Neurology Reviews

Three investigations that had been scheduled for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology provide further detail about the efficacy and safety of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi in patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). The research was presented online as part of the 2020 AAN Science Highlights.

SMA results from a mutation in SMN1, which encodes the SMN protein necessary for motor function. Deficiency of this protein causes motor neurons to die, resulting in severe muscle weakness. At 2 years of age, untreated patients with SMA type 1 generally die or require permanent ventilation.

The Food and Drug Administration approved onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi under the brand name Zolgensma in May 2019. The gene-replacement therapy, which is administered once intravenously, delivers a fully functional copy of human SMN1 into the target motor neuron cells. It is indicated as treatment for SMA in infants younger than 2 years of age.
 

Preliminary STR1VE data

Preliminary data from the phase 3 STR1VE study were scheduled to be presented at the meeting. The open-label, single-arm, single-dose study enrolled symptomatic patients with SMA type 1 (SMA1) at multiple US sites. Enrollment was completed in May 2019.

The study included 10 male patients and 12 female patients. Participants’ mean age at dosing was 3.7 months. Of 19 patients who could have reached age 13.6 months at data cutoff, 17 (89.5%) were surviving without permanent ventilation, compared with a 25% survival rate among untreated patients. One of the 19 patients died, and the event was judged to be unrelated to treatment. Another of the 19 reached a respiratory endpoint or withdrew consent.

The population’s mean baseline Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders (CHOP INTEND) score was 32. This score increased by 6.9, 11.7, and 14.3 points at months 1, 3, and 5, respectively. Half of the 22 infants sat independently for 30 or more seconds, and this milestone was achieved at a mean of 8.2 months after treatment. Five of six (83%) patients age 18 months or older sat independently for 30 or more seconds, which was one of the study’s primary endpoints. As of March 8, 2019, treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest were transient and not associated with any sequelae.

The STR1VE study was sponsored by AveXis, the maker of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi. Several of the investigators are employees of AveXis, and others received funding from the company.
 

Long-term follow-up in START

Long-term follow-up data for participants in the phase 1/2a START study also were scheduled to be presented. Patients who completed START were eligible to participate, and the trial’s primary aim was to evaluate the long-term safety of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi. Patients are intended to have five annual visits, followed by 10 annual phone calls, and the investigators request local physicians or neurologists to transfer patient records. Safety assessments include medical history and record review, physical examination, clinical laboratory evaluation, and pulmonary assessments. Efficacy assessments include evaluation of the maintenance of developmental milestones.

As of May 31, 2019, 13 patients in two cohorts had been enrolled and had had a baseline visit. For patients in Cohort 2, the mean age and time since dosing were 4.2 years and 3.9 years, respectively. All patients in Cohort 2 were alive and did not require permanent ventilation. Participants did not lose any developmental milestones that they had achieved at the end of START. Two patients were able to walk, and two could stand with assistance during long-term follow-up. This result suggests the durability of the treatment’s effect. No new treatment-related serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest had occurred as of March 8, 2019.

“We know from accumulating experience that treating infants by gene therapy is safe,” said Jerry R. Mendell, MD, the principal investigator and an attending neurologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. “Of the 15 patients we had in our first trial, only four adverse events related to the gene delivery were encountered, and only two of these were considered serious adverse events [i.e., liver enzymes that were 10 times greater than normal laboratory levels]. These laboratory tests occurred without accompanying clinical symptoms or signs. All were suppressed by corticosteroids and related to the liver inflammation. This pattern of safety has been seen in our very large gene therapy experience. No long-term surprises were encountered.”

The START study was sponsored by AveXis. Several of the investigators are employees of AveXis, and others received funding from the company.
 

Update on the SPR1NT study

Interim safety and efficacy data from the ongoing SPR1NT study, which includes presymptomatic patients, also were scheduled to be presented. The trial “was built on the basic premise that spinal motor neuron degeneration associated with SMN protein deficiency begins in utero, continues to progress rapidly during the first months of life, and is irreversible,” said Kevin Strauss, MD, medical director of the Clinic for Special Children in Strasburg, Pennsylvania. “SPR1NT leveraged the advantages conferred by carrier testing and newborn screening programs for SMA, which allowed the first 22 children enrolled to have a confirmed molecular diagnosis between 1 and 26 days of postnatal life, before the onset of dysphagia, respiratory compromise, or overt weakness.”

In this multicenter, open-label, phase 3 trial, presymptomatic patients age 6 weeks or younger who are expected to develop SMA receive onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi once and are evaluated during 18 or 24 months. The primary outcomes are sitting for 30 or more seconds for infants with two copies of SMN2 and standing unassisted for infants with three copies of SMN2.

As of December 31, 2019, 29 infants had been treated in the efficacy group at a mean age of 20.6 days among infants with two copies of SMN2 and 28.7 days among infants with three copies of SMN2. All patients are alive, and no patient in SPR1NT required ventilation support at last visit. Among 14 patients with two copies of SMN2, all achieved CHOP INTEND scores of 50 or greater, which exceeds the maximal score observed in untreated patients. Eight have achieved sitting, seven of whom achieved it within the World Health Organization sitting age range of 3.8-9.2 months. The other six patients have not yet passed the WHO developmental window. Among 15 patients with three copies of SMN2, four stood independently and three walked independently, all within the WHO developmental windows of 6.9-16.9 months and 8.2-17.6 months, respectively. The other patients have not yet passed the WHO developmental window. No patient in either cohort required a feeding tube, and most remained within the normal weight range. Treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest were reported in 16 patients. The study is ongoing, and patients continue to meet primary endpoints.

“Comparing functional and motor indices between these two groups [i.e., patients with two copies of SMN2 and those with three copies] should contribute to our understanding of how motor neuron loss during fetal development may impact long-term neurological outcomes over the arc of life and could even form a basis for considering antenatal gene therapy for severe forms of SMA,” said Dr. Strauss.

SPR1NT was funded by AveXis. Several of the investigators are employees of AveXis, and others received funding from the company.
 

Combination therapy may be a possibility

A benefit of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi is that the adeno-associated virus that delivers it does not integrate itself into the genome, said Darryl C. De Vivo, MD, Sidney Carter professor of neurology and professor of pediatrics at Columbia University in New York. “The bad news is that every time the cell divides, the gene therapy goes to one of the two daughter cells, but not to both. ... That means the effectiveness, in theory, would be reduced by 50% with each cell division, possibly affecting the durability of treatment.” The fact that brain and spinal cord neurons are presumed to be fully populated around the time of birth partly mitigates this concern, he added. “There isn’t too much additional cell division going on in neurons after birth at a time when the gene therapy would be administered.”

Furthermore, the cellular distribution of the gene therapy within the nervous system, which is unclear, might affect the therapy’s effect. “These are largely unanswered questions,” said Dr. De Vivo. “The answers to these questions only will come with continued observation of patients who have been treated.”

Considering that nusinersen, the antisense oligonucleotide also approved for SMA, targets SMN2, and the gene therapy replaces SMN1, “there may be some wisdom in thinking about combination therapy,” said Dr. De Vivo. “There’s no doubt that these therapeutic agents are effective,” and continued follow-up will clarify their comparative efficacy, he concluded.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCES: Day JW, et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S27.001. Mendell JR, et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S27.002. Strauss KA, et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S27.003.

Three investigations that had been scheduled for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology provide further detail about the efficacy and safety of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi in patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). The research was presented online as part of the 2020 AAN Science Highlights.

SMA results from a mutation in SMN1, which encodes the SMN protein necessary for motor function. Deficiency of this protein causes motor neurons to die, resulting in severe muscle weakness. At 2 years of age, untreated patients with SMA type 1 generally die or require permanent ventilation.

The Food and Drug Administration approved onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi under the brand name Zolgensma in May 2019. The gene-replacement therapy, which is administered once intravenously, delivers a fully functional copy of human SMN1 into the target motor neuron cells. It is indicated as treatment for SMA in infants younger than 2 years of age.
 

Preliminary STR1VE data

Preliminary data from the phase 3 STR1VE study were scheduled to be presented at the meeting. The open-label, single-arm, single-dose study enrolled symptomatic patients with SMA type 1 (SMA1) at multiple US sites. Enrollment was completed in May 2019.

The study included 10 male patients and 12 female patients. Participants’ mean age at dosing was 3.7 months. Of 19 patients who could have reached age 13.6 months at data cutoff, 17 (89.5%) were surviving without permanent ventilation, compared with a 25% survival rate among untreated patients. One of the 19 patients died, and the event was judged to be unrelated to treatment. Another of the 19 reached a respiratory endpoint or withdrew consent.

The population’s mean baseline Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders (CHOP INTEND) score was 32. This score increased by 6.9, 11.7, and 14.3 points at months 1, 3, and 5, respectively. Half of the 22 infants sat independently for 30 or more seconds, and this milestone was achieved at a mean of 8.2 months after treatment. Five of six (83%) patients age 18 months or older sat independently for 30 or more seconds, which was one of the study’s primary endpoints. As of March 8, 2019, treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest were transient and not associated with any sequelae.

The STR1VE study was sponsored by AveXis, the maker of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi. Several of the investigators are employees of AveXis, and others received funding from the company.
 

Long-term follow-up in START

Long-term follow-up data for participants in the phase 1/2a START study also were scheduled to be presented. Patients who completed START were eligible to participate, and the trial’s primary aim was to evaluate the long-term safety of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi. Patients are intended to have five annual visits, followed by 10 annual phone calls, and the investigators request local physicians or neurologists to transfer patient records. Safety assessments include medical history and record review, physical examination, clinical laboratory evaluation, and pulmonary assessments. Efficacy assessments include evaluation of the maintenance of developmental milestones.

As of May 31, 2019, 13 patients in two cohorts had been enrolled and had had a baseline visit. For patients in Cohort 2, the mean age and time since dosing were 4.2 years and 3.9 years, respectively. All patients in Cohort 2 were alive and did not require permanent ventilation. Participants did not lose any developmental milestones that they had achieved at the end of START. Two patients were able to walk, and two could stand with assistance during long-term follow-up. This result suggests the durability of the treatment’s effect. No new treatment-related serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest had occurred as of March 8, 2019.

“We know from accumulating experience that treating infants by gene therapy is safe,” said Jerry R. Mendell, MD, the principal investigator and an attending neurologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. “Of the 15 patients we had in our first trial, only four adverse events related to the gene delivery were encountered, and only two of these were considered serious adverse events [i.e., liver enzymes that were 10 times greater than normal laboratory levels]. These laboratory tests occurred without accompanying clinical symptoms or signs. All were suppressed by corticosteroids and related to the liver inflammation. This pattern of safety has been seen in our very large gene therapy experience. No long-term surprises were encountered.”

The START study was sponsored by AveXis. Several of the investigators are employees of AveXis, and others received funding from the company.
 

Update on the SPR1NT study

Interim safety and efficacy data from the ongoing SPR1NT study, which includes presymptomatic patients, also were scheduled to be presented. The trial “was built on the basic premise that spinal motor neuron degeneration associated with SMN protein deficiency begins in utero, continues to progress rapidly during the first months of life, and is irreversible,” said Kevin Strauss, MD, medical director of the Clinic for Special Children in Strasburg, Pennsylvania. “SPR1NT leveraged the advantages conferred by carrier testing and newborn screening programs for SMA, which allowed the first 22 children enrolled to have a confirmed molecular diagnosis between 1 and 26 days of postnatal life, before the onset of dysphagia, respiratory compromise, or overt weakness.”

In this multicenter, open-label, phase 3 trial, presymptomatic patients age 6 weeks or younger who are expected to develop SMA receive onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi once and are evaluated during 18 or 24 months. The primary outcomes are sitting for 30 or more seconds for infants with two copies of SMN2 and standing unassisted for infants with three copies of SMN2.

As of December 31, 2019, 29 infants had been treated in the efficacy group at a mean age of 20.6 days among infants with two copies of SMN2 and 28.7 days among infants with three copies of SMN2. All patients are alive, and no patient in SPR1NT required ventilation support at last visit. Among 14 patients with two copies of SMN2, all achieved CHOP INTEND scores of 50 or greater, which exceeds the maximal score observed in untreated patients. Eight have achieved sitting, seven of whom achieved it within the World Health Organization sitting age range of 3.8-9.2 months. The other six patients have not yet passed the WHO developmental window. Among 15 patients with three copies of SMN2, four stood independently and three walked independently, all within the WHO developmental windows of 6.9-16.9 months and 8.2-17.6 months, respectively. The other patients have not yet passed the WHO developmental window. No patient in either cohort required a feeding tube, and most remained within the normal weight range. Treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest were reported in 16 patients. The study is ongoing, and patients continue to meet primary endpoints.

“Comparing functional and motor indices between these two groups [i.e., patients with two copies of SMN2 and those with three copies] should contribute to our understanding of how motor neuron loss during fetal development may impact long-term neurological outcomes over the arc of life and could even form a basis for considering antenatal gene therapy for severe forms of SMA,” said Dr. Strauss.

SPR1NT was funded by AveXis. Several of the investigators are employees of AveXis, and others received funding from the company.
 

Combination therapy may be a possibility

A benefit of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi is that the adeno-associated virus that delivers it does not integrate itself into the genome, said Darryl C. De Vivo, MD, Sidney Carter professor of neurology and professor of pediatrics at Columbia University in New York. “The bad news is that every time the cell divides, the gene therapy goes to one of the two daughter cells, but not to both. ... That means the effectiveness, in theory, would be reduced by 50% with each cell division, possibly affecting the durability of treatment.” The fact that brain and spinal cord neurons are presumed to be fully populated around the time of birth partly mitigates this concern, he added. “There isn’t too much additional cell division going on in neurons after birth at a time when the gene therapy would be administered.”

Furthermore, the cellular distribution of the gene therapy within the nervous system, which is unclear, might affect the therapy’s effect. “These are largely unanswered questions,” said Dr. De Vivo. “The answers to these questions only will come with continued observation of patients who have been treated.”

Considering that nusinersen, the antisense oligonucleotide also approved for SMA, targets SMN2, and the gene therapy replaces SMN1, “there may be some wisdom in thinking about combination therapy,” said Dr. De Vivo. “There’s no doubt that these therapeutic agents are effective,” and continued follow-up will clarify their comparative efficacy, he concluded.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCES: Day JW, et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S27.001. Mendell JR, et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S27.002. Strauss KA, et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S27.003.

Three investigations that had been scheduled for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology provide further detail about the efficacy and safety of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi in patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). The research was presented online as part of the 2020 AAN Science Highlights.

SMA results from a mutation in SMN1, which encodes the SMN protein necessary for motor function. Deficiency of this protein causes motor neurons to die, resulting in severe muscle weakness. At 2 years of age, untreated patients with SMA type 1 generally die or require permanent ventilation.

The Food and Drug Administration approved onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi under the brand name Zolgensma in May 2019. The gene-replacement therapy, which is administered once intravenously, delivers a fully functional copy of human SMN1 into the target motor neuron cells. It is indicated as treatment for SMA in infants younger than 2 years of age.
 

Preliminary STR1VE data

Preliminary data from the phase 3 STR1VE study were scheduled to be presented at the meeting. The open-label, single-arm, single-dose study enrolled symptomatic patients with SMA type 1 (SMA1) at multiple US sites. Enrollment was completed in May 2019.

The study included 10 male patients and 12 female patients. Participants’ mean age at dosing was 3.7 months. Of 19 patients who could have reached age 13.6 months at data cutoff, 17 (89.5%) were surviving without permanent ventilation, compared with a 25% survival rate among untreated patients. One of the 19 patients died, and the event was judged to be unrelated to treatment. Another of the 19 reached a respiratory endpoint or withdrew consent.

The population’s mean baseline Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Infant Test of Neuromuscular Disorders (CHOP INTEND) score was 32. This score increased by 6.9, 11.7, and 14.3 points at months 1, 3, and 5, respectively. Half of the 22 infants sat independently for 30 or more seconds, and this milestone was achieved at a mean of 8.2 months after treatment. Five of six (83%) patients age 18 months or older sat independently for 30 or more seconds, which was one of the study’s primary endpoints. As of March 8, 2019, treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest were transient and not associated with any sequelae.

The STR1VE study was sponsored by AveXis, the maker of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi. Several of the investigators are employees of AveXis, and others received funding from the company.
 

Long-term follow-up in START

Long-term follow-up data for participants in the phase 1/2a START study also were scheduled to be presented. Patients who completed START were eligible to participate, and the trial’s primary aim was to evaluate the long-term safety of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi. Patients are intended to have five annual visits, followed by 10 annual phone calls, and the investigators request local physicians or neurologists to transfer patient records. Safety assessments include medical history and record review, physical examination, clinical laboratory evaluation, and pulmonary assessments. Efficacy assessments include evaluation of the maintenance of developmental milestones.

As of May 31, 2019, 13 patients in two cohorts had been enrolled and had had a baseline visit. For patients in Cohort 2, the mean age and time since dosing were 4.2 years and 3.9 years, respectively. All patients in Cohort 2 were alive and did not require permanent ventilation. Participants did not lose any developmental milestones that they had achieved at the end of START. Two patients were able to walk, and two could stand with assistance during long-term follow-up. This result suggests the durability of the treatment’s effect. No new treatment-related serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest had occurred as of March 8, 2019.

“We know from accumulating experience that treating infants by gene therapy is safe,” said Jerry R. Mendell, MD, the principal investigator and an attending neurologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. “Of the 15 patients we had in our first trial, only four adverse events related to the gene delivery were encountered, and only two of these were considered serious adverse events [i.e., liver enzymes that were 10 times greater than normal laboratory levels]. These laboratory tests occurred without accompanying clinical symptoms or signs. All were suppressed by corticosteroids and related to the liver inflammation. This pattern of safety has been seen in our very large gene therapy experience. No long-term surprises were encountered.”

The START study was sponsored by AveXis. Several of the investigators are employees of AveXis, and others received funding from the company.
 

Update on the SPR1NT study

Interim safety and efficacy data from the ongoing SPR1NT study, which includes presymptomatic patients, also were scheduled to be presented. The trial “was built on the basic premise that spinal motor neuron degeneration associated with SMN protein deficiency begins in utero, continues to progress rapidly during the first months of life, and is irreversible,” said Kevin Strauss, MD, medical director of the Clinic for Special Children in Strasburg, Pennsylvania. “SPR1NT leveraged the advantages conferred by carrier testing and newborn screening programs for SMA, which allowed the first 22 children enrolled to have a confirmed molecular diagnosis between 1 and 26 days of postnatal life, before the onset of dysphagia, respiratory compromise, or overt weakness.”

In this multicenter, open-label, phase 3 trial, presymptomatic patients age 6 weeks or younger who are expected to develop SMA receive onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi once and are evaluated during 18 or 24 months. The primary outcomes are sitting for 30 or more seconds for infants with two copies of SMN2 and standing unassisted for infants with three copies of SMN2.

As of December 31, 2019, 29 infants had been treated in the efficacy group at a mean age of 20.6 days among infants with two copies of SMN2 and 28.7 days among infants with three copies of SMN2. All patients are alive, and no patient in SPR1NT required ventilation support at last visit. Among 14 patients with two copies of SMN2, all achieved CHOP INTEND scores of 50 or greater, which exceeds the maximal score observed in untreated patients. Eight have achieved sitting, seven of whom achieved it within the World Health Organization sitting age range of 3.8-9.2 months. The other six patients have not yet passed the WHO developmental window. Among 15 patients with three copies of SMN2, four stood independently and three walked independently, all within the WHO developmental windows of 6.9-16.9 months and 8.2-17.6 months, respectively. The other patients have not yet passed the WHO developmental window. No patient in either cohort required a feeding tube, and most remained within the normal weight range. Treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest were reported in 16 patients. The study is ongoing, and patients continue to meet primary endpoints.

“Comparing functional and motor indices between these two groups [i.e., patients with two copies of SMN2 and those with three copies] should contribute to our understanding of how motor neuron loss during fetal development may impact long-term neurological outcomes over the arc of life and could even form a basis for considering antenatal gene therapy for severe forms of SMA,” said Dr. Strauss.

SPR1NT was funded by AveXis. Several of the investigators are employees of AveXis, and others received funding from the company.
 

Combination therapy may be a possibility

A benefit of onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi is that the adeno-associated virus that delivers it does not integrate itself into the genome, said Darryl C. De Vivo, MD, Sidney Carter professor of neurology and professor of pediatrics at Columbia University in New York. “The bad news is that every time the cell divides, the gene therapy goes to one of the two daughter cells, but not to both. ... That means the effectiveness, in theory, would be reduced by 50% with each cell division, possibly affecting the durability of treatment.” The fact that brain and spinal cord neurons are presumed to be fully populated around the time of birth partly mitigates this concern, he added. “There isn’t too much additional cell division going on in neurons after birth at a time when the gene therapy would be administered.”

Furthermore, the cellular distribution of the gene therapy within the nervous system, which is unclear, might affect the therapy’s effect. “These are largely unanswered questions,” said Dr. De Vivo. “The answers to these questions only will come with continued observation of patients who have been treated.”

Considering that nusinersen, the antisense oligonucleotide also approved for SMA, targets SMN2, and the gene therapy replaces SMN1, “there may be some wisdom in thinking about combination therapy,” said Dr. De Vivo. “There’s no doubt that these therapeutic agents are effective,” and continued follow-up will clarify their comparative efficacy, he concluded.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCES: Day JW, et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S27.001. Mendell JR, et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S27.002. Strauss KA, et al. AAN 2020. Abstract S27.003.

Friends of mine who work in the ED have noticed a drop-off in patients. Granted, so has my office, but theirs is a little less expected.

It’s not just in my region. An article on this site last week mentioned the same phenomenon. Not just minor stuff but visits for more serious conditions also have decreased. This means that either people are currently choosing to ignore those things entirely or are trying to get them handled at a later date in the outpatient setting.

Neither one is good.

One friend pointed out that since a fair percentage of visits to the ED aren’t really “emergencies” maybe this is part of the reason. With all the news about COVID-19, the risk of going to the ED for something minor isn’t worth it. This may apply to some, but not all. Certainly, if it clarifies to people what is and isn’t an emergency, that would be helpful to prevent ED overuse in the future.

Every day we all face a countless number of decisions, each with its own risks and benefits. When the question of whether or not to go to an ED comes up, usually the only perceived drawbacks are costs in time and money, compared with the benefit of believing you’re going to get the problem “fixed.”

In the era of coronavirus, with daily news reports on its spread and casualties, the risk of going to the ED is perceived to be higher, and so people are more willing to stay away. If you were going in for a sinus infection, this is probably a good idea. If you’re having a more serious problem and staying home ...

A cost of the pandemic that will come to light in the future will be people who unknowingly survived mild cardiac events, strokes, and other potentially serious problems. While they may do okay in the short term, in the long run they may not be aware they had a problem and so it will continue to go untreated. Coronary or cerebrovascular arteries that need to be reopened won’t be. People with poorly controlled hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes won’t be started on medications they need until it may be too late to avoid more serious outcomes.

Likewise, I worry about an uptick in cancer-related deaths down the road. With the shutdown of many nonurgent procedures, patients may have missed a window for early diagnosis of a malignancy, either because the procedure wasn’t available or they were reluctant to venture out.

Medical data from 2020 will be analyzed many times in the coming years, not just for coronavirus, but for its effects on medical care as a whole. As the first worldwide pandemic of the information age, there will be a lot of lessons to be learned as to how medicine, science, and society in general should and should not respond. Both good and bad things will be learned, but whatever knowledge is gained will be critical for the inevitable next pandemic.

The future world is watching.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Friends of mine who work in the ED have noticed a drop-off in patients. Granted, so has my office, but theirs is a little less expected.

It’s not just in my region. An article on this site last week mentioned the same phenomenon. Not just minor stuff but visits for more serious conditions also have decreased. This means that either people are currently choosing to ignore those things entirely or are trying to get them handled at a later date in the outpatient setting.

Neither one is good.

One friend pointed out that since a fair percentage of visits to the ED aren’t really “emergencies” maybe this is part of the reason. With all the news about COVID-19, the risk of going to the ED for something minor isn’t worth it. This may apply to some, but not all. Certainly, if it clarifies to people what is and isn’t an emergency, that would be helpful to prevent ED overuse in the future.

Every day we all face a countless number of decisions, each with its own risks and benefits. When the question of whether or not to go to an ED comes up, usually the only perceived drawbacks are costs in time and money, compared with the benefit of believing you’re going to get the problem “fixed.”

In the era of coronavirus, with daily news reports on its spread and casualties, the risk of going to the ED is perceived to be higher, and so people are more willing to stay away. If you were going in for a sinus infection, this is probably a good idea. If you’re having a more serious problem and staying home ...

A cost of the pandemic that will come to light in the future will be people who unknowingly survived mild cardiac events, strokes, and other potentially serious problems. While they may do okay in the short term, in the long run they may not be aware they had a problem and so it will continue to go untreated. Coronary or cerebrovascular arteries that need to be reopened won’t be. People with poorly controlled hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes won’t be started on medications they need until it may be too late to avoid more serious outcomes.

Likewise, I worry about an uptick in cancer-related deaths down the road. With the shutdown of many nonurgent procedures, patients may have missed a window for early diagnosis of a malignancy, either because the procedure wasn’t available or they were reluctant to venture out.

Medical data from 2020 will be analyzed many times in the coming years, not just for coronavirus, but for its effects on medical care as a whole. As the first worldwide pandemic of the information age, there will be a lot of lessons to be learned as to how medicine, science, and society in general should and should not respond. Both good and bad things will be learned, but whatever knowledge is gained will be critical for the inevitable next pandemic.

The future world is watching.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Friends of mine who work in the ED have noticed a drop-off in patients. Granted, so has my office, but theirs is a little less expected.

It’s not just in my region. An article on this site last week mentioned the same phenomenon. Not just minor stuff but visits for more serious conditions also have decreased. This means that either people are currently choosing to ignore those things entirely or are trying to get them handled at a later date in the outpatient setting.

Neither one is good.

One friend pointed out that since a fair percentage of visits to the ED aren’t really “emergencies” maybe this is part of the reason. With all the news about COVID-19, the risk of going to the ED for something minor isn’t worth it. This may apply to some, but not all. Certainly, if it clarifies to people what is and isn’t an emergency, that would be helpful to prevent ED overuse in the future.

Every day we all face a countless number of decisions, each with its own risks and benefits. When the question of whether or not to go to an ED comes up, usually the only perceived drawbacks are costs in time and money, compared with the benefit of believing you’re going to get the problem “fixed.”

In the era of coronavirus, with daily news reports on its spread and casualties, the risk of going to the ED is perceived to be higher, and so people are more willing to stay away. If you were going in for a sinus infection, this is probably a good idea. If you’re having a more serious problem and staying home ...

A cost of the pandemic that will come to light in the future will be people who unknowingly survived mild cardiac events, strokes, and other potentially serious problems. While they may do okay in the short term, in the long run they may not be aware they had a problem and so it will continue to go untreated. Coronary or cerebrovascular arteries that need to be reopened won’t be. People with poorly controlled hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes won’t be started on medications they need until it may be too late to avoid more serious outcomes.

Likewise, I worry about an uptick in cancer-related deaths down the road. With the shutdown of many nonurgent procedures, patients may have missed a window for early diagnosis of a malignancy, either because the procedure wasn’t available or they were reluctant to venture out.

Medical data from 2020 will be analyzed many times in the coming years, not just for coronavirus, but for its effects on medical care as a whole. As the first worldwide pandemic of the information age, there will be a lot of lessons to be learned as to how medicine, science, and society in general should and should not respond. Both good and bad things will be learned, but whatever knowledge is gained will be critical for the inevitable next pandemic.

The future world is watching.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Certain patterns of frontal lobe glucose hypometabolism may be associated with higher risk for sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) among patients with refractory focal epilepsy, new research suggests.

“The data provide initial evidence that hypometabolism in certain parts of the frontal cortex may be associated with higher SUDEP risk,” said lead author Maysaa M. Basha, MD, associate professor of neurology and director of the Adult Comprehensive Epilepsy Program, Wayne State University/Detroit Medical Center, in Michigan.

If this research is validated, “it potentially can be used to screen patients for higher SUDEP risk,” she said. The idea is to identify those at high risk and then reduce that risk with more aggressive management of seizures or closer monitoring in certain cases, she added.

The research is being presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Science Highlights.
 

Hypometabolism

Dr. Basha and colleagues were encouraged to pursue this new line of research after a pilot [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography (FDG-PET) study revealed frontal lobe hypometabolism among patients who subsequently died.

“We wanted to determine if such a metabolic abnormality is associated with SUDEP risk,” said Dr. Basha. She noted that no PET studies have addressed this question, only MRI studies.

In this new study, researchers aimed to identify specific patterns of objectively detected brain glucose metabolic abnormalities in patients with refractory focal epilepsy who were at risk for SUDEP.

The study included 80 patients (45 female patients) aged 16 to 61 years (mean age, 37 years) who underwent FDG-PET as part of their presurgical evaluation for epilepsy surgery. Patients with large brain lesions, such as an infarct or a large tumor, were excluded from the study; such lesions can affect the accuracy of an objective PET analysis, explained Dr. Basha.

The researchers assessed risk for SUDEP using the seven-item SUDEP inventory (SUDEP-7), which was developed as a marker of clinical SUDEP risk. The 0- to 10-point scale is used to evaluate the frequency of tonic-clonic and other seizures, the duration of epilepsy, the use of antiepileptic drugs, and intellectual disability.

The researchers calculated SUDEP-7 inventory scores as closely as possible to FDG-PET assessments. The mean score in the patient population was 3.6.

The investigators divided participants into two subgroups: 22 patients had a SUDEP score of 5 or greater; and 58 had a score of less than 5 (higher scores indicate higher risk for SUDEP).

The researchers compared PET scans of each of these subgroups to PET scans from healthy adults to determine whether they showed common areas of metabolic abnormality. For this, they used an image analytic software program called Statistical Parametric Mapping, which compares group values of metabolic activity measured in small units of the brain (voxels) with statistical methods.

The analysis showed that the higher-risk group displayed a common pattern of hypometabolism in certain brain areas.

“The epilepsy patient subgroup with high SUDEP risk showed areas of decreased metabolism, as compared to the control group, in portions of the frontal cortex,” said Dr. Basha. “The statistically most significant decreases were in the right frontal lobe area—both lateral convexity and medial cortex.”

Dr. Basha added that these group abnormalities were “remarkably similar” to the individual metabolic abnormalities found in the four SUDEP patients in the previous pilot study who underwent PET scanning and who subsequently died.

A similar group analysis showed that the group at low SUDEP risk displayed no common metabolic abnormalities.

MRI findings were normal for 40 patients.

Dr. Basha and colleagues believe that “this is the first PET study assessing the metabolic correlates of SUDEP risk on the group level.”
 

Common feature

Interictal glucose hypometabolism is “common in and around epileptic foci,” noted Dr. Basha. However, this could extend into nonepileptic regions—for example, to remote connected regions where seizures can spread from the primary focus and into subcortical gray matter structures, such the thalamus.

Some of these metabolic abnormalities may indicate subtle, microscopic, structural abnormalities in the affected brain, said Dr. Basha.

Abnormalities that are induced by epilepsy and that result from purely metabolic changes could be partly or fully reversed if seizures are controlled on a long-term basis, she said. “Some metabolic abnormalities can be reversed after better seizure control with antiepileptic drugs, epileptic surgery, or other antiepileptic treatment,” she said.

It’s “quite possible” that the same brain pattern would be evident in children with epilepsy, although her team has not performed the same analysis in a younger pediatric group, said Dr. Basha. She noted that it would be unethical to administer PET scans, which involve radiation, to young, healthy control persons.

It’s too early to recommend that all epilepsy patients undergo FDG-PET scanning to see whether this pattern of brain glucose hypometabolism is present, said Dr. Basha. “But if this is proven to be a good biomarker, the next step would be a prospective study” to see whether this brain marker is a true signal of SUDEP risk.

“I don’t think our single study would do that, but ultimately, that would be the goal,” she added.
 

One more piece of the SUDEP puzzle

Commenting on the study, William Davis Gaillard, MD, president of the American Epilepsy Society and chief of neurology, Children’s National Medical Center, Chevy Chase, Maryland, said this new information provides one more piece of the SUDEP puzzle but doesn’t complete the picture.

The study authors assessed PET scans of a group of patients and found common abnormalities that implicate the right medial frontal cortex. “That’s a pretty reasonable method” of investigation, said Dr. Gaillard.

“The challenge is that they’re looking at people they believe have a risk of SUDEP as opposed to people who died,” said Dr. Gaillard.

But he agreed that the results might signal “a biomarker” that “allows you to identify who’s at high risk, and then you may be able to intervene to save them.”

It’s not clear that people with frontal lobe epilepsy are at greater risk for SUDEP than those with temporal lobe epilepsy, he said.

“What you don’t know is whether this represents people with a seizure focus in that area or this represents a common network implicated in people with diverse forms of focal epilepsy; so you need to do some more work,” he said.

Dr. Gaillard pointed out that other research has implicated regions other than the mesial frontal cortex in SUDEP risk. These regions include the insula, the amygdala, the hippocampus, and the brain stem.

He also noted that the SUDEP-7, which has not been thoroughly validated, is designed for use only in adults.

In his own practice, he asks patients about the frequency of tonic-clonic seizures and whether they occur at night. The number of antiepileptic medications a patient takes reflects the difficulty of controlling seizures and may not be “an independent variable for risk,” said Dr. Gaillard.

“It’s clear one needs a better assessment and better idea of who is at risk,” he said.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Basha A et al. AAN 2020. Abstract P5.001.

Certain patterns of frontal lobe glucose hypometabolism may be associated with higher risk for sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) among patients with refractory focal epilepsy, new research suggests.

“The data provide initial evidence that hypometabolism in certain parts of the frontal cortex may be associated with higher SUDEP risk,” said lead author Maysaa M. Basha, MD, associate professor of neurology and director of the Adult Comprehensive Epilepsy Program, Wayne State University/Detroit Medical Center, in Michigan.

If this research is validated, “it potentially can be used to screen patients for higher SUDEP risk,” she said. The idea is to identify those at high risk and then reduce that risk with more aggressive management of seizures or closer monitoring in certain cases, she added.

The research is being presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Science Highlights.
 

Hypometabolism

Dr. Basha and colleagues were encouraged to pursue this new line of research after a pilot [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography (FDG-PET) study revealed frontal lobe hypometabolism among patients who subsequently died.

“We wanted to determine if such a metabolic abnormality is associated with SUDEP risk,” said Dr. Basha. She noted that no PET studies have addressed this question, only MRI studies.

In this new study, researchers aimed to identify specific patterns of objectively detected brain glucose metabolic abnormalities in patients with refractory focal epilepsy who were at risk for SUDEP.

The study included 80 patients (45 female patients) aged 16 to 61 years (mean age, 37 years) who underwent FDG-PET as part of their presurgical evaluation for epilepsy surgery. Patients with large brain lesions, such as an infarct or a large tumor, were excluded from the study; such lesions can affect the accuracy of an objective PET analysis, explained Dr. Basha.

The researchers assessed risk for SUDEP using the seven-item SUDEP inventory (SUDEP-7), which was developed as a marker of clinical SUDEP risk. The 0- to 10-point scale is used to evaluate the frequency of tonic-clonic and other seizures, the duration of epilepsy, the use of antiepileptic drugs, and intellectual disability.

The researchers calculated SUDEP-7 inventory scores as closely as possible to FDG-PET assessments. The mean score in the patient population was 3.6.

The investigators divided participants into two subgroups: 22 patients had a SUDEP score of 5 or greater; and 58 had a score of less than 5 (higher scores indicate higher risk for SUDEP).

The researchers compared PET scans of each of these subgroups to PET scans from healthy adults to determine whether they showed common areas of metabolic abnormality. For this, they used an image analytic software program called Statistical Parametric Mapping, which compares group values of metabolic activity measured in small units of the brain (voxels) with statistical methods.

The analysis showed that the higher-risk group displayed a common pattern of hypometabolism in certain brain areas.

“The epilepsy patient subgroup with high SUDEP risk showed areas of decreased metabolism, as compared to the control group, in portions of the frontal cortex,” said Dr. Basha. “The statistically most significant decreases were in the right frontal lobe area—both lateral convexity and medial cortex.”

Dr. Basha added that these group abnormalities were “remarkably similar” to the individual metabolic abnormalities found in the four SUDEP patients in the previous pilot study who underwent PET scanning and who subsequently died.

A similar group analysis showed that the group at low SUDEP risk displayed no common metabolic abnormalities.

MRI findings were normal for 40 patients.

Dr. Basha and colleagues believe that “this is the first PET study assessing the metabolic correlates of SUDEP risk on the group level.”
 

Common feature

Interictal glucose hypometabolism is “common in and around epileptic foci,” noted Dr. Basha. However, this could extend into nonepileptic regions—for example, to remote connected regions where seizures can spread from the primary focus and into subcortical gray matter structures, such the thalamus.

Some of these metabolic abnormalities may indicate subtle, microscopic, structural abnormalities in the affected brain, said Dr. Basha.

Abnormalities that are induced by epilepsy and that result from purely metabolic changes could be partly or fully reversed if seizures are controlled on a long-term basis, she said. “Some metabolic abnormalities can be reversed after better seizure control with antiepileptic drugs, epileptic surgery, or other antiepileptic treatment,” she said.

It’s “quite possible” that the same brain pattern would be evident in children with epilepsy, although her team has not performed the same analysis in a younger pediatric group, said Dr. Basha. She noted that it would be unethical to administer PET scans, which involve radiation, to young, healthy control persons.

It’s too early to recommend that all epilepsy patients undergo FDG-PET scanning to see whether this pattern of brain glucose hypometabolism is present, said Dr. Basha. “But if this is proven to be a good biomarker, the next step would be a prospective study” to see whether this brain marker is a true signal of SUDEP risk.

“I don’t think our single study would do that, but ultimately, that would be the goal,” she added.
 

One more piece of the SUDEP puzzle

Commenting on the study, William Davis Gaillard, MD, president of the American Epilepsy Society and chief of neurology, Children’s National Medical Center, Chevy Chase, Maryland, said this new information provides one more piece of the SUDEP puzzle but doesn’t complete the picture.

The study authors assessed PET scans of a group of patients and found common abnormalities that implicate the right medial frontal cortex. “That’s a pretty reasonable method” of investigation, said Dr. Gaillard.

“The challenge is that they’re looking at people they believe have a risk of SUDEP as opposed to people who died,” said Dr. Gaillard.

But he agreed that the results might signal “a biomarker” that “allows you to identify who’s at high risk, and then you may be able to intervene to save them.”

It’s not clear that people with frontal lobe epilepsy are at greater risk for SUDEP than those with temporal lobe epilepsy, he said.

“What you don’t know is whether this represents people with a seizure focus in that area or this represents a common network implicated in people with diverse forms of focal epilepsy; so you need to do some more work,” he said.

Dr. Gaillard pointed out that other research has implicated regions other than the mesial frontal cortex in SUDEP risk. These regions include the insula, the amygdala, the hippocampus, and the brain stem.

He also noted that the SUDEP-7, which has not been thoroughly validated, is designed for use only in adults.

In his own practice, he asks patients about the frequency of tonic-clonic seizures and whether they occur at night. The number of antiepileptic medications a patient takes reflects the difficulty of controlling seizures and may not be “an independent variable for risk,” said Dr. Gaillard.

“It’s clear one needs a better assessment and better idea of who is at risk,” he said.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Basha A et al. AAN 2020. Abstract P5.001.

Certain patterns of frontal lobe glucose hypometabolism may be associated with higher risk for sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) among patients with refractory focal epilepsy, new research suggests.

“The data provide initial evidence that hypometabolism in certain parts of the frontal cortex may be associated with higher SUDEP risk,” said lead author Maysaa M. Basha, MD, associate professor of neurology and director of the Adult Comprehensive Epilepsy Program, Wayne State University/Detroit Medical Center, in Michigan.

If this research is validated, “it potentially can be used to screen patients for higher SUDEP risk,” she said. The idea is to identify those at high risk and then reduce that risk with more aggressive management of seizures or closer monitoring in certain cases, she added.

The research is being presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Science Highlights.
 

Hypometabolism

Dr. Basha and colleagues were encouraged to pursue this new line of research after a pilot [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography (FDG-PET) study revealed frontal lobe hypometabolism among patients who subsequently died.

“We wanted to determine if such a metabolic abnormality is associated with SUDEP risk,” said Dr. Basha. She noted that no PET studies have addressed this question, only MRI studies.

In this new study, researchers aimed to identify specific patterns of objectively detected brain glucose metabolic abnormalities in patients with refractory focal epilepsy who were at risk for SUDEP.

The study included 80 patients (45 female patients) aged 16 to 61 years (mean age, 37 years) who underwent FDG-PET as part of their presurgical evaluation for epilepsy surgery. Patients with large brain lesions, such as an infarct or a large tumor, were excluded from the study; such lesions can affect the accuracy of an objective PET analysis, explained Dr. Basha.

The researchers assessed risk for SUDEP using the seven-item SUDEP inventory (SUDEP-7), which was developed as a marker of clinical SUDEP risk. The 0- to 10-point scale is used to evaluate the frequency of tonic-clonic and other seizures, the duration of epilepsy, the use of antiepileptic drugs, and intellectual disability.

The researchers calculated SUDEP-7 inventory scores as closely as possible to FDG-PET assessments. The mean score in the patient population was 3.6.

The investigators divided participants into two subgroups: 22 patients had a SUDEP score of 5 or greater; and 58 had a score of less than 5 (higher scores indicate higher risk for SUDEP).

The researchers compared PET scans of each of these subgroups to PET scans from healthy adults to determine whether they showed common areas of metabolic abnormality. For this, they used an image analytic software program called Statistical Parametric Mapping, which compares group values of metabolic activity measured in small units of the brain (voxels) with statistical methods.

The analysis showed that the higher-risk group displayed a common pattern of hypometabolism in certain brain areas.

“The epilepsy patient subgroup with high SUDEP risk showed areas of decreased metabolism, as compared to the control group, in portions of the frontal cortex,” said Dr. Basha. “The statistically most significant decreases were in the right frontal lobe area—both lateral convexity and medial cortex.”

Dr. Basha added that these group abnormalities were “remarkably similar” to the individual metabolic abnormalities found in the four SUDEP patients in the previous pilot study who underwent PET scanning and who subsequently died.

A similar group analysis showed that the group at low SUDEP risk displayed no common metabolic abnormalities.

MRI findings were normal for 40 patients.

Dr. Basha and colleagues believe that “this is the first PET study assessing the metabolic correlates of SUDEP risk on the group level.”
 

Common feature

Interictal glucose hypometabolism is “common in and around epileptic foci,” noted Dr. Basha. However, this could extend into nonepileptic regions—for example, to remote connected regions where seizures can spread from the primary focus and into subcortical gray matter structures, such the thalamus.

Some of these metabolic abnormalities may indicate subtle, microscopic, structural abnormalities in the affected brain, said Dr. Basha.

Abnormalities that are induced by epilepsy and that result from purely metabolic changes could be partly or fully reversed if seizures are controlled on a long-term basis, she said. “Some metabolic abnormalities can be reversed after better seizure control with antiepileptic drugs, epileptic surgery, or other antiepileptic treatment,” she said.

It’s “quite possible” that the same brain pattern would be evident in children with epilepsy, although her team has not performed the same analysis in a younger pediatric group, said Dr. Basha. She noted that it would be unethical to administer PET scans, which involve radiation, to young, healthy control persons.

It’s too early to recommend that all epilepsy patients undergo FDG-PET scanning to see whether this pattern of brain glucose hypometabolism is present, said Dr. Basha. “But if this is proven to be a good biomarker, the next step would be a prospective study” to see whether this brain marker is a true signal of SUDEP risk.

“I don’t think our single study would do that, but ultimately, that would be the goal,” she added.
 

One more piece of the SUDEP puzzle

Commenting on the study, William Davis Gaillard, MD, president of the American Epilepsy Society and chief of neurology, Children’s National Medical Center, Chevy Chase, Maryland, said this new information provides one more piece of the SUDEP puzzle but doesn’t complete the picture.

The study authors assessed PET scans of a group of patients and found common abnormalities that implicate the right medial frontal cortex. “That’s a pretty reasonable method” of investigation, said Dr. Gaillard.

“The challenge is that they’re looking at people they believe have a risk of SUDEP as opposed to people who died,” said Dr. Gaillard.

But he agreed that the results might signal “a biomarker” that “allows you to identify who’s at high risk, and then you may be able to intervene to save them.”

It’s not clear that people with frontal lobe epilepsy are at greater risk for SUDEP than those with temporal lobe epilepsy, he said.

“What you don’t know is whether this represents people with a seizure focus in that area or this represents a common network implicated in people with diverse forms of focal epilepsy; so you need to do some more work,” he said.

Dr. Gaillard pointed out that other research has implicated regions other than the mesial frontal cortex in SUDEP risk. These regions include the insula, the amygdala, the hippocampus, and the brain stem.

He also noted that the SUDEP-7, which has not been thoroughly validated, is designed for use only in adults.

In his own practice, he asks patients about the frequency of tonic-clonic seizures and whether they occur at night. The number of antiepileptic medications a patient takes reflects the difficulty of controlling seizures and may not be “an independent variable for risk,” said Dr. Gaillard.

“It’s clear one needs a better assessment and better idea of who is at risk,” he said.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Basha A et al. AAN 2020. Abstract P5.001.

Reports have emerged about the unique vulnerability of psychiatric hospitals to the ravages of COVID-19.

In a South Korea psychiatric hospital, 101 of 103 patients contracted SARS-CoV-2 during an outbreak; 7 eventually died.^1,2 This report, among a few others, have led to the development of psychiatric COVID-19–positive units (PCU). However, it remains highly unclear how many are currently open, where they are located, or what their operations are like.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear to us that, as a public health measure, it would be necessary to test all patients for COVID-19 who were being considered for admission to our inpatient psychiatric units. We knew that we could not allow a medically asymptomatic “covertly” COVID-19–positive patient to be introduced to the social community of our inpatient units because of the risks of transmission to other patients and staff.

In coordination with our health system infection prevention experts, we have therefore required a confirmed negative COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction nasal swab performed no more than 48 hours prior to the time/date of acute psychiatric inpatient admission. Furthermore, as part of the broad health system response and surge planning, we were asked by our respective incident command centers to begin planning for a Psychiatric COVID-19–positive Unit (PCU) that might allow us to safely care for a cohort of patients needing such hospitalization.

It is worth emphasizing that the typical patient who is a candidate for a PCU is so acutely psychiatrically ill that they cannot be managed in a less restrictive environment than an inpatient psychiatric unit and, at the same time, is likely to not be medically ill enough to warrant admission to an internal medicine service in a general acute care hospital.

We have identified eight principles and critical decision points that can help inpatient units plan for the safe care of COVID-19–positive patients on a PCU.

1. Triage: Patients admitted to a PCU should be medically stable, particularly with regard to COVID-19 and respiratory symptomatology. PCUs should establish clear criteria for admission and discharge (or medical transfer). Examples of potential exclusionary criteria to a PCU include:

• Respiratory distress, shortness of breath, hypoxia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, or requirement for respiratory therapy breathing treatments.
• Fever, or signs of sepsis, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome.
• Medical frailty, significant medical comorbidities, delirium, or altered mental status;
• Requirements for continuous vital sign monitoring or of a monitoring frequency beyond the capacity of the PCU.

Discharge criteria may also include a symptom-based strategy because emerging evidence suggests that patients may be less infectious by day 10-14 of the disease course,³ and viral lab testing is very sensitive and will be positive for periods of time after individuals are no longer infectious. The symptom-based strategy allows for patients to not require retesting prior to discharge. However, some receiving facilities (for example residential or skilled nursing facilities) may necessitate testing, in which case a testing-based strategy can be used. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides guidelines for both types of strategies.⁴

2. Infection control and personal protective equipment: PCUs require modifications or departures from the typical inpatient free-ranging environment in which common areas are provided for patients to engage in a community of care, including group therapy (such as occupational, recreational, Alcoholics Anonymous, and social work groups).

• Isolation: PCUs must consider whether they will require patients to isolate to their rooms or to allow modified or limited access to “public” or “community” areas. While there do not appear to be standard recommendations from the CDC or other public health entities regarding negative pressure or any specific room ventilation requirements, it is prudent to work with local infectious disease experts on protocols. Important considerations include spatial planning for infection control areas to don and doff appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and appropriate workspace to prevent contamination of non–COVID-19 work areas. Approaches can include establishing clearly identified and visually demarcated infection control “zones” (often referred to as “hot, warm, and cold zones”) that correspond to specific PPE requirements for staff. In addition, individuals should eat in their own rooms or designated areas because use of common areas for meals can potentially lead to aerosolized spread of the virus.
• Cohorting: Generally, PCUs should consider admitting only COVID-19–positive patients to a PCU to avoid exposure to other patients. Hospitals and health systems should determine protocols and locations for testing and managing “patients under investigation” for COVID-19, which should precede admission to the PCU.
• PPE: It is important to clearly establish and communicate PPE requirements and procedures for direct physical contact versus no physical contact (for example, visual safety checks). Identify clear supply chains for PPE and hand sanitizer.

3. Medical management and consultation: PCUs should establish clear pathways for accessing consultation from medical consultants. It may be ideal, in addition to standard daily psychiatric physician rounding, to have daily internal medicine rounding and/or medical nursing staff working on the unit. Given the potential of COVID-19–positive patients to rapidly devolve from asymptomatic to acutely ill, it is necessary to establish protocols for the provision of urgent medical care 24/7 and streamlined processes for transfer to a medical unit.

Clear protocols should be established to address any potential signs of decompensation in the respiratory status of a PCU unit, including administration of oxygen and restrictions (or appropriate precautions) related to aerosolizing treatment such as nebulizers or positive airway pressure.

4. Code blue protocol: Any emergent medical issues, including acute respiratory decompensation, should trigger a Code Blue response that has been specifically designed for COVID-19–positive patients, including considerations for proper PPE during resuscitation efforts.

• Telehealth: Clinicians (such as physicians, social workers, occupational therapists) should leverage and maximize the use of telemedicine to minimize direct or prolonged exposure to infectious disease risks.
• Nursing: It is important to establish appropriate ratios of nursing and support staff for a COVID-19–positive psychiatry unit given the unique work flows related to isolation precautions and to ensure patient and staff safety. These ratios may take into account patient-specific needs, including the need for additional staff to perform constant observation for high-risk patients, management of agitated patients, and sufficient staff to allow for relief and break-time from PPE. Admission and routine care processes should be adapted in order to limit equipment entering the room, such as computer workstations on wheels.
• Medication administration procedures: Develop work flows related to PPE and infection control when retrieving and administering medications.
• Workspace: Designate appropriate workspace for PCU clinicians to access computers and documents and to minimize use of non–COVID-19 unit work areas.

6. Restraints and management of agitated patients: PCUs should develop plans for addressing agitated patients, including contingency plans for whether seclusion or restraints should be administered in the patient’s individual room or in a dedicated restraint room in the PCU. Staff training should include protocols specifically designed for managing agitated patients in the PCU.

7. Discharge processes: If patients remain medically well and clear their COVID-19 PCR tests, it is conceivable that they might be transferred to a non–COVID-19 psychiatric unit if sufficient isolation time has passed and the infectious disease consultants deem it appropriate. It is also possible that patients would be discharged from a PCU to home or other residential setting. Such patients should be assessed for ability to comply with continued self-quarantine if necessary. Discharge planning must take into consideration follow-up plans for COVID-19 illness and primary care appointments, as well as needed psychiatric follow-up.

8. Patients’ rights: The apparently highly infectious and transmissible nature of SARS-CoV-2 creates novel tensions between a wide range of individual rights and the rights of others. In addition to manifesting in our general society, there are potentially unique tensions in acute inpatient psychiatric settings. Certain patients’ rights may require modification in a PCU (for example, access to outdoor space, personal belongings, visitors, and possibly civil commitment judicial hearings). These discussions may require input from hospital compliance officers, ethics committees, risk managers, and the local department of mental health and also may be partly solved by using video communication platforms.

References

1. Kim MJ. “ ‘It was a medical disaster’: The psychiatric ward that saw 100 patients with new coronavirus.” Independent. 2020 Mar 1.

2. Korean Society of Infectious Diseases et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Mar 16;35(10):e112.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptom-based strategy to discontinue isolation for persons with COVID-19. Decision Memo. 2020 May 3.

4. He X et al. Nature Medicine. 2020. 26:672-5.
 

Dr. Cheung is associate medical director and chief quality officer at the Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Strouse is medical director, UCLA Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital and Maddie Katz Professor at the UCLA department of psychiatry/Semel Institute. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Li is associate medical director of quality improvement at Yale-New Haven Psychiatric Hospital in Connecticut. She also serves as medical director of clinical operations at the Yale-New Haven Health System. Dr. Li is a 2019-2020 Health and Aging Policy Fellow and receives funding support from the program.

Reports have emerged about the unique vulnerability of psychiatric hospitals to the ravages of COVID-19.

In a South Korea psychiatric hospital, 101 of 103 patients contracted SARS-CoV-2 during an outbreak; 7 eventually died.^1,2 This report, among a few others, have led to the development of psychiatric COVID-19–positive units (PCU). However, it remains highly unclear how many are currently open, where they are located, or what their operations are like.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear to us that, as a public health measure, it would be necessary to test all patients for COVID-19 who were being considered for admission to our inpatient psychiatric units. We knew that we could not allow a medically asymptomatic “covertly” COVID-19–positive patient to be introduced to the social community of our inpatient units because of the risks of transmission to other patients and staff.

In coordination with our health system infection prevention experts, we have therefore required a confirmed negative COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction nasal swab performed no more than 48 hours prior to the time/date of acute psychiatric inpatient admission. Furthermore, as part of the broad health system response and surge planning, we were asked by our respective incident command centers to begin planning for a Psychiatric COVID-19–positive Unit (PCU) that might allow us to safely care for a cohort of patients needing such hospitalization.

It is worth emphasizing that the typical patient who is a candidate for a PCU is so acutely psychiatrically ill that they cannot be managed in a less restrictive environment than an inpatient psychiatric unit and, at the same time, is likely to not be medically ill enough to warrant admission to an internal medicine service in a general acute care hospital.

We have identified eight principles and critical decision points that can help inpatient units plan for the safe care of COVID-19–positive patients on a PCU.

1. Triage: Patients admitted to a PCU should be medically stable, particularly with regard to COVID-19 and respiratory symptomatology. PCUs should establish clear criteria for admission and discharge (or medical transfer). Examples of potential exclusionary criteria to a PCU include:

• Respiratory distress, shortness of breath, hypoxia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, or requirement for respiratory therapy breathing treatments.
• Fever, or signs of sepsis, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome.
• Medical frailty, significant medical comorbidities, delirium, or altered mental status;
• Requirements for continuous vital sign monitoring or of a monitoring frequency beyond the capacity of the PCU.

Discharge criteria may also include a symptom-based strategy because emerging evidence suggests that patients may be less infectious by day 10-14 of the disease course,³ and viral lab testing is very sensitive and will be positive for periods of time after individuals are no longer infectious. The symptom-based strategy allows for patients to not require retesting prior to discharge. However, some receiving facilities (for example residential or skilled nursing facilities) may necessitate testing, in which case a testing-based strategy can be used. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides guidelines for both types of strategies.⁴

2. Infection control and personal protective equipment: PCUs require modifications or departures from the typical inpatient free-ranging environment in which common areas are provided for patients to engage in a community of care, including group therapy (such as occupational, recreational, Alcoholics Anonymous, and social work groups).

• Isolation: PCUs must consider whether they will require patients to isolate to their rooms or to allow modified or limited access to “public” or “community” areas. While there do not appear to be standard recommendations from the CDC or other public health entities regarding negative pressure or any specific room ventilation requirements, it is prudent to work with local infectious disease experts on protocols. Important considerations include spatial planning for infection control areas to don and doff appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and appropriate workspace to prevent contamination of non–COVID-19 work areas. Approaches can include establishing clearly identified and visually demarcated infection control “zones” (often referred to as “hot, warm, and cold zones”) that correspond to specific PPE requirements for staff. In addition, individuals should eat in their own rooms or designated areas because use of common areas for meals can potentially lead to aerosolized spread of the virus.
• Cohorting: Generally, PCUs should consider admitting only COVID-19–positive patients to a PCU to avoid exposure to other patients. Hospitals and health systems should determine protocols and locations for testing and managing “patients under investigation” for COVID-19, which should precede admission to the PCU.
• PPE: It is important to clearly establish and communicate PPE requirements and procedures for direct physical contact versus no physical contact (for example, visual safety checks). Identify clear supply chains for PPE and hand sanitizer.

3. Medical management and consultation: PCUs should establish clear pathways for accessing consultation from medical consultants. It may be ideal, in addition to standard daily psychiatric physician rounding, to have daily internal medicine rounding and/or medical nursing staff working on the unit. Given the potential of COVID-19–positive patients to rapidly devolve from asymptomatic to acutely ill, it is necessary to establish protocols for the provision of urgent medical care 24/7 and streamlined processes for transfer to a medical unit.

Clear protocols should be established to address any potential signs of decompensation in the respiratory status of a PCU unit, including administration of oxygen and restrictions (or appropriate precautions) related to aerosolizing treatment such as nebulizers or positive airway pressure.

4. Code blue protocol: Any emergent medical issues, including acute respiratory decompensation, should trigger a Code Blue response that has been specifically designed for COVID-19–positive patients, including considerations for proper PPE during resuscitation efforts.

• Telehealth: Clinicians (such as physicians, social workers, occupational therapists) should leverage and maximize the use of telemedicine to minimize direct or prolonged exposure to infectious disease risks.
• Nursing: It is important to establish appropriate ratios of nursing and support staff for a COVID-19–positive psychiatry unit given the unique work flows related to isolation precautions and to ensure patient and staff safety. These ratios may take into account patient-specific needs, including the need for additional staff to perform constant observation for high-risk patients, management of agitated patients, and sufficient staff to allow for relief and break-time from PPE. Admission and routine care processes should be adapted in order to limit equipment entering the room, such as computer workstations on wheels.
• Medication administration procedures: Develop work flows related to PPE and infection control when retrieving and administering medications.
• Workspace: Designate appropriate workspace for PCU clinicians to access computers and documents and to minimize use of non–COVID-19 unit work areas.

6. Restraints and management of agitated patients: PCUs should develop plans for addressing agitated patients, including contingency plans for whether seclusion or restraints should be administered in the patient’s individual room or in a dedicated restraint room in the PCU. Staff training should include protocols specifically designed for managing agitated patients in the PCU.

7. Discharge processes: If patients remain medically well and clear their COVID-19 PCR tests, it is conceivable that they might be transferred to a non–COVID-19 psychiatric unit if sufficient isolation time has passed and the infectious disease consultants deem it appropriate. It is also possible that patients would be discharged from a PCU to home or other residential setting. Such patients should be assessed for ability to comply with continued self-quarantine if necessary. Discharge planning must take into consideration follow-up plans for COVID-19 illness and primary care appointments, as well as needed psychiatric follow-up.

8. Patients’ rights: The apparently highly infectious and transmissible nature of SARS-CoV-2 creates novel tensions between a wide range of individual rights and the rights of others. In addition to manifesting in our general society, there are potentially unique tensions in acute inpatient psychiatric settings. Certain patients’ rights may require modification in a PCU (for example, access to outdoor space, personal belongings, visitors, and possibly civil commitment judicial hearings). These discussions may require input from hospital compliance officers, ethics committees, risk managers, and the local department of mental health and also may be partly solved by using video communication platforms.

References

1. Kim MJ. “ ‘It was a medical disaster’: The psychiatric ward that saw 100 patients with new coronavirus.” Independent. 2020 Mar 1.

2. Korean Society of Infectious Diseases et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Mar 16;35(10):e112.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptom-based strategy to discontinue isolation for persons with COVID-19. Decision Memo. 2020 May 3.

4. He X et al. Nature Medicine. 2020. 26:672-5.
 

Dr. Cheung is associate medical director and chief quality officer at the Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Strouse is medical director, UCLA Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital and Maddie Katz Professor at the UCLA department of psychiatry/Semel Institute. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Li is associate medical director of quality improvement at Yale-New Haven Psychiatric Hospital in Connecticut. She also serves as medical director of clinical operations at the Yale-New Haven Health System. Dr. Li is a 2019-2020 Health and Aging Policy Fellow and receives funding support from the program.

Reports have emerged about the unique vulnerability of psychiatric hospitals to the ravages of COVID-19.

In a South Korea psychiatric hospital, 101 of 103 patients contracted SARS-CoV-2 during an outbreak; 7 eventually died.^1,2 This report, among a few others, have led to the development of psychiatric COVID-19–positive units (PCU). However, it remains highly unclear how many are currently open, where they are located, or what their operations are like.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear to us that, as a public health measure, it would be necessary to test all patients for COVID-19 who were being considered for admission to our inpatient psychiatric units. We knew that we could not allow a medically asymptomatic “covertly” COVID-19–positive patient to be introduced to the social community of our inpatient units because of the risks of transmission to other patients and staff.

In coordination with our health system infection prevention experts, we have therefore required a confirmed negative COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction nasal swab performed no more than 48 hours prior to the time/date of acute psychiatric inpatient admission. Furthermore, as part of the broad health system response and surge planning, we were asked by our respective incident command centers to begin planning for a Psychiatric COVID-19–positive Unit (PCU) that might allow us to safely care for a cohort of patients needing such hospitalization.

It is worth emphasizing that the typical patient who is a candidate for a PCU is so acutely psychiatrically ill that they cannot be managed in a less restrictive environment than an inpatient psychiatric unit and, at the same time, is likely to not be medically ill enough to warrant admission to an internal medicine service in a general acute care hospital.

We have identified eight principles and critical decision points that can help inpatient units plan for the safe care of COVID-19–positive patients on a PCU.

1. Triage: Patients admitted to a PCU should be medically stable, particularly with regard to COVID-19 and respiratory symptomatology. PCUs should establish clear criteria for admission and discharge (or medical transfer). Examples of potential exclusionary criteria to a PCU include:

• Respiratory distress, shortness of breath, hypoxia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, or requirement for respiratory therapy breathing treatments.
• Fever, or signs of sepsis, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome.
• Medical frailty, significant medical comorbidities, delirium, or altered mental status;
• Requirements for continuous vital sign monitoring or of a monitoring frequency beyond the capacity of the PCU.

Discharge criteria may also include a symptom-based strategy because emerging evidence suggests that patients may be less infectious by day 10-14 of the disease course,³ and viral lab testing is very sensitive and will be positive for periods of time after individuals are no longer infectious. The symptom-based strategy allows for patients to not require retesting prior to discharge. However, some receiving facilities (for example residential or skilled nursing facilities) may necessitate testing, in which case a testing-based strategy can be used. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides guidelines for both types of strategies.⁴

2. Infection control and personal protective equipment: PCUs require modifications or departures from the typical inpatient free-ranging environment in which common areas are provided for patients to engage in a community of care, including group therapy (such as occupational, recreational, Alcoholics Anonymous, and social work groups).

• Isolation: PCUs must consider whether they will require patients to isolate to their rooms or to allow modified or limited access to “public” or “community” areas. While there do not appear to be standard recommendations from the CDC or other public health entities regarding negative pressure or any specific room ventilation requirements, it is prudent to work with local infectious disease experts on protocols. Important considerations include spatial planning for infection control areas to don and doff appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and appropriate workspace to prevent contamination of non–COVID-19 work areas. Approaches can include establishing clearly identified and visually demarcated infection control “zones” (often referred to as “hot, warm, and cold zones”) that correspond to specific PPE requirements for staff. In addition, individuals should eat in their own rooms or designated areas because use of common areas for meals can potentially lead to aerosolized spread of the virus.
• Cohorting: Generally, PCUs should consider admitting only COVID-19–positive patients to a PCU to avoid exposure to other patients. Hospitals and health systems should determine protocols and locations for testing and managing “patients under investigation” for COVID-19, which should precede admission to the PCU.
• PPE: It is important to clearly establish and communicate PPE requirements and procedures for direct physical contact versus no physical contact (for example, visual safety checks). Identify clear supply chains for PPE and hand sanitizer.

3. Medical management and consultation: PCUs should establish clear pathways for accessing consultation from medical consultants. It may be ideal, in addition to standard daily psychiatric physician rounding, to have daily internal medicine rounding and/or medical nursing staff working on the unit. Given the potential of COVID-19–positive patients to rapidly devolve from asymptomatic to acutely ill, it is necessary to establish protocols for the provision of urgent medical care 24/7 and streamlined processes for transfer to a medical unit.

Clear protocols should be established to address any potential signs of decompensation in the respiratory status of a PCU unit, including administration of oxygen and restrictions (or appropriate precautions) related to aerosolizing treatment such as nebulizers or positive airway pressure.

4. Code blue protocol: Any emergent medical issues, including acute respiratory decompensation, should trigger a Code Blue response that has been specifically designed for COVID-19–positive patients, including considerations for proper PPE during resuscitation efforts.

• Telehealth: Clinicians (such as physicians, social workers, occupational therapists) should leverage and maximize the use of telemedicine to minimize direct or prolonged exposure to infectious disease risks.
• Nursing: It is important to establish appropriate ratios of nursing and support staff for a COVID-19–positive psychiatry unit given the unique work flows related to isolation precautions and to ensure patient and staff safety. These ratios may take into account patient-specific needs, including the need for additional staff to perform constant observation for high-risk patients, management of agitated patients, and sufficient staff to allow for relief and break-time from PPE. Admission and routine care processes should be adapted in order to limit equipment entering the room, such as computer workstations on wheels.
• Medication administration procedures: Develop work flows related to PPE and infection control when retrieving and administering medications.
• Workspace: Designate appropriate workspace for PCU clinicians to access computers and documents and to minimize use of non–COVID-19 unit work areas.

6. Restraints and management of agitated patients: PCUs should develop plans for addressing agitated patients, including contingency plans for whether seclusion or restraints should be administered in the patient’s individual room or in a dedicated restraint room in the PCU. Staff training should include protocols specifically designed for managing agitated patients in the PCU.

7. Discharge processes: If patients remain medically well and clear their COVID-19 PCR tests, it is conceivable that they might be transferred to a non–COVID-19 psychiatric unit if sufficient isolation time has passed and the infectious disease consultants deem it appropriate. It is also possible that patients would be discharged from a PCU to home or other residential setting. Such patients should be assessed for ability to comply with continued self-quarantine if necessary. Discharge planning must take into consideration follow-up plans for COVID-19 illness and primary care appointments, as well as needed psychiatric follow-up.

8. Patients’ rights: The apparently highly infectious and transmissible nature of SARS-CoV-2 creates novel tensions between a wide range of individual rights and the rights of others. In addition to manifesting in our general society, there are potentially unique tensions in acute inpatient psychiatric settings. Certain patients’ rights may require modification in a PCU (for example, access to outdoor space, personal belongings, visitors, and possibly civil commitment judicial hearings). These discussions may require input from hospital compliance officers, ethics committees, risk managers, and the local department of mental health and also may be partly solved by using video communication platforms.

References

1. Kim MJ. “ ‘It was a medical disaster’: The psychiatric ward that saw 100 patients with new coronavirus.” Independent. 2020 Mar 1.

2. Korean Society of Infectious Diseases et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Mar 16;35(10):e112.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptom-based strategy to discontinue isolation for persons with COVID-19. Decision Memo. 2020 May 3.

4. He X et al. Nature Medicine. 2020. 26:672-5.
 

Dr. Cheung is associate medical director and chief quality officer at the Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Strouse is medical director, UCLA Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital and Maddie Katz Professor at the UCLA department of psychiatry/Semel Institute. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Li is associate medical director of quality improvement at Yale-New Haven Psychiatric Hospital in Connecticut. She also serves as medical director of clinical operations at the Yale-New Haven Health System. Dr. Li is a 2019-2020 Health and Aging Policy Fellow and receives funding support from the program.

The strong link between glucose control and COVID-19 outcomes has been reaffirmed in the largest study thus far of hospitalized patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

The retrospective, multicenter study, from 7,337 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was published online in Cell Metabolism by Lihua Zhu, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues.

The study finds that, while the presence of type 2 diabetes per se is a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, better glycemic control among those with preexisting type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with significant reductions in adverse outcomes and death.

“We were surprised to see such favorable outcomes in the well-controlled blood glucose group among patients with COVID-19 and preexisting type 2 diabetes,” senior author Hongliang Li, also of Renmin Hospital, said in a statement.

“Considering that people with diabetes had much higher risk for death and various complications, and there are no specific drugs for COVID-19, our findings indicate that controlling blood glucose well may act as an effective auxiliary approach to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and preexisting diabetes,” Dr. Li added.

Asked to comment on the findings, David Klonoff, MD, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills–Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif., cautioned that the way in which the “well-controlled” diabetes group was distinguished from the “poorly controlled” one in this study used a “nonstandard method for distinguishing these groups based on variability.”

So “there was a great deal of overlap between the two groups,” he observed.
 

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

Of the 7,337 participants with confirmed COVID-19 in the Chinese study, 13% (952) had preexisting type 2 diabetes while the other 6,385 did not have diabetes.

Median ages were 62 years for those with and 53 years for those without diabetes. As has been reported several times since the pandemic began, the presence of diabetes was associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Those with preexisting diabetes received significantly more antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, antihypertensive drugs, and vasoactive drugs than did those without diabetes. They were also more likely to receive oxygen inhalation (76.9% vs. 61.2%), noninvasive ventilation (10.2% vs. 3.9%), and invasive ventilation (3.6% vs. 0.7%).

Over 28 days starting with the day of admission, the type 2 diabetes group was significantly more likely to die compared with those without diabetes (7.8% vs. 2.7%; P < .001), with a crude hazard ratio of 2.90 (P < .001). After adjustments for age, gender, and COVID-19 severity, the diabetes group was still significantly more likely to die, with a hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = .005).

Those with diabetes were also significantly more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44), acute kidney injury (3.01), and septic shock (1.95).

“The results were unequivocal to implicate diabetes mellitus in higher risk of death and other detrimental outcomes of COVID-19,” the authors wrote, although they caution “there were notable differences in the covariate distributions between the two groups.”

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

Among the 952 with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, 282 individuals had “well-controlled” blood glucose, ranging from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L (~70 - 180 mg/dL) with median 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A_1c of 7.3%.

The other 528 were “poorly controlled,” defined as the lowest fasting glucose level 3.9 mmol/L or above and the highest 2-hour postprandial glucose exceeding 10.0 mmol/L, with median 10.9 mmol/L (196 mg/dL) and HbA_1c of 8.1%.

Just as with the diabetes vs. no diabetes comparison, those in the “well-controlled” blood glucose group had lower use of antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and vasoactive drugs.

They also were less likely to require oxygen inhalation (70.2% vs. 83.5%), non-invasive ventilation (4.6% vs. 11.9%), invasive ventilation (0% vs. 4.2%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0% vs. 0.8%).

In-hospital death was significantly lower in the “well-controlled” group (1.1% vs. 11.0%; crude hazard ratio, 0.09; P < .001). After adjustments for the previous factors plus site effect, the difference remained significant (0.13; P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratio for acute respiratory distress syndrome was 0.41 (P < .001) and for acute heart injury it was 0.21 (P = .003).
 

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

Klonoff was senior author on a previous study from the United States that showed that both diabetes and uncontrolled hyperglycemia among people without prior diabetes – the latter “presumably due to stress,” he said – were strong predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The new Chinese research only looks at individuals with previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes, Klonoff pointed out in an interview.

“The article by Zhu et al. did not look at outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Per [the U.S. study], in COVID-19 stress hyperglycemia, compared to diabetes, was associated with greater mortality.”

In addition, although international guidance now advises optimizing blood glucose levels in all patients with hyperglycemia and COVID-19, it’s actually not yet totally clear which in-target range improves COVID-19 prognosis the best, Dr. Klonoff said.

He is now working on a study aimed at answering that question.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff is a consultant to Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo, Roche, and ThirdWayv.

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

The strong link between glucose control and COVID-19 outcomes has been reaffirmed in the largest study thus far of hospitalized patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

The retrospective, multicenter study, from 7,337 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was published online in Cell Metabolism by Lihua Zhu, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues.

The study finds that, while the presence of type 2 diabetes per se is a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, better glycemic control among those with preexisting type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with significant reductions in adverse outcomes and death.

“We were surprised to see such favorable outcomes in the well-controlled blood glucose group among patients with COVID-19 and preexisting type 2 diabetes,” senior author Hongliang Li, also of Renmin Hospital, said in a statement.

“Considering that people with diabetes had much higher risk for death and various complications, and there are no specific drugs for COVID-19, our findings indicate that controlling blood glucose well may act as an effective auxiliary approach to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and preexisting diabetes,” Dr. Li added.

Asked to comment on the findings, David Klonoff, MD, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills–Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif., cautioned that the way in which the “well-controlled” diabetes group was distinguished from the “poorly controlled” one in this study used a “nonstandard method for distinguishing these groups based on variability.”

So “there was a great deal of overlap between the two groups,” he observed.
 

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

Of the 7,337 participants with confirmed COVID-19 in the Chinese study, 13% (952) had preexisting type 2 diabetes while the other 6,385 did not have diabetes.

Median ages were 62 years for those with and 53 years for those without diabetes. As has been reported several times since the pandemic began, the presence of diabetes was associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Those with preexisting diabetes received significantly more antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, antihypertensive drugs, and vasoactive drugs than did those without diabetes. They were also more likely to receive oxygen inhalation (76.9% vs. 61.2%), noninvasive ventilation (10.2% vs. 3.9%), and invasive ventilation (3.6% vs. 0.7%).

Over 28 days starting with the day of admission, the type 2 diabetes group was significantly more likely to die compared with those without diabetes (7.8% vs. 2.7%; P < .001), with a crude hazard ratio of 2.90 (P < .001). After adjustments for age, gender, and COVID-19 severity, the diabetes group was still significantly more likely to die, with a hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = .005).

Those with diabetes were also significantly more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44), acute kidney injury (3.01), and septic shock (1.95).

“The results were unequivocal to implicate diabetes mellitus in higher risk of death and other detrimental outcomes of COVID-19,” the authors wrote, although they caution “there were notable differences in the covariate distributions between the two groups.”

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

Among the 952 with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, 282 individuals had “well-controlled” blood glucose, ranging from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L (~70 - 180 mg/dL) with median 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A_1c of 7.3%.

The other 528 were “poorly controlled,” defined as the lowest fasting glucose level 3.9 mmol/L or above and the highest 2-hour postprandial glucose exceeding 10.0 mmol/L, with median 10.9 mmol/L (196 mg/dL) and HbA_1c of 8.1%.

Just as with the diabetes vs. no diabetes comparison, those in the “well-controlled” blood glucose group had lower use of antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and vasoactive drugs.

They also were less likely to require oxygen inhalation (70.2% vs. 83.5%), non-invasive ventilation (4.6% vs. 11.9%), invasive ventilation (0% vs. 4.2%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0% vs. 0.8%).

In-hospital death was significantly lower in the “well-controlled” group (1.1% vs. 11.0%; crude hazard ratio, 0.09; P < .001). After adjustments for the previous factors plus site effect, the difference remained significant (0.13; P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratio for acute respiratory distress syndrome was 0.41 (P < .001) and for acute heart injury it was 0.21 (P = .003).
 

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

Klonoff was senior author on a previous study from the United States that showed that both diabetes and uncontrolled hyperglycemia among people without prior diabetes – the latter “presumably due to stress,” he said – were strong predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The new Chinese research only looks at individuals with previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes, Klonoff pointed out in an interview.

“The article by Zhu et al. did not look at outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Per [the U.S. study], in COVID-19 stress hyperglycemia, compared to diabetes, was associated with greater mortality.”

In addition, although international guidance now advises optimizing blood glucose levels in all patients with hyperglycemia and COVID-19, it’s actually not yet totally clear which in-target range improves COVID-19 prognosis the best, Dr. Klonoff said.

He is now working on a study aimed at answering that question.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff is a consultant to Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo, Roche, and ThirdWayv.

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

The strong link between glucose control and COVID-19 outcomes has been reaffirmed in the largest study thus far of hospitalized patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

The retrospective, multicenter study, from 7,337 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was published online in Cell Metabolism by Lihua Zhu, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues.

The study finds that, while the presence of type 2 diabetes per se is a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, better glycemic control among those with preexisting type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with significant reductions in adverse outcomes and death.

“We were surprised to see such favorable outcomes in the well-controlled blood glucose group among patients with COVID-19 and preexisting type 2 diabetes,” senior author Hongliang Li, also of Renmin Hospital, said in a statement.

“Considering that people with diabetes had much higher risk for death and various complications, and there are no specific drugs for COVID-19, our findings indicate that controlling blood glucose well may act as an effective auxiliary approach to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and preexisting diabetes,” Dr. Li added.

Asked to comment on the findings, David Klonoff, MD, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills–Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif., cautioned that the way in which the “well-controlled” diabetes group was distinguished from the “poorly controlled” one in this study used a “nonstandard method for distinguishing these groups based on variability.”

So “there was a great deal of overlap between the two groups,” he observed.
 

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

Of the 7,337 participants with confirmed COVID-19 in the Chinese study, 13% (952) had preexisting type 2 diabetes while the other 6,385 did not have diabetes.

Median ages were 62 years for those with and 53 years for those without diabetes. As has been reported several times since the pandemic began, the presence of diabetes was associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Those with preexisting diabetes received significantly more antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, antihypertensive drugs, and vasoactive drugs than did those without diabetes. They were also more likely to receive oxygen inhalation (76.9% vs. 61.2%), noninvasive ventilation (10.2% vs. 3.9%), and invasive ventilation (3.6% vs. 0.7%).

Over 28 days starting with the day of admission, the type 2 diabetes group was significantly more likely to die compared with those without diabetes (7.8% vs. 2.7%; P < .001), with a crude hazard ratio of 2.90 (P < .001). After adjustments for age, gender, and COVID-19 severity, the diabetes group was still significantly more likely to die, with a hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = .005).

Those with diabetes were also significantly more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44), acute kidney injury (3.01), and septic shock (1.95).

“The results were unequivocal to implicate diabetes mellitus in higher risk of death and other detrimental outcomes of COVID-19,” the authors wrote, although they caution “there were notable differences in the covariate distributions between the two groups.”

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

Among the 952 with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, 282 individuals had “well-controlled” blood glucose, ranging from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L (~70 - 180 mg/dL) with median 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A_1c of 7.3%.

The other 528 were “poorly controlled,” defined as the lowest fasting glucose level 3.9 mmol/L or above and the highest 2-hour postprandial glucose exceeding 10.0 mmol/L, with median 10.9 mmol/L (196 mg/dL) and HbA_1c of 8.1%.

Just as with the diabetes vs. no diabetes comparison, those in the “well-controlled” blood glucose group had lower use of antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and vasoactive drugs.

They also were less likely to require oxygen inhalation (70.2% vs. 83.5%), non-invasive ventilation (4.6% vs. 11.9%), invasive ventilation (0% vs. 4.2%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0% vs. 0.8%).

In-hospital death was significantly lower in the “well-controlled” group (1.1% vs. 11.0%; crude hazard ratio, 0.09; P < .001). After adjustments for the previous factors plus site effect, the difference remained significant (0.13; P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratio for acute respiratory distress syndrome was 0.41 (P < .001) and for acute heart injury it was 0.21 (P = .003).
 

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

Klonoff was senior author on a previous study from the United States that showed that both diabetes and uncontrolled hyperglycemia among people without prior diabetes – the latter “presumably due to stress,” he said – were strong predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The new Chinese research only looks at individuals with previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes, Klonoff pointed out in an interview.

“The article by Zhu et al. did not look at outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Per [the U.S. study], in COVID-19 stress hyperglycemia, compared to diabetes, was associated with greater mortality.”

In addition, although international guidance now advises optimizing blood glucose levels in all patients with hyperglycemia and COVID-19, it’s actually not yet totally clear which in-target range improves COVID-19 prognosis the best, Dr. Klonoff said.

He is now working on a study aimed at answering that question.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff is a consultant to Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo, Roche, and ThirdWayv.

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

Each day, we’re inundated with news about the COVID-19 pandemic and how it continues to strain our health care system and resources. With more than 1.15 million positive cases in the United States and over 67,000 deaths as of this writing, it has been a scary yet humbling experience for everyone. There is no doubt this pandemic will be a defining moment in health care for several reasons. From supply chain disruptions and personal protective equipment (PPE) and ventilator shortages to exhausted caregivers – both physically and mentally – this event has pushed the envelope on finding answers from federal and state authorities. Hospital administrations are working harder than ever to rise to the challenge and do what is best for their frontline staff and, more importantly, the patients and the communities they serve.

The provider experience during COVID-19

Hospitalists are in a unique situation as frontline providers. Managing daily throughput of patients has always been a key role for the specialty. They also play an integral role in their own care teams alongside nurses, trainees, case managers, pharmacists, and others in cohorted COVID-19 units. Now more than ever, such a geographic placement of patients is quickly emerging as a must-have staffing model to reduce risk of cross-contamination and preserving critical PPE supplies. This heightened awareness, coupled with anxiety, sometimes leads to added stress and burnout risk for hospitalists.

Communication is critical in creating situational awareness and reducing anxiety within the teams. This is exactly where hospitalists can lead:

• Active presence in hospital incident command centers and infection control boards
• Close coordination with emergency medicine colleagues and bed placement navigators
• Developing protocols for appropriate testing
• Frequent daily huddles to discuss current state- and hospital-level testing guidelines
• Close involvement in the hospital operations committee
• Advocating for or securing more testing or supplies, especially PPE
• Effective communication about changes in PPE requirements and conservation strategies as per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, State Department of Health, and the hospital infection control board
• Crisis-driven changes, including development and review of triage and treatment protocols and elective procedure cancellations
• Census numbers and capacity/staffing adjustments within the team to meet temporary dips and surges in on-service patient volumes
• Frontline caregiver mental and physical health assessment

Daily huddles at key times (e.g., at shift start and end times) can help to identify these barriers. If operational issues arise, there should be a clear channel to escalate them to senior leadership.

Hospitalists could also use several strategies proven to improve staff morale and resilience. For instance, take this time to connect with friends and family virtually, unplug when off from work, explore one’s spiritual self through meditation and prayers, spend time with nature, exercise daily, seek humor, and develop or work on one’s hobby.
 

The patient experience during COVID-19

Some intriguing data is also being released about patient experience during the pandemic. A Press Ganey analysis of 350,000 comments between January and March 2020 shows that patients are looking for more information about their condition, primarily COVID-19 test delays and result notification time. There is also hypervigilance in patients’ minds about hand hygiene and overall cleanliness of the hospital. Patients also seek clarification and transparent explanation of their caregiver’s bedside mannerisms – for example, why did they gown up before entering – and their daily care plans.

Patients have been appreciative of providers and recognize the personal risk frontline staff put themselves through. Communication transparency seems to mitigate concerns about delays of care especially caused by operational challenges as a result of the pandemic.

In surveys specifically related to experiences including COVID-19, patients were more likely to rate more areas of service lower than in surveys that did not mention COVID-19. The patients also seemed to put more value on the quality of instructions and information they received and on perception of providers’ respect and listening abilities. These insights could prove invaluable in improving care delivery by hospitalists.

Isolation of patients has been shown in multiple studies to have negative outcomes. These patients are up to twice as likely to have an adverse event, and seven times more likely to have treatment-related avoidable adversity, poorer perceived patient experience, and overall perception of being cared for “less.” Add to this a higher level of depression and mental strain, and these patients quickly become “unsatisfied.”

At the ED level, the willingness to let family be present for care was the key area of concern listed – a metric that has changed rapidly since the early days of the pandemic.

The bottom line is these are trying times for everyone – both for providers and patients. Both look up to health system and group leadership for reassurance. Patients and families recognize the risks frontline providers are assuming. However, transparent communication across all levels is the key. Silos are disappearing and team based care is taking center stage.

Beyond the current public health crisis, these efforts will go a long way to create unshakable trust between health systems, providers, patients, and their loved ones.

Dr. Singh is currently the chief of inpatient operations at Adena Health System in Chillicothe, Ohio, where he also has key roles in medical informatics and health IT. He is also the president-elect of the Central Ohio Chapter of SHM.

Each day, we’re inundated with news about the COVID-19 pandemic and how it continues to strain our health care system and resources. With more than 1.15 million positive cases in the United States and over 67,000 deaths as of this writing, it has been a scary yet humbling experience for everyone. There is no doubt this pandemic will be a defining moment in health care for several reasons. From supply chain disruptions and personal protective equipment (PPE) and ventilator shortages to exhausted caregivers – both physically and mentally – this event has pushed the envelope on finding answers from federal and state authorities. Hospital administrations are working harder than ever to rise to the challenge and do what is best for their frontline staff and, more importantly, the patients and the communities they serve.

The provider experience during COVID-19

Hospitalists are in a unique situation as frontline providers. Managing daily throughput of patients has always been a key role for the specialty. They also play an integral role in their own care teams alongside nurses, trainees, case managers, pharmacists, and others in cohorted COVID-19 units. Now more than ever, such a geographic placement of patients is quickly emerging as a must-have staffing model to reduce risk of cross-contamination and preserving critical PPE supplies. This heightened awareness, coupled with anxiety, sometimes leads to added stress and burnout risk for hospitalists.

Communication is critical in creating situational awareness and reducing anxiety within the teams. This is exactly where hospitalists can lead:

• Active presence in hospital incident command centers and infection control boards
• Close coordination with emergency medicine colleagues and bed placement navigators
• Developing protocols for appropriate testing
• Frequent daily huddles to discuss current state- and hospital-level testing guidelines
• Close involvement in the hospital operations committee
• Advocating for or securing more testing or supplies, especially PPE
• Effective communication about changes in PPE requirements and conservation strategies as per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, State Department of Health, and the hospital infection control board
• Crisis-driven changes, including development and review of triage and treatment protocols and elective procedure cancellations
• Census numbers and capacity/staffing adjustments within the team to meet temporary dips and surges in on-service patient volumes
• Frontline caregiver mental and physical health assessment

Daily huddles at key times (e.g., at shift start and end times) can help to identify these barriers. If operational issues arise, there should be a clear channel to escalate them to senior leadership.

Hospitalists could also use several strategies proven to improve staff morale and resilience. For instance, take this time to connect with friends and family virtually, unplug when off from work, explore one’s spiritual self through meditation and prayers, spend time with nature, exercise daily, seek humor, and develop or work on one’s hobby.
 

The patient experience during COVID-19

Some intriguing data is also being released about patient experience during the pandemic. A Press Ganey analysis of 350,000 comments between January and March 2020 shows that patients are looking for more information about their condition, primarily COVID-19 test delays and result notification time. There is also hypervigilance in patients’ minds about hand hygiene and overall cleanliness of the hospital. Patients also seek clarification and transparent explanation of their caregiver’s bedside mannerisms – for example, why did they gown up before entering – and their daily care plans.

Patients have been appreciative of providers and recognize the personal risk frontline staff put themselves through. Communication transparency seems to mitigate concerns about delays of care especially caused by operational challenges as a result of the pandemic.

In surveys specifically related to experiences including COVID-19, patients were more likely to rate more areas of service lower than in surveys that did not mention COVID-19. The patients also seemed to put more value on the quality of instructions and information they received and on perception of providers’ respect and listening abilities. These insights could prove invaluable in improving care delivery by hospitalists.

Isolation of patients has been shown in multiple studies to have negative outcomes. These patients are up to twice as likely to have an adverse event, and seven times more likely to have treatment-related avoidable adversity, poorer perceived patient experience, and overall perception of being cared for “less.” Add to this a higher level of depression and mental strain, and these patients quickly become “unsatisfied.”

At the ED level, the willingness to let family be present for care was the key area of concern listed – a metric that has changed rapidly since the early days of the pandemic.

The bottom line is these are trying times for everyone – both for providers and patients. Both look up to health system and group leadership for reassurance. Patients and families recognize the risks frontline providers are assuming. However, transparent communication across all levels is the key. Silos are disappearing and team based care is taking center stage.

Beyond the current public health crisis, these efforts will go a long way to create unshakable trust between health systems, providers, patients, and their loved ones.

Dr. Singh is currently the chief of inpatient operations at Adena Health System in Chillicothe, Ohio, where he also has key roles in medical informatics and health IT. He is also the president-elect of the Central Ohio Chapter of SHM.

Each day, we’re inundated with news about the COVID-19 pandemic and how it continues to strain our health care system and resources. With more than 1.15 million positive cases in the United States and over 67,000 deaths as of this writing, it has been a scary yet humbling experience for everyone. There is no doubt this pandemic will be a defining moment in health care for several reasons. From supply chain disruptions and personal protective equipment (PPE) and ventilator shortages to exhausted caregivers – both physically and mentally – this event has pushed the envelope on finding answers from federal and state authorities. Hospital administrations are working harder than ever to rise to the challenge and do what is best for their frontline staff and, more importantly, the patients and the communities they serve.

The provider experience during COVID-19

Hospitalists are in a unique situation as frontline providers. Managing daily throughput of patients has always been a key role for the specialty. They also play an integral role in their own care teams alongside nurses, trainees, case managers, pharmacists, and others in cohorted COVID-19 units. Now more than ever, such a geographic placement of patients is quickly emerging as a must-have staffing model to reduce risk of cross-contamination and preserving critical PPE supplies. This heightened awareness, coupled with anxiety, sometimes leads to added stress and burnout risk for hospitalists.

Communication is critical in creating situational awareness and reducing anxiety within the teams. This is exactly where hospitalists can lead:

• Active presence in hospital incident command centers and infection control boards
• Close coordination with emergency medicine colleagues and bed placement navigators
• Developing protocols for appropriate testing
• Frequent daily huddles to discuss current state- and hospital-level testing guidelines
• Close involvement in the hospital operations committee
• Advocating for or securing more testing or supplies, especially PPE
• Effective communication about changes in PPE requirements and conservation strategies as per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, State Department of Health, and the hospital infection control board
• Crisis-driven changes, including development and review of triage and treatment protocols and elective procedure cancellations
• Census numbers and capacity/staffing adjustments within the team to meet temporary dips and surges in on-service patient volumes
• Frontline caregiver mental and physical health assessment

Daily huddles at key times (e.g., at shift start and end times) can help to identify these barriers. If operational issues arise, there should be a clear channel to escalate them to senior leadership.

Hospitalists could also use several strategies proven to improve staff morale and resilience. For instance, take this time to connect with friends and family virtually, unplug when off from work, explore one’s spiritual self through meditation and prayers, spend time with nature, exercise daily, seek humor, and develop or work on one’s hobby.
 

The patient experience during COVID-19

Some intriguing data is also being released about patient experience during the pandemic. A Press Ganey analysis of 350,000 comments between January and March 2020 shows that patients are looking for more information about their condition, primarily COVID-19 test delays and result notification time. There is also hypervigilance in patients’ minds about hand hygiene and overall cleanliness of the hospital. Patients also seek clarification and transparent explanation of their caregiver’s bedside mannerisms – for example, why did they gown up before entering – and their daily care plans.

Patients have been appreciative of providers and recognize the personal risk frontline staff put themselves through. Communication transparency seems to mitigate concerns about delays of care especially caused by operational challenges as a result of the pandemic.

In surveys specifically related to experiences including COVID-19, patients were more likely to rate more areas of service lower than in surveys that did not mention COVID-19. The patients also seemed to put more value on the quality of instructions and information they received and on perception of providers’ respect and listening abilities. These insights could prove invaluable in improving care delivery by hospitalists.

Isolation of patients has been shown in multiple studies to have negative outcomes. These patients are up to twice as likely to have an adverse event, and seven times more likely to have treatment-related avoidable adversity, poorer perceived patient experience, and overall perception of being cared for “less.” Add to this a higher level of depression and mental strain, and these patients quickly become “unsatisfied.”

At the ED level, the willingness to let family be present for care was the key area of concern listed – a metric that has changed rapidly since the early days of the pandemic.

The bottom line is these are trying times for everyone – both for providers and patients. Both look up to health system and group leadership for reassurance. Patients and families recognize the risks frontline providers are assuming. However, transparent communication across all levels is the key. Silos are disappearing and team based care is taking center stage.

Beyond the current public health crisis, these efforts will go a long way to create unshakable trust between health systems, providers, patients, and their loved ones.

Dr. Singh is currently the chief of inpatient operations at Adena Health System in Chillicothe, Ohio, where he also has key roles in medical informatics and health IT. He is also the president-elect of the Central Ohio Chapter of SHM.

The COVID-19 pandemic is fraught with unexpected twists, among them a dramatic plunge in emergency department patient volumes, according to an expert panel on unanticipated consequences of pandemic care hosted by the presidents of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American College of Emergency Physicians.*

“At the peak of exposure to COVID-19 illness or infection, ED volumes in my system, which are really not much different from others across the country, were cut in half, if not more. And those changes happened across virtually every form of ED presentation, from the highest acuity to the lowest. We’re now beyond our highest level of exposure to COVID-19 clinically symptomatic patients in western Pennsylvania, but that recovery in volume hasn’t occurred yet, although there are some embers,” explained Donald M. Yealy, MD, professor and chair of the department of emergency medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

He and other panelists also addressed some of the other unanticipated developments in the COVID-19 pandemic, including a recently recognized childhood manifestation called for now COVID-associated pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome, an anticipated massive second wave of non-COVID patients expected to present late to EDs and primary care clinics after having avoided needed medical care out of fear of infection, and the pandemic’s negative impact upon medical education.
 

Who’s not showing up in the ED

Dr. Yealy said that across the country, the number of patients arriving in EDs with acute ST-elevation MI, stroke, trauma, and other highest-acuity presentations is down substantially. But the volume of patients with more routine, bread-and-butter conditions typically seen in EDs is down even more.

“You might say, if I was designing from the insurance side, this is exactly what I’d hope for. I’ve heard that some people on the insurance-only side of the business really are experiencing a pretty good deal right now: They’re collecting premiums and not having to pay out on the ED or hospital side,” he said.
 

Tweaking the public health message on seeking medical care

“One of the unanticipated casualties of the pandemic are the patients who don’t have it. It will take a whole lot of work and coordinated effort to re-engage with those patients,” predicted SCCM President Lewis J. Kaplan, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Evie G. Marcolini, MD, described what she believes is necessary now: “We need to have a big focus on getting the word out to the public that acute MI, stroke, and other acute injuries are still a time-sensitive problem and they warrant at least a call to their physician or consideration of coming in to the ED.

“I think when we started out, we were telling people, ‘Don’t come in.’ Now we’re trying to dial it back a little bit and say, ‘Listen, there are things you really do need to come in for. And we will keep you safe,’” said Dr. Marcolini, an emergency medicine and neurocritical care specialist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Hanover, N.H.

“It is safe,” Dr. Yealy agreed. “The safest place in the world to be right now is the ED. Everybody’s cordoned off. There’s way more PPE [personal protective equipment]. There’s a level of precision now that should have existed but never did in our previous influenza seasons. So we have something very unique to offer, and we can put people’s minds at rest.”

He spoke of a coming “tsunami of untreated illness.”

“My concern is there is a significant subset of people who are not only eschewing ED care but staying away from their primary care provider. My fear is that we’re not as well aware of this,” he said. “Together with our primary care partners, we have to figure out ways to reach the people who are ignoring illnesses and injuries that they’re making long-term decisions about without realizing it. We have to find a way to reach those people and say it’s okay to reach for care.”

SCCM Immediate Past President Heatherlee Bailey, MD, also sees a problematic looming wave.

“I’m quite concerned about the coming second wave of non-COVID patients who’ve sat home with their worsening renal failure that’s gone from 2 to 5 because they’ve been taking a lot of NSAIDs, or the individual who’s had several TIAs that self-resolved, and we’ve missed an opportunity to prevent some significant disease. At some point they’re going to come back, and we need to figure out how to get these individuals hooked up with care, either through the ED or with their primary care provider, to prevent these potential bad outcomes,” said Dr. Bailey of the Durham (N.C.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
 

Interim guidance for pediatricians on an alarming new syndrome

Edward E. Conway Jr., MD, recalled that early in the U.S. pandemic, pediatricians felt a sense of relief that children appeared to be spared from severe COVID-19 disease. But, in just the past few weeks, a new syndrome has emerged. New York City has recorded more than 100 cases of what’s provisionally being called COVID-associated pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Dr. Conway and others are working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop a case definition for the syndrome, first reported by pediatricians in Italy and the United Kingdom.

“We’re trying to get the word out to general pediatricians as to the common signs and symptoms that should prompt parents to bring their children in for medical care,” according to Dr. Conway, chief of pediatric critical care medicine and vice-chair of pediatrics at Jacobi Medical Center in New York.

Ninety percent of affected children have abdominal symptoms early on, including abdominal pain, diarrhea, emesis, or enteritis upon imaging. A nondescript rash, headache, conjunctivitis, and irritability are common, cough much less so – under 25%.

“The thought is that if any one of these is associated with a fever lasting more than 4 days, we suggest these children be brought in and seen by a pediatrician. We don’t have a formal guideline – we’re working on that – but basically the current recommendation is to screen them initially with a CBC with differential, a chem 10, and liver function tests, but also to look for inflammatory markers that we see in our COVID patients. We’ve been quite surprised: These patients have C-reactive proteins of about 240 mg/L on average, ferritin is quite high at around 1,200 ng/mL, and d-dimers of 2,300 ng/mL. We’ve also found very high brain natriuretic peptides and troponins in these patients,” according to Dr. Conway.

Analogies have been made between this COVID-19 pediatric syndrome and Kawasaki disease. Dr. Conway is unconvinced.

“This is quite different from Kawasaki in that these children are usually thrombocytopenic and usually present with DIC [disseminated intravascular coagulation], and the d-dimers are extraordinarily high, compared to what we’re used to seeing in pediatric patients,” he said.

Symptomatic children with laboratory red flags should be hospitalized. Most of the affected New York City children have recovered after 5 or 6 days in the pediatric ICU with empiric treatment using intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), corticosteroids, and/or interleukin-6 inhibitors. However, five recent deaths are now under study.

Dr. Yealy commented that this new pediatric syndrome is “really interesting,” but to date, it affects only a very small percentage of children, and children overall have been much less affected by the pandemic than are adults.

“The populations being disproportionately impacted are the elderly, the elderly, the elderly, and then other vulnerable populations, particularly congregants and the poor,” he said. “At my site, three-quarters of the patients coming in are either patients at assisted-living facilities or work at one of those congregant facilities.”
 

The pandemic’s impact on medical education

In many hospitals, grand rounds are being done virtually via videoconferencing, often with attendant challenges in asking and answering questions. Hospital patient volumes are diminished. Medical students aren’t coming in to do clinical rotations. Medical students and residents can’t travel to interview for future residencies or jobs.

“It’s affecting education across all of the components of medicine. It’s hard to say how long this pandemic is going to last. We’re all trying to be innovative in using online tools, but I believe it’s going to have a long-lasting effect on our education system,” Dr. Marcolini predicted.

Remote interface while working from home has become frustrating, especially during peak Internet use hours.

“It’s staggering how slow my home system has become in comparison to what’s wired at work. Now many times when you try to get into your work system from home, you time out while you’re waiting for the next piece of information to come across,” Dr. Kaplan commented.

All panel participants reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

bjancin@mdedge.com

*Correction, 5/15/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the American College of Emergency Physicians.)

 

The COVID-19 pandemic is fraught with unexpected twists, among them a dramatic plunge in emergency department patient volumes, according to an expert panel on unanticipated consequences of pandemic care hosted by the presidents of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American College of Emergency Physicians.*

“At the peak of exposure to COVID-19 illness or infection, ED volumes in my system, which are really not much different from others across the country, were cut in half, if not more. And those changes happened across virtually every form of ED presentation, from the highest acuity to the lowest. We’re now beyond our highest level of exposure to COVID-19 clinically symptomatic patients in western Pennsylvania, but that recovery in volume hasn’t occurred yet, although there are some embers,” explained Donald M. Yealy, MD, professor and chair of the department of emergency medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

He and other panelists also addressed some of the other unanticipated developments in the COVID-19 pandemic, including a recently recognized childhood manifestation called for now COVID-associated pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome, an anticipated massive second wave of non-COVID patients expected to present late to EDs and primary care clinics after having avoided needed medical care out of fear of infection, and the pandemic’s negative impact upon medical education.
 

Who’s not showing up in the ED

Dr. Yealy said that across the country, the number of patients arriving in EDs with acute ST-elevation MI, stroke, trauma, and other highest-acuity presentations is down substantially. But the volume of patients with more routine, bread-and-butter conditions typically seen in EDs is down even more.

“You might say, if I was designing from the insurance side, this is exactly what I’d hope for. I’ve heard that some people on the insurance-only side of the business really are experiencing a pretty good deal right now: They’re collecting premiums and not having to pay out on the ED or hospital side,” he said.
 

Tweaking the public health message on seeking medical care

“One of the unanticipated casualties of the pandemic are the patients who don’t have it. It will take a whole lot of work and coordinated effort to re-engage with those patients,” predicted SCCM President Lewis J. Kaplan, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Evie G. Marcolini, MD, described what she believes is necessary now: “We need to have a big focus on getting the word out to the public that acute MI, stroke, and other acute injuries are still a time-sensitive problem and they warrant at least a call to their physician or consideration of coming in to the ED.

“I think when we started out, we were telling people, ‘Don’t come in.’ Now we’re trying to dial it back a little bit and say, ‘Listen, there are things you really do need to come in for. And we will keep you safe,’” said Dr. Marcolini, an emergency medicine and neurocritical care specialist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Hanover, N.H.

“It is safe,” Dr. Yealy agreed. “The safest place in the world to be right now is the ED. Everybody’s cordoned off. There’s way more PPE [personal protective equipment]. There’s a level of precision now that should have existed but never did in our previous influenza seasons. So we have something very unique to offer, and we can put people’s minds at rest.”

He spoke of a coming “tsunami of untreated illness.”

“My concern is there is a significant subset of people who are not only eschewing ED care but staying away from their primary care provider. My fear is that we’re not as well aware of this,” he said. “Together with our primary care partners, we have to figure out ways to reach the people who are ignoring illnesses and injuries that they’re making long-term decisions about without realizing it. We have to find a way to reach those people and say it’s okay to reach for care.”

SCCM Immediate Past President Heatherlee Bailey, MD, also sees a problematic looming wave.

“I’m quite concerned about the coming second wave of non-COVID patients who’ve sat home with their worsening renal failure that’s gone from 2 to 5 because they’ve been taking a lot of NSAIDs, or the individual who’s had several TIAs that self-resolved, and we’ve missed an opportunity to prevent some significant disease. At some point they’re going to come back, and we need to figure out how to get these individuals hooked up with care, either through the ED or with their primary care provider, to prevent these potential bad outcomes,” said Dr. Bailey of the Durham (N.C.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
 

Interim guidance for pediatricians on an alarming new syndrome

Edward E. Conway Jr., MD, recalled that early in the U.S. pandemic, pediatricians felt a sense of relief that children appeared to be spared from severe COVID-19 disease. But, in just the past few weeks, a new syndrome has emerged. New York City has recorded more than 100 cases of what’s provisionally being called COVID-associated pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Dr. Conway and others are working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop a case definition for the syndrome, first reported by pediatricians in Italy and the United Kingdom.

“We’re trying to get the word out to general pediatricians as to the common signs and symptoms that should prompt parents to bring their children in for medical care,” according to Dr. Conway, chief of pediatric critical care medicine and vice-chair of pediatrics at Jacobi Medical Center in New York.

Ninety percent of affected children have abdominal symptoms early on, including abdominal pain, diarrhea, emesis, or enteritis upon imaging. A nondescript rash, headache, conjunctivitis, and irritability are common, cough much less so – under 25%.

“The thought is that if any one of these is associated with a fever lasting more than 4 days, we suggest these children be brought in and seen by a pediatrician. We don’t have a formal guideline – we’re working on that – but basically the current recommendation is to screen them initially with a CBC with differential, a chem 10, and liver function tests, but also to look for inflammatory markers that we see in our COVID patients. We’ve been quite surprised: These patients have C-reactive proteins of about 240 mg/L on average, ferritin is quite high at around 1,200 ng/mL, and d-dimers of 2,300 ng/mL. We’ve also found very high brain natriuretic peptides and troponins in these patients,” according to Dr. Conway.

Analogies have been made between this COVID-19 pediatric syndrome and Kawasaki disease. Dr. Conway is unconvinced.

“This is quite different from Kawasaki in that these children are usually thrombocytopenic and usually present with DIC [disseminated intravascular coagulation], and the d-dimers are extraordinarily high, compared to what we’re used to seeing in pediatric patients,” he said.

Symptomatic children with laboratory red flags should be hospitalized. Most of the affected New York City children have recovered after 5 or 6 days in the pediatric ICU with empiric treatment using intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), corticosteroids, and/or interleukin-6 inhibitors. However, five recent deaths are now under study.

Dr. Yealy commented that this new pediatric syndrome is “really interesting,” but to date, it affects only a very small percentage of children, and children overall have been much less affected by the pandemic than are adults.

“The populations being disproportionately impacted are the elderly, the elderly, the elderly, and then other vulnerable populations, particularly congregants and the poor,” he said. “At my site, three-quarters of the patients coming in are either patients at assisted-living facilities or work at one of those congregant facilities.”
 

The pandemic’s impact on medical education

In many hospitals, grand rounds are being done virtually via videoconferencing, often with attendant challenges in asking and answering questions. Hospital patient volumes are diminished. Medical students aren’t coming in to do clinical rotations. Medical students and residents can’t travel to interview for future residencies or jobs.

“It’s affecting education across all of the components of medicine. It’s hard to say how long this pandemic is going to last. We’re all trying to be innovative in using online tools, but I believe it’s going to have a long-lasting effect on our education system,” Dr. Marcolini predicted.

Remote interface while working from home has become frustrating, especially during peak Internet use hours.

“It’s staggering how slow my home system has become in comparison to what’s wired at work. Now many times when you try to get into your work system from home, you time out while you’re waiting for the next piece of information to come across,” Dr. Kaplan commented.

All panel participants reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

bjancin@mdedge.com

*Correction, 5/15/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the American College of Emergency Physicians.)

 

The COVID-19 pandemic is fraught with unexpected twists, among them a dramatic plunge in emergency department patient volumes, according to an expert panel on unanticipated consequences of pandemic care hosted by the presidents of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the American College of Emergency Physicians.*

“At the peak of exposure to COVID-19 illness or infection, ED volumes in my system, which are really not much different from others across the country, were cut in half, if not more. And those changes happened across virtually every form of ED presentation, from the highest acuity to the lowest. We’re now beyond our highest level of exposure to COVID-19 clinically symptomatic patients in western Pennsylvania, but that recovery in volume hasn’t occurred yet, although there are some embers,” explained Donald M. Yealy, MD, professor and chair of the department of emergency medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

He and other panelists also addressed some of the other unanticipated developments in the COVID-19 pandemic, including a recently recognized childhood manifestation called for now COVID-associated pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome, an anticipated massive second wave of non-COVID patients expected to present late to EDs and primary care clinics after having avoided needed medical care out of fear of infection, and the pandemic’s negative impact upon medical education.
 

Who’s not showing up in the ED

Dr. Yealy said that across the country, the number of patients arriving in EDs with acute ST-elevation MI, stroke, trauma, and other highest-acuity presentations is down substantially. But the volume of patients with more routine, bread-and-butter conditions typically seen in EDs is down even more.

“You might say, if I was designing from the insurance side, this is exactly what I’d hope for. I’ve heard that some people on the insurance-only side of the business really are experiencing a pretty good deal right now: They’re collecting premiums and not having to pay out on the ED or hospital side,” he said.
 

Tweaking the public health message on seeking medical care

“One of the unanticipated casualties of the pandemic are the patients who don’t have it. It will take a whole lot of work and coordinated effort to re-engage with those patients,” predicted SCCM President Lewis J. Kaplan, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Evie G. Marcolini, MD, described what she believes is necessary now: “We need to have a big focus on getting the word out to the public that acute MI, stroke, and other acute injuries are still a time-sensitive problem and they warrant at least a call to their physician or consideration of coming in to the ED.

“I think when we started out, we were telling people, ‘Don’t come in.’ Now we’re trying to dial it back a little bit and say, ‘Listen, there are things you really do need to come in for. And we will keep you safe,’” said Dr. Marcolini, an emergency medicine and neurocritical care specialist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Hanover, N.H.

“It is safe,” Dr. Yealy agreed. “The safest place in the world to be right now is the ED. Everybody’s cordoned off. There’s way more PPE [personal protective equipment]. There’s a level of precision now that should have existed but never did in our previous influenza seasons. So we have something very unique to offer, and we can put people’s minds at rest.”

He spoke of a coming “tsunami of untreated illness.”

“My concern is there is a significant subset of people who are not only eschewing ED care but staying away from their primary care provider. My fear is that we’re not as well aware of this,” he said. “Together with our primary care partners, we have to figure out ways to reach the people who are ignoring illnesses and injuries that they’re making long-term decisions about without realizing it. We have to find a way to reach those people and say it’s okay to reach for care.”

SCCM Immediate Past President Heatherlee Bailey, MD, also sees a problematic looming wave.

“I’m quite concerned about the coming second wave of non-COVID patients who’ve sat home with their worsening renal failure that’s gone from 2 to 5 because they’ve been taking a lot of NSAIDs, or the individual who’s had several TIAs that self-resolved, and we’ve missed an opportunity to prevent some significant disease. At some point they’re going to come back, and we need to figure out how to get these individuals hooked up with care, either through the ED or with their primary care provider, to prevent these potential bad outcomes,” said Dr. Bailey of the Durham (N.C.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
 

Interim guidance for pediatricians on an alarming new syndrome

Edward E. Conway Jr., MD, recalled that early in the U.S. pandemic, pediatricians felt a sense of relief that children appeared to be spared from severe COVID-19 disease. But, in just the past few weeks, a new syndrome has emerged. New York City has recorded more than 100 cases of what’s provisionally being called COVID-associated pediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Dr. Conway and others are working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop a case definition for the syndrome, first reported by pediatricians in Italy and the United Kingdom.

“We’re trying to get the word out to general pediatricians as to the common signs and symptoms that should prompt parents to bring their children in for medical care,” according to Dr. Conway, chief of pediatric critical care medicine and vice-chair of pediatrics at Jacobi Medical Center in New York.

Ninety percent of affected children have abdominal symptoms early on, including abdominal pain, diarrhea, emesis, or enteritis upon imaging. A nondescript rash, headache, conjunctivitis, and irritability are common, cough much less so – under 25%.

“The thought is that if any one of these is associated with a fever lasting more than 4 days, we suggest these children be brought in and seen by a pediatrician. We don’t have a formal guideline – we’re working on that – but basically the current recommendation is to screen them initially with a CBC with differential, a chem 10, and liver function tests, but also to look for inflammatory markers that we see in our COVID patients. We’ve been quite surprised: These patients have C-reactive proteins of about 240 mg/L on average, ferritin is quite high at around 1,200 ng/mL, and d-dimers of 2,300 ng/mL. We’ve also found very high brain natriuretic peptides and troponins in these patients,” according to Dr. Conway.

Analogies have been made between this COVID-19 pediatric syndrome and Kawasaki disease. Dr. Conway is unconvinced.

“This is quite different from Kawasaki in that these children are usually thrombocytopenic and usually present with DIC [disseminated intravascular coagulation], and the d-dimers are extraordinarily high, compared to what we’re used to seeing in pediatric patients,” he said.

Symptomatic children with laboratory red flags should be hospitalized. Most of the affected New York City children have recovered after 5 or 6 days in the pediatric ICU with empiric treatment using intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), corticosteroids, and/or interleukin-6 inhibitors. However, five recent deaths are now under study.

Dr. Yealy commented that this new pediatric syndrome is “really interesting,” but to date, it affects only a very small percentage of children, and children overall have been much less affected by the pandemic than are adults.

“The populations being disproportionately impacted are the elderly, the elderly, the elderly, and then other vulnerable populations, particularly congregants and the poor,” he said. “At my site, three-quarters of the patients coming in are either patients at assisted-living facilities or work at one of those congregant facilities.”
 

The pandemic’s impact on medical education

In many hospitals, grand rounds are being done virtually via videoconferencing, often with attendant challenges in asking and answering questions. Hospital patient volumes are diminished. Medical students aren’t coming in to do clinical rotations. Medical students and residents can’t travel to interview for future residencies or jobs.

“It’s affecting education across all of the components of medicine. It’s hard to say how long this pandemic is going to last. We’re all trying to be innovative in using online tools, but I believe it’s going to have a long-lasting effect on our education system,” Dr. Marcolini predicted.

Remote interface while working from home has become frustrating, especially during peak Internet use hours.

“It’s staggering how slow my home system has become in comparison to what’s wired at work. Now many times when you try to get into your work system from home, you time out while you’re waiting for the next piece of information to come across,” Dr. Kaplan commented.

All panel participants reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

bjancin@mdedge.com

*Correction, 5/15/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the American College of Emergency Physicians.)

 

Potential risks of cardiac injury posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection warrant a cautious return-to-play for highly active people and competitive athletes who test positive, according to leading sports cardiologists.

To prevent cardiac injury, athletes should rest for at least 2 weeks after symptoms resolve, then undergo cardiac testing before returning high-level competitive sports, reported lead author Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and colleagues.

These recommendations, which were published in JAMA Cardiology, are part of a clinical algorithm that sorts athletes based on coronavirus test status and symptom severity. The algorithm offers a clear timeline for resumption of activity, with management decisions for symptomatic individuals based on additional diagnostics, such as high-sensitivity troponin testing and electrocardiogram.

Despite a scarcity of relevant clinical data, Dr. Phelan said that he and his colleagues wanted to offer their best recommendations to the athletic community, who had been reaching out for help.

“We were getting calls and messages from amateur and professional sporting organizations from around the country asking for guidance about what to do,” Dr. Phelan said. “So a number of us from the American College of Cardiology Sports and Exercise Council decided that we really should provide some guidance even in the absence of good, strong data, for what we feel is a reasonable approach.”

The recommendations were based on what is known of other viral infections, as well as risks posed by COVID-19 that may be worsened by athletic activity.

“We know that, when people have an active infection, vigorous exercise can lower immunity, and that can make the infection worse,” Dr. Phelan said. “That really applies very strongly in people who have had myocarditis. If you exercise when you have myocarditis, it actually increases viral replication and results in increased necrosis of the heart muscle. We really want to avoid exercising during that active infection phase.”

Myocarditis is one of the top causes of sudden cardiac death among young athletes, Dr. Phelan said, “so that’s a major concern for us.”

According to Dr. Phelan, existing data suggest a wide range of incidence of 7%-33% for cardiac injury among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Even the low end of this range, at 7%, is significantly higher than the incidence rate of 1% found in patients with non–COVID-19 acute viral infections.

“This particular virus appears to cause more cardiac insults than other viruses,” Dr. Phelan said.

The incidence of cardiac injury among nonhospitalized patients remains unknown, leaving a wide knowledge gap that shaped the conservative nature of the present recommendations.

With more information, however, the guidance may “change dramatically,” Dr. Phelan said.

“If the data come back and show that no nonhospitalized patients got cardiac injury, then we would be much more comfortable allowing return to play without the need for cardiac testing,” he said.

Conversely, if cardiac injury is more common than anticipated, then more extensive testing may be needed, he added.

As the algorithm stands, high-sensitivity troponin testing and/or cardiac studies are recommended for all symptomatic athletes; if troponin levels are greater than the 99th percentile or a cardiac study is abnormal, then clinicians should follow return-to-play guidelines for myocarditis. For athletes with normal tests, slow resumption of activity is recommended, including close monitoring for clinical deterioration.

As Dr. Phelan discussed these recommendations in a broader context, he emphasized the need for caution, both preventively, and for cardiologists working with recovering athletes.

“For the early stage of this reentry into normal life while this is still an active pandemic, we need to be cautious,” Dr. Phelan said. “We need to follow the regular CDC guidelines, in terms of social distancing and handwashing, but we also need to consider that those people who have suffered from COVID-19 may have had cardiac injury. We don’t know that yet. But we need to be cautious with these individuals and test them before they return to high-level competitive sports.”

One author disclosed a relationship with the Atlanta Falcons.

SOURCE: Phelan D et al. JAMA Cardiology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136.

Potential risks of cardiac injury posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection warrant a cautious return-to-play for highly active people and competitive athletes who test positive, according to leading sports cardiologists.

To prevent cardiac injury, athletes should rest for at least 2 weeks after symptoms resolve, then undergo cardiac testing before returning high-level competitive sports, reported lead author Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and colleagues.

These recommendations, which were published in JAMA Cardiology, are part of a clinical algorithm that sorts athletes based on coronavirus test status and symptom severity. The algorithm offers a clear timeline for resumption of activity, with management decisions for symptomatic individuals based on additional diagnostics, such as high-sensitivity troponin testing and electrocardiogram.

Despite a scarcity of relevant clinical data, Dr. Phelan said that he and his colleagues wanted to offer their best recommendations to the athletic community, who had been reaching out for help.

“We were getting calls and messages from amateur and professional sporting organizations from around the country asking for guidance about what to do,” Dr. Phelan said. “So a number of us from the American College of Cardiology Sports and Exercise Council decided that we really should provide some guidance even in the absence of good, strong data, for what we feel is a reasonable approach.”

The recommendations were based on what is known of other viral infections, as well as risks posed by COVID-19 that may be worsened by athletic activity.

“We know that, when people have an active infection, vigorous exercise can lower immunity, and that can make the infection worse,” Dr. Phelan said. “That really applies very strongly in people who have had myocarditis. If you exercise when you have myocarditis, it actually increases viral replication and results in increased necrosis of the heart muscle. We really want to avoid exercising during that active infection phase.”

Myocarditis is one of the top causes of sudden cardiac death among young athletes, Dr. Phelan said, “so that’s a major concern for us.”

According to Dr. Phelan, existing data suggest a wide range of incidence of 7%-33% for cardiac injury among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Even the low end of this range, at 7%, is significantly higher than the incidence rate of 1% found in patients with non–COVID-19 acute viral infections.

“This particular virus appears to cause more cardiac insults than other viruses,” Dr. Phelan said.

The incidence of cardiac injury among nonhospitalized patients remains unknown, leaving a wide knowledge gap that shaped the conservative nature of the present recommendations.

With more information, however, the guidance may “change dramatically,” Dr. Phelan said.

“If the data come back and show that no nonhospitalized patients got cardiac injury, then we would be much more comfortable allowing return to play without the need for cardiac testing,” he said.

Conversely, if cardiac injury is more common than anticipated, then more extensive testing may be needed, he added.

As the algorithm stands, high-sensitivity troponin testing and/or cardiac studies are recommended for all symptomatic athletes; if troponin levels are greater than the 99th percentile or a cardiac study is abnormal, then clinicians should follow return-to-play guidelines for myocarditis. For athletes with normal tests, slow resumption of activity is recommended, including close monitoring for clinical deterioration.

As Dr. Phelan discussed these recommendations in a broader context, he emphasized the need for caution, both preventively, and for cardiologists working with recovering athletes.

“For the early stage of this reentry into normal life while this is still an active pandemic, we need to be cautious,” Dr. Phelan said. “We need to follow the regular CDC guidelines, in terms of social distancing and handwashing, but we also need to consider that those people who have suffered from COVID-19 may have had cardiac injury. We don’t know that yet. But we need to be cautious with these individuals and test them before they return to high-level competitive sports.”

One author disclosed a relationship with the Atlanta Falcons.

SOURCE: Phelan D et al. JAMA Cardiology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136.

Potential risks of cardiac injury posed by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection warrant a cautious return-to-play for highly active people and competitive athletes who test positive, according to leading sports cardiologists.

To prevent cardiac injury, athletes should rest for at least 2 weeks after symptoms resolve, then undergo cardiac testing before returning high-level competitive sports, reported lead author Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, of Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., and colleagues.

These recommendations, which were published in JAMA Cardiology, are part of a clinical algorithm that sorts athletes based on coronavirus test status and symptom severity. The algorithm offers a clear timeline for resumption of activity, with management decisions for symptomatic individuals based on additional diagnostics, such as high-sensitivity troponin testing and electrocardiogram.

Despite a scarcity of relevant clinical data, Dr. Phelan said that he and his colleagues wanted to offer their best recommendations to the athletic community, who had been reaching out for help.

“We were getting calls and messages from amateur and professional sporting organizations from around the country asking for guidance about what to do,” Dr. Phelan said. “So a number of us from the American College of Cardiology Sports and Exercise Council decided that we really should provide some guidance even in the absence of good, strong data, for what we feel is a reasonable approach.”

The recommendations were based on what is known of other viral infections, as well as risks posed by COVID-19 that may be worsened by athletic activity.

“We know that, when people have an active infection, vigorous exercise can lower immunity, and that can make the infection worse,” Dr. Phelan said. “That really applies very strongly in people who have had myocarditis. If you exercise when you have myocarditis, it actually increases viral replication and results in increased necrosis of the heart muscle. We really want to avoid exercising during that active infection phase.”

Myocarditis is one of the top causes of sudden cardiac death among young athletes, Dr. Phelan said, “so that’s a major concern for us.”

According to Dr. Phelan, existing data suggest a wide range of incidence of 7%-33% for cardiac injury among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Even the low end of this range, at 7%, is significantly higher than the incidence rate of 1% found in patients with non–COVID-19 acute viral infections.

“This particular virus appears to cause more cardiac insults than other viruses,” Dr. Phelan said.

The incidence of cardiac injury among nonhospitalized patients remains unknown, leaving a wide knowledge gap that shaped the conservative nature of the present recommendations.

With more information, however, the guidance may “change dramatically,” Dr. Phelan said.

“If the data come back and show that no nonhospitalized patients got cardiac injury, then we would be much more comfortable allowing return to play without the need for cardiac testing,” he said.

Conversely, if cardiac injury is more common than anticipated, then more extensive testing may be needed, he added.

As the algorithm stands, high-sensitivity troponin testing and/or cardiac studies are recommended for all symptomatic athletes; if troponin levels are greater than the 99th percentile or a cardiac study is abnormal, then clinicians should follow return-to-play guidelines for myocarditis. For athletes with normal tests, slow resumption of activity is recommended, including close monitoring for clinical deterioration.

As Dr. Phelan discussed these recommendations in a broader context, he emphasized the need for caution, both preventively, and for cardiologists working with recovering athletes.

“For the early stage of this reentry into normal life while this is still an active pandemic, we need to be cautious,” Dr. Phelan said. “We need to follow the regular CDC guidelines, in terms of social distancing and handwashing, but we also need to consider that those people who have suffered from COVID-19 may have had cardiac injury. We don’t know that yet. But we need to be cautious with these individuals and test them before they return to high-level competitive sports.”

One author disclosed a relationship with the Atlanta Falcons.

SOURCE: Phelan D et al. JAMA Cardiology. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136.

Over the din of the negative pressure machine, I shouted goodbye to my patient and zipped my way out of one of the little plastic enclosures in our ED and carefully shed my gloves, gown, and face shield, leaving on my precious mask. I discarded the rest with disgust and a bit of fear. I thought, “This is a whole new world, and I hate it.”

I feel as if I am constantly battling the fear of dying from COVID-19 but am doing the best I can, given the circumstances at hand. I have the proper equipment and use it well. My work still brings meaning: I serve those in need without hesitation. The problem is that deep feeling of connection with patients, which is such an important part of this work, feels like fraying threads moving further apart because of the havoc this virus has wrought. A few weeks ago, the intricate fabric of what it is to be human connected me to patients through the basics: touch, facial expressions, a physical proximity, and openhearted, honest dialogue. Much of that’s gone, and while I can carry on, I will surely burn out if I can’t figure out how to get at least some of that connection back.

Overwhelmed by the amount of information I need to process daily, I had not been thinking about the interpersonal side of the pandemic for the first weeks. I felt it leaving the ED that morning and later that day, and I felt it again with Ms. Z, who was not even suspected of having COVID. She is a 62-year-old I interviewed with the help of a translator phone. At the end of our encounter, she said “But doctor, will you make my tumor go away?” From across the room, I said, “I will try.” I saw her eyes dampen as I made a hasty exit, following protocol to limit time in the room of all patients.

Typically, leaving a patient’s room, I would feel a fullness associated with a sense of meaning. How did I feel after that? In that moment, mostly ashamed at my lack of compassion during my time with Ms. Z. Then, with further reflection, tense from all things COVID-19! Having an amped-up sympathetic nervous system is understandable, but it’s not where we want to be for our compassion to flow.

We connect best when our parasympathetic nervous system is predominant. So much of the stimuli we need to activate that part of the nervous system is gone. There is a virtuous cycle, much of it unconscious, where something positive leads to more positivity, which is crucial to meaningful patient encounters. We read each other’s facial expressions, hear the tone of voice, and as we pick up subtle cues from our patient, our nervous system is further engaged and our hearts opened.

The specter of COVID-19 has us battling a negative spiral of stress and fear. For the most part, I try to keep that from consuming me, but it clearly saps my energy during encounters. In the same way we need to marshal our resources to battle both the stress and the disease itself, we need to actively engage pro-social elements of providing care to maintain our compassion. Clearly, I needed a more concerted effort to kick start this virtuous cycle of compassion.

My next patient was Ms. J., a 55-year-old with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who came in the night before with shortness of breath. Her slight frame shook from coughing as I entered the room. I did not think she had COVID-19, but we were ruling it out.

We reviewed how she felt since admission, and I performed a hasty exam and stepped back across the room. She coughed again and said, “I feel so weak, and the world feels so crazy; tell it to me straight.” Then looking in my eyes, “I am going to make it, doc?”

I took my cue from her; I walked back to the bedside, placed a gloved hand on her shoulder and with the other, I took her hand. I bent forward just a little. Making eye contact and attempting a comforting tone of voice, I said, “Everyone is a little scared, including me. We need each other more than ever these days. We will do our best for you. That means thoughtful medical care and a whole lot of love! And, truly, I don’t think you are dying; this is just one of your COPD flares.”

“God bless you!” she said, squeezing my hand as a tear rolled down her cheek.

“Bless you, too. We all need blessing with this madness going on,” I replied. Despite the mask, I am sure she saw the smile in my eyes. “Thanks for being the beautiful person you are and opening up to me. That’s the way we will make it through this. I will see you tomorrow.” Backing away, hands together in prayer, I gave a little bow and left the room.

With Ms. J.’s help, I began to figure it out. To tackle the stress of COVID, we need to be very direct – almost to the point of exaggeration – to make sure our words and actions convey what we need to express. William James, the father of psychology, believed that if you force a smile, your emotions would follow. The neural pathways could work backward in that way. He said, “If you want a quality, act as if you have it.” The modern translation would be, “Fake it ’til you make it.’ ” You may be feeling stressed, but with a deep breath and a moment’s reflection on the suffering of that patient you are about to see, you can turn the tide on anxiety and give those under your care what they need.

These are unprecedented times; anxiety abounds. While we can aspire to positivity, there are times when we simply can’t muster showing it. Alternatively, as I experienced with Ms. J., honesty and vulnerability can open the door to meaningful connection. This can be quite powerful when we, as physicians, open up to our patients.

People are yearning for deep connection, and we should attempt to deliver it with:

• Touch (as we can) to convey connection.
• Body language that adds emphasis to our message and our emotions that may go above and beyond what we are used to.
• Tone of voice that enhances our words.
• Talk that emphasizes the big stuff, such as love, fear, connection and community

With gloves, masks, distance, and fear between and us and our patients, we need to actively engage our pro-social tools to turn the negative spiral of fear into the virtuous cycle of positive emotions that promotes healing of our patients and emotional engagement for those providing their care.
 

Dr. Hass was trained in family medicine at University of California, San Francisco, after receiving his medical degree from the McGill University faculty of medicine, Montreal. He works as a hospitalist with Sutter Health in Oakland, Calif. He is an adviser on health and health care for the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley and clinical faculty at UCSF School of Medicine. This article appeared initially at The Hospital Leader, the official blog of SHM.

Over the din of the negative pressure machine, I shouted goodbye to my patient and zipped my way out of one of the little plastic enclosures in our ED and carefully shed my gloves, gown, and face shield, leaving on my precious mask. I discarded the rest with disgust and a bit of fear. I thought, “This is a whole new world, and I hate it.”

I feel as if I am constantly battling the fear of dying from COVID-19 but am doing the best I can, given the circumstances at hand. I have the proper equipment and use it well. My work still brings meaning: I serve those in need without hesitation. The problem is that deep feeling of connection with patients, which is such an important part of this work, feels like fraying threads moving further apart because of the havoc this virus has wrought. A few weeks ago, the intricate fabric of what it is to be human connected me to patients through the basics: touch, facial expressions, a physical proximity, and openhearted, honest dialogue. Much of that’s gone, and while I can carry on, I will surely burn out if I can’t figure out how to get at least some of that connection back.

Overwhelmed by the amount of information I need to process daily, I had not been thinking about the interpersonal side of the pandemic for the first weeks. I felt it leaving the ED that morning and later that day, and I felt it again with Ms. Z, who was not even suspected of having COVID. She is a 62-year-old I interviewed with the help of a translator phone. At the end of our encounter, she said “But doctor, will you make my tumor go away?” From across the room, I said, “I will try.” I saw her eyes dampen as I made a hasty exit, following protocol to limit time in the room of all patients.

Typically, leaving a patient’s room, I would feel a fullness associated with a sense of meaning. How did I feel after that? In that moment, mostly ashamed at my lack of compassion during my time with Ms. Z. Then, with further reflection, tense from all things COVID-19! Having an amped-up sympathetic nervous system is understandable, but it’s not where we want to be for our compassion to flow.

We connect best when our parasympathetic nervous system is predominant. So much of the stimuli we need to activate that part of the nervous system is gone. There is a virtuous cycle, much of it unconscious, where something positive leads to more positivity, which is crucial to meaningful patient encounters. We read each other’s facial expressions, hear the tone of voice, and as we pick up subtle cues from our patient, our nervous system is further engaged and our hearts opened.

The specter of COVID-19 has us battling a negative spiral of stress and fear. For the most part, I try to keep that from consuming me, but it clearly saps my energy during encounters. In the same way we need to marshal our resources to battle both the stress and the disease itself, we need to actively engage pro-social elements of providing care to maintain our compassion. Clearly, I needed a more concerted effort to kick start this virtuous cycle of compassion.

My next patient was Ms. J., a 55-year-old with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who came in the night before with shortness of breath. Her slight frame shook from coughing as I entered the room. I did not think she had COVID-19, but we were ruling it out.

We reviewed how she felt since admission, and I performed a hasty exam and stepped back across the room. She coughed again and said, “I feel so weak, and the world feels so crazy; tell it to me straight.” Then looking in my eyes, “I am going to make it, doc?”

I took my cue from her; I walked back to the bedside, placed a gloved hand on her shoulder and with the other, I took her hand. I bent forward just a little. Making eye contact and attempting a comforting tone of voice, I said, “Everyone is a little scared, including me. We need each other more than ever these days. We will do our best for you. That means thoughtful medical care and a whole lot of love! And, truly, I don’t think you are dying; this is just one of your COPD flares.”

“God bless you!” she said, squeezing my hand as a tear rolled down her cheek.

“Bless you, too. We all need blessing with this madness going on,” I replied. Despite the mask, I am sure she saw the smile in my eyes. “Thanks for being the beautiful person you are and opening up to me. That’s the way we will make it through this. I will see you tomorrow.” Backing away, hands together in prayer, I gave a little bow and left the room.

With Ms. J.’s help, I began to figure it out. To tackle the stress of COVID, we need to be very direct – almost to the point of exaggeration – to make sure our words and actions convey what we need to express. William James, the father of psychology, believed that if you force a smile, your emotions would follow. The neural pathways could work backward in that way. He said, “If you want a quality, act as if you have it.” The modern translation would be, “Fake it ’til you make it.’ ” You may be feeling stressed, but with a deep breath and a moment’s reflection on the suffering of that patient you are about to see, you can turn the tide on anxiety and give those under your care what they need.

These are unprecedented times; anxiety abounds. While we can aspire to positivity, there are times when we simply can’t muster showing it. Alternatively, as I experienced with Ms. J., honesty and vulnerability can open the door to meaningful connection. This can be quite powerful when we, as physicians, open up to our patients.

People are yearning for deep connection, and we should attempt to deliver it with:

• Touch (as we can) to convey connection.
• Body language that adds emphasis to our message and our emotions that may go above and beyond what we are used to.
• Tone of voice that enhances our words.
• Talk that emphasizes the big stuff, such as love, fear, connection and community

With gloves, masks, distance, and fear between and us and our patients, we need to actively engage our pro-social tools to turn the negative spiral of fear into the virtuous cycle of positive emotions that promotes healing of our patients and emotional engagement for those providing their care.
 

Dr. Hass was trained in family medicine at University of California, San Francisco, after receiving his medical degree from the McGill University faculty of medicine, Montreal. He works as a hospitalist with Sutter Health in Oakland, Calif. He is an adviser on health and health care for the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley and clinical faculty at UCSF School of Medicine. This article appeared initially at The Hospital Leader, the official blog of SHM.

Over the din of the negative pressure machine, I shouted goodbye to my patient and zipped my way out of one of the little plastic enclosures in our ED and carefully shed my gloves, gown, and face shield, leaving on my precious mask. I discarded the rest with disgust and a bit of fear. I thought, “This is a whole new world, and I hate it.”

I feel as if I am constantly battling the fear of dying from COVID-19 but am doing the best I can, given the circumstances at hand. I have the proper equipment and use it well. My work still brings meaning: I serve those in need without hesitation. The problem is that deep feeling of connection with patients, which is such an important part of this work, feels like fraying threads moving further apart because of the havoc this virus has wrought. A few weeks ago, the intricate fabric of what it is to be human connected me to patients through the basics: touch, facial expressions, a physical proximity, and openhearted, honest dialogue. Much of that’s gone, and while I can carry on, I will surely burn out if I can’t figure out how to get at least some of that connection back.

Overwhelmed by the amount of information I need to process daily, I had not been thinking about the interpersonal side of the pandemic for the first weeks. I felt it leaving the ED that morning and later that day, and I felt it again with Ms. Z, who was not even suspected of having COVID. She is a 62-year-old I interviewed with the help of a translator phone. At the end of our encounter, she said “But doctor, will you make my tumor go away?” From across the room, I said, “I will try.” I saw her eyes dampen as I made a hasty exit, following protocol to limit time in the room of all patients.

Typically, leaving a patient’s room, I would feel a fullness associated with a sense of meaning. How did I feel after that? In that moment, mostly ashamed at my lack of compassion during my time with Ms. Z. Then, with further reflection, tense from all things COVID-19! Having an amped-up sympathetic nervous system is understandable, but it’s not where we want to be for our compassion to flow.

We connect best when our parasympathetic nervous system is predominant. So much of the stimuli we need to activate that part of the nervous system is gone. There is a virtuous cycle, much of it unconscious, where something positive leads to more positivity, which is crucial to meaningful patient encounters. We read each other’s facial expressions, hear the tone of voice, and as we pick up subtle cues from our patient, our nervous system is further engaged and our hearts opened.

The specter of COVID-19 has us battling a negative spiral of stress and fear. For the most part, I try to keep that from consuming me, but it clearly saps my energy during encounters. In the same way we need to marshal our resources to battle both the stress and the disease itself, we need to actively engage pro-social elements of providing care to maintain our compassion. Clearly, I needed a more concerted effort to kick start this virtuous cycle of compassion.

My next patient was Ms. J., a 55-year-old with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who came in the night before with shortness of breath. Her slight frame shook from coughing as I entered the room. I did not think she had COVID-19, but we were ruling it out.

We reviewed how she felt since admission, and I performed a hasty exam and stepped back across the room. She coughed again and said, “I feel so weak, and the world feels so crazy; tell it to me straight.” Then looking in my eyes, “I am going to make it, doc?”

I took my cue from her; I walked back to the bedside, placed a gloved hand on her shoulder and with the other, I took her hand. I bent forward just a little. Making eye contact and attempting a comforting tone of voice, I said, “Everyone is a little scared, including me. We need each other more than ever these days. We will do our best for you. That means thoughtful medical care and a whole lot of love! And, truly, I don’t think you are dying; this is just one of your COPD flares.”

“God bless you!” she said, squeezing my hand as a tear rolled down her cheek.

“Bless you, too. We all need blessing with this madness going on,” I replied. Despite the mask, I am sure she saw the smile in my eyes. “Thanks for being the beautiful person you are and opening up to me. That’s the way we will make it through this. I will see you tomorrow.” Backing away, hands together in prayer, I gave a little bow and left the room.

With Ms. J.’s help, I began to figure it out. To tackle the stress of COVID, we need to be very direct – almost to the point of exaggeration – to make sure our words and actions convey what we need to express. William James, the father of psychology, believed that if you force a smile, your emotions would follow. The neural pathways could work backward in that way. He said, “If you want a quality, act as if you have it.” The modern translation would be, “Fake it ’til you make it.’ ” You may be feeling stressed, but with a deep breath and a moment’s reflection on the suffering of that patient you are about to see, you can turn the tide on anxiety and give those under your care what they need.

These are unprecedented times; anxiety abounds. While we can aspire to positivity, there are times when we simply can’t muster showing it. Alternatively, as I experienced with Ms. J., honesty and vulnerability can open the door to meaningful connection. This can be quite powerful when we, as physicians, open up to our patients.

People are yearning for deep connection, and we should attempt to deliver it with:

• Touch (as we can) to convey connection.
• Body language that adds emphasis to our message and our emotions that may go above and beyond what we are used to.
• Tone of voice that enhances our words.
• Talk that emphasizes the big stuff, such as love, fear, connection and community

With gloves, masks, distance, and fear between and us and our patients, we need to actively engage our pro-social tools to turn the negative spiral of fear into the virtuous cycle of positive emotions that promotes healing of our patients and emotional engagement for those providing their care.
 

Dr. Hass was trained in family medicine at University of California, San Francisco, after receiving his medical degree from the McGill University faculty of medicine, Montreal. He works as a hospitalist with Sutter Health in Oakland, Calif. He is an adviser on health and health care for the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley and clinical faculty at UCSF School of Medicine. This article appeared initially at The Hospital Leader, the official blog of SHM.

In a head-to-head comparison, natalizumab was superior to fingolimod with respect to evidence of disease activity at 1 year for patients with active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Use of natalizumab was associated with fewer new T2 lesions (0.7 vs 1.4 with fingolimod) and gadolinium-enhancing lesions (0.03 vs. 0.5, respectively) at 12 months, for example.

“The take-home message is that natalizumab showed significant superiority compared to fingolimod on the primary outcome, which was the proportion of patients reaching NEDA [no evidence of disease activity] at 12 months,” lead author Mikael Cohen, MD, said.

“The difference between both drugs was prominent on MRI parameters, especially regarding the number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions,” added Dr. Cohen, of the Department of Neurology at University Hospital Center in Nice, France.

This research was presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.

Twelve-month results

The design of the Best Escalation Strategy in MS (BEST MS) study makes it unique, Dr. Cohen said. “It was a prospective and standardized study, unlike most other publications comparing efficacy of those two drugs that were based on retrospective analysis of data registries,” he said. Although BEST MS was an open-label, real-life analysis, the neuroradiologist who analyzed MRI images was blinded to treatment arms, he added.

The multicenter study began in France in 2013, when natalizumab and fingolimod were the two most commonly used agents for active RRMS.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues assessed 230 patients with the condition. The mean age was 38 years, and 75% were women. At the discretion of the treating physician, 113 participants received natalizumab, and 117 were treated with fingolimod.

A multivariate analysis confirmed that fingolimod was associated with a lower likelihood of achieving NEDA at 12 months.

Most relapses occurred early, and the annual relapse rate favored natalizumab, the researchers noted. In addition, the number of discontinuations due to adverse events was higher in the fingolimod group.

“We are working to submit the paper for publication,” Dr. Cohen said. It has also been submitted to the ECTRIMS/ACTRIMS Joint Congress in Washington, DC, for presentation in September 2020.

More tesearch warranted

Commenting on the study, Michelle H. Cameron, MD, said the findings are difficult to interpret because “this was not a randomized controlled trial. Treatment choice was at the discretion of the providers.

“It is hard to know what biases this approach introduced – although it is reassuring that the baseline clinical and radiographic characteristics are described as similar,” said Cameron, codirector of the MS Center of Excellence West at the VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon.

In addition, the superior MRI outcomes at 12 months with natalizumab need to be backed up by clinical outcomes, she said, preferably spanning at least 2 years.

“Overall, these results seem to be consistent with the randomized controlled trials of these individual agents,” Dr. Cameron concluded.

BEST MS was an institutional study and was not funded by any pharmaceutical firm. Dr. Cohen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cameron is a consultant for Greenwich Biosciences and Adamas Pharmaceuticals.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a head-to-head comparison, natalizumab was superior to fingolimod with respect to evidence of disease activity at 1 year for patients with active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Use of natalizumab was associated with fewer new T2 lesions (0.7 vs 1.4 with fingolimod) and gadolinium-enhancing lesions (0.03 vs. 0.5, respectively) at 12 months, for example.

“The take-home message is that natalizumab showed significant superiority compared to fingolimod on the primary outcome, which was the proportion of patients reaching NEDA [no evidence of disease activity] at 12 months,” lead author Mikael Cohen, MD, said.

“The difference between both drugs was prominent on MRI parameters, especially regarding the number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions,” added Dr. Cohen, of the Department of Neurology at University Hospital Center in Nice, France.

This research was presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.

Twelve-month results

The design of the Best Escalation Strategy in MS (BEST MS) study makes it unique, Dr. Cohen said. “It was a prospective and standardized study, unlike most other publications comparing efficacy of those two drugs that were based on retrospective analysis of data registries,” he said. Although BEST MS was an open-label, real-life analysis, the neuroradiologist who analyzed MRI images was blinded to treatment arms, he added.

The multicenter study began in France in 2013, when natalizumab and fingolimod were the two most commonly used agents for active RRMS.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues assessed 230 patients with the condition. The mean age was 38 years, and 75% were women. At the discretion of the treating physician, 113 participants received natalizumab, and 117 were treated with fingolimod.

A multivariate analysis confirmed that fingolimod was associated with a lower likelihood of achieving NEDA at 12 months.

Most relapses occurred early, and the annual relapse rate favored natalizumab, the researchers noted. In addition, the number of discontinuations due to adverse events was higher in the fingolimod group.

“We are working to submit the paper for publication,” Dr. Cohen said. It has also been submitted to the ECTRIMS/ACTRIMS Joint Congress in Washington, DC, for presentation in September 2020.

More tesearch warranted

Commenting on the study, Michelle H. Cameron, MD, said the findings are difficult to interpret because “this was not a randomized controlled trial. Treatment choice was at the discretion of the providers.

“It is hard to know what biases this approach introduced – although it is reassuring that the baseline clinical and radiographic characteristics are described as similar,” said Cameron, codirector of the MS Center of Excellence West at the VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon.

In addition, the superior MRI outcomes at 12 months with natalizumab need to be backed up by clinical outcomes, she said, preferably spanning at least 2 years.

“Overall, these results seem to be consistent with the randomized controlled trials of these individual agents,” Dr. Cameron concluded.

BEST MS was an institutional study and was not funded by any pharmaceutical firm. Dr. Cohen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cameron is a consultant for Greenwich Biosciences and Adamas Pharmaceuticals.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a head-to-head comparison, natalizumab was superior to fingolimod with respect to evidence of disease activity at 1 year for patients with active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Use of natalizumab was associated with fewer new T2 lesions (0.7 vs 1.4 with fingolimod) and gadolinium-enhancing lesions (0.03 vs. 0.5, respectively) at 12 months, for example.

“The take-home message is that natalizumab showed significant superiority compared to fingolimod on the primary outcome, which was the proportion of patients reaching NEDA [no evidence of disease activity] at 12 months,” lead author Mikael Cohen, MD, said.

“The difference between both drugs was prominent on MRI parameters, especially regarding the number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions,” added Dr. Cohen, of the Department of Neurology at University Hospital Center in Nice, France.

This research was presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.

Twelve-month results

The design of the Best Escalation Strategy in MS (BEST MS) study makes it unique, Dr. Cohen said. “It was a prospective and standardized study, unlike most other publications comparing efficacy of those two drugs that were based on retrospective analysis of data registries,” he said. Although BEST MS was an open-label, real-life analysis, the neuroradiologist who analyzed MRI images was blinded to treatment arms, he added.

The multicenter study began in France in 2013, when natalizumab and fingolimod were the two most commonly used agents for active RRMS.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues assessed 230 patients with the condition. The mean age was 38 years, and 75% were women. At the discretion of the treating physician, 113 participants received natalizumab, and 117 were treated with fingolimod.

A multivariate analysis confirmed that fingolimod was associated with a lower likelihood of achieving NEDA at 12 months.

Most relapses occurred early, and the annual relapse rate favored natalizumab, the researchers noted. In addition, the number of discontinuations due to adverse events was higher in the fingolimod group.

“We are working to submit the paper for publication,” Dr. Cohen said. It has also been submitted to the ECTRIMS/ACTRIMS Joint Congress in Washington, DC, for presentation in September 2020.

More tesearch warranted

Commenting on the study, Michelle H. Cameron, MD, said the findings are difficult to interpret because “this was not a randomized controlled trial. Treatment choice was at the discretion of the providers.

“It is hard to know what biases this approach introduced – although it is reassuring that the baseline clinical and radiographic characteristics are described as similar,” said Cameron, codirector of the MS Center of Excellence West at the VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon.

In addition, the superior MRI outcomes at 12 months with natalizumab need to be backed up by clinical outcomes, she said, preferably spanning at least 2 years.

“Overall, these results seem to be consistent with the randomized controlled trials of these individual agents,” Dr. Cameron concluded.

BEST MS was an institutional study and was not funded by any pharmaceutical firm. Dr. Cohen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cameron is a consultant for Greenwich Biosciences and Adamas Pharmaceuticals.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.