once. The median interval from discharge to first readmission was 8 days (interquartile range, 3-20 days). This short interval suggests that patients are probably not suffering a relapse, Gundlapalli said in an interview. More likely they experienced some adverse event, such as difficulty breathing, that led their caretakers to send them back to the hospital.

Forty-five percent of the primary discharge diagnoses after readmission were infectious and parasitic diseases, primarily COVID-19. The next most common were circulatory system symptoms (11%) and digestive symptoms (7%).

After controlling for covariates, the researchers found that patients were more likely to be readmitted if they had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.4), heart failure (OR, 1.6), diabetes (OR, 1.2), or chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.6).

They also found increased odds among patients discharged from the index hospitalization to a skilled nursing facility (OR, 1.4) or with home health organization support (OR, 1.3), compared with being discharged to home or self-care. Looked at another way, the rate of readmission was 15% among those discharged to a skilled nursing facility, 12% among those needing home health care and 7% of those discharged to home or self-care.

The researchers also found that people who had been hospitalized within 3 months prior to the index hospitalization were 2.6 times more likely to be readmitted than were those without prior inpatient care.

Further, the odds of readmission increased significantly among people over 65 years of age, compared with people aged 18 to 39 years.

“The results are not surprising,” Gundlapalli said. “We have known from before that elderly patients, especially with chronic conditions, certain clinical conditions, and those who have been hospitalized before, are at risk for readmission.”

But admitting COVID-19 patients requires special planning because they must be isolated and because more personal protective equipment (PPE) is required, he pointed out.

One unexpected finding from the report is that non-Hispanic White people were more likely to be readmitted than were people of other racial or ethnic groups. This contrasts with other research showing Hispanic and Black individuals are more severely affected by COVID-19 than White people. More research is needed to explain this result, Gundlapalli said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As an East Coast transplant residing in Texas, I look forward to the annual sojourn home to celebrate the holidays with family and friends – as do many of our patients and their families. But this is 2020. SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, is still circulating. To make matters worse, cases are rising in 45 states and internationally. The day of this writing 102,831 new cases were reported in the United States. As we prepare for the holidays, it is time to rethink how safe it is to travel and/or gather with people who do not live in our household.

Social distancing, wearing masks, and hand washing have been strategies recommended to help mitigate the spread of the virus. We know adherence is not always 100%. The reality is that several families will consider traveling and gathering with others over the holidays. Their actions may lead to increased infections, hospitalizations, and even deaths. It behooves us to at least remind them of the potential consequences of the activity, and if travel and/or holiday gatherings are inevitable, to provide some guidance to help them look at both the risks and benefits and offer strategies to minimize infection and spread.
 

What should be considered prior to travel?

Here is a list of points to ponder:

• Is your patient is in a high-risk group for developing severe disease or visiting someone who is in a high-risk group?
• What is their mode of transportation?
• What is their destination?
• How prevalent is the disease at their destination, compared with their community?
• What will be their accommodations?
• How will attendees prepare for the gathering, if at all?
• Will multiple families congregate after quarantining for 2 weeks or simply arrive?
• At the destination, will people wear masks and socially distance?
• Is an outdoor venue an option?

All of these questions should be considered by patients.
 

Review high-risk groups

In terms of high-risk groups, we usually focus on underlying medical conditions or extremes of age, but Black and LatinX children and their families have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized more frequently than other racial/ ethnic groups in the United States. Of 277,285 school-aged children infected between March 1 and Sept. 19, 2020, 42% were LatinX, 32% White, and 17% Black, yet they comprise 18%, 60%, and 11% of the U.S. population, respectively. Of those hospitalized, 45% were LatinX, 22% White, and 24% Black. LatinX and Black children also have disproportionately higher mortality rates.

Think about transmission and how to mitigate it

Many patients erroneously think combining multiple households for small group gatherings is inconsequential. These types of gatherings serve as a continued source of SARS-CoV-2 spread. For example, a person in Illinois with mild upper respiratory infection symptoms attended a funeral; he reported embracing the family members after the funeral. He dined with two people the evening prior to the funeral, sharing the meal using common serving dishes. Four days later, he attended a birthday party with nine family members. Some of the family members with symptoms subsequently attended church, infecting another church attendee. A cluster of 16 cases of COVID-19 was subsequently identified, including three deaths likely resulting from this one introduction of COVID-19 at these two family gatherings.

In Tennessee and Wisconsin, household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was studied prospectively. A total of 101 index cases and 191 asymptomatic household contacts were enrolled between April and Sept. 2020; 102 of 191 (53%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected during the 14-day follow-up. Most infections (75%) were identified within 5 days and occurred whether the index case was an adult or child.

Lastly, one adolescent was identified as the source for an outbreak at a family gathering where 15 persons from five households and four states shared a house between 8 and 25 days in July 2020. Six additional members visited the house. The index case had an exposure to COVID-19 and had a negative antigen test 4 days after exposure. She was asymptomatic when tested. She developed nasal congestion 2 days later, the same day she and her family departed for the gathering. A total of 11 household contacts developed confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19, and the teen developed symptoms. This report illustrates how easily SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted, and how when implemented, mitigation strategies work because none of the six who only visited the house was infected. It also serves as a reminder that antigen testing is indicated only for use within the first 5-12 days of onset of symptoms. In this case, the adolescent was asymptomatic when tested and had a false-negative test result.
 

Ponder modes of transportation

How will your patient arrive to their holiday destination? Nonstop travel by car with household members is probably the safest way. However, for many families, buses and trains are the only options, and social distancing may be challenging. Air travel is a must for others. Acquisition of COVID-19 during air travel appears to be low, but not absent based on how air enters and leaves the cabin. The challenge is socially distancing throughout the check in and boarding processes, as well as minimizing contact with common surfaces. There also is loss of social distancing once on board. Ideally, masks should be worn during the flight. Additionally, for those with international destinations, most countries now require a negative polymerase chain reaction COVID-19 test within a specified time frame for entry.

Essentially the safest place for your patients during the holidays is celebrating at home with their household contacts. The risk for disease acquisition increases with travel. You will not have the opportunity to discuss holiday plans with most parents. However, you can encourage them to consider the pros and cons of travel with reminders via telephone, e-mail, and /or social messaging directly from your practices similar to those sent for other medically necessary interventions. As for me, I will be celebrating virtually this year. There is a first time for everything.

For additional information that also is patient friendly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers information about travel within the United States and international travel.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

As an East Coast transplant residing in Texas, I look forward to the annual sojourn home to celebrate the holidays with family and friends – as do many of our patients and their families. But this is 2020. SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, is still circulating. To make matters worse, cases are rising in 45 states and internationally. The day of this writing 102,831 new cases were reported in the United States. As we prepare for the holidays, it is time to rethink how safe it is to travel and/or gather with people who do not live in our household.

Social distancing, wearing masks, and hand washing have been strategies recommended to help mitigate the spread of the virus. We know adherence is not always 100%. The reality is that several families will consider traveling and gathering with others over the holidays. Their actions may lead to increased infections, hospitalizations, and even deaths. It behooves us to at least remind them of the potential consequences of the activity, and if travel and/or holiday gatherings are inevitable, to provide some guidance to help them look at both the risks and benefits and offer strategies to minimize infection and spread.
 

What should be considered prior to travel?

Here is a list of points to ponder:

• Is your patient is in a high-risk group for developing severe disease or visiting someone who is in a high-risk group?
• What is their mode of transportation?
• What is their destination?
• How prevalent is the disease at their destination, compared with their community?
• What will be their accommodations?
• How will attendees prepare for the gathering, if at all?
• Will multiple families congregate after quarantining for 2 weeks or simply arrive?
• At the destination, will people wear masks and socially distance?
• Is an outdoor venue an option?

All of these questions should be considered by patients.
 

Review high-risk groups

In terms of high-risk groups, we usually focus on underlying medical conditions or extremes of age, but Black and LatinX children and their families have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized more frequently than other racial/ ethnic groups in the United States. Of 277,285 school-aged children infected between March 1 and Sept. 19, 2020, 42% were LatinX, 32% White, and 17% Black, yet they comprise 18%, 60%, and 11% of the U.S. population, respectively. Of those hospitalized, 45% were LatinX, 22% White, and 24% Black. LatinX and Black children also have disproportionately higher mortality rates.

Think about transmission and how to mitigate it

Many patients erroneously think combining multiple households for small group gatherings is inconsequential. These types of gatherings serve as a continued source of SARS-CoV-2 spread. For example, a person in Illinois with mild upper respiratory infection symptoms attended a funeral; he reported embracing the family members after the funeral. He dined with two people the evening prior to the funeral, sharing the meal using common serving dishes. Four days later, he attended a birthday party with nine family members. Some of the family members with symptoms subsequently attended church, infecting another church attendee. A cluster of 16 cases of COVID-19 was subsequently identified, including three deaths likely resulting from this one introduction of COVID-19 at these two family gatherings.

In Tennessee and Wisconsin, household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was studied prospectively. A total of 101 index cases and 191 asymptomatic household contacts were enrolled between April and Sept. 2020; 102 of 191 (53%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected during the 14-day follow-up. Most infections (75%) were identified within 5 days and occurred whether the index case was an adult or child.

Lastly, one adolescent was identified as the source for an outbreak at a family gathering where 15 persons from five households and four states shared a house between 8 and 25 days in July 2020. Six additional members visited the house. The index case had an exposure to COVID-19 and had a negative antigen test 4 days after exposure. She was asymptomatic when tested. She developed nasal congestion 2 days later, the same day she and her family departed for the gathering. A total of 11 household contacts developed confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19, and the teen developed symptoms. This report illustrates how easily SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted, and how when implemented, mitigation strategies work because none of the six who only visited the house was infected. It also serves as a reminder that antigen testing is indicated only for use within the first 5-12 days of onset of symptoms. In this case, the adolescent was asymptomatic when tested and had a false-negative test result.
 

Ponder modes of transportation

How will your patient arrive to their holiday destination? Nonstop travel by car with household members is probably the safest way. However, for many families, buses and trains are the only options, and social distancing may be challenging. Air travel is a must for others. Acquisition of COVID-19 during air travel appears to be low, but not absent based on how air enters and leaves the cabin. The challenge is socially distancing throughout the check in and boarding processes, as well as minimizing contact with common surfaces. There also is loss of social distancing once on board. Ideally, masks should be worn during the flight. Additionally, for those with international destinations, most countries now require a negative polymerase chain reaction COVID-19 test within a specified time frame for entry.

Essentially the safest place for your patients during the holidays is celebrating at home with their household contacts. The risk for disease acquisition increases with travel. You will not have the opportunity to discuss holiday plans with most parents. However, you can encourage them to consider the pros and cons of travel with reminders via telephone, e-mail, and /or social messaging directly from your practices similar to those sent for other medically necessary interventions. As for me, I will be celebrating virtually this year. There is a first time for everything.

For additional information that also is patient friendly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers information about travel within the United States and international travel.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

As an East Coast transplant residing in Texas, I look forward to the annual sojourn home to celebrate the holidays with family and friends – as do many of our patients and their families. But this is 2020. SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, is still circulating. To make matters worse, cases are rising in 45 states and internationally. The day of this writing 102,831 new cases were reported in the United States. As we prepare for the holidays, it is time to rethink how safe it is to travel and/or gather with people who do not live in our household.

Social distancing, wearing masks, and hand washing have been strategies recommended to help mitigate the spread of the virus. We know adherence is not always 100%. The reality is that several families will consider traveling and gathering with others over the holidays. Their actions may lead to increased infections, hospitalizations, and even deaths. It behooves us to at least remind them of the potential consequences of the activity, and if travel and/or holiday gatherings are inevitable, to provide some guidance to help them look at both the risks and benefits and offer strategies to minimize infection and spread.
 

What should be considered prior to travel?

Here is a list of points to ponder:

• Is your patient is in a high-risk group for developing severe disease or visiting someone who is in a high-risk group?
• What is their mode of transportation?
• What is their destination?
• How prevalent is the disease at their destination, compared with their community?
• What will be their accommodations?
• How will attendees prepare for the gathering, if at all?
• Will multiple families congregate after quarantining for 2 weeks or simply arrive?
• At the destination, will people wear masks and socially distance?
• Is an outdoor venue an option?

All of these questions should be considered by patients.
 

Review high-risk groups

In terms of high-risk groups, we usually focus on underlying medical conditions or extremes of age, but Black and LatinX children and their families have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized more frequently than other racial/ ethnic groups in the United States. Of 277,285 school-aged children infected between March 1 and Sept. 19, 2020, 42% were LatinX, 32% White, and 17% Black, yet they comprise 18%, 60%, and 11% of the U.S. population, respectively. Of those hospitalized, 45% were LatinX, 22% White, and 24% Black. LatinX and Black children also have disproportionately higher mortality rates.

Think about transmission and how to mitigate it

Many patients erroneously think combining multiple households for small group gatherings is inconsequential. These types of gatherings serve as a continued source of SARS-CoV-2 spread. For example, a person in Illinois with mild upper respiratory infection symptoms attended a funeral; he reported embracing the family members after the funeral. He dined with two people the evening prior to the funeral, sharing the meal using common serving dishes. Four days later, he attended a birthday party with nine family members. Some of the family members with symptoms subsequently attended church, infecting another church attendee. A cluster of 16 cases of COVID-19 was subsequently identified, including three deaths likely resulting from this one introduction of COVID-19 at these two family gatherings.

In Tennessee and Wisconsin, household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was studied prospectively. A total of 101 index cases and 191 asymptomatic household contacts were enrolled between April and Sept. 2020; 102 of 191 (53%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected during the 14-day follow-up. Most infections (75%) were identified within 5 days and occurred whether the index case was an adult or child.

Lastly, one adolescent was identified as the source for an outbreak at a family gathering where 15 persons from five households and four states shared a house between 8 and 25 days in July 2020. Six additional members visited the house. The index case had an exposure to COVID-19 and had a negative antigen test 4 days after exposure. She was asymptomatic when tested. She developed nasal congestion 2 days later, the same day she and her family departed for the gathering. A total of 11 household contacts developed confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19, and the teen developed symptoms. This report illustrates how easily SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted, and how when implemented, mitigation strategies work because none of the six who only visited the house was infected. It also serves as a reminder that antigen testing is indicated only for use within the first 5-12 days of onset of symptoms. In this case, the adolescent was asymptomatic when tested and had a false-negative test result.
 

Ponder modes of transportation

How will your patient arrive to their holiday destination? Nonstop travel by car with household members is probably the safest way. However, for many families, buses and trains are the only options, and social distancing may be challenging. Air travel is a must for others. Acquisition of COVID-19 during air travel appears to be low, but not absent based on how air enters and leaves the cabin. The challenge is socially distancing throughout the check in and boarding processes, as well as minimizing contact with common surfaces. There also is loss of social distancing once on board. Ideally, masks should be worn during the flight. Additionally, for those with international destinations, most countries now require a negative polymerase chain reaction COVID-19 test within a specified time frame for entry.

Essentially the safest place for your patients during the holidays is celebrating at home with their household contacts. The risk for disease acquisition increases with travel. You will not have the opportunity to discuss holiday plans with most parents. However, you can encourage them to consider the pros and cons of travel with reminders via telephone, e-mail, and /or social messaging directly from your practices similar to those sent for other medically necessary interventions. As for me, I will be celebrating virtually this year. There is a first time for everything.

For additional information that also is patient friendly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers information about travel within the United States and international travel.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

With this week’s announcement that Pfizer’s vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 was 90% effective in preventing COVID-19, the world is one step closer to an effective vaccine.

Nevertheless, with a limited supply of initial doses, the question becomes, who should get it first? Individuals with severe mental illness should be a priority group to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, assert the authors of a perspective article published Nov. 1 in World Psychiatry.

Patients with underlying physical conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, obesity, immunodeficiency, and cancer, are particularly vulnerable to developing more severe illness and dying from COVID-19.

In these populations, the risk of a more severe course of infection or early death is significant enough for the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to make these patients priority recipients of a vaccine against COVID-19.

Marc De Hert, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at KU Leuven (Belgium), and coauthors argued that those with severe mental illness also fit into this group.

Even without factoring COVID-19 into the calculation, those with severe mental illness have a two- to threefold higher mortality rate than the general population, resulting in reduction in life expectancy of 10-20 years, they noted. This is largely because of physical diseases including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and respiratory ailments.

Individuals with severe mental illness also have higher rates of obesity than the general population and obesity is a risk factor for dying from COVID-19.
 

High-risk population

Like their peers with physical illnesses, recent studies suggest that those with severe mental illness are also at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

For example, a recent U.S. case-control study with over 61 million adults showed that those recently diagnosed with a mental health disorder had a significantly increased risk for COVID-19 infection, an effect strongest for depression and schizophrenia.

Other recent studies have confirmed these data, including one linking a psychiatric diagnosis in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to a significantly increased risk for death, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Dr. De Hert and colleagues put these findings into perspective with this example: In 2017, there were an estimated 11.2 million adults in the United States with severe mental illness. Taking into account the 8.5% death rate in COVID-19 patients recently diagnosed with a severe mental illness, this means that about 1 million patients with severe mental illness in the United States would die if all were infected with the virus.

In light of this knowledge, and taking into account published ethical principles that should guide vaccine allocation, Dr. De Hert and colleagues said it is “paramount” that persons with severe mental illness be prioritized to guarantee that they receive a COVID-19 vaccine during the first phase of its distribution.

“It is our responsibility as psychiatrists in this global health crisis to advocate for the needs of our patients with governments and public health policy bodies,” they wrote.

The authors also encourage public health agencies to develop and implement targeted programs to ensure that patients with severe mental illness and their health care providers “are made aware of these increased risks as well as the benefits of vaccination.”
 

An argument for fairness

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law at Columbia University, New York, also believes those with severe mental illness should be a priority group for a COVID vaccine.

“When we’re prioritizing groups for a COVID-19 vaccine, let’s not forget that people with serious mental illness have much lower life expectancies, more obesity, and more undiagnosed chronic conditions. They should be a priority group,” Dr. Appelbaum said in an interview.

“The argument for including people with severe mental illnesses among the vulnerable populations who should be prioritized for receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine is an argument for fairness in constructing that group,” he added.

“Like people with other chronic conditions associated with poor outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, people with severe mental illnesses are more likely to be hospitalized and more likely to die. Although they are often systematically ignored when decisions are made about allocation of resources, there is some hope that, with enough public attention to this issue, they can be included this time,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

Dr. De Hert and Dr. Applebaum disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With this week’s announcement that Pfizer’s vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 was 90% effective in preventing COVID-19, the world is one step closer to an effective vaccine.

Nevertheless, with a limited supply of initial doses, the question becomes, who should get it first? Individuals with severe mental illness should be a priority group to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, assert the authors of a perspective article published Nov. 1 in World Psychiatry.

Patients with underlying physical conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, obesity, immunodeficiency, and cancer, are particularly vulnerable to developing more severe illness and dying from COVID-19.

In these populations, the risk of a more severe course of infection or early death is significant enough for the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to make these patients priority recipients of a vaccine against COVID-19.

Marc De Hert, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at KU Leuven (Belgium), and coauthors argued that those with severe mental illness also fit into this group.

Even without factoring COVID-19 into the calculation, those with severe mental illness have a two- to threefold higher mortality rate than the general population, resulting in reduction in life expectancy of 10-20 years, they noted. This is largely because of physical diseases including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and respiratory ailments.

Individuals with severe mental illness also have higher rates of obesity than the general population and obesity is a risk factor for dying from COVID-19.
 

High-risk population

Like their peers with physical illnesses, recent studies suggest that those with severe mental illness are also at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

For example, a recent U.S. case-control study with over 61 million adults showed that those recently diagnosed with a mental health disorder had a significantly increased risk for COVID-19 infection, an effect strongest for depression and schizophrenia.

Other recent studies have confirmed these data, including one linking a psychiatric diagnosis in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to a significantly increased risk for death, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Dr. De Hert and colleagues put these findings into perspective with this example: In 2017, there were an estimated 11.2 million adults in the United States with severe mental illness. Taking into account the 8.5% death rate in COVID-19 patients recently diagnosed with a severe mental illness, this means that about 1 million patients with severe mental illness in the United States would die if all were infected with the virus.

In light of this knowledge, and taking into account published ethical principles that should guide vaccine allocation, Dr. De Hert and colleagues said it is “paramount” that persons with severe mental illness be prioritized to guarantee that they receive a COVID-19 vaccine during the first phase of its distribution.

“It is our responsibility as psychiatrists in this global health crisis to advocate for the needs of our patients with governments and public health policy bodies,” they wrote.

The authors also encourage public health agencies to develop and implement targeted programs to ensure that patients with severe mental illness and their health care providers “are made aware of these increased risks as well as the benefits of vaccination.”
 

An argument for fairness

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law at Columbia University, New York, also believes those with severe mental illness should be a priority group for a COVID vaccine.

“When we’re prioritizing groups for a COVID-19 vaccine, let’s not forget that people with serious mental illness have much lower life expectancies, more obesity, and more undiagnosed chronic conditions. They should be a priority group,” Dr. Appelbaum said in an interview.

“The argument for including people with severe mental illnesses among the vulnerable populations who should be prioritized for receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine is an argument for fairness in constructing that group,” he added.

“Like people with other chronic conditions associated with poor outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, people with severe mental illnesses are more likely to be hospitalized and more likely to die. Although they are often systematically ignored when decisions are made about allocation of resources, there is some hope that, with enough public attention to this issue, they can be included this time,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

Dr. De Hert and Dr. Applebaum disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With this week’s announcement that Pfizer’s vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 was 90% effective in preventing COVID-19, the world is one step closer to an effective vaccine.

Nevertheless, with a limited supply of initial doses, the question becomes, who should get it first? Individuals with severe mental illness should be a priority group to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, assert the authors of a perspective article published Nov. 1 in World Psychiatry.

Patients with underlying physical conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, obesity, immunodeficiency, and cancer, are particularly vulnerable to developing more severe illness and dying from COVID-19.

In these populations, the risk of a more severe course of infection or early death is significant enough for the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to make these patients priority recipients of a vaccine against COVID-19.

Marc De Hert, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at KU Leuven (Belgium), and coauthors argued that those with severe mental illness also fit into this group.

Even without factoring COVID-19 into the calculation, those with severe mental illness have a two- to threefold higher mortality rate than the general population, resulting in reduction in life expectancy of 10-20 years, they noted. This is largely because of physical diseases including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and respiratory ailments.

Individuals with severe mental illness also have higher rates of obesity than the general population and obesity is a risk factor for dying from COVID-19.
 

High-risk population

Like their peers with physical illnesses, recent studies suggest that those with severe mental illness are also at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

For example, a recent U.S. case-control study with over 61 million adults showed that those recently diagnosed with a mental health disorder had a significantly increased risk for COVID-19 infection, an effect strongest for depression and schizophrenia.

Other recent studies have confirmed these data, including one linking a psychiatric diagnosis in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to a significantly increased risk for death, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Dr. De Hert and colleagues put these findings into perspective with this example: In 2017, there were an estimated 11.2 million adults in the United States with severe mental illness. Taking into account the 8.5% death rate in COVID-19 patients recently diagnosed with a severe mental illness, this means that about 1 million patients with severe mental illness in the United States would die if all were infected with the virus.

In light of this knowledge, and taking into account published ethical principles that should guide vaccine allocation, Dr. De Hert and colleagues said it is “paramount” that persons with severe mental illness be prioritized to guarantee that they receive a COVID-19 vaccine during the first phase of its distribution.

“It is our responsibility as psychiatrists in this global health crisis to advocate for the needs of our patients with governments and public health policy bodies,” they wrote.

The authors also encourage public health agencies to develop and implement targeted programs to ensure that patients with severe mental illness and their health care providers “are made aware of these increased risks as well as the benefits of vaccination.”
 

An argument for fairness

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law at Columbia University, New York, also believes those with severe mental illness should be a priority group for a COVID vaccine.

“When we’re prioritizing groups for a COVID-19 vaccine, let’s not forget that people with serious mental illness have much lower life expectancies, more obesity, and more undiagnosed chronic conditions. They should be a priority group,” Dr. Appelbaum said in an interview.

“The argument for including people with severe mental illnesses among the vulnerable populations who should be prioritized for receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine is an argument for fairness in constructing that group,” he added.

“Like people with other chronic conditions associated with poor outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, people with severe mental illnesses are more likely to be hospitalized and more likely to die. Although they are often systematically ignored when decisions are made about allocation of resources, there is some hope that, with enough public attention to this issue, they can be included this time,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

Dr. De Hert and Dr. Applebaum disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Of his many plans to expand insurance coverage, President-elect Joe Biden’s simplest strategy is lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.

But the plan is sure to face long odds, even if the Democrats can snag control of the Senate in January by winning two runoff elections in Georgia.

roobcio/Thinkstock

Republicans, who fought the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and typically oppose expanding government entitlement programs, are not the biggest obstacle. Instead, the nation’s hospitals, a powerful political force, are poised to derail any effort. Hospitals fear adding millions of people to Medicare will cost them billions of dollars in revenue.

“Hospitals certainly are not going to be happy with it,” said Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Medicare reimbursement rates for patients admitted to hospitals average half what commercial or employer-sponsored insurance plans pay.

“It will be a huge lift [in Congress] as the realities of lower Medicare reimbursement rates will activate some powerful interests against this,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.

Biden, who turns 78 this month, said his plan will help Americans who retire early and those who are unemployed or can’t find jobs with health benefits.

“It reflects the reality that, even after the current crisis ends, older Americans are likely to find it difficult to secure jobs,” Biden wrote in April.

Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is popular. About 85% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans favor allowing those as young as 50 to buy into Medicare, according to a KFF tracking poll from January 2019. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Although opposition from the hospital industry is expected to be fierce, that is not the only obstacle to Biden’s plan.

Critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, will point to the nation’s $3 trillion budget deficit as well as the dim outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That fund is on track to reach insolvency in 2024. That means there won’t be enough money to fully pay hospitals and nursing homes for inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries.

Moreover, it’s unclear whether expanding Medicare will fit on the Democrats’ crowded health agenda, which also includes dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly rescuing the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the law in a current case, expanding Obamacare subsidies and lowering drug costs.

Biden’s proposal is a nod to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has advocated for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) government-run “Medicare for All” health system that would provide universal coverage. Biden opposed that effort, saying the nation could not afford it. He wanted to retain the private health insurance system, which covers 180 million people.

To expand coverage, Biden has proposed two major initiatives. In addition to the Medicare eligibility change, he wants Congress to approve a government-run health plan that people could buy into instead of purchasing coverage from insurance companies on their own or through the Obamacare marketplaces. Insurers helped beat back this “public option” initiative in 2009 during the congressional debate over the ACA.

The appeal of lowering Medicare eligibility to help those without insurance lies with leveraging a popular government program that has low administrative costs.

“It is hard to find a reform idea that is more popular than opening up Medicare” to people as young as 60, Oberlander said. He said early retirees would like the concept, as would employers, who could save on their health costs as workers gravitate to Medicare.

The eligibility age has been set at 65 since Medicare was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform package. It was designed to coincide with the age when people at that time qualified for Social Security. Today, people generally qualify for early, reduced Social Security benefits at age 62, though they have to wait until age 66 for full benefits.

While people can qualify on the basis of other criteria, such as having a disability or end-stage renal disease, 85% of the 57 million Medicare enrollees are in the program simply because they’re old enough.

Lowering the age to 60 could add as many as 23 million people to Medicare, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. It’s unclear, however, if everyone who would be eligible would sign up or if Biden would limit the expansion to the 1.7 million people in that age range who are uninsured and the 3.2 million who buy coverage on their own.

Avalere says 3.2 million people in that age group buy coverage on the individual market.

While the 60-to-65 group has the lowest uninsured rate (8%) among adults, it has the highest health costs and pays the highest rates for individual coverage, said Cristina Boccuti, director of health policy at West Health, a nonpartisan research group.

About 13 million of those between 60 and 65 have coverage through their employer, according to Avalere. While they would not have to drop coverage to join Medicare, they could possibly opt to also pay to join the federal program and use it as a wraparound for their existing coverage. Medicare might then pick up costs for some services that the consumers would have to shoulder out-of-pocket.

Some 4 million people between 60 and 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Shifting them to Medicare would make that their primary health insurer, a move that would save states money since they split Medicaid costs with the federal government.

Chris Pope, a senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute, said getting health industry support, particularly from hospitals, will be vital for any health coverage expansion. “Hospitals are very aware about generous commercial rates being replaced by lower Medicare rates,” he said.

“Members of Congress, a lot of them are close to their hospitals and do not want to see them with a revenue hole,” he said.

President Barack Obama made a deal with the industry on the way to passing the ACA. In exchange for gaining millions of paying customers and lowering their uncompensated care by billions of dollars, the hospital industry agreed to give up future Medicare funds designed to help them cope with the uninsured. Showing the industry’s prowess on Capitol Hill, Congress has delayed those funding cuts for more than six years.

Jacob Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, noted that expanding Medicare would reduce the number of Americans who rely on employer-sponsored coverage. The pitfalls of the employer system were highlighted in 2020 as millions lost their jobs and workplace health coverage.

Even if they can win the two Georgia seats and take control of the Senate with the vice president breaking any ties, Democrats would be unlikely to pass major legislation without GOP support — unless they are willing to jettison the long-standing filibuster rule so they can pass most legislation with a simple 51-vote majority instead of 60 votes.

Hacker said that slim margin would make it difficult for Democrats to deal with many health issues all at once.

“Congress is not good at parallel processing,” Hacker said, referring to handling multiple priorities at the same time. “And the window is relatively short.”

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

Of his many plans to expand insurance coverage, President-elect Joe Biden’s simplest strategy is lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.

But the plan is sure to face long odds, even if the Democrats can snag control of the Senate in January by winning two runoff elections in Georgia.

roobcio/Thinkstock

Republicans, who fought the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and typically oppose expanding government entitlement programs, are not the biggest obstacle. Instead, the nation’s hospitals, a powerful political force, are poised to derail any effort. Hospitals fear adding millions of people to Medicare will cost them billions of dollars in revenue.

“Hospitals certainly are not going to be happy with it,” said Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Medicare reimbursement rates for patients admitted to hospitals average half what commercial or employer-sponsored insurance plans pay.

“It will be a huge lift [in Congress] as the realities of lower Medicare reimbursement rates will activate some powerful interests against this,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.

Biden, who turns 78 this month, said his plan will help Americans who retire early and those who are unemployed or can’t find jobs with health benefits.

“It reflects the reality that, even after the current crisis ends, older Americans are likely to find it difficult to secure jobs,” Biden wrote in April.

Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is popular. About 85% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans favor allowing those as young as 50 to buy into Medicare, according to a KFF tracking poll from January 2019. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Although opposition from the hospital industry is expected to be fierce, that is not the only obstacle to Biden’s plan.

Critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, will point to the nation’s $3 trillion budget deficit as well as the dim outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That fund is on track to reach insolvency in 2024. That means there won’t be enough money to fully pay hospitals and nursing homes for inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries.

Moreover, it’s unclear whether expanding Medicare will fit on the Democrats’ crowded health agenda, which also includes dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly rescuing the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the law in a current case, expanding Obamacare subsidies and lowering drug costs.

Biden’s proposal is a nod to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has advocated for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) government-run “Medicare for All” health system that would provide universal coverage. Biden opposed that effort, saying the nation could not afford it. He wanted to retain the private health insurance system, which covers 180 million people.

To expand coverage, Biden has proposed two major initiatives. In addition to the Medicare eligibility change, he wants Congress to approve a government-run health plan that people could buy into instead of purchasing coverage from insurance companies on their own or through the Obamacare marketplaces. Insurers helped beat back this “public option” initiative in 2009 during the congressional debate over the ACA.

The appeal of lowering Medicare eligibility to help those without insurance lies with leveraging a popular government program that has low administrative costs.

“It is hard to find a reform idea that is more popular than opening up Medicare” to people as young as 60, Oberlander said. He said early retirees would like the concept, as would employers, who could save on their health costs as workers gravitate to Medicare.

The eligibility age has been set at 65 since Medicare was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform package. It was designed to coincide with the age when people at that time qualified for Social Security. Today, people generally qualify for early, reduced Social Security benefits at age 62, though they have to wait until age 66 for full benefits.

While people can qualify on the basis of other criteria, such as having a disability or end-stage renal disease, 85% of the 57 million Medicare enrollees are in the program simply because they’re old enough.

Lowering the age to 60 could add as many as 23 million people to Medicare, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. It’s unclear, however, if everyone who would be eligible would sign up or if Biden would limit the expansion to the 1.7 million people in that age range who are uninsured and the 3.2 million who buy coverage on their own.

Avalere says 3.2 million people in that age group buy coverage on the individual market.

While the 60-to-65 group has the lowest uninsured rate (8%) among adults, it has the highest health costs and pays the highest rates for individual coverage, said Cristina Boccuti, director of health policy at West Health, a nonpartisan research group.

About 13 million of those between 60 and 65 have coverage through their employer, according to Avalere. While they would not have to drop coverage to join Medicare, they could possibly opt to also pay to join the federal program and use it as a wraparound for their existing coverage. Medicare might then pick up costs for some services that the consumers would have to shoulder out-of-pocket.

Some 4 million people between 60 and 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Shifting them to Medicare would make that their primary health insurer, a move that would save states money since they split Medicaid costs with the federal government.

Chris Pope, a senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute, said getting health industry support, particularly from hospitals, will be vital for any health coverage expansion. “Hospitals are very aware about generous commercial rates being replaced by lower Medicare rates,” he said.

“Members of Congress, a lot of them are close to their hospitals and do not want to see them with a revenue hole,” he said.

President Barack Obama made a deal with the industry on the way to passing the ACA. In exchange for gaining millions of paying customers and lowering their uncompensated care by billions of dollars, the hospital industry agreed to give up future Medicare funds designed to help them cope with the uninsured. Showing the industry’s prowess on Capitol Hill, Congress has delayed those funding cuts for more than six years.

Jacob Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, noted that expanding Medicare would reduce the number of Americans who rely on employer-sponsored coverage. The pitfalls of the employer system were highlighted in 2020 as millions lost their jobs and workplace health coverage.

Even if they can win the two Georgia seats and take control of the Senate with the vice president breaking any ties, Democrats would be unlikely to pass major legislation without GOP support — unless they are willing to jettison the long-standing filibuster rule so they can pass most legislation with a simple 51-vote majority instead of 60 votes.

Hacker said that slim margin would make it difficult for Democrats to deal with many health issues all at once.

“Congress is not good at parallel processing,” Hacker said, referring to handling multiple priorities at the same time. “And the window is relatively short.”

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

Of his many plans to expand insurance coverage, President-elect Joe Biden’s simplest strategy is lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.

But the plan is sure to face long odds, even if the Democrats can snag control of the Senate in January by winning two runoff elections in Georgia.

roobcio/Thinkstock

Republicans, who fought the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and typically oppose expanding government entitlement programs, are not the biggest obstacle. Instead, the nation’s hospitals, a powerful political force, are poised to derail any effort. Hospitals fear adding millions of people to Medicare will cost them billions of dollars in revenue.

“Hospitals certainly are not going to be happy with it,” said Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Medicare reimbursement rates for patients admitted to hospitals average half what commercial or employer-sponsored insurance plans pay.

“It will be a huge lift [in Congress] as the realities of lower Medicare reimbursement rates will activate some powerful interests against this,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.

Biden, who turns 78 this month, said his plan will help Americans who retire early and those who are unemployed or can’t find jobs with health benefits.

“It reflects the reality that, even after the current crisis ends, older Americans are likely to find it difficult to secure jobs,” Biden wrote in April.

Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is popular. About 85% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans favor allowing those as young as 50 to buy into Medicare, according to a KFF tracking poll from January 2019. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Although opposition from the hospital industry is expected to be fierce, that is not the only obstacle to Biden’s plan.

Critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, will point to the nation’s $3 trillion budget deficit as well as the dim outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That fund is on track to reach insolvency in 2024. That means there won’t be enough money to fully pay hospitals and nursing homes for inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries.

Moreover, it’s unclear whether expanding Medicare will fit on the Democrats’ crowded health agenda, which also includes dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly rescuing the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the law in a current case, expanding Obamacare subsidies and lowering drug costs.

Biden’s proposal is a nod to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has advocated for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) government-run “Medicare for All” health system that would provide universal coverage. Biden opposed that effort, saying the nation could not afford it. He wanted to retain the private health insurance system, which covers 180 million people.

To expand coverage, Biden has proposed two major initiatives. In addition to the Medicare eligibility change, he wants Congress to approve a government-run health plan that people could buy into instead of purchasing coverage from insurance companies on their own or through the Obamacare marketplaces. Insurers helped beat back this “public option” initiative in 2009 during the congressional debate over the ACA.

The appeal of lowering Medicare eligibility to help those without insurance lies with leveraging a popular government program that has low administrative costs.

“It is hard to find a reform idea that is more popular than opening up Medicare” to people as young as 60, Oberlander said. He said early retirees would like the concept, as would employers, who could save on their health costs as workers gravitate to Medicare.

The eligibility age has been set at 65 since Medicare was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform package. It was designed to coincide with the age when people at that time qualified for Social Security. Today, people generally qualify for early, reduced Social Security benefits at age 62, though they have to wait until age 66 for full benefits.

While people can qualify on the basis of other criteria, such as having a disability or end-stage renal disease, 85% of the 57 million Medicare enrollees are in the program simply because they’re old enough.

Lowering the age to 60 could add as many as 23 million people to Medicare, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. It’s unclear, however, if everyone who would be eligible would sign up or if Biden would limit the expansion to the 1.7 million people in that age range who are uninsured and the 3.2 million who buy coverage on their own.

Avalere says 3.2 million people in that age group buy coverage on the individual market.

While the 60-to-65 group has the lowest uninsured rate (8%) among adults, it has the highest health costs and pays the highest rates for individual coverage, said Cristina Boccuti, director of health policy at West Health, a nonpartisan research group.

About 13 million of those between 60 and 65 have coverage through their employer, according to Avalere. While they would not have to drop coverage to join Medicare, they could possibly opt to also pay to join the federal program and use it as a wraparound for their existing coverage. Medicare might then pick up costs for some services that the consumers would have to shoulder out-of-pocket.

Some 4 million people between 60 and 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Shifting them to Medicare would make that their primary health insurer, a move that would save states money since they split Medicaid costs with the federal government.

Chris Pope, a senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute, said getting health industry support, particularly from hospitals, will be vital for any health coverage expansion. “Hospitals are very aware about generous commercial rates being replaced by lower Medicare rates,” he said.

“Members of Congress, a lot of them are close to their hospitals and do not want to see them with a revenue hole,” he said.

President Barack Obama made a deal with the industry on the way to passing the ACA. In exchange for gaining millions of paying customers and lowering their uncompensated care by billions of dollars, the hospital industry agreed to give up future Medicare funds designed to help them cope with the uninsured. Showing the industry’s prowess on Capitol Hill, Congress has delayed those funding cuts for more than six years.

Jacob Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, noted that expanding Medicare would reduce the number of Americans who rely on employer-sponsored coverage. The pitfalls of the employer system were highlighted in 2020 as millions lost their jobs and workplace health coverage.

Even if they can win the two Georgia seats and take control of the Senate with the vice president breaking any ties, Democrats would be unlikely to pass major legislation without GOP support — unless they are willing to jettison the long-standing filibuster rule so they can pass most legislation with a simple 51-vote majority instead of 60 votes.

Hacker said that slim margin would make it difficult for Democrats to deal with many health issues all at once.

“Congress is not good at parallel processing,” Hacker said, referring to handling multiple priorities at the same time. “And the window is relatively short.”

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

Matthew Lewin, MD, PhD, founder of the Center for Exploration and Travel Health at the California Academy of Sciences, was researching snakebite treatments in rural locations in preparation for an expedition to the Philippines in 2011.

The story of a renowned herpetologist from the academy, Joseph Slowinski, who was bitten by a highly venomous krait in Myanmar and couldn’t get to a hospital in time to save his life a decade earlier, weighed on the emergency room doctor.

“I concluded that I needed something small and compact and that doesn’t care what kind of snake,” Dr. Lewin said.

It didn’t exist. That set Dr. Lewin in pursuit of a modern snakebite drug, a journey that finds his Corte Madera, Calif., company, Ophirex, nearing a promising oral treatment that fits in a pocket; is stable, easy to use, and affordable; and treats the venom from many species. “That’s the holy grail of snakebite treatment,” he said.

His work has gotten a boost with multimillion-dollar grants from a British charity and the U.S. Army. If it works – and it has been shown to work extremely well in mice and pigs – it could save tens of thousands of lives a year.

Dr. Lewin and Ophirex are not alone in their quest. Snakebites kill nearly 140,000 people a year, overwhelmingly in impoverished rural areas of Asia and Africa without adequate medical infrastructure and knowledge to administer antivenom. Though just a few people die each year in the United States from snakebites, the problem has risen to the top of the list of global health concerns in recent years. Funding has soared, and other research groups have also done promising work on new treatments. Herpetologists say deforestation and climate change are increasing human-snake encounters by forcing snakes to move to new habitats.

Dr. Lewin’s research is centered on a drug called varespladib. The enzyme inhibitor has proven itself in in-vitro lab studies and has effectively saved mice and pigs dosed with venom.

Along the way, Dr. Lewin and his team have come across another potential use for the drug. Varespladib has a positive effect on acute respiratory distress syndrome, associated with COVID-19. Next year, Ophirex will conduct human trials for the possible treatment of the condition funded with $9.9 million from the Army.

The link to a snakebite? The inflammation of the lungs caused by the coronavirus produces the sPLA2 enzyme. A more deadly version of the same enzyme is produced by snake venom.

The other companies that have come up with promising approaches to snakebite aren’t as far along as Ophirex. At the University of California-Irvine, chemist Ken Shea and his team created a nanogel – a kind of polymer used in medical applications – that blocks key proteins in the venom that cause cell destruction. At the Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Andreas Laustsen is looking at engineering bacteria to manufacture anti-venom in fermentation tanks.

The days of incising a snakebite and sucking out the poison are long over, but the current treatment for venomous snakebites remains archaic.

Since the early 1900s, antivenom has been made by injecting horses or other animals with venom milked from snakes and diluted. The animals’ immune systems generate antibodies over several months, and blood plasma is taken from the animals and antibodies extracted from it.

It’s extremely expensive. Hospitals in the United States can charge as much as $15,000 a vial – and a single snakebite might require anywhere from 4 to 50 vials. Moreover, antivenom exists for little more than half the world’s species of venomous snakes.

A major problem is the roughly 2 hours it takes on average for a snakebite victim to reach a hospital and begin treatment. The chemical weapon that is venom starts immediately to destroy cells as it digests its next meal, making fast treatment essential to saving lives and preventing tissue loss.

“The two-hour window between fang and needle is where the most damage occurs,” said Leslie Boyer, director of the University of Arizona’s Venom Immunochemistry, Pharmacology and Emergency Response (VIPER) Institute. “We have a saying, ‘Time is tissue.’ ”

That’s why the search for a new snakebite drug has focused on an inexpensive treatment that can be taken into the field. Dr. Lewin’s drug wouldn’t replace antivenom. Instead, he thinks of it as the first line of defense until the victim can reach a hospital for antivenom treatment.

Dr. Lewin said he expects the drug to be inexpensive, so people in regions where snakebites are common can afford it.

Venom is extremely complicated chemically, and Dr. Lewin began his search by sussing out which of its myriad components to block. He zeroed in on the sPLA2 enzyme.

Surveying the literature about drugs that had been clinically tested for other conditions, he came across varespladib. It had been developed jointly by Eli Lilly and Shionogi, a Japanese pharmaceutical company, as a possible treatment for sepsis. They had never taken it to market.

If it worked, Dr. Lewin could license the right to produce the drug, which had already been thoroughly studied and was shown to be safe.

He placed venom in an array of test tubes. Varespladib and other drugs were added to the venom. He then added a reagent. If the venom was still active, the solution would turn yellow; if it was neutralized, it would remain clear.

The vials with varespladib “came up completely blank,” he said. “It was so stunning I said, ‘I must have made a mistake.’ ”

With a small grant, he sent the drug to the Yale Center for Molecular Discovery and found that varespladib effectively neutralized the venom of snakes found on six continents. The results were published in the journal Toxins and sent ripples through the small community of snakebite researchers.

Dr. Lewin then conducted tests on mice and pigs. Both were successful.

Human clinical trials are next, but they have been delayed by the pandemic. They are scheduled to get underway next spring.

Along the way, Dr. Lewin was fortunate enough to make some good connections that led to funding. In 2012, he attended a party at the Mill Valley, Calif., home of Jerry Harrison, the former guitarist and keyboardist for Talking Heads. Mr. Harrison had long been interested in business and start-ups – he said he was the most careful reader of the ’80s band’s contracts – and at the party he asked “if anyone had any ideas lying fallow,” Mr. Harrison said.

“And Matt pipes up and says, ‘I have this idea how to prevent people from dying from snakebites,’ ” Mr. Harrison said.

The musician said he was a bit taken aback by such an unusual and dire problem, but “I thought if it can save lives we have to do it,” he said. He became an investor and cofounder of Ophirex with Dr. Lewin.

Dr. Lewin met Lt. Col. Rebecca Carter, a biochemist who was assigned to lead the Medical Modernization Division of Air Force Special Operations Command, in 2016 when she attended a Venom Week conference in Greenville, N.C. He was presenting the results of his mouse studies. She told him about her first mission: to find a universal antivenom for medics on special operations teams in Africa. She persuaded the Special Operations Command Biomedical Research Advisory Group, which specializes in getting critical projects to production, to grant Ophirex $148,000 in 2017. She later retired from the Air Force and now works for Ophirex as vice president.

More multimillion-dollar grants followed, including the Army’s COVID grant. Clinical trials are scheduled to begin this winter.

Despite the progress and the sudden cash flow, Dr. Lewin tamps down talk of a universal snakebite cure. “There’s enough evidence to say the drug deserves to have its day in clinical trials,” he said.

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

Matthew Lewin, MD, PhD, founder of the Center for Exploration and Travel Health at the California Academy of Sciences, was researching snakebite treatments in rural locations in preparation for an expedition to the Philippines in 2011.

The story of a renowned herpetologist from the academy, Joseph Slowinski, who was bitten by a highly venomous krait in Myanmar and couldn’t get to a hospital in time to save his life a decade earlier, weighed on the emergency room doctor.

“I concluded that I needed something small and compact and that doesn’t care what kind of snake,” Dr. Lewin said.

It didn’t exist. That set Dr. Lewin in pursuit of a modern snakebite drug, a journey that finds his Corte Madera, Calif., company, Ophirex, nearing a promising oral treatment that fits in a pocket; is stable, easy to use, and affordable; and treats the venom from many species. “That’s the holy grail of snakebite treatment,” he said.

His work has gotten a boost with multimillion-dollar grants from a British charity and the U.S. Army. If it works – and it has been shown to work extremely well in mice and pigs – it could save tens of thousands of lives a year.

Dr. Lewin and Ophirex are not alone in their quest. Snakebites kill nearly 140,000 people a year, overwhelmingly in impoverished rural areas of Asia and Africa without adequate medical infrastructure and knowledge to administer antivenom. Though just a few people die each year in the United States from snakebites, the problem has risen to the top of the list of global health concerns in recent years. Funding has soared, and other research groups have also done promising work on new treatments. Herpetologists say deforestation and climate change are increasing human-snake encounters by forcing snakes to move to new habitats.

Dr. Lewin’s research is centered on a drug called varespladib. The enzyme inhibitor has proven itself in in-vitro lab studies and has effectively saved mice and pigs dosed with venom.

Along the way, Dr. Lewin and his team have come across another potential use for the drug. Varespladib has a positive effect on acute respiratory distress syndrome, associated with COVID-19. Next year, Ophirex will conduct human trials for the possible treatment of the condition funded with $9.9 million from the Army.

The link to a snakebite? The inflammation of the lungs caused by the coronavirus produces the sPLA2 enzyme. A more deadly version of the same enzyme is produced by snake venom.

The other companies that have come up with promising approaches to snakebite aren’t as far along as Ophirex. At the University of California-Irvine, chemist Ken Shea and his team created a nanogel – a kind of polymer used in medical applications – that blocks key proteins in the venom that cause cell destruction. At the Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Andreas Laustsen is looking at engineering bacteria to manufacture anti-venom in fermentation tanks.

The days of incising a snakebite and sucking out the poison are long over, but the current treatment for venomous snakebites remains archaic.

Since the early 1900s, antivenom has been made by injecting horses or other animals with venom milked from snakes and diluted. The animals’ immune systems generate antibodies over several months, and blood plasma is taken from the animals and antibodies extracted from it.

It’s extremely expensive. Hospitals in the United States can charge as much as $15,000 a vial – and a single snakebite might require anywhere from 4 to 50 vials. Moreover, antivenom exists for little more than half the world’s species of venomous snakes.

A major problem is the roughly 2 hours it takes on average for a snakebite victim to reach a hospital and begin treatment. The chemical weapon that is venom starts immediately to destroy cells as it digests its next meal, making fast treatment essential to saving lives and preventing tissue loss.

“The two-hour window between fang and needle is where the most damage occurs,” said Leslie Boyer, director of the University of Arizona’s Venom Immunochemistry, Pharmacology and Emergency Response (VIPER) Institute. “We have a saying, ‘Time is tissue.’ ”

That’s why the search for a new snakebite drug has focused on an inexpensive treatment that can be taken into the field. Dr. Lewin’s drug wouldn’t replace antivenom. Instead, he thinks of it as the first line of defense until the victim can reach a hospital for antivenom treatment.

Dr. Lewin said he expects the drug to be inexpensive, so people in regions where snakebites are common can afford it.

Venom is extremely complicated chemically, and Dr. Lewin began his search by sussing out which of its myriad components to block. He zeroed in on the sPLA2 enzyme.

Surveying the literature about drugs that had been clinically tested for other conditions, he came across varespladib. It had been developed jointly by Eli Lilly and Shionogi, a Japanese pharmaceutical company, as a possible treatment for sepsis. They had never taken it to market.

If it worked, Dr. Lewin could license the right to produce the drug, which had already been thoroughly studied and was shown to be safe.

He placed venom in an array of test tubes. Varespladib and other drugs were added to the venom. He then added a reagent. If the venom was still active, the solution would turn yellow; if it was neutralized, it would remain clear.

The vials with varespladib “came up completely blank,” he said. “It was so stunning I said, ‘I must have made a mistake.’ ”

With a small grant, he sent the drug to the Yale Center for Molecular Discovery and found that varespladib effectively neutralized the venom of snakes found on six continents. The results were published in the journal Toxins and sent ripples through the small community of snakebite researchers.

Dr. Lewin then conducted tests on mice and pigs. Both were successful.

Human clinical trials are next, but they have been delayed by the pandemic. They are scheduled to get underway next spring.

Along the way, Dr. Lewin was fortunate enough to make some good connections that led to funding. In 2012, he attended a party at the Mill Valley, Calif., home of Jerry Harrison, the former guitarist and keyboardist for Talking Heads. Mr. Harrison had long been interested in business and start-ups – he said he was the most careful reader of the ’80s band’s contracts – and at the party he asked “if anyone had any ideas lying fallow,” Mr. Harrison said.

“And Matt pipes up and says, ‘I have this idea how to prevent people from dying from snakebites,’ ” Mr. Harrison said.

The musician said he was a bit taken aback by such an unusual and dire problem, but “I thought if it can save lives we have to do it,” he said. He became an investor and cofounder of Ophirex with Dr. Lewin.

Dr. Lewin met Lt. Col. Rebecca Carter, a biochemist who was assigned to lead the Medical Modernization Division of Air Force Special Operations Command, in 2016 when she attended a Venom Week conference in Greenville, N.C. He was presenting the results of his mouse studies. She told him about her first mission: to find a universal antivenom for medics on special operations teams in Africa. She persuaded the Special Operations Command Biomedical Research Advisory Group, which specializes in getting critical projects to production, to grant Ophirex $148,000 in 2017. She later retired from the Air Force and now works for Ophirex as vice president.

More multimillion-dollar grants followed, including the Army’s COVID grant. Clinical trials are scheduled to begin this winter.

Despite the progress and the sudden cash flow, Dr. Lewin tamps down talk of a universal snakebite cure. “There’s enough evidence to say the drug deserves to have its day in clinical trials,” he said.

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

Matthew Lewin, MD, PhD, founder of the Center for Exploration and Travel Health at the California Academy of Sciences, was researching snakebite treatments in rural locations in preparation for an expedition to the Philippines in 2011.

The story of a renowned herpetologist from the academy, Joseph Slowinski, who was bitten by a highly venomous krait in Myanmar and couldn’t get to a hospital in time to save his life a decade earlier, weighed on the emergency room doctor.

“I concluded that I needed something small and compact and that doesn’t care what kind of snake,” Dr. Lewin said.

It didn’t exist. That set Dr. Lewin in pursuit of a modern snakebite drug, a journey that finds his Corte Madera, Calif., company, Ophirex, nearing a promising oral treatment that fits in a pocket; is stable, easy to use, and affordable; and treats the venom from many species. “That’s the holy grail of snakebite treatment,” he said.

His work has gotten a boost with multimillion-dollar grants from a British charity and the U.S. Army. If it works – and it has been shown to work extremely well in mice and pigs – it could save tens of thousands of lives a year.

Dr. Lewin and Ophirex are not alone in their quest. Snakebites kill nearly 140,000 people a year, overwhelmingly in impoverished rural areas of Asia and Africa without adequate medical infrastructure and knowledge to administer antivenom. Though just a few people die each year in the United States from snakebites, the problem has risen to the top of the list of global health concerns in recent years. Funding has soared, and other research groups have also done promising work on new treatments. Herpetologists say deforestation and climate change are increasing human-snake encounters by forcing snakes to move to new habitats.

Dr. Lewin’s research is centered on a drug called varespladib. The enzyme inhibitor has proven itself in in-vitro lab studies and has effectively saved mice and pigs dosed with venom.

Along the way, Dr. Lewin and his team have come across another potential use for the drug. Varespladib has a positive effect on acute respiratory distress syndrome, associated with COVID-19. Next year, Ophirex will conduct human trials for the possible treatment of the condition funded with $9.9 million from the Army.

The link to a snakebite? The inflammation of the lungs caused by the coronavirus produces the sPLA2 enzyme. A more deadly version of the same enzyme is produced by snake venom.

The other companies that have come up with promising approaches to snakebite aren’t as far along as Ophirex. At the University of California-Irvine, chemist Ken Shea and his team created a nanogel – a kind of polymer used in medical applications – that blocks key proteins in the venom that cause cell destruction. At the Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Andreas Laustsen is looking at engineering bacteria to manufacture anti-venom in fermentation tanks.

The days of incising a snakebite and sucking out the poison are long over, but the current treatment for venomous snakebites remains archaic.

Since the early 1900s, antivenom has been made by injecting horses or other animals with venom milked from snakes and diluted. The animals’ immune systems generate antibodies over several months, and blood plasma is taken from the animals and antibodies extracted from it.

It’s extremely expensive. Hospitals in the United States can charge as much as $15,000 a vial – and a single snakebite might require anywhere from 4 to 50 vials. Moreover, antivenom exists for little more than half the world’s species of venomous snakes.

A major problem is the roughly 2 hours it takes on average for a snakebite victim to reach a hospital and begin treatment. The chemical weapon that is venom starts immediately to destroy cells as it digests its next meal, making fast treatment essential to saving lives and preventing tissue loss.

“The two-hour window between fang and needle is where the most damage occurs,” said Leslie Boyer, director of the University of Arizona’s Venom Immunochemistry, Pharmacology and Emergency Response (VIPER) Institute. “We have a saying, ‘Time is tissue.’ ”

That’s why the search for a new snakebite drug has focused on an inexpensive treatment that can be taken into the field. Dr. Lewin’s drug wouldn’t replace antivenom. Instead, he thinks of it as the first line of defense until the victim can reach a hospital for antivenom treatment.

Dr. Lewin said he expects the drug to be inexpensive, so people in regions where snakebites are common can afford it.

Venom is extremely complicated chemically, and Dr. Lewin began his search by sussing out which of its myriad components to block. He zeroed in on the sPLA2 enzyme.

Surveying the literature about drugs that had been clinically tested for other conditions, he came across varespladib. It had been developed jointly by Eli Lilly and Shionogi, a Japanese pharmaceutical company, as a possible treatment for sepsis. They had never taken it to market.

If it worked, Dr. Lewin could license the right to produce the drug, which had already been thoroughly studied and was shown to be safe.

He placed venom in an array of test tubes. Varespladib and other drugs were added to the venom. He then added a reagent. If the venom was still active, the solution would turn yellow; if it was neutralized, it would remain clear.

The vials with varespladib “came up completely blank,” he said. “It was so stunning I said, ‘I must have made a mistake.’ ”

With a small grant, he sent the drug to the Yale Center for Molecular Discovery and found that varespladib effectively neutralized the venom of snakes found on six continents. The results were published in the journal Toxins and sent ripples through the small community of snakebite researchers.

Dr. Lewin then conducted tests on mice and pigs. Both were successful.

Human clinical trials are next, but they have been delayed by the pandemic. They are scheduled to get underway next spring.

Along the way, Dr. Lewin was fortunate enough to make some good connections that led to funding. In 2012, he attended a party at the Mill Valley, Calif., home of Jerry Harrison, the former guitarist and keyboardist for Talking Heads. Mr. Harrison had long been interested in business and start-ups – he said he was the most careful reader of the ’80s band’s contracts – and at the party he asked “if anyone had any ideas lying fallow,” Mr. Harrison said.

“And Matt pipes up and says, ‘I have this idea how to prevent people from dying from snakebites,’ ” Mr. Harrison said.

The musician said he was a bit taken aback by such an unusual and dire problem, but “I thought if it can save lives we have to do it,” he said. He became an investor and cofounder of Ophirex with Dr. Lewin.

Dr. Lewin met Lt. Col. Rebecca Carter, a biochemist who was assigned to lead the Medical Modernization Division of Air Force Special Operations Command, in 2016 when she attended a Venom Week conference in Greenville, N.C. He was presenting the results of his mouse studies. She told him about her first mission: to find a universal antivenom for medics on special operations teams in Africa. She persuaded the Special Operations Command Biomedical Research Advisory Group, which specializes in getting critical projects to production, to grant Ophirex $148,000 in 2017. She later retired from the Air Force and now works for Ophirex as vice president.

More multimillion-dollar grants followed, including the Army’s COVID grant. Clinical trials are scheduled to begin this winter.

Despite the progress and the sudden cash flow, Dr. Lewin tamps down talk of a universal snakebite cure. “There’s enough evidence to say the drug deserves to have its day in clinical trials,” he said.

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

Choosing which hospitalized COVID-19 patients receive potentially lifesaving care, making urgent calls for ventilators and other equipment, and triaging care based on patient age and comorbidities were among the challenges revealed in new feedback from health care leaders and frontline workers.

Even though many hospitals have contingency plans for how to allocate resources and triage patient care during crisis capacity, for many providers during the real-world COVID-19 trial of these protocols, they fell short.

Many hospital crisis capacity plans, for example, were too general to address all the specific challenges arising during the pandemic, investigators report in a study published online Nov. 6 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our research shows that the types of challenges and approach to resource limitation in real-world clinical settings during the pandemic differed in practice from how we had prepared in theory,” lead author Catherine Butler, MD, told Medscape Medical News. Insufficient dialysis treatment time, staff shortages, and routine supply scarcity are examples “for which there was not an established plan or approach for appropriate allocation.”

“This left frontline clinicians to determine what constituted an acceptable standard of care and to make difficult allocation decisions at the bedside,” added Butler, acting instructor in the Division of Nephrology at the University of Washington in Seattle and a research fellow at the VA Health Services Research and Development Seattle-Denver Center of Innovation.

The investigators conducted semistructured interviews in April and May with 61 clinicians and health leaders. Mean age was 46 years, 63% were women, and participants practiced in 15 states. Most participants hailed from locations hard-hit by the pandemic at the time, including Seattle, New York City, and New Orleans.
 

Triage tribulations

The qualitative study included comments from respondents on three major themes that emerged: planning for crisis capacity, adapting to resource limitation, and the multiple unprecedented barriers to care delivery.

Overall, planning and support from institutional leaders varied. One provider said, “Talking to administration, and they just seemed really disengaged with the problem. We asked multiple times if there was a triage command center or a plan for what would occur if we got to the point where we had to triage resources. They said there was, but they wouldn’t provide it to us.”

Another had a more positive experience. “The biggest deal in the ethics world in the last 2 months has been preparing in case we need to triage. So, we have a very detailed, elaborate, well thought-out triage policy … that was done at the highest levels of the system.”

Clinicians said they participate on triage teams – despite the moral weight and likely emotional burden – out of a sense of duty.

Interestingly, some providers on these teams also reported a reluctance to reveal their participation to colleagues. “I didn’t feel like I should tell anybody … even some of my close friends who are physicians and nurses here … that I’ve been asked to be on this [triage team],” one respondent said. “I didn’t feel like I should make it known.”
 

Adapting to scarce resources

Multiple providers said they faced difficult care decisions because of limited dialysis or supply shortages. “They felt that this patient had the greatest likelihood of benefiting from most aggressive therapy. … I think there was probably like 5 or 6 patients in the ICU … and then you had this 35-year-old with no comorbidities,” one respondent said. “That’s who the ICU dialyzed, and I couldn’t really disagree.”

“I emailed all of [my colleagues], and I said ‘Help! We need X, we need CRRT [continuous renal replacement therapy] machines, we need dialysates,’ “ another responded.

“One of the attendings had a tweet when we were running out of CRRT. He had a tweet about, ‘Can anybody give us supplies for CRRT?’ So, it got to that. You do anything. You get really desperate,” the clinician said.

Other providers reported getting innovative under the circumstances. “My partner’s son, he actually borrowed a couple of 3D printers. He printed some of these face shields, and then they got the formula, or the specifics as to how to make this particular connection to connect to a dialysis machine to generate dialysate. So, he also printed some of those from the 3D printer.”
 

Dire situations with dialysis

Another respondent understood the focus on ventilators and ICU beds throughout the crisis, but said “no one has acknowledged that dialysis has been one of the most, if not the most, limited resources.”

Another clinician expressed surprise at a decision made in the face of limited availability of traditional dialysis. “A month ago, people said we were going to do acute peritoneal dialysis [PD]. And I said, ‘No, we’re not going to do acute PD. PD, it’s not that great for acute patients, sick people in the ICUs. I don’t think we’re going to do PD.’

“Three days later we were doing acute PD. I mean, that was unbelievable!”

Some institutions rationed dialysis therapy. “We went through the entire list at the beginning of the week and [said], this person has to dialyze these days, this person would probably benefit from a dialysis session, a third group person we could probably just string along and medically manage if we needed to,” one provider said.

Another respondent reported a different strategy. “No one was not getting dialysis, but there were a lot of people getting minimal dialysis. Even though people were getting treated, resources were very stretched.”
 

Changing family dynamics

COVID-19 has naturally changed how clinicians speak with families. One respondent recalled looking at the ICU physician and being like, ‘Have you talked to the son this week?’ And she’s like, ‘Oh my God, no. … Did you talk to the son?’ I’m like, ‘Oh my God, no.’ “

They realized, the respondent added, “that none of us had called the family because it’s just not in your workflow. You’re so used to the family being there.”

Multiple providers also feared a conversation with family regarding necessary changes to care given the limitation of resources during the pandemic.

“Most families have been actually very understanding. This is a crisis, and we’re in a pandemic, and we’re all doing things we wouldn’t normally do.”

Another respondent said, “We were pretty honest about how resources were limited and how we were doing with this COVID-19 surge. And I think we talked about how the usual ability to provide aggressive dialysis was not the case with COVID-19. There was a lot of understanding, sometimes to my surprise. I would think people would be more upset when hearing something like that.”

Many clinicians facing these challenges experience moral distress, the researchers noted.

“Early in the pandemic, it became quickly apparent that possible resource limitation, such as scarce ventilators, was a major ethical concern. There was robust debate and discussion published in medical journals and the popular press about how to appropriately allocate health care resources,” the University of Washington’s Butler said.

“Transparency, accountability, and standardized processes for rationing these resources in ‘crisis capacity’ settings were seen as key to avoiding the impact of implicit bias and moral distress for clinicians,” she added.
 

Lessons learned

In terms of potential solutions that could mitigate these challenges in the future, health care leaders “could develop standardized protocols or guidelines for allocating a broader range of potentially scarce health care resources even before ‘crisis capacity’ is declared,” Butler said.

Furthermore, no frontline worker should have to go it alone. “Medical ethicists and/or other clinicians familiar with ethical considerations in settings of scarce health care resources might provide bedside consultation and collaborate with frontline providers who must grapple with the impact of more subtle forms of resource limitation on clinical decision-making.”

The study was partially funded by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and a COVID-19 Research Award from the University of Washington Institute of Translational Health Sciences given to Butler.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Choosing which hospitalized COVID-19 patients receive potentially lifesaving care, making urgent calls for ventilators and other equipment, and triaging care based on patient age and comorbidities were among the challenges revealed in new feedback from health care leaders and frontline workers.

Even though many hospitals have contingency plans for how to allocate resources and triage patient care during crisis capacity, for many providers during the real-world COVID-19 trial of these protocols, they fell short.

Many hospital crisis capacity plans, for example, were too general to address all the specific challenges arising during the pandemic, investigators report in a study published online Nov. 6 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our research shows that the types of challenges and approach to resource limitation in real-world clinical settings during the pandemic differed in practice from how we had prepared in theory,” lead author Catherine Butler, MD, told Medscape Medical News. Insufficient dialysis treatment time, staff shortages, and routine supply scarcity are examples “for which there was not an established plan or approach for appropriate allocation.”

“This left frontline clinicians to determine what constituted an acceptable standard of care and to make difficult allocation decisions at the bedside,” added Butler, acting instructor in the Division of Nephrology at the University of Washington in Seattle and a research fellow at the VA Health Services Research and Development Seattle-Denver Center of Innovation.

The investigators conducted semistructured interviews in April and May with 61 clinicians and health leaders. Mean age was 46 years, 63% were women, and participants practiced in 15 states. Most participants hailed from locations hard-hit by the pandemic at the time, including Seattle, New York City, and New Orleans.
 

Triage tribulations

The qualitative study included comments from respondents on three major themes that emerged: planning for crisis capacity, adapting to resource limitation, and the multiple unprecedented barriers to care delivery.

Overall, planning and support from institutional leaders varied. One provider said, “Talking to administration, and they just seemed really disengaged with the problem. We asked multiple times if there was a triage command center or a plan for what would occur if we got to the point where we had to triage resources. They said there was, but they wouldn’t provide it to us.”

Another had a more positive experience. “The biggest deal in the ethics world in the last 2 months has been preparing in case we need to triage. So, we have a very detailed, elaborate, well thought-out triage policy … that was done at the highest levels of the system.”

Clinicians said they participate on triage teams – despite the moral weight and likely emotional burden – out of a sense of duty.

Interestingly, some providers on these teams also reported a reluctance to reveal their participation to colleagues. “I didn’t feel like I should tell anybody … even some of my close friends who are physicians and nurses here … that I’ve been asked to be on this [triage team],” one respondent said. “I didn’t feel like I should make it known.”
 

Adapting to scarce resources

Multiple providers said they faced difficult care decisions because of limited dialysis or supply shortages. “They felt that this patient had the greatest likelihood of benefiting from most aggressive therapy. … I think there was probably like 5 or 6 patients in the ICU … and then you had this 35-year-old with no comorbidities,” one respondent said. “That’s who the ICU dialyzed, and I couldn’t really disagree.”

“I emailed all of [my colleagues], and I said ‘Help! We need X, we need CRRT [continuous renal replacement therapy] machines, we need dialysates,’ “ another responded.

“One of the attendings had a tweet when we were running out of CRRT. He had a tweet about, ‘Can anybody give us supplies for CRRT?’ So, it got to that. You do anything. You get really desperate,” the clinician said.

Other providers reported getting innovative under the circumstances. “My partner’s son, he actually borrowed a couple of 3D printers. He printed some of these face shields, and then they got the formula, or the specifics as to how to make this particular connection to connect to a dialysis machine to generate dialysate. So, he also printed some of those from the 3D printer.”
 

Dire situations with dialysis

Another respondent understood the focus on ventilators and ICU beds throughout the crisis, but said “no one has acknowledged that dialysis has been one of the most, if not the most, limited resources.”

Another clinician expressed surprise at a decision made in the face of limited availability of traditional dialysis. “A month ago, people said we were going to do acute peritoneal dialysis [PD]. And I said, ‘No, we’re not going to do acute PD. PD, it’s not that great for acute patients, sick people in the ICUs. I don’t think we’re going to do PD.’

“Three days later we were doing acute PD. I mean, that was unbelievable!”

Some institutions rationed dialysis therapy. “We went through the entire list at the beginning of the week and [said], this person has to dialyze these days, this person would probably benefit from a dialysis session, a third group person we could probably just string along and medically manage if we needed to,” one provider said.

Another respondent reported a different strategy. “No one was not getting dialysis, but there were a lot of people getting minimal dialysis. Even though people were getting treated, resources were very stretched.”
 

Changing family dynamics

COVID-19 has naturally changed how clinicians speak with families. One respondent recalled looking at the ICU physician and being like, ‘Have you talked to the son this week?’ And she’s like, ‘Oh my God, no. … Did you talk to the son?’ I’m like, ‘Oh my God, no.’ “

They realized, the respondent added, “that none of us had called the family because it’s just not in your workflow. You’re so used to the family being there.”

Multiple providers also feared a conversation with family regarding necessary changes to care given the limitation of resources during the pandemic.

“Most families have been actually very understanding. This is a crisis, and we’re in a pandemic, and we’re all doing things we wouldn’t normally do.”

Another respondent said, “We were pretty honest about how resources were limited and how we were doing with this COVID-19 surge. And I think we talked about how the usual ability to provide aggressive dialysis was not the case with COVID-19. There was a lot of understanding, sometimes to my surprise. I would think people would be more upset when hearing something like that.”

Many clinicians facing these challenges experience moral distress, the researchers noted.

“Early in the pandemic, it became quickly apparent that possible resource limitation, such as scarce ventilators, was a major ethical concern. There was robust debate and discussion published in medical journals and the popular press about how to appropriately allocate health care resources,” the University of Washington’s Butler said.

“Transparency, accountability, and standardized processes for rationing these resources in ‘crisis capacity’ settings were seen as key to avoiding the impact of implicit bias and moral distress for clinicians,” she added.
 

Lessons learned

In terms of potential solutions that could mitigate these challenges in the future, health care leaders “could develop standardized protocols or guidelines for allocating a broader range of potentially scarce health care resources even before ‘crisis capacity’ is declared,” Butler said.

Furthermore, no frontline worker should have to go it alone. “Medical ethicists and/or other clinicians familiar with ethical considerations in settings of scarce health care resources might provide bedside consultation and collaborate with frontline providers who must grapple with the impact of more subtle forms of resource limitation on clinical decision-making.”

The study was partially funded by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and a COVID-19 Research Award from the University of Washington Institute of Translational Health Sciences given to Butler.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Choosing which hospitalized COVID-19 patients receive potentially lifesaving care, making urgent calls for ventilators and other equipment, and triaging care based on patient age and comorbidities were among the challenges revealed in new feedback from health care leaders and frontline workers.

Even though many hospitals have contingency plans for how to allocate resources and triage patient care during crisis capacity, for many providers during the real-world COVID-19 trial of these protocols, they fell short.

Many hospital crisis capacity plans, for example, were too general to address all the specific challenges arising during the pandemic, investigators report in a study published online Nov. 6 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our research shows that the types of challenges and approach to resource limitation in real-world clinical settings during the pandemic differed in practice from how we had prepared in theory,” lead author Catherine Butler, MD, told Medscape Medical News. Insufficient dialysis treatment time, staff shortages, and routine supply scarcity are examples “for which there was not an established plan or approach for appropriate allocation.”

“This left frontline clinicians to determine what constituted an acceptable standard of care and to make difficult allocation decisions at the bedside,” added Butler, acting instructor in the Division of Nephrology at the University of Washington in Seattle and a research fellow at the VA Health Services Research and Development Seattle-Denver Center of Innovation.

The investigators conducted semistructured interviews in April and May with 61 clinicians and health leaders. Mean age was 46 years, 63% were women, and participants practiced in 15 states. Most participants hailed from locations hard-hit by the pandemic at the time, including Seattle, New York City, and New Orleans.
 

Triage tribulations

The qualitative study included comments from respondents on three major themes that emerged: planning for crisis capacity, adapting to resource limitation, and the multiple unprecedented barriers to care delivery.

Overall, planning and support from institutional leaders varied. One provider said, “Talking to administration, and they just seemed really disengaged with the problem. We asked multiple times if there was a triage command center or a plan for what would occur if we got to the point where we had to triage resources. They said there was, but they wouldn’t provide it to us.”

Another had a more positive experience. “The biggest deal in the ethics world in the last 2 months has been preparing in case we need to triage. So, we have a very detailed, elaborate, well thought-out triage policy … that was done at the highest levels of the system.”

Clinicians said they participate on triage teams – despite the moral weight and likely emotional burden – out of a sense of duty.

Interestingly, some providers on these teams also reported a reluctance to reveal their participation to colleagues. “I didn’t feel like I should tell anybody … even some of my close friends who are physicians and nurses here … that I’ve been asked to be on this [triage team],” one respondent said. “I didn’t feel like I should make it known.”
 

Adapting to scarce resources

Multiple providers said they faced difficult care decisions because of limited dialysis or supply shortages. “They felt that this patient had the greatest likelihood of benefiting from most aggressive therapy. … I think there was probably like 5 or 6 patients in the ICU … and then you had this 35-year-old with no comorbidities,” one respondent said. “That’s who the ICU dialyzed, and I couldn’t really disagree.”

“I emailed all of [my colleagues], and I said ‘Help! We need X, we need CRRT [continuous renal replacement therapy] machines, we need dialysates,’ “ another responded.

“One of the attendings had a tweet when we were running out of CRRT. He had a tweet about, ‘Can anybody give us supplies for CRRT?’ So, it got to that. You do anything. You get really desperate,” the clinician said.

Other providers reported getting innovative under the circumstances. “My partner’s son, he actually borrowed a couple of 3D printers. He printed some of these face shields, and then they got the formula, or the specifics as to how to make this particular connection to connect to a dialysis machine to generate dialysate. So, he also printed some of those from the 3D printer.”
 

Dire situations with dialysis

Another respondent understood the focus on ventilators and ICU beds throughout the crisis, but said “no one has acknowledged that dialysis has been one of the most, if not the most, limited resources.”

Another clinician expressed surprise at a decision made in the face of limited availability of traditional dialysis. “A month ago, people said we were going to do acute peritoneal dialysis [PD]. And I said, ‘No, we’re not going to do acute PD. PD, it’s not that great for acute patients, sick people in the ICUs. I don’t think we’re going to do PD.’

“Three days later we were doing acute PD. I mean, that was unbelievable!”

Some institutions rationed dialysis therapy. “We went through the entire list at the beginning of the week and [said], this person has to dialyze these days, this person would probably benefit from a dialysis session, a third group person we could probably just string along and medically manage if we needed to,” one provider said.

Another respondent reported a different strategy. “No one was not getting dialysis, but there were a lot of people getting minimal dialysis. Even though people were getting treated, resources were very stretched.”
 

Changing family dynamics

COVID-19 has naturally changed how clinicians speak with families. One respondent recalled looking at the ICU physician and being like, ‘Have you talked to the son this week?’ And she’s like, ‘Oh my God, no. … Did you talk to the son?’ I’m like, ‘Oh my God, no.’ “

They realized, the respondent added, “that none of us had called the family because it’s just not in your workflow. You’re so used to the family being there.”

Multiple providers also feared a conversation with family regarding necessary changes to care given the limitation of resources during the pandemic.

“Most families have been actually very understanding. This is a crisis, and we’re in a pandemic, and we’re all doing things we wouldn’t normally do.”

Another respondent said, “We were pretty honest about how resources were limited and how we were doing with this COVID-19 surge. And I think we talked about how the usual ability to provide aggressive dialysis was not the case with COVID-19. There was a lot of understanding, sometimes to my surprise. I would think people would be more upset when hearing something like that.”

Many clinicians facing these challenges experience moral distress, the researchers noted.

“Early in the pandemic, it became quickly apparent that possible resource limitation, such as scarce ventilators, was a major ethical concern. There was robust debate and discussion published in medical journals and the popular press about how to appropriately allocate health care resources,” the University of Washington’s Butler said.

“Transparency, accountability, and standardized processes for rationing these resources in ‘crisis capacity’ settings were seen as key to avoiding the impact of implicit bias and moral distress for clinicians,” she added.
 

Lessons learned

In terms of potential solutions that could mitigate these challenges in the future, health care leaders “could develop standardized protocols or guidelines for allocating a broader range of potentially scarce health care resources even before ‘crisis capacity’ is declared,” Butler said.

Furthermore, no frontline worker should have to go it alone. “Medical ethicists and/or other clinicians familiar with ethical considerations in settings of scarce health care resources might provide bedside consultation and collaborate with frontline providers who must grapple with the impact of more subtle forms of resource limitation on clinical decision-making.”

The study was partially funded by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and a COVID-19 Research Award from the University of Washington Institute of Translational Health Sciences given to Butler.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.