Ob.Gyn. News

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

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women facing issues related to perimenopause and menopause can consult their primary care physicians or ob.gyns. through telemedicine visits, but a new online portal, the Cusp, offers an alternative model with a focus on menopause and access to experts for a monthly membership fee.

The Cusp doesn’t claim to replace routine gynecologic care. Rather, it focuses on perimenopause and menopause symptoms specifically, and states that its physicians, some of whom are certified by the North American Menopause Society, provide expertise in menopause beyond what patients might receive as part of a typical ob.gyn. visit.

The Cusp is a for-profit organization, a group of physicians, nurse practitioners, and technologists who focus on integrated care for women in perimenopause and beyond. The aim is to leverage technology as a way to connect women to the care platform to book physician and nurse practitioner visits virtually and to have all of the information about their care centralized in one place.

According to the website, most patients who sign up for a care plan check in with their providers at least once a month to monitor their symptoms and tweak treatment strategies. Patients who sign up are prompted to download an app, which then becomes the main tool for scheduling future visits, tracking symptoms, and communicating with providers.

The Cusp launched in early 2019, before the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the pandemic has accelerated the acceptance across medical specialties, suggesting that telemedicine is here to stay, according to Mindy Goldman, MD, professor of gynecology and gynecologic surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the Gynecology Center for Cancer Survivors and At-Risk Women at UCSF, who also serves as a medical adviser to the Cusp.

Partnering with technology companies allows opportunities to provide care in areas where there are gaps, such as menopause management, she said. Many clinicians in primary care and ob.gyn. care don’t have the time or training to discuss menopause management in depth with patients, and patient interviews conducted by the Cusp before launching the site showed that this was an area of need.

“One thing that is really unique about the Cusp is that we brought together experts to provide care in both in an evidence-based and holistic fashion,” Dr. Goldman emphasized.

The Cusp’s medical team includes physician and nurse practitioner menopause experts with backgrounds including not only ob.gyn. but also psychiatry, integrative medicine, and naturopathic medicine, with plans to add endocrinology and dermatology as well. This holistic approach allows the Cusp to tailor care based on what each woman is looking for, with evidence-based expertise to support treatment decisions, said Dr. Goldman, whose advisory role includes helping to develop patient treatment protocols and services.

If a woman wants to begin treating symptoms with a naturopathic approach, the team will provide protocols that take current guidelines into account. Regular visits, approximately once a month or as needed, allow for collaboration with the Cusp’s specialists to provide consistent care that is very comprehensive, she said.

One of the benefits of the Cusp is the opportunity for “frequent touchpoints” in which providers reach out to patients via text, email, or video. Although a traditional medical visit may include some initial discussion of menopause and treatment plans, the Cusp offers “a more seamless way to address needs on an ongoing basis,” to provide more complete patient care, Dr. Goldman said.

“We are constantly asking women what they are looking for in menopause care,” and a recurring question was about hormone testing, she said. Nontraditional practitioners may offer hormone testing as a way of individualizing care that also involves compounded formulations, and other treatments that are not standard of care. “In all of our protocols we follow what is recommended by standard organizations such as ACOG [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] and NAMS.”

The Cusp’s newest service is an at-home hormone test currently for women in New York and California, but the company plans to expand this service. The hormone test, while not essential, is another tool to guide menopause management, and having a sense of when menopause will occur “gives us a chance to talk to people about behavioral changes and time to personalize a treatment protocol,” Dr. Goldman said.

The test is based in part on the anti-Müllerian hormone, which recent studies have shown is useful in predicting time to menopause. This, in combination with other hormone tests and other clinical information, will allow the Cusp’s menopause specialists to help women in perimenopause gain perspective on their symptoms and design a treatment plan that can evolve as their needs change, she explained.

“The more information you know about when menopause is going to be happening, you can tailor your treatment plan,” Dr. Goldman said. For example, a woman who may be 2 years away from menopause might consider a naturopathic approach at first, and switch to a different therapy as menopause occurs. “We know that the risks of cardiovascular disease and bone loss increase after menopause, and knowing the time to menopause gives us more guidance when educating patients about healthy lifestyle habits such as exercise and dietary changes that can help reduce these risks.”

The Cusp allows patients to use money in flexible spending accounts or health savings accounts to pay for the program. If doctors require lab tests or other procedures, these are covered through the patients’ regular health insurance as they would be if requested by a primary care physician or other health care professional.

Lubna Pal, MBBS, director of the menopause program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., commented that part of the value in a telehealth site such as the Cusp is to serve as “a resource for reproductively aging women to understand what is happening to them.”

Any way to improve education on the topic of menopause is empowering to women, said Dr. Pal, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale. “This is an opportunity for patients to have access to a directed evaluation” of menopause-related symptoms. Then, when women visit their regular health care provider in person, they are well-equipped with knowledge to ask more informed questions and discuss a wide range of treatment options.

Dr. Pal noted that the hormone test is less valuable than the interaction between physicians and patients, whether online or in person.

“Menopause is a Monday morning quarterback diagnosis,” she said, emphasizing that, not only is a year without menses part of the diagnosis of menopause, many women in perimenopause can have wide fluctuations in hormone levels, so a test is more of a snapshot than a diagnostic tool, and that the results might cause unnecessary angst and concerns for patients.

However, part of the value of a telehealth site that focuses on menopause is that it gives women a place to learn more about their biology and to clarify their questions about symptoms and become aware of a range of treatment options. Telehealth consultations also can help women recognize how other factors such as lifestyle modifications can play a role in menopause symptoms, and how modifying these factors may provide some relief, she said.

Dr. Pal said she would be cautious about the idea of prescribing without seeing the patient in person, but noted that telehealth sites such as the Cusp can be a win-win to enhance women’s health when used in combination with regular in-person visits to an ob.gyn. The added value in patients’ being able to discuss their concerns and to learn more about their symptoms means that they will be better informed to develop a menopause management strategy in partnership with their providers, said Dr. Pal, who is not associated with the Cusp.

Dr. Goldman disclosed receiving compensation from the Cusp for her advisory work. She also holds stock options in the company. Dr. Pal, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board, had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women facing issues related to perimenopause and menopause can consult their primary care physicians or ob.gyns. through telemedicine visits, but a new online portal, the Cusp, offers an alternative model with a focus on menopause and access to experts for a monthly membership fee.

The Cusp doesn’t claim to replace routine gynecologic care. Rather, it focuses on perimenopause and menopause symptoms specifically, and states that its physicians, some of whom are certified by the North American Menopause Society, provide expertise in menopause beyond what patients might receive as part of a typical ob.gyn. visit.

The Cusp is a for-profit organization, a group of physicians, nurse practitioners, and technologists who focus on integrated care for women in perimenopause and beyond. The aim is to leverage technology as a way to connect women to the care platform to book physician and nurse practitioner visits virtually and to have all of the information about their care centralized in one place.

According to the website, most patients who sign up for a care plan check in with their providers at least once a month to monitor their symptoms and tweak treatment strategies. Patients who sign up are prompted to download an app, which then becomes the main tool for scheduling future visits, tracking symptoms, and communicating with providers.

The Cusp launched in early 2019, before the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the pandemic has accelerated the acceptance across medical specialties, suggesting that telemedicine is here to stay, according to Mindy Goldman, MD, professor of gynecology and gynecologic surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the Gynecology Center for Cancer Survivors and At-Risk Women at UCSF, who also serves as a medical adviser to the Cusp.

Partnering with technology companies allows opportunities to provide care in areas where there are gaps, such as menopause management, she said. Many clinicians in primary care and ob.gyn. care don’t have the time or training to discuss menopause management in depth with patients, and patient interviews conducted by the Cusp before launching the site showed that this was an area of need.

“One thing that is really unique about the Cusp is that we brought together experts to provide care in both in an evidence-based and holistic fashion,” Dr. Goldman emphasized.

The Cusp’s medical team includes physician and nurse practitioner menopause experts with backgrounds including not only ob.gyn. but also psychiatry, integrative medicine, and naturopathic medicine, with plans to add endocrinology and dermatology as well. This holistic approach allows the Cusp to tailor care based on what each woman is looking for, with evidence-based expertise to support treatment decisions, said Dr. Goldman, whose advisory role includes helping to develop patient treatment protocols and services.

If a woman wants to begin treating symptoms with a naturopathic approach, the team will provide protocols that take current guidelines into account. Regular visits, approximately once a month or as needed, allow for collaboration with the Cusp’s specialists to provide consistent care that is very comprehensive, she said.

One of the benefits of the Cusp is the opportunity for “frequent touchpoints” in which providers reach out to patients via text, email, or video. Although a traditional medical visit may include some initial discussion of menopause and treatment plans, the Cusp offers “a more seamless way to address needs on an ongoing basis,” to provide more complete patient care, Dr. Goldman said.

“We are constantly asking women what they are looking for in menopause care,” and a recurring question was about hormone testing, she said. Nontraditional practitioners may offer hormone testing as a way of individualizing care that also involves compounded formulations, and other treatments that are not standard of care. “In all of our protocols we follow what is recommended by standard organizations such as ACOG [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] and NAMS.”

The Cusp’s newest service is an at-home hormone test currently for women in New York and California, but the company plans to expand this service. The hormone test, while not essential, is another tool to guide menopause management, and having a sense of when menopause will occur “gives us a chance to talk to people about behavioral changes and time to personalize a treatment protocol,” Dr. Goldman said.

The test is based in part on the anti-Müllerian hormone, which recent studies have shown is useful in predicting time to menopause. This, in combination with other hormone tests and other clinical information, will allow the Cusp’s menopause specialists to help women in perimenopause gain perspective on their symptoms and design a treatment plan that can evolve as their needs change, she explained.

“The more information you know about when menopause is going to be happening, you can tailor your treatment plan,” Dr. Goldman said. For example, a woman who may be 2 years away from menopause might consider a naturopathic approach at first, and switch to a different therapy as menopause occurs. “We know that the risks of cardiovascular disease and bone loss increase after menopause, and knowing the time to menopause gives us more guidance when educating patients about healthy lifestyle habits such as exercise and dietary changes that can help reduce these risks.”

The Cusp allows patients to use money in flexible spending accounts or health savings accounts to pay for the program. If doctors require lab tests or other procedures, these are covered through the patients’ regular health insurance as they would be if requested by a primary care physician or other health care professional.

Lubna Pal, MBBS, director of the menopause program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., commented that part of the value in a telehealth site such as the Cusp is to serve as “a resource for reproductively aging women to understand what is happening to them.”

Any way to improve education on the topic of menopause is empowering to women, said Dr. Pal, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale. “This is an opportunity for patients to have access to a directed evaluation” of menopause-related symptoms. Then, when women visit their regular health care provider in person, they are well-equipped with knowledge to ask more informed questions and discuss a wide range of treatment options.

Dr. Pal noted that the hormone test is less valuable than the interaction between physicians and patients, whether online or in person.

“Menopause is a Monday morning quarterback diagnosis,” she said, emphasizing that, not only is a year without menses part of the diagnosis of menopause, many women in perimenopause can have wide fluctuations in hormone levels, so a test is more of a snapshot than a diagnostic tool, and that the results might cause unnecessary angst and concerns for patients.

However, part of the value of a telehealth site that focuses on menopause is that it gives women a place to learn more about their biology and to clarify their questions about symptoms and become aware of a range of treatment options. Telehealth consultations also can help women recognize how other factors such as lifestyle modifications can play a role in menopause symptoms, and how modifying these factors may provide some relief, she said.

Dr. Pal said she would be cautious about the idea of prescribing without seeing the patient in person, but noted that telehealth sites such as the Cusp can be a win-win to enhance women’s health when used in combination with regular in-person visits to an ob.gyn. The added value in patients’ being able to discuss their concerns and to learn more about their symptoms means that they will be better informed to develop a menopause management strategy in partnership with their providers, said Dr. Pal, who is not associated with the Cusp.

Dr. Goldman disclosed receiving compensation from the Cusp for her advisory work. She also holds stock options in the company. Dr. Pal, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board, had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women facing issues related to perimenopause and menopause can consult their primary care physicians or ob.gyns. through telemedicine visits, but a new online portal, the Cusp, offers an alternative model with a focus on menopause and access to experts for a monthly membership fee.

The Cusp doesn’t claim to replace routine gynecologic care. Rather, it focuses on perimenopause and menopause symptoms specifically, and states that its physicians, some of whom are certified by the North American Menopause Society, provide expertise in menopause beyond what patients might receive as part of a typical ob.gyn. visit.

The Cusp is a for-profit organization, a group of physicians, nurse practitioners, and technologists who focus on integrated care for women in perimenopause and beyond. The aim is to leverage technology as a way to connect women to the care platform to book physician and nurse practitioner visits virtually and to have all of the information about their care centralized in one place.

According to the website, most patients who sign up for a care plan check in with their providers at least once a month to monitor their symptoms and tweak treatment strategies. Patients who sign up are prompted to download an app, which then becomes the main tool for scheduling future visits, tracking symptoms, and communicating with providers.

The Cusp launched in early 2019, before the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the pandemic has accelerated the acceptance across medical specialties, suggesting that telemedicine is here to stay, according to Mindy Goldman, MD, professor of gynecology and gynecologic surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the Gynecology Center for Cancer Survivors and At-Risk Women at UCSF, who also serves as a medical adviser to the Cusp.

Partnering with technology companies allows opportunities to provide care in areas where there are gaps, such as menopause management, she said. Many clinicians in primary care and ob.gyn. care don’t have the time or training to discuss menopause management in depth with patients, and patient interviews conducted by the Cusp before launching the site showed that this was an area of need.

“One thing that is really unique about the Cusp is that we brought together experts to provide care in both in an evidence-based and holistic fashion,” Dr. Goldman emphasized.

The Cusp’s medical team includes physician and nurse practitioner menopause experts with backgrounds including not only ob.gyn. but also psychiatry, integrative medicine, and naturopathic medicine, with plans to add endocrinology and dermatology as well. This holistic approach allows the Cusp to tailor care based on what each woman is looking for, with evidence-based expertise to support treatment decisions, said Dr. Goldman, whose advisory role includes helping to develop patient treatment protocols and services.

If a woman wants to begin treating symptoms with a naturopathic approach, the team will provide protocols that take current guidelines into account. Regular visits, approximately once a month or as needed, allow for collaboration with the Cusp’s specialists to provide consistent care that is very comprehensive, she said.

One of the benefits of the Cusp is the opportunity for “frequent touchpoints” in which providers reach out to patients via text, email, or video. Although a traditional medical visit may include some initial discussion of menopause and treatment plans, the Cusp offers “a more seamless way to address needs on an ongoing basis,” to provide more complete patient care, Dr. Goldman said.

“We are constantly asking women what they are looking for in menopause care,” and a recurring question was about hormone testing, she said. Nontraditional practitioners may offer hormone testing as a way of individualizing care that also involves compounded formulations, and other treatments that are not standard of care. “In all of our protocols we follow what is recommended by standard organizations such as ACOG [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] and NAMS.”

The Cusp’s newest service is an at-home hormone test currently for women in New York and California, but the company plans to expand this service. The hormone test, while not essential, is another tool to guide menopause management, and having a sense of when menopause will occur “gives us a chance to talk to people about behavioral changes and time to personalize a treatment protocol,” Dr. Goldman said.

The test is based in part on the anti-Müllerian hormone, which recent studies have shown is useful in predicting time to menopause. This, in combination with other hormone tests and other clinical information, will allow the Cusp’s menopause specialists to help women in perimenopause gain perspective on their symptoms and design a treatment plan that can evolve as their needs change, she explained.

“The more information you know about when menopause is going to be happening, you can tailor your treatment plan,” Dr. Goldman said. For example, a woman who may be 2 years away from menopause might consider a naturopathic approach at first, and switch to a different therapy as menopause occurs. “We know that the risks of cardiovascular disease and bone loss increase after menopause, and knowing the time to menopause gives us more guidance when educating patients about healthy lifestyle habits such as exercise and dietary changes that can help reduce these risks.”

The Cusp allows patients to use money in flexible spending accounts or health savings accounts to pay for the program. If doctors require lab tests or other procedures, these are covered through the patients’ regular health insurance as they would be if requested by a primary care physician or other health care professional.

Lubna Pal, MBBS, director of the menopause program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., commented that part of the value in a telehealth site such as the Cusp is to serve as “a resource for reproductively aging women to understand what is happening to them.”

Any way to improve education on the topic of menopause is empowering to women, said Dr. Pal, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale. “This is an opportunity for patients to have access to a directed evaluation” of menopause-related symptoms. Then, when women visit their regular health care provider in person, they are well-equipped with knowledge to ask more informed questions and discuss a wide range of treatment options.

Dr. Pal noted that the hormone test is less valuable than the interaction between physicians and patients, whether online or in person.

“Menopause is a Monday morning quarterback diagnosis,” she said, emphasizing that, not only is a year without menses part of the diagnosis of menopause, many women in perimenopause can have wide fluctuations in hormone levels, so a test is more of a snapshot than a diagnostic tool, and that the results might cause unnecessary angst and concerns for patients.

However, part of the value of a telehealth site that focuses on menopause is that it gives women a place to learn more about their biology and to clarify their questions about symptoms and become aware of a range of treatment options. Telehealth consultations also can help women recognize how other factors such as lifestyle modifications can play a role in menopause symptoms, and how modifying these factors may provide some relief, she said.

Dr. Pal said she would be cautious about the idea of prescribing without seeing the patient in person, but noted that telehealth sites such as the Cusp can be a win-win to enhance women’s health when used in combination with regular in-person visits to an ob.gyn. The added value in patients’ being able to discuss their concerns and to learn more about their symptoms means that they will be better informed to develop a menopause management strategy in partnership with their providers, said Dr. Pal, who is not associated with the Cusp.

Dr. Goldman disclosed receiving compensation from the Cusp for her advisory work. She also holds stock options in the company. Dr. Pal, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board, had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A system designed for resource-limited settings provides rapid cancer profiling and requires “scant” cellular specimens, according to researchers.

The automated image cytometry system is called CytoPAN. In preclinical experiments, CytoPAN provided accurate cancer detection in 1 hour using as few as 50 cells.

In a prospective study of 68 breast cancer patients, CytoPAN detected cancer with 100% accuracy. The receptor subtyping accuracy was 96% for HER2 and 93% for estrogen and progesterone receptors.

Jouha Min, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues reported these findings in Science Translational Medicine.

The authors explained that the CytoPAN system is designed to address one of the biggest cancer challenges in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where more than two-thirds of cancer deaths occur: providing rapid, affordable diagnostics that enable patients to obtain locally available treatments.

Unfortunately, because of bottlenecks in specimen acquisition, complex handling logistics, a lack of pathologists, and limited laboratory infrastructure, diagnosis in many LMICs frequently takes months. Cancers typically are not diagnosed until advanced symptoms such as palpable mass lesions, weight loss, and malaise have become manifest.
 

Lesion assessment guides management

For women with suspicion of breast cancer, the authors noted, preoperative assessment of focal lesions for receptor status, presence of invasion, histologic type, and tumor grade are crucial for planning therapeutic management. For physicians to provide, for example, tamoxifen, which is commonly available at low cost in LMICs, they must know a patients’ hormone receptor status.

While core and open surgical biopsies yield abundant tissue for embedding, sectioning, and staining for subsequent histopathological analysis, they entail lengthy work flow and call for expensive instrumentation and a trained workforce, the authors noted.

Fine needle aspirations (FNAs) can be performed by nonphysicians after minimal training with very low complication rates. The much smaller–gauge needles (20-25 gauge) used in FNAs are generally well tolerated, the authors added.

This is why CytoPAN was designed for use with specimens obtained via FNA of palpable mass lesions.
 

Self-contained design

The CytoPAN system was engineered as a self-contained, integrated cytometry platform enabling same-day diagnosis and treatment of breast lesions.

The system was designed to comply with the World Health Organization’s “ASSURED” criteria (affordable, sensitive, specific, user friendly, rapid and robust, equipment free, and deliverable to end users), and to be potentially operable by nonphysicians after brief training.

CytoPAN operators collect cells through minimally invasive FNAs and use lyophilized immunostaining kits with relevant antibodies (not requiring refrigeration). Operators perform imaging using the CytoPAN device, which is then subjected to an automated analysis algorithm with results displayed on a user interface.

CytoPAN classifies detected malignant cells according to four subtypes reflecting estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2 status – luminal HER2-negative, luminal HER2-positive, HER2-positive, and triple-negative breast cancer. This is intended to facilitate informed treatment choices (e.g., a selective ER modulator, antiestrogen or aromatase inhibitor for ER/PR-positive patients; an anti-HER2 agent for HER2-positive patients).

The final diagnostic report from a given patient sample includes cancer cell population and molecular subtype distribution. The entire diagnostic procedure takes less than an hour. A repeat biopsy, should the sample be nondiagnostic, can be taken within an hour.
 

Murine, then human testing

A test of CytoPAN on FNA samples from mouse xenografts representing the spectrum of human breast cancer subtypes showed correct and reproducible molecular subtyping that matched well with flow cytometry reports derived from the same tumors.

To determine the clinical utility of CytoPAN, investigators enrolled 68 treatment-naive breast cancer patients who were referred for primary surgery at the Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital in Daegu, South Korea. FNA samples were obtained after visualization of breast masses by ultrasound or CT.

Surgical specimens and/or core biopsies were processed by routine pathology for “gold-standard” comparison. FNA samples had sufficient numbers of cells in 63 (93%) patients, with a mean number of cells among them of 1,308 (range, 93-11,985).

CytoPAN analysis correctly identified malignant breast cancer in 55 patients and benign lesions in 5 patients. Three cases were inconclusive because of low numbers of Quad-positive cells for further analysis. The authors pointed out that roughly 20% of biopsy samples in developed countries are deemed “nondiagnostic” because of insufficient cellular contents.

The authors’ summary underscored CytoPAN’s affordable system using cellular rather than tissue specimens, actionable results in an hour, lack of moving parts, multiplexed analysis, and user-friendly interface.

Cancer detection accuracy was 100% (no false negatives or false positives), and receptor subtyping accuracy was 97% for HER2 and 93% for ER/PR.

“Based on these results, we envision prospective clinical trials in remote, decentralized locations,” the authors wrote. The system is being tested further in Botswana.

“I find the data in this paper compelling – particularly for those patients presenting with a palpable mass on clinical exam. ... Certainly in resource-limited settings, this would have significant appeal,” William J. Gradishar, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

Dr. Gradishar explained that, while palpable masses that lead to a diagnosis of noninvasive disease alone are uncommon in the United States because of routine screening mammography, they may still be an issue in other parts of the world.

The authors received funding from the National Institutes of Health, the MGH Scholar Fund, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Some authors disclosed relationships with Akili, Accure Health, ModeRNA, Tarveda, Lumicell, and Noul. Dr. Gradishar reported having no disclosures.

SOURCE: Min J et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaz9746.

A system designed for resource-limited settings provides rapid cancer profiling and requires “scant” cellular specimens, according to researchers.

The automated image cytometry system is called CytoPAN. In preclinical experiments, CytoPAN provided accurate cancer detection in 1 hour using as few as 50 cells.

In a prospective study of 68 breast cancer patients, CytoPAN detected cancer with 100% accuracy. The receptor subtyping accuracy was 96% for HER2 and 93% for estrogen and progesterone receptors.

Jouha Min, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues reported these findings in Science Translational Medicine.

The authors explained that the CytoPAN system is designed to address one of the biggest cancer challenges in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where more than two-thirds of cancer deaths occur: providing rapid, affordable diagnostics that enable patients to obtain locally available treatments.

Unfortunately, because of bottlenecks in specimen acquisition, complex handling logistics, a lack of pathologists, and limited laboratory infrastructure, diagnosis in many LMICs frequently takes months. Cancers typically are not diagnosed until advanced symptoms such as palpable mass lesions, weight loss, and malaise have become manifest.
 

Lesion assessment guides management

For women with suspicion of breast cancer, the authors noted, preoperative assessment of focal lesions for receptor status, presence of invasion, histologic type, and tumor grade are crucial for planning therapeutic management. For physicians to provide, for example, tamoxifen, which is commonly available at low cost in LMICs, they must know a patients’ hormone receptor status.

While core and open surgical biopsies yield abundant tissue for embedding, sectioning, and staining for subsequent histopathological analysis, they entail lengthy work flow and call for expensive instrumentation and a trained workforce, the authors noted.

Fine needle aspirations (FNAs) can be performed by nonphysicians after minimal training with very low complication rates. The much smaller–gauge needles (20-25 gauge) used in FNAs are generally well tolerated, the authors added.

This is why CytoPAN was designed for use with specimens obtained via FNA of palpable mass lesions.
 

Self-contained design

The CytoPAN system was engineered as a self-contained, integrated cytometry platform enabling same-day diagnosis and treatment of breast lesions.

The system was designed to comply with the World Health Organization’s “ASSURED” criteria (affordable, sensitive, specific, user friendly, rapid and robust, equipment free, and deliverable to end users), and to be potentially operable by nonphysicians after brief training.

CytoPAN operators collect cells through minimally invasive FNAs and use lyophilized immunostaining kits with relevant antibodies (not requiring refrigeration). Operators perform imaging using the CytoPAN device, which is then subjected to an automated analysis algorithm with results displayed on a user interface.

CytoPAN classifies detected malignant cells according to four subtypes reflecting estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2 status – luminal HER2-negative, luminal HER2-positive, HER2-positive, and triple-negative breast cancer. This is intended to facilitate informed treatment choices (e.g., a selective ER modulator, antiestrogen or aromatase inhibitor for ER/PR-positive patients; an anti-HER2 agent for HER2-positive patients).

The final diagnostic report from a given patient sample includes cancer cell population and molecular subtype distribution. The entire diagnostic procedure takes less than an hour. A repeat biopsy, should the sample be nondiagnostic, can be taken within an hour.
 

Murine, then human testing

A test of CytoPAN on FNA samples from mouse xenografts representing the spectrum of human breast cancer subtypes showed correct and reproducible molecular subtyping that matched well with flow cytometry reports derived from the same tumors.

To determine the clinical utility of CytoPAN, investigators enrolled 68 treatment-naive breast cancer patients who were referred for primary surgery at the Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital in Daegu, South Korea. FNA samples were obtained after visualization of breast masses by ultrasound or CT.

Surgical specimens and/or core biopsies were processed by routine pathology for “gold-standard” comparison. FNA samples had sufficient numbers of cells in 63 (93%) patients, with a mean number of cells among them of 1,308 (range, 93-11,985).

CytoPAN analysis correctly identified malignant breast cancer in 55 patients and benign lesions in 5 patients. Three cases were inconclusive because of low numbers of Quad-positive cells for further analysis. The authors pointed out that roughly 20% of biopsy samples in developed countries are deemed “nondiagnostic” because of insufficient cellular contents.

The authors’ summary underscored CytoPAN’s affordable system using cellular rather than tissue specimens, actionable results in an hour, lack of moving parts, multiplexed analysis, and user-friendly interface.

Cancer detection accuracy was 100% (no false negatives or false positives), and receptor subtyping accuracy was 97% for HER2 and 93% for ER/PR.

“Based on these results, we envision prospective clinical trials in remote, decentralized locations,” the authors wrote. The system is being tested further in Botswana.

“I find the data in this paper compelling – particularly for those patients presenting with a palpable mass on clinical exam. ... Certainly in resource-limited settings, this would have significant appeal,” William J. Gradishar, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

Dr. Gradishar explained that, while palpable masses that lead to a diagnosis of noninvasive disease alone are uncommon in the United States because of routine screening mammography, they may still be an issue in other parts of the world.

The authors received funding from the National Institutes of Health, the MGH Scholar Fund, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Some authors disclosed relationships with Akili, Accure Health, ModeRNA, Tarveda, Lumicell, and Noul. Dr. Gradishar reported having no disclosures.

SOURCE: Min J et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaz9746.

A system designed for resource-limited settings provides rapid cancer profiling and requires “scant” cellular specimens, according to researchers.

The automated image cytometry system is called CytoPAN. In preclinical experiments, CytoPAN provided accurate cancer detection in 1 hour using as few as 50 cells.

In a prospective study of 68 breast cancer patients, CytoPAN detected cancer with 100% accuracy. The receptor subtyping accuracy was 96% for HER2 and 93% for estrogen and progesterone receptors.

Jouha Min, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues reported these findings in Science Translational Medicine.

The authors explained that the CytoPAN system is designed to address one of the biggest cancer challenges in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where more than two-thirds of cancer deaths occur: providing rapid, affordable diagnostics that enable patients to obtain locally available treatments.

Unfortunately, because of bottlenecks in specimen acquisition, complex handling logistics, a lack of pathologists, and limited laboratory infrastructure, diagnosis in many LMICs frequently takes months. Cancers typically are not diagnosed until advanced symptoms such as palpable mass lesions, weight loss, and malaise have become manifest.
 

Lesion assessment guides management

For women with suspicion of breast cancer, the authors noted, preoperative assessment of focal lesions for receptor status, presence of invasion, histologic type, and tumor grade are crucial for planning therapeutic management. For physicians to provide, for example, tamoxifen, which is commonly available at low cost in LMICs, they must know a patients’ hormone receptor status.

While core and open surgical biopsies yield abundant tissue for embedding, sectioning, and staining for subsequent histopathological analysis, they entail lengthy work flow and call for expensive instrumentation and a trained workforce, the authors noted.

Fine needle aspirations (FNAs) can be performed by nonphysicians after minimal training with very low complication rates. The much smaller–gauge needles (20-25 gauge) used in FNAs are generally well tolerated, the authors added.

This is why CytoPAN was designed for use with specimens obtained via FNA of palpable mass lesions.
 

Self-contained design

The CytoPAN system was engineered as a self-contained, integrated cytometry platform enabling same-day diagnosis and treatment of breast lesions.

The system was designed to comply with the World Health Organization’s “ASSURED” criteria (affordable, sensitive, specific, user friendly, rapid and robust, equipment free, and deliverable to end users), and to be potentially operable by nonphysicians after brief training.

CytoPAN operators collect cells through minimally invasive FNAs and use lyophilized immunostaining kits with relevant antibodies (not requiring refrigeration). Operators perform imaging using the CytoPAN device, which is then subjected to an automated analysis algorithm with results displayed on a user interface.

CytoPAN classifies detected malignant cells according to four subtypes reflecting estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2 status – luminal HER2-negative, luminal HER2-positive, HER2-positive, and triple-negative breast cancer. This is intended to facilitate informed treatment choices (e.g., a selective ER modulator, antiestrogen or aromatase inhibitor for ER/PR-positive patients; an anti-HER2 agent for HER2-positive patients).

The final diagnostic report from a given patient sample includes cancer cell population and molecular subtype distribution. The entire diagnostic procedure takes less than an hour. A repeat biopsy, should the sample be nondiagnostic, can be taken within an hour.
 

Murine, then human testing

A test of CytoPAN on FNA samples from mouse xenografts representing the spectrum of human breast cancer subtypes showed correct and reproducible molecular subtyping that matched well with flow cytometry reports derived from the same tumors.

To determine the clinical utility of CytoPAN, investigators enrolled 68 treatment-naive breast cancer patients who were referred for primary surgery at the Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital in Daegu, South Korea. FNA samples were obtained after visualization of breast masses by ultrasound or CT.

Surgical specimens and/or core biopsies were processed by routine pathology for “gold-standard” comparison. FNA samples had sufficient numbers of cells in 63 (93%) patients, with a mean number of cells among them of 1,308 (range, 93-11,985).

CytoPAN analysis correctly identified malignant breast cancer in 55 patients and benign lesions in 5 patients. Three cases were inconclusive because of low numbers of Quad-positive cells for further analysis. The authors pointed out that roughly 20% of biopsy samples in developed countries are deemed “nondiagnostic” because of insufficient cellular contents.

The authors’ summary underscored CytoPAN’s affordable system using cellular rather than tissue specimens, actionable results in an hour, lack of moving parts, multiplexed analysis, and user-friendly interface.

Cancer detection accuracy was 100% (no false negatives or false positives), and receptor subtyping accuracy was 97% for HER2 and 93% for ER/PR.

“Based on these results, we envision prospective clinical trials in remote, decentralized locations,” the authors wrote. The system is being tested further in Botswana.

“I find the data in this paper compelling – particularly for those patients presenting with a palpable mass on clinical exam. ... Certainly in resource-limited settings, this would have significant appeal,” William J. Gradishar, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

Dr. Gradishar explained that, while palpable masses that lead to a diagnosis of noninvasive disease alone are uncommon in the United States because of routine screening mammography, they may still be an issue in other parts of the world.

The authors received funding from the National Institutes of Health, the MGH Scholar Fund, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Some authors disclosed relationships with Akili, Accure Health, ModeRNA, Tarveda, Lumicell, and Noul. Dr. Gradishar reported having no disclosures.

SOURCE: Min J et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaz9746.

Among women who have a coincidental appendectomy during surgery for chronic pelvic pain or endometriosis, about 15% have appendiceal endometriosis confirmed by pathological examination, according to a study.

“In the women with appendiceal endometriosis, only 26% had an appendix that looked abnormal,” said Whitney T. Ross, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Penn State Health, Hershey.

The results, presented at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, indicate that “appendiceal endometriosis is common in women receiving surgery for chronic pelvic pain or endometriosis,” she said. “This study and multiple other studies have also demonstrated that coincidental appendectomy is safe.”

The long-term impact of coincidental appendectomy and its effect on quality of life are not known, however, which may make it difficult to weigh the costs and benefits of the procedure, Dr. Ross said. “It is important to talk to patients about this procedure and determine which approach is the right approach for your institution.”

The study of 609 coincidental appendectomies did not include patients with retrocecal appendices, which may confound the true rate of appendiceal endometriosis, commented Saifuddin T. Mama, MD, MPH, of Rowan University, Camden, N.J.

When the investigators started the study, they were not sure of the risks and benefits of the procedure in patients with retrocecal appendices. An anecdotal report from another research group suggests that outcomes with retrocecal appendices may not be significantly different. “But that is certainly an important question and one that we would like to address in a future prospective study,” Dr. Ross said.

Surgeons have debated the role of coincidental appendectomy during gynecologic surgery. Concerns about safety and questions about the prevalence of appendiceal pathology are reasons that coincidental appendectomy has not been more widely adopted. On the other hand, the procedure may benefit patients and aid diagnosis.

To evaluate the role of coincidental appendectomy in the surgical excision of endometriosis, Dr. Ross and colleagues analyzed data from consecutive coincidental appendectomies performed at one institution between 2013 and 2019. They identified cases in a prospectively maintained surgical database to assess safety and the prevalence of appendiceal pathology.

iStockphoto.com

The indication for surgery was chronic pelvic pain but no visualized endometriosis for 42 patients, stage I-II endometriosis for 388 patients, and stage III-IV endometriosis for 179 patients.

Surgeries included laparoscopic hysterectomy (77.5%), operative laparoscopy (19.9%), and laparoscopic trachelectomy (2.6%). Pathological analysis of the appendices identified endometriosis in 14.9%, malignancy in 0.7%, polyps in 0.5%, and appendicitis in 0.3%.

Among women with chronic pelvic pain but no visualized endometriosis, 2.4% had appendiceal endometriosis. Among those with stage I-II endometriosis, 7% had appendiceal endometriosis, and in patients with stage III-IV endometriosis, the rate of appendiceal endometriosis was 35.2%.

In about 6% of patients with appendiceal endometriosis, the appendix was the only site of pathologically confirmed endometriosis.

Compared with chronic pelvic pain, stage III-IV endometriosis was associated with a significantly increased risk of appendiceal endometriosis (odds ratio, 22.2). The likelihood of appendiceal endometriosis also increased when the appendix looked abnormal (odds ratio, 6.5).

The probability of diagnosing appendiceal endometriosis also increases with the number of other locations of confirmed endometriosis.

“Our surgical decision making is based off of intraoperative findings. However, the final gold-standard diagnosis can’t take place until the pathologic specimen is analyzed,” she said. “We also know that there is a significant discordance, as high as 50%, in early-stage endometriosis between visual inspection and pathology findings.”

There were no complications related to the performance of a coincidental appendectomy during surgery or in the 12 weeks after.

Dr. Ross outlined surgeons’ three main options for performing coincidental appendectomy in patients undergoing surgery for chronic pelvic pain or endometriosis: universal coincidental appendectomy, targeted appendectomy based on operative findings, and performing the procedure based on the appearance of the appendix.

Basing the decision on appearance “is going to miss a lot of appendiceal endometriosis,” Dr. Ross said. In the present study, 67 of the 91 cases, about 74%, would have been missed.

Dr. Ross and Dr. Mama had no relevant financial disclosures. The study coauthors disclosed ties to Titan Medical, Merck, and AbbVie.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Ross WT et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 14.

Among women who have a coincidental appendectomy during surgery for chronic pelvic pain or endometriosis, about 15% have appendiceal endometriosis confirmed by pathological examination, according to a study.

“In the women with appendiceal endometriosis, only 26% had an appendix that looked abnormal,” said Whitney T. Ross, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Penn State Health, Hershey.

The results, presented at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, indicate that “appendiceal endometriosis is common in women receiving surgery for chronic pelvic pain or endometriosis,” she said. “This study and multiple other studies have also demonstrated that coincidental appendectomy is safe.”

The long-term impact of coincidental appendectomy and its effect on quality of life are not known, however, which may make it difficult to weigh the costs and benefits of the procedure, Dr. Ross said. “It is important to talk to patients about this procedure and determine which approach is the right approach for your institution.”

The study of 609 coincidental appendectomies did not include patients with retrocecal appendices, which may confound the true rate of appendiceal endometriosis, commented Saifuddin T. Mama, MD, MPH, of Rowan University, Camden, N.J.

When the investigators started the study, they were not sure of the risks and benefits of the procedure in patients with retrocecal appendices. An anecdotal report from another research group suggests that outcomes with retrocecal appendices may not be significantly different. “But that is certainly an important question and one that we would like to address in a future prospective study,” Dr. Ross said.

Surgeons have debated the role of coincidental appendectomy during gynecologic surgery. Concerns about safety and questions about the prevalence of appendiceal pathology are reasons that coincidental appendectomy has not been more widely adopted. On the other hand, the procedure may benefit patients and aid diagnosis.

To evaluate the role of coincidental appendectomy in the surgical excision of endometriosis, Dr. Ross and colleagues analyzed data from consecutive coincidental appendectomies performed at one institution between 2013 and 2019. They identified cases in a prospectively maintained surgical database to assess safety and the prevalence of appendiceal pathology.

iStockphoto.com

The indication for surgery was chronic pelvic pain but no visualized endometriosis for 42 patients, stage I-II endometriosis for 388 patients, and stage III-IV endometriosis for 179 patients.

Surgeries included laparoscopic hysterectomy (77.5%), operative laparoscopy (19.9%), and laparoscopic trachelectomy (2.6%). Pathological analysis of the appendices identified endometriosis in 14.9%, malignancy in 0.7%, polyps in 0.5%, and appendicitis in 0.3%.

Among women with chronic pelvic pain but no visualized endometriosis, 2.4% had appendiceal endometriosis. Among those with stage I-II endometriosis, 7% had appendiceal endometriosis, and in patients with stage III-IV endometriosis, the rate of appendiceal endometriosis was 35.2%.

In about 6% of patients with appendiceal endometriosis, the appendix was the only site of pathologically confirmed endometriosis.

Compared with chronic pelvic pain, stage III-IV endometriosis was associated with a significantly increased risk of appendiceal endometriosis (odds ratio, 22.2). The likelihood of appendiceal endometriosis also increased when the appendix looked abnormal (odds ratio, 6.5).

The probability of diagnosing appendiceal endometriosis also increases with the number of other locations of confirmed endometriosis.

“Our surgical decision making is based off of intraoperative findings. However, the final gold-standard diagnosis can’t take place until the pathologic specimen is analyzed,” she said. “We also know that there is a significant discordance, as high as 50%, in early-stage endometriosis between visual inspection and pathology findings.”

There were no complications related to the performance of a coincidental appendectomy during surgery or in the 12 weeks after.

Dr. Ross outlined surgeons’ three main options for performing coincidental appendectomy in patients undergoing surgery for chronic pelvic pain or endometriosis: universal coincidental appendectomy, targeted appendectomy based on operative findings, and performing the procedure based on the appearance of the appendix.

Basing the decision on appearance “is going to miss a lot of appendiceal endometriosis,” Dr. Ross said. In the present study, 67 of the 91 cases, about 74%, would have been missed.

Dr. Ross and Dr. Mama had no relevant financial disclosures. The study coauthors disclosed ties to Titan Medical, Merck, and AbbVie.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Ross WT et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 14.

Among women who have a coincidental appendectomy during surgery for chronic pelvic pain or endometriosis, about 15% have appendiceal endometriosis confirmed by pathological examination, according to a study.

“In the women with appendiceal endometriosis, only 26% had an appendix that looked abnormal,” said Whitney T. Ross, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Penn State Health, Hershey.

The results, presented at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, indicate that “appendiceal endometriosis is common in women receiving surgery for chronic pelvic pain or endometriosis,” she said. “This study and multiple other studies have also demonstrated that coincidental appendectomy is safe.”

The long-term impact of coincidental appendectomy and its effect on quality of life are not known, however, which may make it difficult to weigh the costs and benefits of the procedure, Dr. Ross said. “It is important to talk to patients about this procedure and determine which approach is the right approach for your institution.”

The study of 609 coincidental appendectomies did not include patients with retrocecal appendices, which may confound the true rate of appendiceal endometriosis, commented Saifuddin T. Mama, MD, MPH, of Rowan University, Camden, N.J.

When the investigators started the study, they were not sure of the risks and benefits of the procedure in patients with retrocecal appendices. An anecdotal report from another research group suggests that outcomes with retrocecal appendices may not be significantly different. “But that is certainly an important question and one that we would like to address in a future prospective study,” Dr. Ross said.

Surgeons have debated the role of coincidental appendectomy during gynecologic surgery. Concerns about safety and questions about the prevalence of appendiceal pathology are reasons that coincidental appendectomy has not been more widely adopted. On the other hand, the procedure may benefit patients and aid diagnosis.

To evaluate the role of coincidental appendectomy in the surgical excision of endometriosis, Dr. Ross and colleagues analyzed data from consecutive coincidental appendectomies performed at one institution between 2013 and 2019. They identified cases in a prospectively maintained surgical database to assess safety and the prevalence of appendiceal pathology.

iStockphoto.com

The indication for surgery was chronic pelvic pain but no visualized endometriosis for 42 patients, stage I-II endometriosis for 388 patients, and stage III-IV endometriosis for 179 patients.

Surgeries included laparoscopic hysterectomy (77.5%), operative laparoscopy (19.9%), and laparoscopic trachelectomy (2.6%). Pathological analysis of the appendices identified endometriosis in 14.9%, malignancy in 0.7%, polyps in 0.5%, and appendicitis in 0.3%.

Among women with chronic pelvic pain but no visualized endometriosis, 2.4% had appendiceal endometriosis. Among those with stage I-II endometriosis, 7% had appendiceal endometriosis, and in patients with stage III-IV endometriosis, the rate of appendiceal endometriosis was 35.2%.

In about 6% of patients with appendiceal endometriosis, the appendix was the only site of pathologically confirmed endometriosis.

Compared with chronic pelvic pain, stage III-IV endometriosis was associated with a significantly increased risk of appendiceal endometriosis (odds ratio, 22.2). The likelihood of appendiceal endometriosis also increased when the appendix looked abnormal (odds ratio, 6.5).

The probability of diagnosing appendiceal endometriosis also increases with the number of other locations of confirmed endometriosis.

“Our surgical decision making is based off of intraoperative findings. However, the final gold-standard diagnosis can’t take place until the pathologic specimen is analyzed,” she said. “We also know that there is a significant discordance, as high as 50%, in early-stage endometriosis between visual inspection and pathology findings.”

There were no complications related to the performance of a coincidental appendectomy during surgery or in the 12 weeks after.

Dr. Ross outlined surgeons’ three main options for performing coincidental appendectomy in patients undergoing surgery for chronic pelvic pain or endometriosis: universal coincidental appendectomy, targeted appendectomy based on operative findings, and performing the procedure based on the appearance of the appendix.

Basing the decision on appearance “is going to miss a lot of appendiceal endometriosis,” Dr. Ross said. In the present study, 67 of the 91 cases, about 74%, would have been missed.

Dr. Ross and Dr. Mama had no relevant financial disclosures. The study coauthors disclosed ties to Titan Medical, Merck, and AbbVie.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Ross WT et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 14.

Skin eruptions could help physicians identify people with severe COVID-19 who are more likely to develop coagulopathies, new evidence suggests.

Researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine NewYork–Presbyterian Medical Center in New York linked livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions to a greater likelihood for occlusive vascular disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a small case series.

These skin signs could augment coagulation assays in this patient population. “Physicians should consider a hematology consult for potential anticoagulation in patients with these skin presentations and severe COVID-19,” senior author Joanna Harp, MD, said in an interview.

“Physicians should also consider D-dimer, fibrinogen, coagulation studies, and a skin biopsy given that there are other diagnoses on the differential as well.”

The research letter was published online on Aug. 5 in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings build on multiple previous reports of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19, including a study of 375 patients in Spain. Among people with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, senior author of the Spanish research, Ignacio Garcia-Doval, MD, PhD, also observed livedoid and necrotic skin eruptions more commonly in severe disease.

“I think that this case series [from Harp and colleagues] confirms the findings of our previous paper – that patients with livedoid or necrotic lesions have a worse prognosis, as these are markers of vascular occlusion,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Harp and colleagues reported their observations with four patients aged 40-80 years. Each had severe COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome and required intubation. Treating clinicians requested a dermatology consult to assess acral fixed livedo racemosa and retiform purpura presentations.

D-dimer levels exceeded 3 mcg/mL in each case. All four patients had a suspected pulmonary embolism within 1-5 days of the dermatologic findings. Prophylactic anticoagulation at admission was changed to therapeutic anticoagulation because of increasing D-dimer levels and the suspected thrombotic events.

“I think that the paper is interesting because it shows the associated histopathological findings and has important clinical implications due to the association with pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Garcia-Doval, a researcher at the Spanish Academy of Dermatology in Madrid. “These patients should probably be anticoagulated.”
 

Skin biopsy results

Punch biopsies revealed pauci-inflammatory thrombogenic vasculopathy involving capillaries, venules, arterioles, or small arteries.

Livedo racemosa skin findings point to partial occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels, whereas retiform purpura indicate full occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels.

An inability to confirm the exact timing of the onset of the skin rash was a limitation of the study.

“The findings suggest that clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 should be aware of livedoid and purpuric rashes as potential manifestations of an underlying hypercoagulable state,” the authors noted. “If these skin findings are identified, a skin biopsy should be considered because the result may guide anticoagulation management.”

Observations during an outbreak

The researchers observed these cases between March 13 and April 3, during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in New York.

“We did see additional cases since our study period. However, it has decreased significantly with the falling number of COVID-19 cases in the city,” said Dr. Harp, a dermatologist at NewYork–Presbyterian.

Another contributing factor in the drop in cases was “implementation of earlier, more aggressive anticoagulation in many of these patients at our institution,” she added.

The investigators plan to continue the research. “We are working on a more formalized study,” lead author Caren Droesch, MD, said in an interview.

“But given very low patient numbers in our area we have not started recruiting patients,” said Dr. Droesch, a resident at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork–Presbyterian at the time of the study. She is now a dermatologist at Mass General Brigham in Wellesley, Mass.
 

Consider a dermatology consult

“This is a small case series of four patients, but mirrors what we have seen at our institution and what others have reported about individual patients around the world,” Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “The skin, like many other organ systems, can be affected by thrombotic events within the setting of COVID-19 disease.”

As in the current study, Dr. Fernandez observed skin manifestations in people with severe COVID-19 with elevated D-dimer levels. These patients typically require mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, he added.

“As these authors point out, it is important for all clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients to look for these rashes,” said Dr. Fernandez, who coauthored a report on skin manifestations in this patient population. “We also agree that clinicians should have a low threshold for consulting dermatology. A skin biopsy is minimally invasive and can be important in confirming or refuting that such rashes are truly reflective of thrombotic vasculopathy.”

Dr. Harp, Dr. Droesch and Dr. Garcia-Doval have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fernandez received funding from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative at Case Western Reserve University to study skin manifestations of COVID-19.
 

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

Skin eruptions could help physicians identify people with severe COVID-19 who are more likely to develop coagulopathies, new evidence suggests.

Researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine NewYork–Presbyterian Medical Center in New York linked livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions to a greater likelihood for occlusive vascular disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a small case series.

These skin signs could augment coagulation assays in this patient population. “Physicians should consider a hematology consult for potential anticoagulation in patients with these skin presentations and severe COVID-19,” senior author Joanna Harp, MD, said in an interview.

“Physicians should also consider D-dimer, fibrinogen, coagulation studies, and a skin biopsy given that there are other diagnoses on the differential as well.”

The research letter was published online on Aug. 5 in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings build on multiple previous reports of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19, including a study of 375 patients in Spain. Among people with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, senior author of the Spanish research, Ignacio Garcia-Doval, MD, PhD, also observed livedoid and necrotic skin eruptions more commonly in severe disease.

“I think that this case series [from Harp and colleagues] confirms the findings of our previous paper – that patients with livedoid or necrotic lesions have a worse prognosis, as these are markers of vascular occlusion,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Harp and colleagues reported their observations with four patients aged 40-80 years. Each had severe COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome and required intubation. Treating clinicians requested a dermatology consult to assess acral fixed livedo racemosa and retiform purpura presentations.

D-dimer levels exceeded 3 mcg/mL in each case. All four patients had a suspected pulmonary embolism within 1-5 days of the dermatologic findings. Prophylactic anticoagulation at admission was changed to therapeutic anticoagulation because of increasing D-dimer levels and the suspected thrombotic events.

“I think that the paper is interesting because it shows the associated histopathological findings and has important clinical implications due to the association with pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Garcia-Doval, a researcher at the Spanish Academy of Dermatology in Madrid. “These patients should probably be anticoagulated.”
 

Skin biopsy results

Punch biopsies revealed pauci-inflammatory thrombogenic vasculopathy involving capillaries, venules, arterioles, or small arteries.

Livedo racemosa skin findings point to partial occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels, whereas retiform purpura indicate full occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels.

An inability to confirm the exact timing of the onset of the skin rash was a limitation of the study.

“The findings suggest that clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 should be aware of livedoid and purpuric rashes as potential manifestations of an underlying hypercoagulable state,” the authors noted. “If these skin findings are identified, a skin biopsy should be considered because the result may guide anticoagulation management.”

Observations during an outbreak

The researchers observed these cases between March 13 and April 3, during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in New York.

“We did see additional cases since our study period. However, it has decreased significantly with the falling number of COVID-19 cases in the city,” said Dr. Harp, a dermatologist at NewYork–Presbyterian.

Another contributing factor in the drop in cases was “implementation of earlier, more aggressive anticoagulation in many of these patients at our institution,” she added.

The investigators plan to continue the research. “We are working on a more formalized study,” lead author Caren Droesch, MD, said in an interview.

“But given very low patient numbers in our area we have not started recruiting patients,” said Dr. Droesch, a resident at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork–Presbyterian at the time of the study. She is now a dermatologist at Mass General Brigham in Wellesley, Mass.
 

Consider a dermatology consult

“This is a small case series of four patients, but mirrors what we have seen at our institution and what others have reported about individual patients around the world,” Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “The skin, like many other organ systems, can be affected by thrombotic events within the setting of COVID-19 disease.”

As in the current study, Dr. Fernandez observed skin manifestations in people with severe COVID-19 with elevated D-dimer levels. These patients typically require mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, he added.

“As these authors point out, it is important for all clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients to look for these rashes,” said Dr. Fernandez, who coauthored a report on skin manifestations in this patient population. “We also agree that clinicians should have a low threshold for consulting dermatology. A skin biopsy is minimally invasive and can be important in confirming or refuting that such rashes are truly reflective of thrombotic vasculopathy.”

Dr. Harp, Dr. Droesch and Dr. Garcia-Doval have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fernandez received funding from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative at Case Western Reserve University to study skin manifestations of COVID-19.
 

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

Skin eruptions could help physicians identify people with severe COVID-19 who are more likely to develop coagulopathies, new evidence suggests.

Researchers at Weill Cornell Medicine NewYork–Presbyterian Medical Center in New York linked livedoid and purpuric skin eruptions to a greater likelihood for occlusive vascular disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a small case series.

These skin signs could augment coagulation assays in this patient population. “Physicians should consider a hematology consult for potential anticoagulation in patients with these skin presentations and severe COVID-19,” senior author Joanna Harp, MD, said in an interview.

“Physicians should also consider D-dimer, fibrinogen, coagulation studies, and a skin biopsy given that there are other diagnoses on the differential as well.”

The research letter was published online on Aug. 5 in JAMA Dermatology.

The findings build on multiple previous reports of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19, including a study of 375 patients in Spain. Among people with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, senior author of the Spanish research, Ignacio Garcia-Doval, MD, PhD, also observed livedoid and necrotic skin eruptions more commonly in severe disease.

“I think that this case series [from Harp and colleagues] confirms the findings of our previous paper – that patients with livedoid or necrotic lesions have a worse prognosis, as these are markers of vascular occlusion,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Harp and colleagues reported their observations with four patients aged 40-80 years. Each had severe COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome and required intubation. Treating clinicians requested a dermatology consult to assess acral fixed livedo racemosa and retiform purpura presentations.

D-dimer levels exceeded 3 mcg/mL in each case. All four patients had a suspected pulmonary embolism within 1-5 days of the dermatologic findings. Prophylactic anticoagulation at admission was changed to therapeutic anticoagulation because of increasing D-dimer levels and the suspected thrombotic events.

“I think that the paper is interesting because it shows the associated histopathological findings and has important clinical implications due to the association with pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Garcia-Doval, a researcher at the Spanish Academy of Dermatology in Madrid. “These patients should probably be anticoagulated.”
 

Skin biopsy results

Punch biopsies revealed pauci-inflammatory thrombogenic vasculopathy involving capillaries, venules, arterioles, or small arteries.

Livedo racemosa skin findings point to partial occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels, whereas retiform purpura indicate full occlusion of cutaneous blood vessels.

An inability to confirm the exact timing of the onset of the skin rash was a limitation of the study.

“The findings suggest that clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 should be aware of livedoid and purpuric rashes as potential manifestations of an underlying hypercoagulable state,” the authors noted. “If these skin findings are identified, a skin biopsy should be considered because the result may guide anticoagulation management.”

Observations during an outbreak

The researchers observed these cases between March 13 and April 3, during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in New York.

“We did see additional cases since our study period. However, it has decreased significantly with the falling number of COVID-19 cases in the city,” said Dr. Harp, a dermatologist at NewYork–Presbyterian.

Another contributing factor in the drop in cases was “implementation of earlier, more aggressive anticoagulation in many of these patients at our institution,” she added.

The investigators plan to continue the research. “We are working on a more formalized study,” lead author Caren Droesch, MD, said in an interview.

“But given very low patient numbers in our area we have not started recruiting patients,” said Dr. Droesch, a resident at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork–Presbyterian at the time of the study. She is now a dermatologist at Mass General Brigham in Wellesley, Mass.
 

Consider a dermatology consult

“This is a small case series of four patients, but mirrors what we have seen at our institution and what others have reported about individual patients around the world,” Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. “The skin, like many other organ systems, can be affected by thrombotic events within the setting of COVID-19 disease.”

As in the current study, Dr. Fernandez observed skin manifestations in people with severe COVID-19 with elevated D-dimer levels. These patients typically require mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, he added.

“As these authors point out, it is important for all clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients to look for these rashes,” said Dr. Fernandez, who coauthored a report on skin manifestations in this patient population. “We also agree that clinicians should have a low threshold for consulting dermatology. A skin biopsy is minimally invasive and can be important in confirming or refuting that such rashes are truly reflective of thrombotic vasculopathy.”

Dr. Harp, Dr. Droesch and Dr. Garcia-Doval have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fernandez received funding from the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative at Case Western Reserve University to study skin manifestations of COVID-19.
 

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

Over the last several decades science has fallen off this country’s radar screen. Yes, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has recently had a brief moment in the spotlight as a buzzword de jour. But the critical importance of careful and systematic investigation into the world around us using observation and trial and error is a tough sell to a large segment of our population.

SDI Productions/iStock/Getty Images

The COVID-19 pandemic is providing an excellent opportunity for science and medicine to showcase their star qualities. Of course some people in leadership positions persist in disregarding the value of scientific investigation. But I get the feeling that the fear generated by the pandemic is creating some converts among many previous science skeptics. This gathering enthusiasm among the general population is a predictably slow process because that’s the way science works. It often doesn’t provide quick answers. And it is difficult for the nonscientist to see the beauty in the reality that the things we thought were true 2 months ago are likely to be proven wrong today as more observations accumulate.

Unfortunately, even in this time of renewal, science and medicine continue to generate a bumper crop of bad apples. A recent New York Times article examines the career of one such unscrupulous physician/scientist whose recent exploits threaten to undo much of the positive image the pandemic has cast on science (“The Doctor Behind the Disputed Covid Data,” by Ellen Gabler and Roni Caryn Rabin, The New York Times, July 27, 2020). The subject of the article is the physician who was responsible for providing some of the large data sets on which several papers were published about the apparent ineffectiveness and danger of using hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients. The authenticity of the data sets recently has been seriously questioned, and the articles have been retracted by the journals in which they had appeared.

Based on numerous interviews with coworkers, the Times reporters present a strong case that this individual’s long history of unreliability make his association with allegedly fraudulent data set not surprising but maybe even predictable. At one point in his training, there appears to have been serious questions about advancing the physician to the next level. Despite these concerns, he was allowed to continue and complete his specialty training. It is of note that in his last year of clinical practice, the physician became the subject of three serious malpractice claims that question his competence.

I suspect that some of you have crossed paths with physicians whose competence and/or moral character you found concerning. Were they peers? Were you the individual’s supervisor or was he or she your mentor? How did you respond? Did anyone respond at all?

There has been a lot written and said in recent months about how and when to respond to respond to sexual harassment in the workplace. But I don’t recall reading any articles that discuss how one should respond to incompetence. Of course competency can be a relative term, but in most cases significant incompetence is hard to miss because it tends to be repeated.

It is easy for the airports and subway systems to post signs that say “If you see something say something.” It’s a different story for hospitals and medical schools that may have systems in place for reporting and following up on poor practice. But my sense is that there are too many cases that slip through the cracks.

This is another example of a problem for which I don’t have a solution. However, if this column prompts just one of you who sees something to say something then I have had a good day.
 

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

Over the last several decades science has fallen off this country’s radar screen. Yes, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has recently had a brief moment in the spotlight as a buzzword de jour. But the critical importance of careful and systematic investigation into the world around us using observation and trial and error is a tough sell to a large segment of our population.

SDI Productions/iStock/Getty Images

The COVID-19 pandemic is providing an excellent opportunity for science and medicine to showcase their star qualities. Of course some people in leadership positions persist in disregarding the value of scientific investigation. But I get the feeling that the fear generated by the pandemic is creating some converts among many previous science skeptics. This gathering enthusiasm among the general population is a predictably slow process because that’s the way science works. It often doesn’t provide quick answers. And it is difficult for the nonscientist to see the beauty in the reality that the things we thought were true 2 months ago are likely to be proven wrong today as more observations accumulate.

Unfortunately, even in this time of renewal, science and medicine continue to generate a bumper crop of bad apples. A recent New York Times article examines the career of one such unscrupulous physician/scientist whose recent exploits threaten to undo much of the positive image the pandemic has cast on science (“The Doctor Behind the Disputed Covid Data,” by Ellen Gabler and Roni Caryn Rabin, The New York Times, July 27, 2020). The subject of the article is the physician who was responsible for providing some of the large data sets on which several papers were published about the apparent ineffectiveness and danger of using hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients. The authenticity of the data sets recently has been seriously questioned, and the articles have been retracted by the journals in which they had appeared.

Based on numerous interviews with coworkers, the Times reporters present a strong case that this individual’s long history of unreliability make his association with allegedly fraudulent data set not surprising but maybe even predictable. At one point in his training, there appears to have been serious questions about advancing the physician to the next level. Despite these concerns, he was allowed to continue and complete his specialty training. It is of note that in his last year of clinical practice, the physician became the subject of three serious malpractice claims that question his competence.

I suspect that some of you have crossed paths with physicians whose competence and/or moral character you found concerning. Were they peers? Were you the individual’s supervisor or was he or she your mentor? How did you respond? Did anyone respond at all?

There has been a lot written and said in recent months about how and when to respond to respond to sexual harassment in the workplace. But I don’t recall reading any articles that discuss how one should respond to incompetence. Of course competency can be a relative term, but in most cases significant incompetence is hard to miss because it tends to be repeated.

It is easy for the airports and subway systems to post signs that say “If you see something say something.” It’s a different story for hospitals and medical schools that may have systems in place for reporting and following up on poor practice. But my sense is that there are too many cases that slip through the cracks.

This is another example of a problem for which I don’t have a solution. However, if this column prompts just one of you who sees something to say something then I have had a good day.
 

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

Over the last several decades science has fallen off this country’s radar screen. Yes, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) has recently had a brief moment in the spotlight as a buzzword de jour. But the critical importance of careful and systematic investigation into the world around us using observation and trial and error is a tough sell to a large segment of our population.

SDI Productions/iStock/Getty Images

The COVID-19 pandemic is providing an excellent opportunity for science and medicine to showcase their star qualities. Of course some people in leadership positions persist in disregarding the value of scientific investigation. But I get the feeling that the fear generated by the pandemic is creating some converts among many previous science skeptics. This gathering enthusiasm among the general population is a predictably slow process because that’s the way science works. It often doesn’t provide quick answers. And it is difficult for the nonscientist to see the beauty in the reality that the things we thought were true 2 months ago are likely to be proven wrong today as more observations accumulate.

Unfortunately, even in this time of renewal, science and medicine continue to generate a bumper crop of bad apples. A recent New York Times article examines the career of one such unscrupulous physician/scientist whose recent exploits threaten to undo much of the positive image the pandemic has cast on science (“The Doctor Behind the Disputed Covid Data,” by Ellen Gabler and Roni Caryn Rabin, The New York Times, July 27, 2020). The subject of the article is the physician who was responsible for providing some of the large data sets on which several papers were published about the apparent ineffectiveness and danger of using hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients. The authenticity of the data sets recently has been seriously questioned, and the articles have been retracted by the journals in which they had appeared.

Based on numerous interviews with coworkers, the Times reporters present a strong case that this individual’s long history of unreliability make his association with allegedly fraudulent data set not surprising but maybe even predictable. At one point in his training, there appears to have been serious questions about advancing the physician to the next level. Despite these concerns, he was allowed to continue and complete his specialty training. It is of note that in his last year of clinical practice, the physician became the subject of three serious malpractice claims that question his competence.

I suspect that some of you have crossed paths with physicians whose competence and/or moral character you found concerning. Were they peers? Were you the individual’s supervisor or was he or she your mentor? How did you respond? Did anyone respond at all?

There has been a lot written and said in recent months about how and when to respond to respond to sexual harassment in the workplace. But I don’t recall reading any articles that discuss how one should respond to incompetence. Of course competency can be a relative term, but in most cases significant incompetence is hard to miss because it tends to be repeated.

It is easy for the airports and subway systems to post signs that say “If you see something say something.” It’s a different story for hospitals and medical schools that may have systems in place for reporting and following up on poor practice. But my sense is that there are too many cases that slip through the cracks.

This is another example of a problem for which I don’t have a solution. However, if this column prompts just one of you who sees something to say something then I have had a good day.
 

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

Hospital costs for the nation’s 35.8 million inpatient stays in 2017 totaled $434.2 billion, for an average of $11,700 per stay, according to a recent analysis from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The single most expensive inpatient condition that year, representing about 8.8% of all hospital costs, was septicemia at $38.2 billion, nearly double the $19.9 billion spent on the next most expensive condition, osteoarthritis, Lan Liang, PhD, of the AHRQ, and associates said in a statistical brief.

These figures “represent the hospital’s costs to produce the services – not the amount paid for services by payers – and they do not include separately billed physician fees associated with the hospitalization,” they noted.

Third in overall cost for 2017 but first in total number of stays were live-born infants, with 3.7 million admissions costing just under $16 billion. Hospital costs for acute myocardial infarction ($14.3 billion) made it the fourth most expensive condition, with heart failure fifth at $13.6 billion, based on data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s National Inpatient Sample.

The 20 most expensive conditions, which also included coronary atherosclerosis, pneumonia, renal failure, and lower-limb fracture, accounted for close to 47% of all hospital costs and over 43% of all stays in 2017. The total amount spent by hospitals that year, $1.1 trillion, constituted nearly a third of all health care expenditures and was 4.7% higher than in 2016, Dr. Liang and associates reported.

“Although this growth represented deceleration, compared with the 5.8% increase between 2014 and 2015, the consistent year-to-year rise in hospital-related expenses remains a central concern among policymakers,” they wrote.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Hospital costs for the nation’s 35.8 million inpatient stays in 2017 totaled $434.2 billion, for an average of $11,700 per stay, according to a recent analysis from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The single most expensive inpatient condition that year, representing about 8.8% of all hospital costs, was septicemia at $38.2 billion, nearly double the $19.9 billion spent on the next most expensive condition, osteoarthritis, Lan Liang, PhD, of the AHRQ, and associates said in a statistical brief.

These figures “represent the hospital’s costs to produce the services – not the amount paid for services by payers – and they do not include separately billed physician fees associated with the hospitalization,” they noted.

Third in overall cost for 2017 but first in total number of stays were live-born infants, with 3.7 million admissions costing just under $16 billion. Hospital costs for acute myocardial infarction ($14.3 billion) made it the fourth most expensive condition, with heart failure fifth at $13.6 billion, based on data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s National Inpatient Sample.

The 20 most expensive conditions, which also included coronary atherosclerosis, pneumonia, renal failure, and lower-limb fracture, accounted for close to 47% of all hospital costs and over 43% of all stays in 2017. The total amount spent by hospitals that year, $1.1 trillion, constituted nearly a third of all health care expenditures and was 4.7% higher than in 2016, Dr. Liang and associates reported.

“Although this growth represented deceleration, compared with the 5.8% increase between 2014 and 2015, the consistent year-to-year rise in hospital-related expenses remains a central concern among policymakers,” they wrote.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Hospital costs for the nation’s 35.8 million inpatient stays in 2017 totaled $434.2 billion, for an average of $11,700 per stay, according to a recent analysis from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The single most expensive inpatient condition that year, representing about 8.8% of all hospital costs, was septicemia at $38.2 billion, nearly double the $19.9 billion spent on the next most expensive condition, osteoarthritis, Lan Liang, PhD, of the AHRQ, and associates said in a statistical brief.

These figures “represent the hospital’s costs to produce the services – not the amount paid for services by payers – and they do not include separately billed physician fees associated with the hospitalization,” they noted.

Third in overall cost for 2017 but first in total number of stays were live-born infants, with 3.7 million admissions costing just under $16 billion. Hospital costs for acute myocardial infarction ($14.3 billion) made it the fourth most expensive condition, with heart failure fifth at $13.6 billion, based on data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s National Inpatient Sample.

The 20 most expensive conditions, which also included coronary atherosclerosis, pneumonia, renal failure, and lower-limb fracture, accounted for close to 47% of all hospital costs and over 43% of all stays in 2017. The total amount spent by hospitals that year, $1.1 trillion, constituted nearly a third of all health care expenditures and was 4.7% higher than in 2016, Dr. Liang and associates reported.

“Although this growth represented deceleration, compared with the 5.8% increase between 2014 and 2015, the consistent year-to-year rise in hospital-related expenses remains a central concern among policymakers,” they wrote.

rfranki@mdedge.com