Ob.Gyn. News

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.

“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”

That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.

Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.

Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.

“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.

“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”

That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.

Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.

Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.

“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.

“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”

That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.

Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.

Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.

“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

In its first media briefing on coronavirus in more than 3 months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that the COVID-19 pandemic is not over, and large gatherings pose a high risk for COVID-19 transmission.

Robert Redfield, MD, Director, CDC, and Jay C. Butler, MD, Deputy Director of Infectious Diseases and COVID-19 Response Incident Manager, CDC, discussed two new sets of CDC guidance on deciding to go out and attending group gatherings.

“We recognize that we’re all getting tired of staying at home; people long for the life that they had back in December, and as we head into the summer months, we know that Americans will be looking forward to reconnecting with family and friends and being able to attend events, and we want that to occur as safely as possible,” Butler said.

“Our recommendations evolved based on new information that becomes available, but it continues to be extremely important that we embrace the recommendations of social distancing, handwashing, and wearing a face covering when we’re in public as some of the key defenses that we have against this virus,” Redfield explained.

“The pandemic is not over and it’s important to recognize that. While COVID-19 is still making headlines everywhere, we know the pandemic hasn’t affected everyone everywhere in the same way,” Butler said.

He noted that it is important to prepare for next fall and winter, when we can expect influenza season to complicate matters. “If anything, we must be overly-prepared for what we might face later this year,” he continued, adding that it is important to get vaccinated against influenza. “[F]lu and COVID-19 could be circulating together as we move into the fall and winter months,” he concluded.

Americans Mostly Following Guidelines

The agency also presented data from an article published online June 12 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that “underscores the fact that American people have taken mitigation efforts seriously…and it demonstrates our collective spirit in responding to the pandemic,” Butler said.

In it, the researchers describe representative panel surveys conducted among 4042 adults aged 18 years or older in New York City and Los Angeles — the two most populous cities in the United States — and “broadly across the United States” during May 5 to May 12, 2020.

Most respondents supported stay-at-home orders and nonessential business closures (United States, 79.5%; New York City, 86.7%; Los Angeles, 81.5%) and always or often wore cloth face coverings in public (United States, 74.1%; New York City, 89.6%; Los Angeles, 89.8%). Respondents also agreed that nonessential workers should remain at home (United States, 67.3%; New York City, 76.6%; Los Angeles, 69.1%), report Mark É. Czeisler, from Monash University and Austin Health, both in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues.

There was wide support with public health guidelines: more than 87% of individuals in each area agreed that individuals should keep six feet of distance between themselves and others, and more than 82% in each area said that people should limit gatherings to fewer than 10 individuals.

At the time the survey was conducted, most were against indoor dining at restaurants (United States, 66.6%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 71.8%).

Adherence “Widespread,” Survey Finds

Most respondents said they were adhering to COVID-19 mitigation guidance, including self-isolating (United States, 77.3%; New York City, 84.6%; Los Angeles, 83.0%) and “always or often” kept at least six feet between themselves and others (New York City, 85.7%; Los Angeles, 82.6%).

More than 85% of respondents in each of the three cohorts said they always or often avoided groups of 10 or more individuals.

About 90% of respondents said they had been in a public area during the last week, with 74.1% of those saying they always or often covered their face in public; respondents in New York City (89.6%) and Los Angeles (89.8%) had higher percentages of this behavior compared with respondents from the United States overall.

Most respondents felt that restrictions in their state were balanced or too lax (United States, 84.3%; New York City, 89.7%; Los Angeles, 79.7%) and said they would feel unsafe if restrictions were eased nationwide at that time (United States, 74.3%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 73.4%). However, some individuals who said they would feel unsafe still wanted community mitigation strategies eased and were willing to accept risks resulting from lifting restrictions (United States, 17.1%; New York City, 12.6%; Los Angeles, 12.7%).

“Reported prevalence of self-isolation and feeling safe if community mitigation strategies were lifted differed significantly by age, employment status, and essential worker status among adults in the U.S. survey cohort,” the authors write.

Reports of self-isolation were highest among persons aged 18 to 24 years (92.3%) and lowest among those aged 45 to 54 years (71.5%). Yet, young adults aged 18 to 24 years (43.1%) were more than twice as likely to say they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with adults aged 65 years or older (19.2%).

Almost half (47.2%) of employed respondents in the US cohort were essential workers; essential workers were “significantly less likely” to report self-isolating when compared with nonessential workers (63.1% vs 80.6%). Some 37.7% of essential workers said they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with 23.7% of nonessential workers.

“Respondents who were male, employed, or essential workers were significantly more likely to report having been in public areas in the past week. Among respondents who had been in public areas during the preceding week, significantly higher percentages of women, adults aged ≥ 65 years, retired persons, and those living in urban areas reported wearing cloth face coverings,” the authors explain.

The findings are subject to several limitations, including self-reporting and the fact that some respondents may have known someone who tested positive for COVID-19 or died from it, the authors note. Respondents were not representative of the US population and the findings may not be generalizable.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its first media briefing on coronavirus in more than 3 months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that the COVID-19 pandemic is not over, and large gatherings pose a high risk for COVID-19 transmission.

Robert Redfield, MD, Director, CDC, and Jay C. Butler, MD, Deputy Director of Infectious Diseases and COVID-19 Response Incident Manager, CDC, discussed two new sets of CDC guidance on deciding to go out and attending group gatherings.

“We recognize that we’re all getting tired of staying at home; people long for the life that they had back in December, and as we head into the summer months, we know that Americans will be looking forward to reconnecting with family and friends and being able to attend events, and we want that to occur as safely as possible,” Butler said.

“Our recommendations evolved based on new information that becomes available, but it continues to be extremely important that we embrace the recommendations of social distancing, handwashing, and wearing a face covering when we’re in public as some of the key defenses that we have against this virus,” Redfield explained.

“The pandemic is not over and it’s important to recognize that. While COVID-19 is still making headlines everywhere, we know the pandemic hasn’t affected everyone everywhere in the same way,” Butler said.

He noted that it is important to prepare for next fall and winter, when we can expect influenza season to complicate matters. “If anything, we must be overly-prepared for what we might face later this year,” he continued, adding that it is important to get vaccinated against influenza. “[F]lu and COVID-19 could be circulating together as we move into the fall and winter months,” he concluded.

Americans Mostly Following Guidelines

The agency also presented data from an article published online June 12 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that “underscores the fact that American people have taken mitigation efforts seriously…and it demonstrates our collective spirit in responding to the pandemic,” Butler said.

In it, the researchers describe representative panel surveys conducted among 4042 adults aged 18 years or older in New York City and Los Angeles — the two most populous cities in the United States — and “broadly across the United States” during May 5 to May 12, 2020.

Most respondents supported stay-at-home orders and nonessential business closures (United States, 79.5%; New York City, 86.7%; Los Angeles, 81.5%) and always or often wore cloth face coverings in public (United States, 74.1%; New York City, 89.6%; Los Angeles, 89.8%). Respondents also agreed that nonessential workers should remain at home (United States, 67.3%; New York City, 76.6%; Los Angeles, 69.1%), report Mark É. Czeisler, from Monash University and Austin Health, both in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues.

There was wide support with public health guidelines: more than 87% of individuals in each area agreed that individuals should keep six feet of distance between themselves and others, and more than 82% in each area said that people should limit gatherings to fewer than 10 individuals.

At the time the survey was conducted, most were against indoor dining at restaurants (United States, 66.6%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 71.8%).

Adherence “Widespread,” Survey Finds

Most respondents said they were adhering to COVID-19 mitigation guidance, including self-isolating (United States, 77.3%; New York City, 84.6%; Los Angeles, 83.0%) and “always or often” kept at least six feet between themselves and others (New York City, 85.7%; Los Angeles, 82.6%).

More than 85% of respondents in each of the three cohorts said they always or often avoided groups of 10 or more individuals.

About 90% of respondents said they had been in a public area during the last week, with 74.1% of those saying they always or often covered their face in public; respondents in New York City (89.6%) and Los Angeles (89.8%) had higher percentages of this behavior compared with respondents from the United States overall.

Most respondents felt that restrictions in their state were balanced or too lax (United States, 84.3%; New York City, 89.7%; Los Angeles, 79.7%) and said they would feel unsafe if restrictions were eased nationwide at that time (United States, 74.3%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 73.4%). However, some individuals who said they would feel unsafe still wanted community mitigation strategies eased and were willing to accept risks resulting from lifting restrictions (United States, 17.1%; New York City, 12.6%; Los Angeles, 12.7%).

“Reported prevalence of self-isolation and feeling safe if community mitigation strategies were lifted differed significantly by age, employment status, and essential worker status among adults in the U.S. survey cohort,” the authors write.

Reports of self-isolation were highest among persons aged 18 to 24 years (92.3%) and lowest among those aged 45 to 54 years (71.5%). Yet, young adults aged 18 to 24 years (43.1%) were more than twice as likely to say they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with adults aged 65 years or older (19.2%).

Almost half (47.2%) of employed respondents in the US cohort were essential workers; essential workers were “significantly less likely” to report self-isolating when compared with nonessential workers (63.1% vs 80.6%). Some 37.7% of essential workers said they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with 23.7% of nonessential workers.

“Respondents who were male, employed, or essential workers were significantly more likely to report having been in public areas in the past week. Among respondents who had been in public areas during the preceding week, significantly higher percentages of women, adults aged ≥ 65 years, retired persons, and those living in urban areas reported wearing cloth face coverings,” the authors explain.

The findings are subject to several limitations, including self-reporting and the fact that some respondents may have known someone who tested positive for COVID-19 or died from it, the authors note. Respondents were not representative of the US population and the findings may not be generalizable.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its first media briefing on coronavirus in more than 3 months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that the COVID-19 pandemic is not over, and large gatherings pose a high risk for COVID-19 transmission.

Robert Redfield, MD, Director, CDC, and Jay C. Butler, MD, Deputy Director of Infectious Diseases and COVID-19 Response Incident Manager, CDC, discussed two new sets of CDC guidance on deciding to go out and attending group gatherings.

“We recognize that we’re all getting tired of staying at home; people long for the life that they had back in December, and as we head into the summer months, we know that Americans will be looking forward to reconnecting with family and friends and being able to attend events, and we want that to occur as safely as possible,” Butler said.

“Our recommendations evolved based on new information that becomes available, but it continues to be extremely important that we embrace the recommendations of social distancing, handwashing, and wearing a face covering when we’re in public as some of the key defenses that we have against this virus,” Redfield explained.

“The pandemic is not over and it’s important to recognize that. While COVID-19 is still making headlines everywhere, we know the pandemic hasn’t affected everyone everywhere in the same way,” Butler said.

He noted that it is important to prepare for next fall and winter, when we can expect influenza season to complicate matters. “If anything, we must be overly-prepared for what we might face later this year,” he continued, adding that it is important to get vaccinated against influenza. “[F]lu and COVID-19 could be circulating together as we move into the fall and winter months,” he concluded.

Americans Mostly Following Guidelines

The agency also presented data from an article published online June 12 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that “underscores the fact that American people have taken mitigation efforts seriously…and it demonstrates our collective spirit in responding to the pandemic,” Butler said.

In it, the researchers describe representative panel surveys conducted among 4042 adults aged 18 years or older in New York City and Los Angeles — the two most populous cities in the United States — and “broadly across the United States” during May 5 to May 12, 2020.

Most respondents supported stay-at-home orders and nonessential business closures (United States, 79.5%; New York City, 86.7%; Los Angeles, 81.5%) and always or often wore cloth face coverings in public (United States, 74.1%; New York City, 89.6%; Los Angeles, 89.8%). Respondents also agreed that nonessential workers should remain at home (United States, 67.3%; New York City, 76.6%; Los Angeles, 69.1%), report Mark É. Czeisler, from Monash University and Austin Health, both in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues.

There was wide support with public health guidelines: more than 87% of individuals in each area agreed that individuals should keep six feet of distance between themselves and others, and more than 82% in each area said that people should limit gatherings to fewer than 10 individuals.

At the time the survey was conducted, most were against indoor dining at restaurants (United States, 66.6%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 71.8%).

Adherence “Widespread,” Survey Finds

Most respondents said they were adhering to COVID-19 mitigation guidance, including self-isolating (United States, 77.3%; New York City, 84.6%; Los Angeles, 83.0%) and “always or often” kept at least six feet between themselves and others (New York City, 85.7%; Los Angeles, 82.6%).

More than 85% of respondents in each of the three cohorts said they always or often avoided groups of 10 or more individuals.

About 90% of respondents said they had been in a public area during the last week, with 74.1% of those saying they always or often covered their face in public; respondents in New York City (89.6%) and Los Angeles (89.8%) had higher percentages of this behavior compared with respondents from the United States overall.

Most respondents felt that restrictions in their state were balanced or too lax (United States, 84.3%; New York City, 89.7%; Los Angeles, 79.7%) and said they would feel unsafe if restrictions were eased nationwide at that time (United States, 74.3%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 73.4%). However, some individuals who said they would feel unsafe still wanted community mitigation strategies eased and were willing to accept risks resulting from lifting restrictions (United States, 17.1%; New York City, 12.6%; Los Angeles, 12.7%).

“Reported prevalence of self-isolation and feeling safe if community mitigation strategies were lifted differed significantly by age, employment status, and essential worker status among adults in the U.S. survey cohort,” the authors write.

Reports of self-isolation were highest among persons aged 18 to 24 years (92.3%) and lowest among those aged 45 to 54 years (71.5%). Yet, young adults aged 18 to 24 years (43.1%) were more than twice as likely to say they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with adults aged 65 years or older (19.2%).

Almost half (47.2%) of employed respondents in the US cohort were essential workers; essential workers were “significantly less likely” to report self-isolating when compared with nonessential workers (63.1% vs 80.6%). Some 37.7% of essential workers said they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with 23.7% of nonessential workers.

“Respondents who were male, employed, or essential workers were significantly more likely to report having been in public areas in the past week. Among respondents who had been in public areas during the preceding week, significantly higher percentages of women, adults aged ≥ 65 years, retired persons, and those living in urban areas reported wearing cloth face coverings,” the authors explain.

The findings are subject to several limitations, including self-reporting and the fact that some respondents may have known someone who tested positive for COVID-19 or died from it, the authors note. Respondents were not representative of the US population and the findings may not be generalizable.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Racism, COVID-19 lead to sky-high stress levels

Primary care clinicians, already experiencing all-time high stress levels related to COVID-19, are now struggling to cope with the fallout from racism and the death of George Floyd, according to a survey conducted June 5-8.

When asked how the situation has affected their practices, 12% of the survey’s 586 respondents “drew clear connections between the current racial unrest and the health of their patients,” the Larry A. Green Center said in a recent statement. One-third of the clinicians also said that recent racism-related events have had a negative effect on their own well-being.

In a related survey of 1,111 patients conducted June 8 about 65% of patients said that racism affected emotional, psychological, and behavioral health.

“The fact that so many patients and clinicians agree that racism is a driver of health points to the incredible role primary care plays in creating safe spaces to process deep societal and personal issues,” said Christine Bechtel, cofounder of 3rd Conversation, a community of patients and providers. Read more.

Medical teams take to the streets

They stanched bleeding wounds and plucked disoriented teenagers from clouds of gas, entering dangerous corners where on-duty emergency health responders may fear to go. Many are medical professionals who see parallels between the front lines of COVID-19, where they confront stark racial imbalances among those stricken by the coronavirus, and what they see as racialized police brutality.

Iris Butler, a 21-year-old certified nursing assistant who works in a nursing home, decided to offer her skills after seeing a man injured by a rubber bullet on her first night at the Denver protests. She showed up as a medic every night thereafter. “I am working full time and basically being at the protest after getting straight off of work,” said Ms. Butler, who is black. That’s tiring, she added, but so is being a black woman in America. Read more.

At-home management of type 1 diabetes, COVID-19

Although hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis are common in people with type 1 diabetes who develop COVID-19, many are still able to manage the illness at home and overall mortality is relatively low.   

These new findings are still preliminary and were published online June 5 in Diabetes Care by Osagie A. Ebekozien, MD, vice president, quality improvement and population health at the T1D Exchange, and colleagues.

The published study includes data as of May 5 on 64 individuals from a total of 64 US sites. Since the paper was submitted, there are now 220 patients from 68 sites. There were two deaths in the preliminary report, Dr. Ebekozien said. There have been a few more deaths in the larger dataset, but the mortality rate remains relatively low.

Overall, 34.9% of patients were able to manage COVID-19 entirely at home. At the other extreme, 22.2% of patients overall were admitted to the intensive care unit. Including the small proportion of patients sent home after being seen in emergency or urgent care, overall roughly half were not admitted to the hospital. “Even in this preliminary study, half were managed at home via telemedicine with an endocrinologist and infectious disease specialist ... I think it continues to be a case-by-case clinical decision between the patient and their provider,” Dr. Ebekozien said. Read more.

‘Hospital at home’ for cancer patients

Visits to the emergency department (ED) and hospitalizations are often frequent occurrences for cancer patients, but what if the “hospital” could be brought into the home instead?

A new American cohort study provides evidence that this can be a workable option for cancer patients. The authors report improved patient outcomes, with 56% lower odds of unplanned hospitalizations, 45% lower odds of ED visits, and 50% lower cumulative charges, as compared with patients who received usual care.

“The oncology hospital-at-home model of care that extends acute-level care to the patient at home offers promise in addressing a long-term gap in cancer care service delivery,” said lead author Kathi Mooney, PhD, RN, distinguished professor of nursing at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “In light of the current global pandemic, we are compelled to consider new ways to provide cancer care, and the oncology hospital-at-home model is on point to address critical elements of an improved cancer care delivery system.”

Dr. Mooney presented the findings during the virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 annual meeting (abstract 7000). Read more.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Racism, COVID-19 lead to sky-high stress levels

Primary care clinicians, already experiencing all-time high stress levels related to COVID-19, are now struggling to cope with the fallout from racism and the death of George Floyd, according to a survey conducted June 5-8.

When asked how the situation has affected their practices, 12% of the survey’s 586 respondents “drew clear connections between the current racial unrest and the health of their patients,” the Larry A. Green Center said in a recent statement. One-third of the clinicians also said that recent racism-related events have had a negative effect on their own well-being.

In a related survey of 1,111 patients conducted June 8 about 65% of patients said that racism affected emotional, psychological, and behavioral health.

“The fact that so many patients and clinicians agree that racism is a driver of health points to the incredible role primary care plays in creating safe spaces to process deep societal and personal issues,” said Christine Bechtel, cofounder of 3rd Conversation, a community of patients and providers. Read more.

Medical teams take to the streets

They stanched bleeding wounds and plucked disoriented teenagers from clouds of gas, entering dangerous corners where on-duty emergency health responders may fear to go. Many are medical professionals who see parallels between the front lines of COVID-19, where they confront stark racial imbalances among those stricken by the coronavirus, and what they see as racialized police brutality.

Iris Butler, a 21-year-old certified nursing assistant who works in a nursing home, decided to offer her skills after seeing a man injured by a rubber bullet on her first night at the Denver protests. She showed up as a medic every night thereafter. “I am working full time and basically being at the protest after getting straight off of work,” said Ms. Butler, who is black. That’s tiring, she added, but so is being a black woman in America. Read more.

At-home management of type 1 diabetes, COVID-19

Although hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis are common in people with type 1 diabetes who develop COVID-19, many are still able to manage the illness at home and overall mortality is relatively low.   

These new findings are still preliminary and were published online June 5 in Diabetes Care by Osagie A. Ebekozien, MD, vice president, quality improvement and population health at the T1D Exchange, and colleagues.

The published study includes data as of May 5 on 64 individuals from a total of 64 US sites. Since the paper was submitted, there are now 220 patients from 68 sites. There were two deaths in the preliminary report, Dr. Ebekozien said. There have been a few more deaths in the larger dataset, but the mortality rate remains relatively low.

Overall, 34.9% of patients were able to manage COVID-19 entirely at home. At the other extreme, 22.2% of patients overall were admitted to the intensive care unit. Including the small proportion of patients sent home after being seen in emergency or urgent care, overall roughly half were not admitted to the hospital. “Even in this preliminary study, half were managed at home via telemedicine with an endocrinologist and infectious disease specialist ... I think it continues to be a case-by-case clinical decision between the patient and their provider,” Dr. Ebekozien said. Read more.

‘Hospital at home’ for cancer patients

Visits to the emergency department (ED) and hospitalizations are often frequent occurrences for cancer patients, but what if the “hospital” could be brought into the home instead?

A new American cohort study provides evidence that this can be a workable option for cancer patients. The authors report improved patient outcomes, with 56% lower odds of unplanned hospitalizations, 45% lower odds of ED visits, and 50% lower cumulative charges, as compared with patients who received usual care.

“The oncology hospital-at-home model of care that extends acute-level care to the patient at home offers promise in addressing a long-term gap in cancer care service delivery,” said lead author Kathi Mooney, PhD, RN, distinguished professor of nursing at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “In light of the current global pandemic, we are compelled to consider new ways to provide cancer care, and the oncology hospital-at-home model is on point to address critical elements of an improved cancer care delivery system.”

Dr. Mooney presented the findings during the virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 annual meeting (abstract 7000). Read more.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Racism, COVID-19 lead to sky-high stress levels

Primary care clinicians, already experiencing all-time high stress levels related to COVID-19, are now struggling to cope with the fallout from racism and the death of George Floyd, according to a survey conducted June 5-8.

When asked how the situation has affected their practices, 12% of the survey’s 586 respondents “drew clear connections between the current racial unrest and the health of their patients,” the Larry A. Green Center said in a recent statement. One-third of the clinicians also said that recent racism-related events have had a negative effect on their own well-being.

In a related survey of 1,111 patients conducted June 8 about 65% of patients said that racism affected emotional, psychological, and behavioral health.

“The fact that so many patients and clinicians agree that racism is a driver of health points to the incredible role primary care plays in creating safe spaces to process deep societal and personal issues,” said Christine Bechtel, cofounder of 3rd Conversation, a community of patients and providers. Read more.

Medical teams take to the streets

They stanched bleeding wounds and plucked disoriented teenagers from clouds of gas, entering dangerous corners where on-duty emergency health responders may fear to go. Many are medical professionals who see parallels between the front lines of COVID-19, where they confront stark racial imbalances among those stricken by the coronavirus, and what they see as racialized police brutality.

Iris Butler, a 21-year-old certified nursing assistant who works in a nursing home, decided to offer her skills after seeing a man injured by a rubber bullet on her first night at the Denver protests. She showed up as a medic every night thereafter. “I am working full time and basically being at the protest after getting straight off of work,” said Ms. Butler, who is black. That’s tiring, she added, but so is being a black woman in America. Read more.

At-home management of type 1 diabetes, COVID-19

Although hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis are common in people with type 1 diabetes who develop COVID-19, many are still able to manage the illness at home and overall mortality is relatively low.   

These new findings are still preliminary and were published online June 5 in Diabetes Care by Osagie A. Ebekozien, MD, vice president, quality improvement and population health at the T1D Exchange, and colleagues.

The published study includes data as of May 5 on 64 individuals from a total of 64 US sites. Since the paper was submitted, there are now 220 patients from 68 sites. There were two deaths in the preliminary report, Dr. Ebekozien said. There have been a few more deaths in the larger dataset, but the mortality rate remains relatively low.

Overall, 34.9% of patients were able to manage COVID-19 entirely at home. At the other extreme, 22.2% of patients overall were admitted to the intensive care unit. Including the small proportion of patients sent home after being seen in emergency or urgent care, overall roughly half were not admitted to the hospital. “Even in this preliminary study, half were managed at home via telemedicine with an endocrinologist and infectious disease specialist ... I think it continues to be a case-by-case clinical decision between the patient and their provider,” Dr. Ebekozien said. Read more.

‘Hospital at home’ for cancer patients

Visits to the emergency department (ED) and hospitalizations are often frequent occurrences for cancer patients, but what if the “hospital” could be brought into the home instead?

A new American cohort study provides evidence that this can be a workable option for cancer patients. The authors report improved patient outcomes, with 56% lower odds of unplanned hospitalizations, 45% lower odds of ED visits, and 50% lower cumulative charges, as compared with patients who received usual care.

“The oncology hospital-at-home model of care that extends acute-level care to the patient at home offers promise in addressing a long-term gap in cancer care service delivery,” said lead author Kathi Mooney, PhD, RN, distinguished professor of nursing at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “In light of the current global pandemic, we are compelled to consider new ways to provide cancer care, and the oncology hospital-at-home model is on point to address critical elements of an improved cancer care delivery system.”

Dr. Mooney presented the findings during the virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 annual meeting (abstract 7000). Read more.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

New preliminary data from the T1D Exchange suggest that, although hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) are common in people with type 1 diabetes who develop COVID-19, many are still able to manage the illness at home and overall mortality is relatively low.

The new findings – the first US data on individuals with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 – were published online June 5 in Diabetes Care by Osagie A. Ebekozien, MD, vice president, quality improvement and population health at the T1D Exchange, and colleagues.

Two UK studies are the only prior ones to previously examine the topic.

The newly published study includes data as of May 5 on 64 individuals from a total of 64 US sites, including 15 T1D Exchange member clinics and an additional 49 endocrinology clinics from around the country. Since the paper was submitted, there are now 220 patients from 68 sites. Another publication with a more detailed analysis of risk factors and adjustment for confounders is planned for later this year.

Some of the findings from the preliminary data have shifted, but many aspects remain consistent, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

“One thing still very true, even with the unpublished findings, is the influence of A1c and glycemic management. ...With higher A1c levels, we’re seeing more COVID-19 hospitalizations and worse outcomes,” he said.

And as has been generally reported for COVID-19, high body mass index was a major risk factor in the preliminary dataset – and remains so.

There were two deaths in the preliminary report, both individuals with comorbidities in addition to type 1 diabetes, Ebekozien said. There have been a few more deaths in the larger dataset, but the mortality rate remains relatively low.

Interestingly, females predominate in both cohorts. That may be a reporting phenomenon, another factor that is being analyzed.

Hyperglycemia Remains a Major Risk Factor

The study is specifically being conducted by the T1D Exchange’s Quality Improvement Collaborative, which Ebekozien heads.

Data were obtained for 33 patients with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for COVID-19, and another 31 who were classified as “COVID-19–like” because they had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but hadn’t been tested for the virus.

For all 64 patients, the mean age was 20.9 years and two thirds (65.6%) were aged 18 or younger. A higher proportion of the COVID-19–like patients were pediatric than the confirmed cases. The larger dataset includes more adult patients, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

Overall, 60.9% of patients were female. Nearly half were white, a quarter Hispanic, and 18.8% black. More confirmed COVID-19 cases were black compared with suspected cases (30.3% vs 6.5%).

Median A1c for the overall group (including suspected COVID-19 cases) was 8.0%, but it was 8.5% among confirmed cases. Overall, six patients (9.8%) presented with new-onset type 1 diabetes after they developed COVID-19.

Hyperglycemia was present in half (32) of patients overall. DKA occurred in 19 people (30.2%): 15 of the confirmed COVID-19 cases (45.5%) versus just 4 (13.3%) of the COVID-19–like cases. Nausea was reported in 30.2% of patients overall.

Other symptoms were typical of COVID-19, including fever (41.3%), dry cough (38.1%), and shortness of breath (27.0%). Loss of taste and smell was less common, at just 9.5% overall.

Obesity was present in 39.7% of patients overall, with similar proportions in the confirmed and suspected COVID-19 groups. Hypertension and/or cardiovascular disease were present in 14.3% of patients overall, and the rate was similar between the two subgroups.

One of the two patients who died was a 79-year-old man who had hypertension and a prior stroke in addition to type 1 diabetes. The other was a 19-year-old woman with a history of asthma who developed a pulmonary embolism during the onset of COVID-19. Neither had DKA.

Even in Type 1 Diabetes, COVID-19 Can Be Managed at Home

Overall, 34.9% of patients were able to manage COVID-19 entirely at home, with 27.3% of the confirmed and 43.3% of the suspected cases able to do so.

At the other extreme, 22.2% of patients overall were admitted to the intensive care unit; 30.3% of the confirmed versus 13.3% of suspected cases.

Including the small proportion of patients sent home after being seen in emergency or urgent care, overall roughly half were not admitted to hospital.

“Interestingly, even in this preliminary study, half were managed at home via telemedicine with an endocrinologist and infectious disease specialist. ... I think it continues to be a case-by-case clinical decision between the patient and their provider,” Ebekozien said.

“But, we’re seeing a good number of patients who are managed at home and the symptoms resolve in a week or two, and the illness runs its course, and they don’t have to even be seen,” he added.

The research team is also collecting data on barriers to remote care, including challenges with telemedicine and how frontline providers are navigating them.

“Those are all things that our future paper will be able to shed more light on,” he explained.

Endocrinologists around the country are invited to report cases of COVID-19 in patients with type 1 diabetes to the T1D Exchange by emailing QI@T1Dexchange.org.

And in fact, Ebekozien also requested that clinicians with a large type 1 diabetes population also report if they’ve had no COVID-19 cases.

“Even if they haven’t had a case, that’s very useful information for us to know. One of the things we want to calculate down the line is the incidence ratio. Not all participating sites have had a case.”

Endocrinologists from all the participating sites have formed a dedicated community that meets regularly via webinars to share information, he noted. “It’s been a very selfless effort to work collaboratively as a community to quickly answer critical questions.”

The Helmsley Charitable Trust funds the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. The T1D Exchange received financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, JDRF, Insulet Corporation, Lilly, Medtronic, and Tandem Diabetes Care. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New preliminary data from the T1D Exchange suggest that, although hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) are common in people with type 1 diabetes who develop COVID-19, many are still able to manage the illness at home and overall mortality is relatively low.

The new findings – the first US data on individuals with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 – were published online June 5 in Diabetes Care by Osagie A. Ebekozien, MD, vice president, quality improvement and population health at the T1D Exchange, and colleagues.

Two UK studies are the only prior ones to previously examine the topic.

The newly published study includes data as of May 5 on 64 individuals from a total of 64 US sites, including 15 T1D Exchange member clinics and an additional 49 endocrinology clinics from around the country. Since the paper was submitted, there are now 220 patients from 68 sites. Another publication with a more detailed analysis of risk factors and adjustment for confounders is planned for later this year.

Some of the findings from the preliminary data have shifted, but many aspects remain consistent, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

“One thing still very true, even with the unpublished findings, is the influence of A1c and glycemic management. ...With higher A1c levels, we’re seeing more COVID-19 hospitalizations and worse outcomes,” he said.

And as has been generally reported for COVID-19, high body mass index was a major risk factor in the preliminary dataset – and remains so.

There were two deaths in the preliminary report, both individuals with comorbidities in addition to type 1 diabetes, Ebekozien said. There have been a few more deaths in the larger dataset, but the mortality rate remains relatively low.

Interestingly, females predominate in both cohorts. That may be a reporting phenomenon, another factor that is being analyzed.

Hyperglycemia Remains a Major Risk Factor

The study is specifically being conducted by the T1D Exchange’s Quality Improvement Collaborative, which Ebekozien heads.

Data were obtained for 33 patients with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for COVID-19, and another 31 who were classified as “COVID-19–like” because they had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but hadn’t been tested for the virus.

For all 64 patients, the mean age was 20.9 years and two thirds (65.6%) were aged 18 or younger. A higher proportion of the COVID-19–like patients were pediatric than the confirmed cases. The larger dataset includes more adult patients, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

Overall, 60.9% of patients were female. Nearly half were white, a quarter Hispanic, and 18.8% black. More confirmed COVID-19 cases were black compared with suspected cases (30.3% vs 6.5%).

Median A1c for the overall group (including suspected COVID-19 cases) was 8.0%, but it was 8.5% among confirmed cases. Overall, six patients (9.8%) presented with new-onset type 1 diabetes after they developed COVID-19.

Hyperglycemia was present in half (32) of patients overall. DKA occurred in 19 people (30.2%): 15 of the confirmed COVID-19 cases (45.5%) versus just 4 (13.3%) of the COVID-19–like cases. Nausea was reported in 30.2% of patients overall.

Other symptoms were typical of COVID-19, including fever (41.3%), dry cough (38.1%), and shortness of breath (27.0%). Loss of taste and smell was less common, at just 9.5% overall.

Obesity was present in 39.7% of patients overall, with similar proportions in the confirmed and suspected COVID-19 groups. Hypertension and/or cardiovascular disease were present in 14.3% of patients overall, and the rate was similar between the two subgroups.

One of the two patients who died was a 79-year-old man who had hypertension and a prior stroke in addition to type 1 diabetes. The other was a 19-year-old woman with a history of asthma who developed a pulmonary embolism during the onset of COVID-19. Neither had DKA.

Even in Type 1 Diabetes, COVID-19 Can Be Managed at Home

Overall, 34.9% of patients were able to manage COVID-19 entirely at home, with 27.3% of the confirmed and 43.3% of the suspected cases able to do so.

At the other extreme, 22.2% of patients overall were admitted to the intensive care unit; 30.3% of the confirmed versus 13.3% of suspected cases.

Including the small proportion of patients sent home after being seen in emergency or urgent care, overall roughly half were not admitted to hospital.

“Interestingly, even in this preliminary study, half were managed at home via telemedicine with an endocrinologist and infectious disease specialist. ... I think it continues to be a case-by-case clinical decision between the patient and their provider,” Ebekozien said.

“But, we’re seeing a good number of patients who are managed at home and the symptoms resolve in a week or two, and the illness runs its course, and they don’t have to even be seen,” he added.

The research team is also collecting data on barriers to remote care, including challenges with telemedicine and how frontline providers are navigating them.

“Those are all things that our future paper will be able to shed more light on,” he explained.

Endocrinologists around the country are invited to report cases of COVID-19 in patients with type 1 diabetes to the T1D Exchange by emailing QI@T1Dexchange.org.

And in fact, Ebekozien also requested that clinicians with a large type 1 diabetes population also report if they’ve had no COVID-19 cases.

“Even if they haven’t had a case, that’s very useful information for us to know. One of the things we want to calculate down the line is the incidence ratio. Not all participating sites have had a case.”

Endocrinologists from all the participating sites have formed a dedicated community that meets regularly via webinars to share information, he noted. “It’s been a very selfless effort to work collaboratively as a community to quickly answer critical questions.”

The Helmsley Charitable Trust funds the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. The T1D Exchange received financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, JDRF, Insulet Corporation, Lilly, Medtronic, and Tandem Diabetes Care. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New preliminary data from the T1D Exchange suggest that, although hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) are common in people with type 1 diabetes who develop COVID-19, many are still able to manage the illness at home and overall mortality is relatively low.

The new findings – the first US data on individuals with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 – were published online June 5 in Diabetes Care by Osagie A. Ebekozien, MD, vice president, quality improvement and population health at the T1D Exchange, and colleagues.

Two UK studies are the only prior ones to previously examine the topic.

The newly published study includes data as of May 5 on 64 individuals from a total of 64 US sites, including 15 T1D Exchange member clinics and an additional 49 endocrinology clinics from around the country. Since the paper was submitted, there are now 220 patients from 68 sites. Another publication with a more detailed analysis of risk factors and adjustment for confounders is planned for later this year.

Some of the findings from the preliminary data have shifted, but many aspects remain consistent, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

“One thing still very true, even with the unpublished findings, is the influence of A1c and glycemic management. ...With higher A1c levels, we’re seeing more COVID-19 hospitalizations and worse outcomes,” he said.

And as has been generally reported for COVID-19, high body mass index was a major risk factor in the preliminary dataset – and remains so.

There were two deaths in the preliminary report, both individuals with comorbidities in addition to type 1 diabetes, Ebekozien said. There have been a few more deaths in the larger dataset, but the mortality rate remains relatively low.

Interestingly, females predominate in both cohorts. That may be a reporting phenomenon, another factor that is being analyzed.

Hyperglycemia Remains a Major Risk Factor

The study is specifically being conducted by the T1D Exchange’s Quality Improvement Collaborative, which Ebekozien heads.

Data were obtained for 33 patients with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for COVID-19, and another 31 who were classified as “COVID-19–like” because they had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but hadn’t been tested for the virus.

For all 64 patients, the mean age was 20.9 years and two thirds (65.6%) were aged 18 or younger. A higher proportion of the COVID-19–like patients were pediatric than the confirmed cases. The larger dataset includes more adult patients, Ebekozien told Medscape Medical News.

Overall, 60.9% of patients were female. Nearly half were white, a quarter Hispanic, and 18.8% black. More confirmed COVID-19 cases were black compared with suspected cases (30.3% vs 6.5%).

Median A1c for the overall group (including suspected COVID-19 cases) was 8.0%, but it was 8.5% among confirmed cases. Overall, six patients (9.8%) presented with new-onset type 1 diabetes after they developed COVID-19.

Hyperglycemia was present in half (32) of patients overall. DKA occurred in 19 people (30.2%): 15 of the confirmed COVID-19 cases (45.5%) versus just 4 (13.3%) of the COVID-19–like cases. Nausea was reported in 30.2% of patients overall.

Other symptoms were typical of COVID-19, including fever (41.3%), dry cough (38.1%), and shortness of breath (27.0%). Loss of taste and smell was less common, at just 9.5% overall.

Obesity was present in 39.7% of patients overall, with similar proportions in the confirmed and suspected COVID-19 groups. Hypertension and/or cardiovascular disease were present in 14.3% of patients overall, and the rate was similar between the two subgroups.

One of the two patients who died was a 79-year-old man who had hypertension and a prior stroke in addition to type 1 diabetes. The other was a 19-year-old woman with a history of asthma who developed a pulmonary embolism during the onset of COVID-19. Neither had DKA.

Even in Type 1 Diabetes, COVID-19 Can Be Managed at Home

Overall, 34.9% of patients were able to manage COVID-19 entirely at home, with 27.3% of the confirmed and 43.3% of the suspected cases able to do so.

At the other extreme, 22.2% of patients overall were admitted to the intensive care unit; 30.3% of the confirmed versus 13.3% of suspected cases.

Including the small proportion of patients sent home after being seen in emergency or urgent care, overall roughly half were not admitted to hospital.

“Interestingly, even in this preliminary study, half were managed at home via telemedicine with an endocrinologist and infectious disease specialist. ... I think it continues to be a case-by-case clinical decision between the patient and their provider,” Ebekozien said.

“But, we’re seeing a good number of patients who are managed at home and the symptoms resolve in a week or two, and the illness runs its course, and they don’t have to even be seen,” he added.

The research team is also collecting data on barriers to remote care, including challenges with telemedicine and how frontline providers are navigating them.

“Those are all things that our future paper will be able to shed more light on,” he explained.

Endocrinologists around the country are invited to report cases of COVID-19 in patients with type 1 diabetes to the T1D Exchange by emailing QI@T1Dexchange.org.

And in fact, Ebekozien also requested that clinicians with a large type 1 diabetes population also report if they’ve had no COVID-19 cases.

“Even if they haven’t had a case, that’s very useful information for us to know. One of the things we want to calculate down the line is the incidence ratio. Not all participating sites have had a case.”

Endocrinologists from all the participating sites have formed a dedicated community that meets regularly via webinars to share information, he noted. “It’s been a very selfless effort to work collaboratively as a community to quickly answer critical questions.”

The Helmsley Charitable Trust funds the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. The T1D Exchange received financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, JDRF, Insulet Corporation, Lilly, Medtronic, and Tandem Diabetes Care. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Amid clouds of choking tear gas, booming flash-bang grenades and other “riot control agents,” volunteer medics plunged into street protests over the past weeks to help the injured – sometimes rushing to the front lines as soon as their hospital shifts ended.

Known as “street medics,” these unorthodox teams of nursing students, veterinarians, doctors, trauma surgeons, security guards, ski patrollers, nurses, wilderness EMTs, and off-the-clock ambulance workers poured water – not milk – into the eyes of tear-gassed protesters. They stanched bleeding wounds and plucked disoriented teenagers from clouds of gas, entering dangerous corners where on-duty emergency health responders may fear to go.

Many are medical professionals who see parallels between the front lines of COVID-19, where they confront stark racial imbalances among those stricken by the coronavirus, and what they see as racialized police brutality.

So donning cloth masks to protect against the virus – plus helmets, makeshift shields and other gear to guard against rubber bullets, projectiles and tear gas – the volunteer medics organized themselves into a web of first responders to care for people on the streets. They showed up early, set up first-aid stations, established transportation networks and covered their arms, helmets and backpacks with crosses made of red duct tape, to signify that they were medics. Some stayed late into the night past curfews until every protester had left.

Iris Butler, a 21-year-old certified nursing assistant who works in a nursing home, decided to offer her skills after seeing a man injured by a rubber bullet on her first night at the Denver protests. She showed up as a medic every night thereafter. She didn’t see it as a choice.

“I am working full time and basically being at the protest after getting straight off of work,” said Butler, who is black. That’s tiring, she added, but so is being a black woman in America.

After going out as a medic on her own, she soon met other volunteers. Together they used text-message chains to organize their efforts. One night, she responded to a man who had been shot with a rubber bullet in the chest; she said his torso had turned blue and purple from the impact. She also provided aid after a shooting near the protest left someone in critical condition.

“It’s hard, but bills need to be paid and justice needs to be served,” she said.

The street medic movement traces its roots, in part, to the 1960s protests, as well as the American Indian Movement and the Black Panther Party. Denver Action Medic Network offers a 20-hour training course that prepares them to treat patients in conflicts with police and large crowds; a four-hour session is offered to medical professionals as “bridge” training.

Since the coronavirus pandemic began, the Denver Action Medic Network has added new training guidelines: Don’t go to protests if sick or in contact with those who are infected; wear a mask; give people lots of space and use hand sanitizer. Jordan Garcia, a 39-year-old medic for over 20 years who works with the network of veteran street medics, said they also warn medics about the increased risk of transmission because of protesters coughing from tear gas, and urge them to get tested for the virus after the protests.

The number of volunteer medics swelled after George Floyd’s May 25 killing in Minneapolis. In Denver alone, at least 40 people reached out to the Denver Action Medic Network for training.

On June 3, Dr. Rupa Marya, an associate professor of medicine at the University of California,San Francisco, and the co-founder of the Do No Harm Coalition, which runs street medic training in the Bay Area, hosted a national webinar attended by over 3,000 medical professionals to provide the bridge training to be a street medic. In her online bio, Marya describes the coalition as “an organization of over 450 health workers committed to structural change” in addressing health problems.

“When we see suffering, that’s where we go,” Marya said. “And right now that suffering is happening on the streets.”

In the recent Denver protests, street medics responded to major head, face and eye injuries among protesters from what are sometimes described as “kinetic impact projectiles” or “less-than-lethal” bullets shot at protesters, along with tear-gas and flash-bang stun grenade canisters that either hit them or exploded in their faces.

Garcia, who by day works for an immigrant rights nonprofit, said that these weapons are not designed to be shot directly at people.

“We’re seeing police use these less-lethal weapons in lethal ways, and that is pretty upsetting,” Garcia said about the recent protests.

Denver police Chief Paul Pazen promised to make changes, including banning chokeholds and requiring SWAT teams to turn on their body cameras. Last week, a federal judge also issued a temporary injunction to stop Denver police from using tear gas and other less-than-lethal weapons in response to a class action lawsuit, in which a medic stated he was shot multiple times by police with pepper balls while treating patients. (Last week in North Carolina police were recorded destroying medic stations.)

Denver street medic Kevin Connell, a 30-year-old emergency room nurse, said he was hit with pepper balls in the back of his medic vest – which was clearly marked by red crosses – while treating a patient. He showed up to the Denver protests every night he did not have to work, he said, wearing a Kevlar medic vest, protective goggles and a homemade gas mask fashioned from a water bottle. As a member of the Denver Action Medic Network, Connell also served at the Standing Rock protests in North Dakota in a dispute over the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

“I mean, as bad as it sounds, it was only tear gas, pepper balls and rubber bullets that were being fired on us,” Connell said of his recent experience in Denver. “When I was at Standing Rock, they were using high-powered water hoses even when it was, like, freezing cold. … So I think the police here had a little bit more restraint.”

Still, first-time street medic Aj Mossman, a 31-year-old Denver emergency medical technician studying for nursing school, was shocked to be tear-gassed and struck in the back of the leg with a flash grenade while treating a protester on May 30. Mossman still has a large leg bruise.

The following night, Mossman, who uses the pronoun they, brought more protective gear, but said they are still having difficulty processing what felt like a war zone.

“I thought I understood what my black friends went through. I thought I understood what the black community went through,” said Mossman, who is white. “But I had absolutely no idea how violent the police were and how little they cared about who they hurt.”

For Butler, serving as a medic with others from various walks of life was inspiring. “They’re also out there to protect black and brown bodies. And that’s amazing,” she said. “That’s just a beautiful sight.”

This article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Amid clouds of choking tear gas, booming flash-bang grenades and other “riot control agents,” volunteer medics plunged into street protests over the past weeks to help the injured – sometimes rushing to the front lines as soon as their hospital shifts ended.

Known as “street medics,” these unorthodox teams of nursing students, veterinarians, doctors, trauma surgeons, security guards, ski patrollers, nurses, wilderness EMTs, and off-the-clock ambulance workers poured water – not milk – into the eyes of tear-gassed protesters. They stanched bleeding wounds and plucked disoriented teenagers from clouds of gas, entering dangerous corners where on-duty emergency health responders may fear to go.

Many are medical professionals who see parallels between the front lines of COVID-19, where they confront stark racial imbalances among those stricken by the coronavirus, and what they see as racialized police brutality.

So donning cloth masks to protect against the virus – plus helmets, makeshift shields and other gear to guard against rubber bullets, projectiles and tear gas – the volunteer medics organized themselves into a web of first responders to care for people on the streets. They showed up early, set up first-aid stations, established transportation networks and covered their arms, helmets and backpacks with crosses made of red duct tape, to signify that they were medics. Some stayed late into the night past curfews until every protester had left.

Iris Butler, a 21-year-old certified nursing assistant who works in a nursing home, decided to offer her skills after seeing a man injured by a rubber bullet on her first night at the Denver protests. She showed up as a medic every night thereafter. She didn’t see it as a choice.

“I am working full time and basically being at the protest after getting straight off of work,” said Butler, who is black. That’s tiring, she added, but so is being a black woman in America.

After going out as a medic on her own, she soon met other volunteers. Together they used text-message chains to organize their efforts. One night, she responded to a man who had been shot with a rubber bullet in the chest; she said his torso had turned blue and purple from the impact. She also provided aid after a shooting near the protest left someone in critical condition.

“It’s hard, but bills need to be paid and justice needs to be served,” she said.

The street medic movement traces its roots, in part, to the 1960s protests, as well as the American Indian Movement and the Black Panther Party. Denver Action Medic Network offers a 20-hour training course that prepares them to treat patients in conflicts with police and large crowds; a four-hour session is offered to medical professionals as “bridge” training.

Since the coronavirus pandemic began, the Denver Action Medic Network has added new training guidelines: Don’t go to protests if sick or in contact with those who are infected; wear a mask; give people lots of space and use hand sanitizer. Jordan Garcia, a 39-year-old medic for over 20 years who works with the network of veteran street medics, said they also warn medics about the increased risk of transmission because of protesters coughing from tear gas, and urge them to get tested for the virus after the protests.

The number of volunteer medics swelled after George Floyd’s May 25 killing in Minneapolis. In Denver alone, at least 40 people reached out to the Denver Action Medic Network for training.

On June 3, Dr. Rupa Marya, an associate professor of medicine at the University of California,San Francisco, and the co-founder of the Do No Harm Coalition, which runs street medic training in the Bay Area, hosted a national webinar attended by over 3,000 medical professionals to provide the bridge training to be a street medic. In her online bio, Marya describes the coalition as “an organization of over 450 health workers committed to structural change” in addressing health problems.

“When we see suffering, that’s where we go,” Marya said. “And right now that suffering is happening on the streets.”

In the recent Denver protests, street medics responded to major head, face and eye injuries among protesters from what are sometimes described as “kinetic impact projectiles” or “less-than-lethal” bullets shot at protesters, along with tear-gas and flash-bang stun grenade canisters that either hit them or exploded in their faces.

Garcia, who by day works for an immigrant rights nonprofit, said that these weapons are not designed to be shot directly at people.

“We’re seeing police use these less-lethal weapons in lethal ways, and that is pretty upsetting,” Garcia said about the recent protests.

Denver police Chief Paul Pazen promised to make changes, including banning chokeholds and requiring SWAT teams to turn on their body cameras. Last week, a federal judge also issued a temporary injunction to stop Denver police from using tear gas and other less-than-lethal weapons in response to a class action lawsuit, in which a medic stated he was shot multiple times by police with pepper balls while treating patients. (Last week in North Carolina police were recorded destroying medic stations.)

Denver street medic Kevin Connell, a 30-year-old emergency room nurse, said he was hit with pepper balls in the back of his medic vest – which was clearly marked by red crosses – while treating a patient. He showed up to the Denver protests every night he did not have to work, he said, wearing a Kevlar medic vest, protective goggles and a homemade gas mask fashioned from a water bottle. As a member of the Denver Action Medic Network, Connell also served at the Standing Rock protests in North Dakota in a dispute over the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

“I mean, as bad as it sounds, it was only tear gas, pepper balls and rubber bullets that were being fired on us,” Connell said of his recent experience in Denver. “When I was at Standing Rock, they were using high-powered water hoses even when it was, like, freezing cold. … So I think the police here had a little bit more restraint.”

Still, first-time street medic Aj Mossman, a 31-year-old Denver emergency medical technician studying for nursing school, was shocked to be tear-gassed and struck in the back of the leg with a flash grenade while treating a protester on May 30. Mossman still has a large leg bruise.

The following night, Mossman, who uses the pronoun they, brought more protective gear, but said they are still having difficulty processing what felt like a war zone.

“I thought I understood what my black friends went through. I thought I understood what the black community went through,” said Mossman, who is white. “But I had absolutely no idea how violent the police were and how little they cared about who they hurt.”

For Butler, serving as a medic with others from various walks of life was inspiring. “They’re also out there to protect black and brown bodies. And that’s amazing,” she said. “That’s just a beautiful sight.”

This article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Amid clouds of choking tear gas, booming flash-bang grenades and other “riot control agents,” volunteer medics plunged into street protests over the past weeks to help the injured – sometimes rushing to the front lines as soon as their hospital shifts ended.

Known as “street medics,” these unorthodox teams of nursing students, veterinarians, doctors, trauma surgeons, security guards, ski patrollers, nurses, wilderness EMTs, and off-the-clock ambulance workers poured water – not milk – into the eyes of tear-gassed protesters. They stanched bleeding wounds and plucked disoriented teenagers from clouds of gas, entering dangerous corners where on-duty emergency health responders may fear to go.

Many are medical professionals who see parallels between the front lines of COVID-19, where they confront stark racial imbalances among those stricken by the coronavirus, and what they see as racialized police brutality.

So donning cloth masks to protect against the virus – plus helmets, makeshift shields and other gear to guard against rubber bullets, projectiles and tear gas – the volunteer medics organized themselves into a web of first responders to care for people on the streets. They showed up early, set up first-aid stations, established transportation networks and covered their arms, helmets and backpacks with crosses made of red duct tape, to signify that they were medics. Some stayed late into the night past curfews until every protester had left.

Iris Butler, a 21-year-old certified nursing assistant who works in a nursing home, decided to offer her skills after seeing a man injured by a rubber bullet on her first night at the Denver protests. She showed up as a medic every night thereafter. She didn’t see it as a choice.

“I am working full time and basically being at the protest after getting straight off of work,” said Butler, who is black. That’s tiring, she added, but so is being a black woman in America.

After going out as a medic on her own, she soon met other volunteers. Together they used text-message chains to organize their efforts. One night, she responded to a man who had been shot with a rubber bullet in the chest; she said his torso had turned blue and purple from the impact. She also provided aid after a shooting near the protest left someone in critical condition.

“It’s hard, but bills need to be paid and justice needs to be served,” she said.

The street medic movement traces its roots, in part, to the 1960s protests, as well as the American Indian Movement and the Black Panther Party. Denver Action Medic Network offers a 20-hour training course that prepares them to treat patients in conflicts with police and large crowds; a four-hour session is offered to medical professionals as “bridge” training.

Since the coronavirus pandemic began, the Denver Action Medic Network has added new training guidelines: Don’t go to protests if sick or in contact with those who are infected; wear a mask; give people lots of space and use hand sanitizer. Jordan Garcia, a 39-year-old medic for over 20 years who works with the network of veteran street medics, said they also warn medics about the increased risk of transmission because of protesters coughing from tear gas, and urge them to get tested for the virus after the protests.

The number of volunteer medics swelled after George Floyd’s May 25 killing in Minneapolis. In Denver alone, at least 40 people reached out to the Denver Action Medic Network for training.

On June 3, Dr. Rupa Marya, an associate professor of medicine at the University of California,San Francisco, and the co-founder of the Do No Harm Coalition, which runs street medic training in the Bay Area, hosted a national webinar attended by over 3,000 medical professionals to provide the bridge training to be a street medic. In her online bio, Marya describes the coalition as “an organization of over 450 health workers committed to structural change” in addressing health problems.

“When we see suffering, that’s where we go,” Marya said. “And right now that suffering is happening on the streets.”

In the recent Denver protests, street medics responded to major head, face and eye injuries among protesters from what are sometimes described as “kinetic impact projectiles” or “less-than-lethal” bullets shot at protesters, along with tear-gas and flash-bang stun grenade canisters that either hit them or exploded in their faces.

Garcia, who by day works for an immigrant rights nonprofit, said that these weapons are not designed to be shot directly at people.

“We’re seeing police use these less-lethal weapons in lethal ways, and that is pretty upsetting,” Garcia said about the recent protests.

Denver police Chief Paul Pazen promised to make changes, including banning chokeholds and requiring SWAT teams to turn on their body cameras. Last week, a federal judge also issued a temporary injunction to stop Denver police from using tear gas and other less-than-lethal weapons in response to a class action lawsuit, in which a medic stated he was shot multiple times by police with pepper balls while treating patients. (Last week in North Carolina police were recorded destroying medic stations.)

Denver street medic Kevin Connell, a 30-year-old emergency room nurse, said he was hit with pepper balls in the back of his medic vest – which was clearly marked by red crosses – while treating a patient. He showed up to the Denver protests every night he did not have to work, he said, wearing a Kevlar medic vest, protective goggles and a homemade gas mask fashioned from a water bottle. As a member of the Denver Action Medic Network, Connell also served at the Standing Rock protests in North Dakota in a dispute over the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

“I mean, as bad as it sounds, it was only tear gas, pepper balls and rubber bullets that were being fired on us,” Connell said of his recent experience in Denver. “When I was at Standing Rock, they were using high-powered water hoses even when it was, like, freezing cold. … So I think the police here had a little bit more restraint.”

Still, first-time street medic Aj Mossman, a 31-year-old Denver emergency medical technician studying for nursing school, was shocked to be tear-gassed and struck in the back of the leg with a flash grenade while treating a protester on May 30. Mossman still has a large leg bruise.

The following night, Mossman, who uses the pronoun they, brought more protective gear, but said they are still having difficulty processing what felt like a war zone.

“I thought I understood what my black friends went through. I thought I understood what the black community went through,” said Mossman, who is white. “But I had absolutely no idea how violent the police were and how little they cared about who they hurt.”

For Butler, serving as a medic with others from various walks of life was inspiring. “They’re also out there to protect black and brown bodies. And that’s amazing,” she said. “That’s just a beautiful sight.”

This article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

On April 16, the White House released federal guidelines for reopening American businesses – followed 3 days later by specific recommendations from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for health care practices in areas with a low incidence of COVID-19. Since then, a slew of resources and guidelines have emerged to help you safely reopen your medical practice.

Depending on where you live, you may have already reopened (or even never closed), or you may be awaiting the relaxation of restrictions in your state. (As I write this on June 10, the stay-at-home order in my state, New Jersey, is being rescinded.)

The big question, of course, is whether patients can be convinced that it is safe to leave their homes and come to your office. The answer may depend on how well you time your reopening and adhere to the appropriate federal, state, and independent guidelines.

The federal guidelines have three sections: criteria, which outline conditions each region or state should satisfy before reopening; preparedness, which lists how states should prepare for reopening; and phase guidelines, which detail responsibilities of individuals and employers during distinct reopening phases.

You should pay the most attention to the “criteria” section. The key question to ask: “Has my state or region satisfied the basic criteria for reopening?”

Those criteria are as follows:

• Symptoms reported within a 14-day period should be on a downward trajectory.
• Cases documented (or positive tests as a percentage of total tests) within a 14-day period should also be on a downward trajectory.
• Hospitals should be treating all patients without crisis care. They should also have a robust testing program in place for at-risk health care workers.

If your area meets these criteria, you can proceed to the CMS recommendations. They cover general advice related to personal protective equipment (PPE), workforce availability, facility considerations, sanitation protocols, supplies, and testing capacity.

The key takeaway: As long as your area has the resources to quickly respond to a surge of COVID-19 cases, you can start offering care to non-COVID patients. Keep seeing patients via telehealth as often as possible, and prioritize surgical/procedural care and high-complexity chronic disease management before moving on to preventive and cosmetic services.

The American Medical Association has issued its own checklist of criteria for reopening your practice to supplement the federal guidelines. Highlights include the following:

• Sit down with a calendar and pick an expected reopening day. Ideally, this should include a “soft reopening.” Make a plan to stock necessary PPE and write down plans for cleaning and staffing if an employee or patient is diagnosed with COVID-19 after visiting your office.
• Take a stepwise approach so you can identify challenges early and address them. It’s important to figure out which visits can continue via telehealth, and begin with just a few in-person visits each day. Plan out a schedule and clearly communicate it to patients, clinicians, and staff.
• Patient safety is your top concern. Encourage patients to visit without companions whenever possible, and of course, all individuals who visit the office should wear a cloth face covering.
• Screen employees for fevers and other symptoms of COVID-19; remember that those records are subject to HIPAA rules and must be kept confidential. Minimize contact between employees as much as possible.
• Do your best to screen patients before in-person visits, to verify they don’t have symptoms of COVID-19. Consider creating a script that office staff can use to contact patients 24 hours before they come in. Use this as a chance to ask about symptoms, and explain any reopening logistics they should know about.
• Contact your malpractice insurance carrier to discuss whether you need to make any changes to your coverage.

This would also be a great time to review your confidentiality, privacy, and data security protocols. COVID-19 presents new challenges for data privacy – for example, if you must inform coworkers or patients that they have come into contact with someone who tested positive. Make a plan that follows HIPAA guidelines during COVID-19. Also, make sure you have a plan for handling issues like paid sick leave or reporting COVID-19 cases to your local health department.

Another useful resource is the Medical Group Management Association’s COVID-19 Medical Practice Reopening Checklist. You can use it to confirm that you are addressing all the important items, and that you haven’t missed anything.

As for me, I am advising patients who are reluctant to seek treatment that many medical problems pose more risk than COVID-19, faster treatment means better outcomes, and because we maintain strict disinfection protocols, they are far less likely to be infected with COVID-19 in my office than, say, at a grocery store.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

On April 16, the White House released federal guidelines for reopening American businesses – followed 3 days later by specific recommendations from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for health care practices in areas with a low incidence of COVID-19. Since then, a slew of resources and guidelines have emerged to help you safely reopen your medical practice.

Depending on where you live, you may have already reopened (or even never closed), or you may be awaiting the relaxation of restrictions in your state. (As I write this on June 10, the stay-at-home order in my state, New Jersey, is being rescinded.)

The big question, of course, is whether patients can be convinced that it is safe to leave their homes and come to your office. The answer may depend on how well you time your reopening and adhere to the appropriate federal, state, and independent guidelines.

The federal guidelines have three sections: criteria, which outline conditions each region or state should satisfy before reopening; preparedness, which lists how states should prepare for reopening; and phase guidelines, which detail responsibilities of individuals and employers during distinct reopening phases.

You should pay the most attention to the “criteria” section. The key question to ask: “Has my state or region satisfied the basic criteria for reopening?”

Those criteria are as follows:

• Symptoms reported within a 14-day period should be on a downward trajectory.
• Cases documented (or positive tests as a percentage of total tests) within a 14-day period should also be on a downward trajectory.
• Hospitals should be treating all patients without crisis care. They should also have a robust testing program in place for at-risk health care workers.

If your area meets these criteria, you can proceed to the CMS recommendations. They cover general advice related to personal protective equipment (PPE), workforce availability, facility considerations, sanitation protocols, supplies, and testing capacity.

The key takeaway: As long as your area has the resources to quickly respond to a surge of COVID-19 cases, you can start offering care to non-COVID patients. Keep seeing patients via telehealth as often as possible, and prioritize surgical/procedural care and high-complexity chronic disease management before moving on to preventive and cosmetic services.

The American Medical Association has issued its own checklist of criteria for reopening your practice to supplement the federal guidelines. Highlights include the following:

• Sit down with a calendar and pick an expected reopening day. Ideally, this should include a “soft reopening.” Make a plan to stock necessary PPE and write down plans for cleaning and staffing if an employee or patient is diagnosed with COVID-19 after visiting your office.
• Take a stepwise approach so you can identify challenges early and address them. It’s important to figure out which visits can continue via telehealth, and begin with just a few in-person visits each day. Plan out a schedule and clearly communicate it to patients, clinicians, and staff.
• Patient safety is your top concern. Encourage patients to visit without companions whenever possible, and of course, all individuals who visit the office should wear a cloth face covering.
• Screen employees for fevers and other symptoms of COVID-19; remember that those records are subject to HIPAA rules and must be kept confidential. Minimize contact between employees as much as possible.
• Do your best to screen patients before in-person visits, to verify they don’t have symptoms of COVID-19. Consider creating a script that office staff can use to contact patients 24 hours before they come in. Use this as a chance to ask about symptoms, and explain any reopening logistics they should know about.
• Contact your malpractice insurance carrier to discuss whether you need to make any changes to your coverage.

This would also be a great time to review your confidentiality, privacy, and data security protocols. COVID-19 presents new challenges for data privacy – for example, if you must inform coworkers or patients that they have come into contact with someone who tested positive. Make a plan that follows HIPAA guidelines during COVID-19. Also, make sure you have a plan for handling issues like paid sick leave or reporting COVID-19 cases to your local health department.

Another useful resource is the Medical Group Management Association’s COVID-19 Medical Practice Reopening Checklist. You can use it to confirm that you are addressing all the important items, and that you haven’t missed anything.

As for me, I am advising patients who are reluctant to seek treatment that many medical problems pose more risk than COVID-19, faster treatment means better outcomes, and because we maintain strict disinfection protocols, they are far less likely to be infected with COVID-19 in my office than, say, at a grocery store.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

On April 16, the White House released federal guidelines for reopening American businesses – followed 3 days later by specific recommendations from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for health care practices in areas with a low incidence of COVID-19. Since then, a slew of resources and guidelines have emerged to help you safely reopen your medical practice.

Depending on where you live, you may have already reopened (or even never closed), or you may be awaiting the relaxation of restrictions in your state. (As I write this on June 10, the stay-at-home order in my state, New Jersey, is being rescinded.)

The big question, of course, is whether patients can be convinced that it is safe to leave their homes and come to your office. The answer may depend on how well you time your reopening and adhere to the appropriate federal, state, and independent guidelines.

The federal guidelines have three sections: criteria, which outline conditions each region or state should satisfy before reopening; preparedness, which lists how states should prepare for reopening; and phase guidelines, which detail responsibilities of individuals and employers during distinct reopening phases.

You should pay the most attention to the “criteria” section. The key question to ask: “Has my state or region satisfied the basic criteria for reopening?”

Those criteria are as follows:

• Symptoms reported within a 14-day period should be on a downward trajectory.
• Cases documented (or positive tests as a percentage of total tests) within a 14-day period should also be on a downward trajectory.
• Hospitals should be treating all patients without crisis care. They should also have a robust testing program in place for at-risk health care workers.

If your area meets these criteria, you can proceed to the CMS recommendations. They cover general advice related to personal protective equipment (PPE), workforce availability, facility considerations, sanitation protocols, supplies, and testing capacity.

The key takeaway: As long as your area has the resources to quickly respond to a surge of COVID-19 cases, you can start offering care to non-COVID patients. Keep seeing patients via telehealth as often as possible, and prioritize surgical/procedural care and high-complexity chronic disease management before moving on to preventive and cosmetic services.

The American Medical Association has issued its own checklist of criteria for reopening your practice to supplement the federal guidelines. Highlights include the following:

• Sit down with a calendar and pick an expected reopening day. Ideally, this should include a “soft reopening.” Make a plan to stock necessary PPE and write down plans for cleaning and staffing if an employee or patient is diagnosed with COVID-19 after visiting your office.
• Take a stepwise approach so you can identify challenges early and address them. It’s important to figure out which visits can continue via telehealth, and begin with just a few in-person visits each day. Plan out a schedule and clearly communicate it to patients, clinicians, and staff.
• Patient safety is your top concern. Encourage patients to visit without companions whenever possible, and of course, all individuals who visit the office should wear a cloth face covering.
• Screen employees for fevers and other symptoms of COVID-19; remember that those records are subject to HIPAA rules and must be kept confidential. Minimize contact between employees as much as possible.
• Do your best to screen patients before in-person visits, to verify they don’t have symptoms of COVID-19. Consider creating a script that office staff can use to contact patients 24 hours before they come in. Use this as a chance to ask about symptoms, and explain any reopening logistics they should know about.
• Contact your malpractice insurance carrier to discuss whether you need to make any changes to your coverage.

This would also be a great time to review your confidentiality, privacy, and data security protocols. COVID-19 presents new challenges for data privacy – for example, if you must inform coworkers or patients that they have come into contact with someone who tested positive. Make a plan that follows HIPAA guidelines during COVID-19. Also, make sure you have a plan for handling issues like paid sick leave or reporting COVID-19 cases to your local health department.

Another useful resource is the Medical Group Management Association’s COVID-19 Medical Practice Reopening Checklist. You can use it to confirm that you are addressing all the important items, and that you haven’t missed anything.

As for me, I am advising patients who are reluctant to seek treatment that many medical problems pose more risk than COVID-19, faster treatment means better outcomes, and because we maintain strict disinfection protocols, they are far less likely to be infected with COVID-19 in my office than, say, at a grocery store.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Primary care clinicians, already experiencing all-time high stress levels related to COVID-19, are now struggling to cope with the fallout from racism and the death of George Floyd, according to a survey conducted June 5-8.

When asked how the situation has affected their practices, two-thirds of the survey’s 586 respondents said that George Floyd’s death and related events had been the subject of practice conversations and 12% “drew clear connections between the current racial unrest and the health of their patients,” the Larry A. Green Center said in a recent statement.

One-third of the clinicians also said that recent racism-related events have had a negative effect on their own well-being, and that connection was expressed even more strongly in a related survey of 1,111 patients that was conducted June 8.

In that survey, about 65% of patients said that racism affected emotional, psychological, and behavioral health, and 40% noted that George Floyd’s death had a negative impact on the well-being of friends, the Larry A. Green Center said in partnership with the Primary Care Collaborative and 3rd Conversation.

“The fact that so many patients and clinicians agree that racism is a driver of health points to the incredible role primary care plays in creating safe spaces to process deep societal and personal issues,” said Christine Bechtel, cofounder of 3rd Conversation, a community of patients and providers.

COVID-19, in the meantime, is still doing its thing. Almost two-thirds (63%) of respondents to the clinician survey said that stress levels at their practices had reached all-time-high levels in the last 4 weeks.

Just 1.4% of the primary care clinicians said that the pandemic had put no strain on their practices (see graph), and just 10% rated that strain as a 2 on a scale of 1-5, the center said. Among the stressors:

About 49% continue to lack PPE.

About 40% still have no or limited ability for testing.

About 37% of practice settings still report layoffs and furloughs.

About 31% report that clinician salaries are still being skipped or deferred.

“Both public and private policy makers must take immediate steps to stabilize primary care,” said Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the Primary Care Collaborative. “This financial support is necessary but not sufficient. Instead, we need wholesale reform of payment in order to achieve the kind of high-performing primary care that truly meets patient needs.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

Primary care clinicians, already experiencing all-time high stress levels related to COVID-19, are now struggling to cope with the fallout from racism and the death of George Floyd, according to a survey conducted June 5-8.

When asked how the situation has affected their practices, two-thirds of the survey’s 586 respondents said that George Floyd’s death and related events had been the subject of practice conversations and 12% “drew clear connections between the current racial unrest and the health of their patients,” the Larry A. Green Center said in a recent statement.

One-third of the clinicians also said that recent racism-related events have had a negative effect on their own well-being, and that connection was expressed even more strongly in a related survey of 1,111 patients that was conducted June 8.

In that survey, about 65% of patients said that racism affected emotional, psychological, and behavioral health, and 40% noted that George Floyd’s death had a negative impact on the well-being of friends, the Larry A. Green Center said in partnership with the Primary Care Collaborative and 3rd Conversation.

“The fact that so many patients and clinicians agree that racism is a driver of health points to the incredible role primary care plays in creating safe spaces to process deep societal and personal issues,” said Christine Bechtel, cofounder of 3rd Conversation, a community of patients and providers.

COVID-19, in the meantime, is still doing its thing. Almost two-thirds (63%) of respondents to the clinician survey said that stress levels at their practices had reached all-time-high levels in the last 4 weeks.

Just 1.4% of the primary care clinicians said that the pandemic had put no strain on their practices (see graph), and just 10% rated that strain as a 2 on a scale of 1-5, the center said. Among the stressors:

About 49% continue to lack PPE.

About 40% still have no or limited ability for testing.

About 37% of practice settings still report layoffs and furloughs.

About 31% report that clinician salaries are still being skipped or deferred.

“Both public and private policy makers must take immediate steps to stabilize primary care,” said Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the Primary Care Collaborative. “This financial support is necessary but not sufficient. Instead, we need wholesale reform of payment in order to achieve the kind of high-performing primary care that truly meets patient needs.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

Primary care clinicians, already experiencing all-time high stress levels related to COVID-19, are now struggling to cope with the fallout from racism and the death of George Floyd, according to a survey conducted June 5-8.

When asked how the situation has affected their practices, two-thirds of the survey’s 586 respondents said that George Floyd’s death and related events had been the subject of practice conversations and 12% “drew clear connections between the current racial unrest and the health of their patients,” the Larry A. Green Center said in a recent statement.

One-third of the clinicians also said that recent racism-related events have had a negative effect on their own well-being, and that connection was expressed even more strongly in a related survey of 1,111 patients that was conducted June 8.

In that survey, about 65% of patients said that racism affected emotional, psychological, and behavioral health, and 40% noted that George Floyd’s death had a negative impact on the well-being of friends, the Larry A. Green Center said in partnership with the Primary Care Collaborative and 3rd Conversation.

“The fact that so many patients and clinicians agree that racism is a driver of health points to the incredible role primary care plays in creating safe spaces to process deep societal and personal issues,” said Christine Bechtel, cofounder of 3rd Conversation, a community of patients and providers.

COVID-19, in the meantime, is still doing its thing. Almost two-thirds (63%) of respondents to the clinician survey said that stress levels at their practices had reached all-time-high levels in the last 4 weeks.

Just 1.4% of the primary care clinicians said that the pandemic had put no strain on their practices (see graph), and just 10% rated that strain as a 2 on a scale of 1-5, the center said. Among the stressors:

About 49% continue to lack PPE.

About 40% still have no or limited ability for testing.

About 37% of practice settings still report layoffs and furloughs.

About 31% report that clinician salaries are still being skipped or deferred.

“Both public and private policy makers must take immediate steps to stabilize primary care,” said Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the Primary Care Collaborative. “This financial support is necessary but not sufficient. Instead, we need wholesale reform of payment in order to achieve the kind of high-performing primary care that truly meets patient needs.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

Cost concerns have circulated regarding elective induction of labor, a method that’s become increasingly popular in the United States. Two studies in Obstetrics & Gynecology, however, offer no consensus on the cost burden of this method.

dimarik/iStock/Getty Images

A retrospective analysis of a large cohort in California reported higher costs for induction, compared with spontaneous labor, after accounting for variables such as parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age. A prospective study of five Utah hospitals found no significant cost differences between induction and expectant management.

The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction versus Expectant Management), a multicenter study that compared elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation with spontaneous labor in low-risk nulliparous women, suggests that induction may have some benefits. While its researchers found no differences in perinatal outcomes, induction cases had fewer cesareans, fewer hypertensive disorders, and fewer newborns requiring respiratory support.

One key question that remains following ARRIVE is whether this practice should be implemented universally, Alyssa R. Hersh, MD, MPH, lead author of the California study, said in an interview. Quantifying the costs associated with elective labor is important because “health care in the United States is already much more expensive than in other countries, and [elective labor] could have a dramatic impact on annual health care costs.”

In a retrospective analysis, Dr. Hersh, of the Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and her colleagues examined data from more than 1.2 million women in California with singleton, nonanomalous births. They excluded for multiple factors such as medically indicated induction of labor, placenta previa, breech presentation, or planned cesarean delivery.

Estimating cost differences between elective induction and spontaneous labor for mothers and neonates, they stratified results by vaginal or cesarean delivery, parity, gestational age at delivery, and geographic location. Elective induced labor represented 15% of the overall cohort of 1.2 million women.

Among vaginal deliveries, median maternal hospitalization costs were $10,175 in the induction group and $9,462 in the spontaneous labor group. For cesarean deliveries, the median costs were $20,294 with induction of labor and $18,812 with spontaneous labor.

Costs of maternal hospitalization with elective induction of labor were significantly higher than that of spontaneous labor, regardless of parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age at delivery, the authors reported. Comparing costs at rural and urban areas, the induction group saw higher maternal hospitalization costs and longer lengths of stay regardless of scenario.

Neonatal care was the one metric that incurred lower costs and lengths of stay in the induction group. Fewer adverse outcomes in this group could explain this outlier. “However, because this is observational data, we cannot elucidate what exactly contributed to these decreased costs,” Dr. Hersh and colleagues noted.

Timeliness was another limitation. “It is important to note that our study was conducted between 2007 and 2011, and the patients undergoing elective induction of labor during those years may differ from women undergoing elective induction of labor currently,” the authors acknowledged.

Another study by Brett D. Einerson, MD, MPH, of the University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, and associates evaluated the actual hospital costs of patients undergoing elective induction and expectant management in a subset of patients from the ARRIVE trial.

“If, medically speaking, induction is equal to expectant management or has some benefit, as the larger ARRIVE trial suggests, we wanted to know: At what cost?” Dr. Einerson said in an interview.

Study participants hailed from five Utah hospitals within two health systems: the University of Utah Health and Intermountain Healthcare. Taking available data for 1,231 enrollees, investigators randomized 608 to labor induction and 623 to spontaneous labor. They measured actual hospital costs using advanced value-based analytics platforms at the Utah hospitals, comparing cost means and reporting the relative difference between induction and expectant management.

Overall, they found no significant differences between the mean total cost of elective induction and expectant management (adjusted mean difference, +4.7%). This was the case for other metrics: Costs did not vary among the five health systems or in most phases of care, including maternal inpatient postpartum care, maternal outpatient care after discharge, neonatal hospital care, and neonatal care after discharge.

The induction group did incur higher maternal inpatient intrapartum and delivery care costs (17%). However, these were offset by savings achieved during outpatient antenatal care (–47%). The assumption was additional costs of time spent on the labor ward might overwhelm cost savings elsewhere (reduced cesarean deliveries, fewer prenatal appointments and tests). “But this was not the case,” Dr. Einerson said.

Ultimately, the study was not large enough to find smaller differences in cost, he noted. It was only large enough to say that cost didn’t differentiate between arms with a margin of +/–7%. “A cost increase (or cost savings) with induction of 7% is meaningful over time and on a national scale,” Dr. Einerson explained.

Taken together, the two studies show that cost is not an insurmountable barrier to elective induced labor, Jeffrey L. Ecker, MD, and Mark A. Clapp, MD, MPH, wrote in an accompanying editorial (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136[1]:6-7).

“This will be especially true if we are innovative and creatively adapt our facilities and spaces, thinking about where and how some of the required care can be appropriately and more economically offered,” they noted.

“Specifically, strategies to safely reduce labor and delivery time for inductions of labor, including considering and studying outpatient cervical ripening, may make elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation even less costly and even more feasible to offer to all women,” suggested Dr. Ecker and Dr. Clapp, both at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Dr. Hersh and coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures, and there was no external funding for their study. Dr. Einerson and most coauthors reported no relevant financial disclosures; one coauthor reported receiving funds from GestVision as a consultant, and another coauthor reported funds paid to her or her institution from some pharmaceutical companies when she was primary investigator on various trials or a consultant. This study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Neither Dr. Ecker nor Dr Clapp had any relevant financial disclosures or received any funding.

SOURCES: Hersh AR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003865; Einerson BD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003930.

Cost concerns have circulated regarding elective induction of labor, a method that’s become increasingly popular in the United States. Two studies in Obstetrics & Gynecology, however, offer no consensus on the cost burden of this method.

dimarik/iStock/Getty Images

A retrospective analysis of a large cohort in California reported higher costs for induction, compared with spontaneous labor, after accounting for variables such as parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age. A prospective study of five Utah hospitals found no significant cost differences between induction and expectant management.

The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction versus Expectant Management), a multicenter study that compared elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation with spontaneous labor in low-risk nulliparous women, suggests that induction may have some benefits. While its researchers found no differences in perinatal outcomes, induction cases had fewer cesareans, fewer hypertensive disorders, and fewer newborns requiring respiratory support.

One key question that remains following ARRIVE is whether this practice should be implemented universally, Alyssa R. Hersh, MD, MPH, lead author of the California study, said in an interview. Quantifying the costs associated with elective labor is important because “health care in the United States is already much more expensive than in other countries, and [elective labor] could have a dramatic impact on annual health care costs.”

In a retrospective analysis, Dr. Hersh, of the Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and her colleagues examined data from more than 1.2 million women in California with singleton, nonanomalous births. They excluded for multiple factors such as medically indicated induction of labor, placenta previa, breech presentation, or planned cesarean delivery.

Estimating cost differences between elective induction and spontaneous labor for mothers and neonates, they stratified results by vaginal or cesarean delivery, parity, gestational age at delivery, and geographic location. Elective induced labor represented 15% of the overall cohort of 1.2 million women.

Among vaginal deliveries, median maternal hospitalization costs were $10,175 in the induction group and $9,462 in the spontaneous labor group. For cesarean deliveries, the median costs were $20,294 with induction of labor and $18,812 with spontaneous labor.

Costs of maternal hospitalization with elective induction of labor were significantly higher than that of spontaneous labor, regardless of parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age at delivery, the authors reported. Comparing costs at rural and urban areas, the induction group saw higher maternal hospitalization costs and longer lengths of stay regardless of scenario.

Neonatal care was the one metric that incurred lower costs and lengths of stay in the induction group. Fewer adverse outcomes in this group could explain this outlier. “However, because this is observational data, we cannot elucidate what exactly contributed to these decreased costs,” Dr. Hersh and colleagues noted.

Timeliness was another limitation. “It is important to note that our study was conducted between 2007 and 2011, and the patients undergoing elective induction of labor during those years may differ from women undergoing elective induction of labor currently,” the authors acknowledged.

Another study by Brett D. Einerson, MD, MPH, of the University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, and associates evaluated the actual hospital costs of patients undergoing elective induction and expectant management in a subset of patients from the ARRIVE trial.

“If, medically speaking, induction is equal to expectant management or has some benefit, as the larger ARRIVE trial suggests, we wanted to know: At what cost?” Dr. Einerson said in an interview.

Study participants hailed from five Utah hospitals within two health systems: the University of Utah Health and Intermountain Healthcare. Taking available data for 1,231 enrollees, investigators randomized 608 to labor induction and 623 to spontaneous labor. They measured actual hospital costs using advanced value-based analytics platforms at the Utah hospitals, comparing cost means and reporting the relative difference between induction and expectant management.

Overall, they found no significant differences between the mean total cost of elective induction and expectant management (adjusted mean difference, +4.7%). This was the case for other metrics: Costs did not vary among the five health systems or in most phases of care, including maternal inpatient postpartum care, maternal outpatient care after discharge, neonatal hospital care, and neonatal care after discharge.

The induction group did incur higher maternal inpatient intrapartum and delivery care costs (17%). However, these were offset by savings achieved during outpatient antenatal care (–47%). The assumption was additional costs of time spent on the labor ward might overwhelm cost savings elsewhere (reduced cesarean deliveries, fewer prenatal appointments and tests). “But this was not the case,” Dr. Einerson said.

Ultimately, the study was not large enough to find smaller differences in cost, he noted. It was only large enough to say that cost didn’t differentiate between arms with a margin of +/–7%. “A cost increase (or cost savings) with induction of 7% is meaningful over time and on a national scale,” Dr. Einerson explained.

Taken together, the two studies show that cost is not an insurmountable barrier to elective induced labor, Jeffrey L. Ecker, MD, and Mark A. Clapp, MD, MPH, wrote in an accompanying editorial (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136[1]:6-7).

“This will be especially true if we are innovative and creatively adapt our facilities and spaces, thinking about where and how some of the required care can be appropriately and more economically offered,” they noted.

“Specifically, strategies to safely reduce labor and delivery time for inductions of labor, including considering and studying outpatient cervical ripening, may make elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation even less costly and even more feasible to offer to all women,” suggested Dr. Ecker and Dr. Clapp, both at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Dr. Hersh and coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures, and there was no external funding for their study. Dr. Einerson and most coauthors reported no relevant financial disclosures; one coauthor reported receiving funds from GestVision as a consultant, and another coauthor reported funds paid to her or her institution from some pharmaceutical companies when she was primary investigator on various trials or a consultant. This study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Neither Dr. Ecker nor Dr Clapp had any relevant financial disclosures or received any funding.

SOURCES: Hersh AR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003865; Einerson BD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003930.

Cost concerns have circulated regarding elective induction of labor, a method that’s become increasingly popular in the United States. Two studies in Obstetrics & Gynecology, however, offer no consensus on the cost burden of this method.

dimarik/iStock/Getty Images

A retrospective analysis of a large cohort in California reported higher costs for induction, compared with spontaneous labor, after accounting for variables such as parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age. A prospective study of five Utah hospitals found no significant cost differences between induction and expectant management.

The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction versus Expectant Management), a multicenter study that compared elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation with spontaneous labor in low-risk nulliparous women, suggests that induction may have some benefits. While its researchers found no differences in perinatal outcomes, induction cases had fewer cesareans, fewer hypertensive disorders, and fewer newborns requiring respiratory support.

One key question that remains following ARRIVE is whether this practice should be implemented universally, Alyssa R. Hersh, MD, MPH, lead author of the California study, said in an interview. Quantifying the costs associated with elective labor is important because “health care in the United States is already much more expensive than in other countries, and [elective labor] could have a dramatic impact on annual health care costs.”

In a retrospective analysis, Dr. Hersh, of the Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and her colleagues examined data from more than 1.2 million women in California with singleton, nonanomalous births. They excluded for multiple factors such as medically indicated induction of labor, placenta previa, breech presentation, or planned cesarean delivery.

Estimating cost differences between elective induction and spontaneous labor for mothers and neonates, they stratified results by vaginal or cesarean delivery, parity, gestational age at delivery, and geographic location. Elective induced labor represented 15% of the overall cohort of 1.2 million women.

Among vaginal deliveries, median maternal hospitalization costs were $10,175 in the induction group and $9,462 in the spontaneous labor group. For cesarean deliveries, the median costs were $20,294 with induction of labor and $18,812 with spontaneous labor.

Costs of maternal hospitalization with elective induction of labor were significantly higher than that of spontaneous labor, regardless of parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age at delivery, the authors reported. Comparing costs at rural and urban areas, the induction group saw higher maternal hospitalization costs and longer lengths of stay regardless of scenario.

Neonatal care was the one metric that incurred lower costs and lengths of stay in the induction group. Fewer adverse outcomes in this group could explain this outlier. “However, because this is observational data, we cannot elucidate what exactly contributed to these decreased costs,” Dr. Hersh and colleagues noted.

Timeliness was another limitation. “It is important to note that our study was conducted between 2007 and 2011, and the patients undergoing elective induction of labor during those years may differ from women undergoing elective induction of labor currently,” the authors acknowledged.

Another study by Brett D. Einerson, MD, MPH, of the University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, and associates evaluated the actual hospital costs of patients undergoing elective induction and expectant management in a subset of patients from the ARRIVE trial.

“If, medically speaking, induction is equal to expectant management or has some benefit, as the larger ARRIVE trial suggests, we wanted to know: At what cost?” Dr. Einerson said in an interview.

Study participants hailed from five Utah hospitals within two health systems: the University of Utah Health and Intermountain Healthcare. Taking available data for 1,231 enrollees, investigators randomized 608 to labor induction and 623 to spontaneous labor. They measured actual hospital costs using advanced value-based analytics platforms at the Utah hospitals, comparing cost means and reporting the relative difference between induction and expectant management.

Overall, they found no significant differences between the mean total cost of elective induction and expectant management (adjusted mean difference, +4.7%). This was the case for other metrics: Costs did not vary among the five health systems or in most phases of care, including maternal inpatient postpartum care, maternal outpatient care after discharge, neonatal hospital care, and neonatal care after discharge.

The induction group did incur higher maternal inpatient intrapartum and delivery care costs (17%). However, these were offset by savings achieved during outpatient antenatal care (–47%). The assumption was additional costs of time spent on the labor ward might overwhelm cost savings elsewhere (reduced cesarean deliveries, fewer prenatal appointments and tests). “But this was not the case,” Dr. Einerson said.

Ultimately, the study was not large enough to find smaller differences in cost, he noted. It was only large enough to say that cost didn’t differentiate between arms with a margin of +/–7%. “A cost increase (or cost savings) with induction of 7% is meaningful over time and on a national scale,” Dr. Einerson explained.

Taken together, the two studies show that cost is not an insurmountable barrier to elective induced labor, Jeffrey L. Ecker, MD, and Mark A. Clapp, MD, MPH, wrote in an accompanying editorial (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136[1]:6-7).

“This will be especially true if we are innovative and creatively adapt our facilities and spaces, thinking about where and how some of the required care can be appropriately and more economically offered,” they noted.

“Specifically, strategies to safely reduce labor and delivery time for inductions of labor, including considering and studying outpatient cervical ripening, may make elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation even less costly and even more feasible to offer to all women,” suggested Dr. Ecker and Dr. Clapp, both at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Dr. Hersh and coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures, and there was no external funding for their study. Dr. Einerson and most coauthors reported no relevant financial disclosures; one coauthor reported receiving funds from GestVision as a consultant, and another coauthor reported funds paid to her or her institution from some pharmaceutical companies when she was primary investigator on various trials or a consultant. This study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Neither Dr. Ecker nor Dr Clapp had any relevant financial disclosures or received any funding.

SOURCES: Hersh AR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003865; Einerson BD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003930.