User login
What have we learned from COVID?
In 2015, I proposed virtual care for the division of adolescent medicine, to the administration of our Midwestern children and adolescent hospital; they gladly listened and accepted a copy of the resources I provided. Virtual care was acknowledged to be the future direction of our and other organizations.
Four years later, virtual visits were introduced in the pediatric urgent care, but with little usability as families were slow to adopt this new form of medicine. Fast forward to the COVID-19 crisis in March 2020, and virtual medicine was the only option to meet the needs of patients and to stop the economic consequences. Unfortunately, the expedited rollout at our and many other hospitals may have resulted in limited program development and a lack of shared best practices.
Since March 2020, both patients and medical providers have accepted virtual care, but we now have an opportunity to review some of the limitations to offering virtual care. Work in primary care centers may see limitations using virtual medicine to meet the needs of all patients. Take into consideration the ability to offer confidential care. Confidential care has been a challenge virtually. For example, while completing a virtual visit with a 19-year-old female, it was apparent she was not alone and when asked a benign question the commotion in the background told the real story. The young woman began to laugh and said, “That was my dad running out of the room.” Despite requesting that parents leave the call, they can be heard within earshot of the caller.
On a televisit, written words appear backwards on the video, requiring written questions to be mirror images. When asking questions meant to be confidential, we have used note cards with a question mark. Verbal directions asking the adolescent to give a thumbs up or down to answer the question are required to maintain privacy from others in the room. If the patient responds thumbs up, this leads to additional questions with note cards. Although not ideal, this process gets to the answers, and the adolescent can disclose confidential information without concern about being overheard. Child abuse and neglect professionals have found similar challenges talking to caregivers or children as they are uncertain if others in the home are out of the screen but listening to the questions or prompting responses.
Obtaining vitals may be restricted and picking up hypertension or changes in weight has been limited to face to face visits. To continue to provide virtual care will require screening stations. I foresee a kiosk at the grocery or drugstore with a computer and the ability to obtain vitals or portions of an exam such as heart and lung evaluations. Patients could go at their convenience and the results could be sent to their providers. Technology already exists to use a cell phone to take photos of a toddler’s sore ear drum, and to obtain basic pulse oximetry and ECG, but these have a cost and may be available only to those able to afford these tools.
Billing issues have developed when patients go to a lab on the same day as a virtual visit. Completing a virtual visit for a sore throat thought to be streptococcal pharyngitis should not be finalized without access to a streptococcal throat swab. Until families have home kits to evaluate for strep throat, the families must bring the patient to a clinic or lab to obtain a pharyngeal culture. Furthermore, insurance reimbursement standards will need to be set for ongoing virtual health to become a sustainable option.
Workflows have been disrupted by balancing face to face visits with virtual visits. Unless the virtual visit has been set up for the medical team to access immediately, there are delays accessing the virtual platform, resulting in unnecessary gaps in care. Arranging schedules to separate face to face visits from virtual visits offers more efficiency. Creating a block of virtual visits separated from face-to-face visits or assigning providers to virtual-only schedules may be the best option for an efficient clinic flow. Telemedicine visit templates may need to be created as virtual visits become standard practice.
At present, virtual visits can only be offered to English-speaking patients. The inability to offer translators limits access to a small number of patients. Given COVID-19’s impact on the underserved communities, having a safe resource to reach these patients has been limited, leaving face-to-face visits as their only option. Requiring a face-to-face visit during peak illness has placed patients at risk. They have refused health care as opposed to exposure to the illness in health care settings.
We have innovative opportunities to create a new health care system. Despite the initial struggles with the adoption of virtual care, patients and providers have begun embracing the technology. Best practices and shared resources will be required to have a successful system before brick and mortar organizations can be reduced or insurance companies create their own health care systems which can branch across state lines.
Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.
The article was updated 7/17/2020.
In 2015, I proposed virtual care for the division of adolescent medicine, to the administration of our Midwestern children and adolescent hospital; they gladly listened and accepted a copy of the resources I provided. Virtual care was acknowledged to be the future direction of our and other organizations.
Four years later, virtual visits were introduced in the pediatric urgent care, but with little usability as families were slow to adopt this new form of medicine. Fast forward to the COVID-19 crisis in March 2020, and virtual medicine was the only option to meet the needs of patients and to stop the economic consequences. Unfortunately, the expedited rollout at our and many other hospitals may have resulted in limited program development and a lack of shared best practices.
Since March 2020, both patients and medical providers have accepted virtual care, but we now have an opportunity to review some of the limitations to offering virtual care. Work in primary care centers may see limitations using virtual medicine to meet the needs of all patients. Take into consideration the ability to offer confidential care. Confidential care has been a challenge virtually. For example, while completing a virtual visit with a 19-year-old female, it was apparent she was not alone and when asked a benign question the commotion in the background told the real story. The young woman began to laugh and said, “That was my dad running out of the room.” Despite requesting that parents leave the call, they can be heard within earshot of the caller.
On a televisit, written words appear backwards on the video, requiring written questions to be mirror images. When asking questions meant to be confidential, we have used note cards with a question mark. Verbal directions asking the adolescent to give a thumbs up or down to answer the question are required to maintain privacy from others in the room. If the patient responds thumbs up, this leads to additional questions with note cards. Although not ideal, this process gets to the answers, and the adolescent can disclose confidential information without concern about being overheard. Child abuse and neglect professionals have found similar challenges talking to caregivers or children as they are uncertain if others in the home are out of the screen but listening to the questions or prompting responses.
Obtaining vitals may be restricted and picking up hypertension or changes in weight has been limited to face to face visits. To continue to provide virtual care will require screening stations. I foresee a kiosk at the grocery or drugstore with a computer and the ability to obtain vitals or portions of an exam such as heart and lung evaluations. Patients could go at their convenience and the results could be sent to their providers. Technology already exists to use a cell phone to take photos of a toddler’s sore ear drum, and to obtain basic pulse oximetry and ECG, but these have a cost and may be available only to those able to afford these tools.
Billing issues have developed when patients go to a lab on the same day as a virtual visit. Completing a virtual visit for a sore throat thought to be streptococcal pharyngitis should not be finalized without access to a streptococcal throat swab. Until families have home kits to evaluate for strep throat, the families must bring the patient to a clinic or lab to obtain a pharyngeal culture. Furthermore, insurance reimbursement standards will need to be set for ongoing virtual health to become a sustainable option.
Workflows have been disrupted by balancing face to face visits with virtual visits. Unless the virtual visit has been set up for the medical team to access immediately, there are delays accessing the virtual platform, resulting in unnecessary gaps in care. Arranging schedules to separate face to face visits from virtual visits offers more efficiency. Creating a block of virtual visits separated from face-to-face visits or assigning providers to virtual-only schedules may be the best option for an efficient clinic flow. Telemedicine visit templates may need to be created as virtual visits become standard practice.
At present, virtual visits can only be offered to English-speaking patients. The inability to offer translators limits access to a small number of patients. Given COVID-19’s impact on the underserved communities, having a safe resource to reach these patients has been limited, leaving face-to-face visits as their only option. Requiring a face-to-face visit during peak illness has placed patients at risk. They have refused health care as opposed to exposure to the illness in health care settings.
We have innovative opportunities to create a new health care system. Despite the initial struggles with the adoption of virtual care, patients and providers have begun embracing the technology. Best practices and shared resources will be required to have a successful system before brick and mortar organizations can be reduced or insurance companies create their own health care systems which can branch across state lines.
Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.
The article was updated 7/17/2020.
In 2015, I proposed virtual care for the division of adolescent medicine, to the administration of our Midwestern children and adolescent hospital; they gladly listened and accepted a copy of the resources I provided. Virtual care was acknowledged to be the future direction of our and other organizations.
Four years later, virtual visits were introduced in the pediatric urgent care, but with little usability as families were slow to adopt this new form of medicine. Fast forward to the COVID-19 crisis in March 2020, and virtual medicine was the only option to meet the needs of patients and to stop the economic consequences. Unfortunately, the expedited rollout at our and many other hospitals may have resulted in limited program development and a lack of shared best practices.
Since March 2020, both patients and medical providers have accepted virtual care, but we now have an opportunity to review some of the limitations to offering virtual care. Work in primary care centers may see limitations using virtual medicine to meet the needs of all patients. Take into consideration the ability to offer confidential care. Confidential care has been a challenge virtually. For example, while completing a virtual visit with a 19-year-old female, it was apparent she was not alone and when asked a benign question the commotion in the background told the real story. The young woman began to laugh and said, “That was my dad running out of the room.” Despite requesting that parents leave the call, they can be heard within earshot of the caller.
On a televisit, written words appear backwards on the video, requiring written questions to be mirror images. When asking questions meant to be confidential, we have used note cards with a question mark. Verbal directions asking the adolescent to give a thumbs up or down to answer the question are required to maintain privacy from others in the room. If the patient responds thumbs up, this leads to additional questions with note cards. Although not ideal, this process gets to the answers, and the adolescent can disclose confidential information without concern about being overheard. Child abuse and neglect professionals have found similar challenges talking to caregivers or children as they are uncertain if others in the home are out of the screen but listening to the questions or prompting responses.
Obtaining vitals may be restricted and picking up hypertension or changes in weight has been limited to face to face visits. To continue to provide virtual care will require screening stations. I foresee a kiosk at the grocery or drugstore with a computer and the ability to obtain vitals or portions of an exam such as heart and lung evaluations. Patients could go at their convenience and the results could be sent to their providers. Technology already exists to use a cell phone to take photos of a toddler’s sore ear drum, and to obtain basic pulse oximetry and ECG, but these have a cost and may be available only to those able to afford these tools.
Billing issues have developed when patients go to a lab on the same day as a virtual visit. Completing a virtual visit for a sore throat thought to be streptococcal pharyngitis should not be finalized without access to a streptococcal throat swab. Until families have home kits to evaluate for strep throat, the families must bring the patient to a clinic or lab to obtain a pharyngeal culture. Furthermore, insurance reimbursement standards will need to be set for ongoing virtual health to become a sustainable option.
Workflows have been disrupted by balancing face to face visits with virtual visits. Unless the virtual visit has been set up for the medical team to access immediately, there are delays accessing the virtual platform, resulting in unnecessary gaps in care. Arranging schedules to separate face to face visits from virtual visits offers more efficiency. Creating a block of virtual visits separated from face-to-face visits or assigning providers to virtual-only schedules may be the best option for an efficient clinic flow. Telemedicine visit templates may need to be created as virtual visits become standard practice.
At present, virtual visits can only be offered to English-speaking patients. The inability to offer translators limits access to a small number of patients. Given COVID-19’s impact on the underserved communities, having a safe resource to reach these patients has been limited, leaving face-to-face visits as their only option. Requiring a face-to-face visit during peak illness has placed patients at risk. They have refused health care as opposed to exposure to the illness in health care settings.
We have innovative opportunities to create a new health care system. Despite the initial struggles with the adoption of virtual care, patients and providers have begun embracing the technology. Best practices and shared resources will be required to have a successful system before brick and mortar organizations can be reduced or insurance companies create their own health care systems which can branch across state lines.
Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.
The article was updated 7/17/2020.
Provide support in uncertain times
A sense of safety and stability, both emotional and physical, is crucial in promoting the healthy development of youth. Between the global pandemic, need for social distancing, economic downturn, and increased awareness of racial disparities, for many this sense of stability has been rattled.
School closures have led to a loss of social interaction, challenges to continued academic growth, and, for some students, lack of access to nutrition and increased food insecurity. For students with learning or mental health challenges, closures may have eliminated or significantly reduced desperately needed supports received in school.1 While these trying circumstances have been difficult for many, the transition back to school in the fall also may be challenging because of the uncertainty about what this will look like and possible change in routine. Some students or their families may have anxiety about returning, either because of a history of adverse experiences at school such as bullying, or because of fears about exposure for themselves or others to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
The past several months also brought about greater awareness of systemic racial disparities, whether as reflected in health care, education, or the criminal justice system. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, Latinx and African-American individuals in the United States have had a threefold greater chance of contracting SARS-CoV-2 and have a twofold greater risk of death, compared with white people in the same communities.2 Other social determinants of health – economic stability, education, social factors such as incarceration and discrimination, and neighborhood factors including access to healthy food – play a role in this vulnerability.
The pandemic has resulted in a need for social distancing, and as a result, isolation. Children and teens exposed to the news may have anxiety about what they see or hear. Additional pressures in the family can include economic uncertainty, loss of employment for the primary wage earner of the household, or stress related to family members being first responders.
Any one of these factors is a potentially significant stressor, so how do we best support youth to help them survive and hopefully thrive during this time?
- It is important to establish a sense of routine; this can help create a sense of stability and safety. Recognizing that circumstances are not the same as they were 5 or 6 months ago, encouraging structure should not come at the cost of preserving connection.
- Note positive behavior and choices made by children and make sure they know it was observed.
- Many children have experienced increased screen time with the lack of structure of the traditional school day or summer camp and extracurricular activities. Limiting screen time and being mindful of its potential impact on mood is prudent.
- Self-care for parents and guardians is important. This time is stressful for the adults of the household, let alone children who are learning self-regulation skills.
- Listen to children’s or teens’ concerns and share information in developmentally appropriate ways. It is okay to not have all of the answers.
- Balance fostering a sense of gratitude with not invalidating a child’s or teen’s experience. Showing empathy during this time is vital. While there may be other soccer seasons, it is normal to experience grief about the loss of experiences during this time.
- Parents and guardians know their children best, so it is prudent for them to be mindful of concerning changes such as an increase in sadness, anxiety, or irritability that negatively impacts daily functioning such as sleeping, eating, or relationships with family and friends.
- Promote social interactions with appropriate safeguards in place. Unfortunately, the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections is increasing in multiple states, and there is the potential to return to some of the previous restrictions. However, encouraging social interaction while following local guidelines and with cautions such as limiting the number of people present, meeting outside, or considering interacting with others who are similarly social distancing can help foster social connection and development.
- Maintain connection digitally when in-person contact is not an option.3 Social groups, places of worship, and other activities have been agile in developing virtual communities. Communication by voice and/or video is thought to be more powerful than by written communication (text, email) alone.4 However, it is important to consider those who may have limited to no access to electronic methods.
- Encourage open communication with children about diversity and bias, and consider how our interactions with others may affect our children’s perspectives.5
- As providers, it is crucial that we address structural and institutional systems that negatively impact the health, safety, and access to care including our Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, queer/questioning, intersex, and allied/asexual/aromantic/agender (LGBTQIA) patients.
Dr. Strange is an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont Medical Center and University of Vermont Robert Larner College of Medicine, both in Burlington. She works with children and adolescents. Dr. Strange has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Online resources for parents and families
- Child Mind Institute: Coping With the Coronavirus Crisis: Supporting Your Kids.
- American Psychological Association: Talking with children about discrimination.
- Common Sense Media: Help with determining appropriateness of media for children.
Hotlines
- National Suicide Prevention Hotline: 1-800-273-8255
- GLBT National Hotline: 888-843-4564
- The California Peer-Run Warm Line: 1-855-845-7415
- Trevor Project: 866-488-7386 or text TREVOR to 1-202-304-1200
- Trans Lifeline: 877-565-8860
- Crisis Text Line: Text HOME to 741741
References
1. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Apr 14. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1456.
2. CDC: COVID-19 in Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups.
3. JAMA. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4469.
4. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1562.
5. American Psychological Association: Talking with children about discrimination.
A sense of safety and stability, both emotional and physical, is crucial in promoting the healthy development of youth. Between the global pandemic, need for social distancing, economic downturn, and increased awareness of racial disparities, for many this sense of stability has been rattled.
School closures have led to a loss of social interaction, challenges to continued academic growth, and, for some students, lack of access to nutrition and increased food insecurity. For students with learning or mental health challenges, closures may have eliminated or significantly reduced desperately needed supports received in school.1 While these trying circumstances have been difficult for many, the transition back to school in the fall also may be challenging because of the uncertainty about what this will look like and possible change in routine. Some students or their families may have anxiety about returning, either because of a history of adverse experiences at school such as bullying, or because of fears about exposure for themselves or others to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
The past several months also brought about greater awareness of systemic racial disparities, whether as reflected in health care, education, or the criminal justice system. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, Latinx and African-American individuals in the United States have had a threefold greater chance of contracting SARS-CoV-2 and have a twofold greater risk of death, compared with white people in the same communities.2 Other social determinants of health – economic stability, education, social factors such as incarceration and discrimination, and neighborhood factors including access to healthy food – play a role in this vulnerability.
The pandemic has resulted in a need for social distancing, and as a result, isolation. Children and teens exposed to the news may have anxiety about what they see or hear. Additional pressures in the family can include economic uncertainty, loss of employment for the primary wage earner of the household, or stress related to family members being first responders.
Any one of these factors is a potentially significant stressor, so how do we best support youth to help them survive and hopefully thrive during this time?
- It is important to establish a sense of routine; this can help create a sense of stability and safety. Recognizing that circumstances are not the same as they were 5 or 6 months ago, encouraging structure should not come at the cost of preserving connection.
- Note positive behavior and choices made by children and make sure they know it was observed.
- Many children have experienced increased screen time with the lack of structure of the traditional school day or summer camp and extracurricular activities. Limiting screen time and being mindful of its potential impact on mood is prudent.
- Self-care for parents and guardians is important. This time is stressful for the adults of the household, let alone children who are learning self-regulation skills.
- Listen to children’s or teens’ concerns and share information in developmentally appropriate ways. It is okay to not have all of the answers.
- Balance fostering a sense of gratitude with not invalidating a child’s or teen’s experience. Showing empathy during this time is vital. While there may be other soccer seasons, it is normal to experience grief about the loss of experiences during this time.
- Parents and guardians know their children best, so it is prudent for them to be mindful of concerning changes such as an increase in sadness, anxiety, or irritability that negatively impacts daily functioning such as sleeping, eating, or relationships with family and friends.
- Promote social interactions with appropriate safeguards in place. Unfortunately, the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections is increasing in multiple states, and there is the potential to return to some of the previous restrictions. However, encouraging social interaction while following local guidelines and with cautions such as limiting the number of people present, meeting outside, or considering interacting with others who are similarly social distancing can help foster social connection and development.
- Maintain connection digitally when in-person contact is not an option.3 Social groups, places of worship, and other activities have been agile in developing virtual communities. Communication by voice and/or video is thought to be more powerful than by written communication (text, email) alone.4 However, it is important to consider those who may have limited to no access to electronic methods.
- Encourage open communication with children about diversity and bias, and consider how our interactions with others may affect our children’s perspectives.5
- As providers, it is crucial that we address structural and institutional systems that negatively impact the health, safety, and access to care including our Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, queer/questioning, intersex, and allied/asexual/aromantic/agender (LGBTQIA) patients.
Dr. Strange is an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont Medical Center and University of Vermont Robert Larner College of Medicine, both in Burlington. She works with children and adolescents. Dr. Strange has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Online resources for parents and families
- Child Mind Institute: Coping With the Coronavirus Crisis: Supporting Your Kids.
- American Psychological Association: Talking with children about discrimination.
- Common Sense Media: Help with determining appropriateness of media for children.
Hotlines
- National Suicide Prevention Hotline: 1-800-273-8255
- GLBT National Hotline: 888-843-4564
- The California Peer-Run Warm Line: 1-855-845-7415
- Trevor Project: 866-488-7386 or text TREVOR to 1-202-304-1200
- Trans Lifeline: 877-565-8860
- Crisis Text Line: Text HOME to 741741
References
1. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Apr 14. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1456.
2. CDC: COVID-19 in Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups.
3. JAMA. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4469.
4. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1562.
5. American Psychological Association: Talking with children about discrimination.
A sense of safety and stability, both emotional and physical, is crucial in promoting the healthy development of youth. Between the global pandemic, need for social distancing, economic downturn, and increased awareness of racial disparities, for many this sense of stability has been rattled.
School closures have led to a loss of social interaction, challenges to continued academic growth, and, for some students, lack of access to nutrition and increased food insecurity. For students with learning or mental health challenges, closures may have eliminated or significantly reduced desperately needed supports received in school.1 While these trying circumstances have been difficult for many, the transition back to school in the fall also may be challenging because of the uncertainty about what this will look like and possible change in routine. Some students or their families may have anxiety about returning, either because of a history of adverse experiences at school such as bullying, or because of fears about exposure for themselves or others to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
The past several months also brought about greater awareness of systemic racial disparities, whether as reflected in health care, education, or the criminal justice system. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, Latinx and African-American individuals in the United States have had a threefold greater chance of contracting SARS-CoV-2 and have a twofold greater risk of death, compared with white people in the same communities.2 Other social determinants of health – economic stability, education, social factors such as incarceration and discrimination, and neighborhood factors including access to healthy food – play a role in this vulnerability.
The pandemic has resulted in a need for social distancing, and as a result, isolation. Children and teens exposed to the news may have anxiety about what they see or hear. Additional pressures in the family can include economic uncertainty, loss of employment for the primary wage earner of the household, or stress related to family members being first responders.
Any one of these factors is a potentially significant stressor, so how do we best support youth to help them survive and hopefully thrive during this time?
- It is important to establish a sense of routine; this can help create a sense of stability and safety. Recognizing that circumstances are not the same as they were 5 or 6 months ago, encouraging structure should not come at the cost of preserving connection.
- Note positive behavior and choices made by children and make sure they know it was observed.
- Many children have experienced increased screen time with the lack of structure of the traditional school day or summer camp and extracurricular activities. Limiting screen time and being mindful of its potential impact on mood is prudent.
- Self-care for parents and guardians is important. This time is stressful for the adults of the household, let alone children who are learning self-regulation skills.
- Listen to children’s or teens’ concerns and share information in developmentally appropriate ways. It is okay to not have all of the answers.
- Balance fostering a sense of gratitude with not invalidating a child’s or teen’s experience. Showing empathy during this time is vital. While there may be other soccer seasons, it is normal to experience grief about the loss of experiences during this time.
- Parents and guardians know their children best, so it is prudent for them to be mindful of concerning changes such as an increase in sadness, anxiety, or irritability that negatively impacts daily functioning such as sleeping, eating, or relationships with family and friends.
- Promote social interactions with appropriate safeguards in place. Unfortunately, the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections is increasing in multiple states, and there is the potential to return to some of the previous restrictions. However, encouraging social interaction while following local guidelines and with cautions such as limiting the number of people present, meeting outside, or considering interacting with others who are similarly social distancing can help foster social connection and development.
- Maintain connection digitally when in-person contact is not an option.3 Social groups, places of worship, and other activities have been agile in developing virtual communities. Communication by voice and/or video is thought to be more powerful than by written communication (text, email) alone.4 However, it is important to consider those who may have limited to no access to electronic methods.
- Encourage open communication with children about diversity and bias, and consider how our interactions with others may affect our children’s perspectives.5
- As providers, it is crucial that we address structural and institutional systems that negatively impact the health, safety, and access to care including our Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, queer/questioning, intersex, and allied/asexual/aromantic/agender (LGBTQIA) patients.
Dr. Strange is an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont Medical Center and University of Vermont Robert Larner College of Medicine, both in Burlington. She works with children and adolescents. Dr. Strange has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Online resources for parents and families
- Child Mind Institute: Coping With the Coronavirus Crisis: Supporting Your Kids.
- American Psychological Association: Talking with children about discrimination.
- Common Sense Media: Help with determining appropriateness of media for children.
Hotlines
- National Suicide Prevention Hotline: 1-800-273-8255
- GLBT National Hotline: 888-843-4564
- The California Peer-Run Warm Line: 1-855-845-7415
- Trevor Project: 866-488-7386 or text TREVOR to 1-202-304-1200
- Trans Lifeline: 877-565-8860
- Crisis Text Line: Text HOME to 741741
References
1. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Apr 14. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.1456.
2. CDC: COVID-19 in Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups.
3. JAMA. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4469.
4. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1562.
5. American Psychological Association: Talking with children about discrimination.
COVID-19: A primary care perspective
With the COVID-19 pandemic, we are experiencing a once-in-a-100-year event. Dr. Steven A. Schulz, who is serving children on the front line in upstate New York, and I outline some of the challenges primary care pediatricians have been facing and solutions that have succeeded.
Reduction in direct patient care and its consequences
Because of the unknowns of COVID-19, many parents have not wanted to bring their children to a medical office because of fear of contracting SARS-CoV-2. At the same time, pediatricians have restricted in-person visits to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 and to help flatten the curve of infection. Use of pediatric medical professional services, compared with last year, dropped by 52% in March 2020 and by 58% in April, according to FAIR Health, a nonprofit organization that manages a database of 31 million claims. This is resulting in decreased immunization rates, which increases concern for secondary spikes of other preventable illnesses; for example, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that, from mid-March to mid-April 2020, physicians in the Vaccines for Children program ordered 2.5 million fewer doses of vaccines and 250,000 fewer doses of measles-containing vaccines, compared with the same period in 2019. Fewer children are being seen for well visits, which means opportunities are lost for adequate monitoring of growth, development, physical wellness, and social determinants of health.
This is occurring at a time when families have been experiencing increased stress in terms of finances, social isolation, finding adequate child care, and serving as parent, teacher, and breadwinner. An increase in injuries is occurring because of inadequate parental supervision because many parents have been distracted while working from home. An increase in cases of severe abuse is occurring because schools, child care providers, physicians, and other mandated reporters in the community have decreased interaction with children. Children’s Hospital Colorado in Colorado Springs saw a 118% increase in the number of trauma cases in its ED between January and April 2020. Some of these were accidental injuries caused by falls or bicycle accidents, but there was a 200% increase in nonaccidental trauma, which was associated with a steep fall in calls to the state’s child abuse hotline. Academic gains are being lost, and there has been worry for a prolonged “summer slide” risk, especially for children living in poverty and children with developmental disabilities.
The COVID-19 pandemic also is affecting physicians and staff. As frontline personnel, we are at risk to contract the virus, and news media reminds us of severe illness and deaths among health care workers. The pandemic is affecting financial viability; estimated revenue of pediatric offices fell by 45% in March 2020 and 48% in April, compared with the previous year, according to FAIR Health. Nurses and staff have been furloughed. Practices have had to apply for grants and Paycheck Protection Program funds while extending credit lines.
Limited testing capability for SARS-CoV-2
Testing for SARS-CoV-2 has been variably available. There have been problems with false positive and especially false negative results (BMJ. 2020 May 12. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1808).The best specimen collection method has yet to be determined. Blood testing for antibody has been touted, but it remains unclear if there is clinical benefit because a positive result offers no guarantee of immunity, and immunity may quickly wane. Perhaps widespread primary care office–based testing will be in place by the fall, with hope for future reliable point of care results.
Evolving knowledge regarding SARS-CoV-2 and MIS-C
It initially was thought that children were relatively spared from serious illness caused by COVID-19. Then reports of cases of newly identified multisystem inflammatory syndrome of children occurred. It has been unclear how children contribute to the spread of COVID-19 illness, although emerging evidence indicates it is lower than adult transmission. What will happen when children return to school and daycare in the fall?
The challenges have led to creative solutions for how to deliver care.
Adapting to telehealth to provide care
At least for the short term, HIPAA regulations have been relaxed to allow for video visits using platforms such as FaceTime, Skype, Zoom, Doximity, and Doxy.me. Some of these platforms are HIPAA compliant and will be long-term solutions; however, electronic medical record portals allowing for video visits are the more secure option, according to HIPAA.
It has been a learning experience to see what can be accomplished with a video visit. Taking a history and visual examination of injuries and rashes has been possible. Addressing mental health concerns through the video exchange generally has been effective.
However, video visits change the provider-patient interpersonal dynamic and offer only visual exam capabilities, compared with an in-person visit. We cannot look in ears, palpate a liver and spleen, touch and examine a joint or bone, or feel a rash. Video visits also are dependent on the quality of patient Internet access, sufficient data plans, and mutual capabilities to address the inevitable technological glitches on the provider’s end as well. Expanding information technology infrastructure ability and added licensure costs have occurred. Practices and health systems have been working with insurance companies to ensure telephone and video visits are reimbursed on a comparable level to in-office visits.
A new type of office visit and developing appropriate safety plans
Patients must be universally screened prior to arrival during appointment scheduling for well and illness visits. Patients aged older than 2 years and caregivers must wear masks on entering the facility. In many practices, patients are scheduled during specific sick or well visit time slots throughout the day. Waiting rooms chairs need to be spaced for 6-foot social distancing, and cars in the parking lot often serve as waiting rooms until staff can meet patients at the door and take them to the exam room. Alternate entrances, car-side exams, and drive-by and/or tent testing facilities often have become part of the new normal everyday practice. Creating virtual visit time blocks in provider’s schedules has allowed for decreased office congestion. Patients often are checked out from their room, as opposed to waiting in a line at a check out desk. Nurse triage protocols also have been adapted and enhanced to meet needs and concerns.
With the need for summer physicals and many regions opening up, a gradual return toward baseline has been evolving, although some of the twists of a “new normal” will stay in place. The new normal has been for providers and staff to wear surgical masks and face shields; sometimes N95 masks, gloves, and gowns have been needed. Cleaning rooms and equipment between patient visits has become a major, new time-consuming task. Acquiring and maintaining adequate supplies has been a challenge.
Summary
The American Academy of Pediatrics, CDC, and state and local health departments have been providing informative and regular updates, webinars, and best practices guidelines. Pediatricians, community organizations, schools, and mental health professionals have been collaborating, overcoming hurdles, and working together to help mitigate the effects of the pandemic on children, their families, and our communities. Continued education, cooperation, and adaptation will be needed in the months ahead. If there is a silver lining to this pandemic experience, it may be that families have grown closer together as they sheltered in place (and we have grown closer to our own families as well). One day perhaps a child who lived through this pandemic might be asked what it was like, and their recollection might be that it was a wonderful time because their parents stayed home all the time, took care of them, taught them their school work, and took lots of long family walks.
Dr. Schulz is pediatric medical director, Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. Dr. Schulz and Dr. Pichichero said they have no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.
This article was updated 7/16/2020.
With the COVID-19 pandemic, we are experiencing a once-in-a-100-year event. Dr. Steven A. Schulz, who is serving children on the front line in upstate New York, and I outline some of the challenges primary care pediatricians have been facing and solutions that have succeeded.
Reduction in direct patient care and its consequences
Because of the unknowns of COVID-19, many parents have not wanted to bring their children to a medical office because of fear of contracting SARS-CoV-2. At the same time, pediatricians have restricted in-person visits to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 and to help flatten the curve of infection. Use of pediatric medical professional services, compared with last year, dropped by 52% in March 2020 and by 58% in April, according to FAIR Health, a nonprofit organization that manages a database of 31 million claims. This is resulting in decreased immunization rates, which increases concern for secondary spikes of other preventable illnesses; for example, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that, from mid-March to mid-April 2020, physicians in the Vaccines for Children program ordered 2.5 million fewer doses of vaccines and 250,000 fewer doses of measles-containing vaccines, compared with the same period in 2019. Fewer children are being seen for well visits, which means opportunities are lost for adequate monitoring of growth, development, physical wellness, and social determinants of health.
This is occurring at a time when families have been experiencing increased stress in terms of finances, social isolation, finding adequate child care, and serving as parent, teacher, and breadwinner. An increase in injuries is occurring because of inadequate parental supervision because many parents have been distracted while working from home. An increase in cases of severe abuse is occurring because schools, child care providers, physicians, and other mandated reporters in the community have decreased interaction with children. Children’s Hospital Colorado in Colorado Springs saw a 118% increase in the number of trauma cases in its ED between January and April 2020. Some of these were accidental injuries caused by falls or bicycle accidents, but there was a 200% increase in nonaccidental trauma, which was associated with a steep fall in calls to the state’s child abuse hotline. Academic gains are being lost, and there has been worry for a prolonged “summer slide” risk, especially for children living in poverty and children with developmental disabilities.
The COVID-19 pandemic also is affecting physicians and staff. As frontline personnel, we are at risk to contract the virus, and news media reminds us of severe illness and deaths among health care workers. The pandemic is affecting financial viability; estimated revenue of pediatric offices fell by 45% in March 2020 and 48% in April, compared with the previous year, according to FAIR Health. Nurses and staff have been furloughed. Practices have had to apply for grants and Paycheck Protection Program funds while extending credit lines.
Limited testing capability for SARS-CoV-2
Testing for SARS-CoV-2 has been variably available. There have been problems with false positive and especially false negative results (BMJ. 2020 May 12. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1808).The best specimen collection method has yet to be determined. Blood testing for antibody has been touted, but it remains unclear if there is clinical benefit because a positive result offers no guarantee of immunity, and immunity may quickly wane. Perhaps widespread primary care office–based testing will be in place by the fall, with hope for future reliable point of care results.
Evolving knowledge regarding SARS-CoV-2 and MIS-C
It initially was thought that children were relatively spared from serious illness caused by COVID-19. Then reports of cases of newly identified multisystem inflammatory syndrome of children occurred. It has been unclear how children contribute to the spread of COVID-19 illness, although emerging evidence indicates it is lower than adult transmission. What will happen when children return to school and daycare in the fall?
The challenges have led to creative solutions for how to deliver care.
Adapting to telehealth to provide care
At least for the short term, HIPAA regulations have been relaxed to allow for video visits using platforms such as FaceTime, Skype, Zoom, Doximity, and Doxy.me. Some of these platforms are HIPAA compliant and will be long-term solutions; however, electronic medical record portals allowing for video visits are the more secure option, according to HIPAA.
It has been a learning experience to see what can be accomplished with a video visit. Taking a history and visual examination of injuries and rashes has been possible. Addressing mental health concerns through the video exchange generally has been effective.
However, video visits change the provider-patient interpersonal dynamic and offer only visual exam capabilities, compared with an in-person visit. We cannot look in ears, palpate a liver and spleen, touch and examine a joint or bone, or feel a rash. Video visits also are dependent on the quality of patient Internet access, sufficient data plans, and mutual capabilities to address the inevitable technological glitches on the provider’s end as well. Expanding information technology infrastructure ability and added licensure costs have occurred. Practices and health systems have been working with insurance companies to ensure telephone and video visits are reimbursed on a comparable level to in-office visits.
A new type of office visit and developing appropriate safety plans
Patients must be universally screened prior to arrival during appointment scheduling for well and illness visits. Patients aged older than 2 years and caregivers must wear masks on entering the facility. In many practices, patients are scheduled during specific sick or well visit time slots throughout the day. Waiting rooms chairs need to be spaced for 6-foot social distancing, and cars in the parking lot often serve as waiting rooms until staff can meet patients at the door and take them to the exam room. Alternate entrances, car-side exams, and drive-by and/or tent testing facilities often have become part of the new normal everyday practice. Creating virtual visit time blocks in provider’s schedules has allowed for decreased office congestion. Patients often are checked out from their room, as opposed to waiting in a line at a check out desk. Nurse triage protocols also have been adapted and enhanced to meet needs and concerns.
With the need for summer physicals and many regions opening up, a gradual return toward baseline has been evolving, although some of the twists of a “new normal” will stay in place. The new normal has been for providers and staff to wear surgical masks and face shields; sometimes N95 masks, gloves, and gowns have been needed. Cleaning rooms and equipment between patient visits has become a major, new time-consuming task. Acquiring and maintaining adequate supplies has been a challenge.
Summary
The American Academy of Pediatrics, CDC, and state and local health departments have been providing informative and regular updates, webinars, and best practices guidelines. Pediatricians, community organizations, schools, and mental health professionals have been collaborating, overcoming hurdles, and working together to help mitigate the effects of the pandemic on children, their families, and our communities. Continued education, cooperation, and adaptation will be needed in the months ahead. If there is a silver lining to this pandemic experience, it may be that families have grown closer together as they sheltered in place (and we have grown closer to our own families as well). One day perhaps a child who lived through this pandemic might be asked what it was like, and their recollection might be that it was a wonderful time because their parents stayed home all the time, took care of them, taught them their school work, and took lots of long family walks.
Dr. Schulz is pediatric medical director, Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. Dr. Schulz and Dr. Pichichero said they have no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.
This article was updated 7/16/2020.
With the COVID-19 pandemic, we are experiencing a once-in-a-100-year event. Dr. Steven A. Schulz, who is serving children on the front line in upstate New York, and I outline some of the challenges primary care pediatricians have been facing and solutions that have succeeded.
Reduction in direct patient care and its consequences
Because of the unknowns of COVID-19, many parents have not wanted to bring their children to a medical office because of fear of contracting SARS-CoV-2. At the same time, pediatricians have restricted in-person visits to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 and to help flatten the curve of infection. Use of pediatric medical professional services, compared with last year, dropped by 52% in March 2020 and by 58% in April, according to FAIR Health, a nonprofit organization that manages a database of 31 million claims. This is resulting in decreased immunization rates, which increases concern for secondary spikes of other preventable illnesses; for example, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that, from mid-March to mid-April 2020, physicians in the Vaccines for Children program ordered 2.5 million fewer doses of vaccines and 250,000 fewer doses of measles-containing vaccines, compared with the same period in 2019. Fewer children are being seen for well visits, which means opportunities are lost for adequate monitoring of growth, development, physical wellness, and social determinants of health.
This is occurring at a time when families have been experiencing increased stress in terms of finances, social isolation, finding adequate child care, and serving as parent, teacher, and breadwinner. An increase in injuries is occurring because of inadequate parental supervision because many parents have been distracted while working from home. An increase in cases of severe abuse is occurring because schools, child care providers, physicians, and other mandated reporters in the community have decreased interaction with children. Children’s Hospital Colorado in Colorado Springs saw a 118% increase in the number of trauma cases in its ED between January and April 2020. Some of these were accidental injuries caused by falls or bicycle accidents, but there was a 200% increase in nonaccidental trauma, which was associated with a steep fall in calls to the state’s child abuse hotline. Academic gains are being lost, and there has been worry for a prolonged “summer slide” risk, especially for children living in poverty and children with developmental disabilities.
The COVID-19 pandemic also is affecting physicians and staff. As frontline personnel, we are at risk to contract the virus, and news media reminds us of severe illness and deaths among health care workers. The pandemic is affecting financial viability; estimated revenue of pediatric offices fell by 45% in March 2020 and 48% in April, compared with the previous year, according to FAIR Health. Nurses and staff have been furloughed. Practices have had to apply for grants and Paycheck Protection Program funds while extending credit lines.
Limited testing capability for SARS-CoV-2
Testing for SARS-CoV-2 has been variably available. There have been problems with false positive and especially false negative results (BMJ. 2020 May 12. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1808).The best specimen collection method has yet to be determined. Blood testing for antibody has been touted, but it remains unclear if there is clinical benefit because a positive result offers no guarantee of immunity, and immunity may quickly wane. Perhaps widespread primary care office–based testing will be in place by the fall, with hope for future reliable point of care results.
Evolving knowledge regarding SARS-CoV-2 and MIS-C
It initially was thought that children were relatively spared from serious illness caused by COVID-19. Then reports of cases of newly identified multisystem inflammatory syndrome of children occurred. It has been unclear how children contribute to the spread of COVID-19 illness, although emerging evidence indicates it is lower than adult transmission. What will happen when children return to school and daycare in the fall?
The challenges have led to creative solutions for how to deliver care.
Adapting to telehealth to provide care
At least for the short term, HIPAA regulations have been relaxed to allow for video visits using platforms such as FaceTime, Skype, Zoom, Doximity, and Doxy.me. Some of these platforms are HIPAA compliant and will be long-term solutions; however, electronic medical record portals allowing for video visits are the more secure option, according to HIPAA.
It has been a learning experience to see what can be accomplished with a video visit. Taking a history and visual examination of injuries and rashes has been possible. Addressing mental health concerns through the video exchange generally has been effective.
However, video visits change the provider-patient interpersonal dynamic and offer only visual exam capabilities, compared with an in-person visit. We cannot look in ears, palpate a liver and spleen, touch and examine a joint or bone, or feel a rash. Video visits also are dependent on the quality of patient Internet access, sufficient data plans, and mutual capabilities to address the inevitable technological glitches on the provider’s end as well. Expanding information technology infrastructure ability and added licensure costs have occurred. Practices and health systems have been working with insurance companies to ensure telephone and video visits are reimbursed on a comparable level to in-office visits.
A new type of office visit and developing appropriate safety plans
Patients must be universally screened prior to arrival during appointment scheduling for well and illness visits. Patients aged older than 2 years and caregivers must wear masks on entering the facility. In many practices, patients are scheduled during specific sick or well visit time slots throughout the day. Waiting rooms chairs need to be spaced for 6-foot social distancing, and cars in the parking lot often serve as waiting rooms until staff can meet patients at the door and take them to the exam room. Alternate entrances, car-side exams, and drive-by and/or tent testing facilities often have become part of the new normal everyday practice. Creating virtual visit time blocks in provider’s schedules has allowed for decreased office congestion. Patients often are checked out from their room, as opposed to waiting in a line at a check out desk. Nurse triage protocols also have been adapted and enhanced to meet needs and concerns.
With the need for summer physicals and many regions opening up, a gradual return toward baseline has been evolving, although some of the twists of a “new normal” will stay in place. The new normal has been for providers and staff to wear surgical masks and face shields; sometimes N95 masks, gloves, and gowns have been needed. Cleaning rooms and equipment between patient visits has become a major, new time-consuming task. Acquiring and maintaining adequate supplies has been a challenge.
Summary
The American Academy of Pediatrics, CDC, and state and local health departments have been providing informative and regular updates, webinars, and best practices guidelines. Pediatricians, community organizations, schools, and mental health professionals have been collaborating, overcoming hurdles, and working together to help mitigate the effects of the pandemic on children, their families, and our communities. Continued education, cooperation, and adaptation will be needed in the months ahead. If there is a silver lining to this pandemic experience, it may be that families have grown closer together as they sheltered in place (and we have grown closer to our own families as well). One day perhaps a child who lived through this pandemic might be asked what it was like, and their recollection might be that it was a wonderful time because their parents stayed home all the time, took care of them, taught them their school work, and took lots of long family walks.
Dr. Schulz is pediatric medical director, Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. Dr. Schulz and Dr. Pichichero said they have no relevant financial disclosures. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.
This article was updated 7/16/2020.
The public’s trust in science
Having been a bench research scientist 30 years ago, I am flabbergasted at what is and is not currently possible. In a few weeks, scientists sequenced a novel coronavirus and used the genetic sequence to select candidate molecules for a vaccine. But we still can’t reliably say how much protection a cloth mask provides. Worse yet, even if/when we could reliably quantify contagion, it isn’t clear that the public will believe us anyhow.
The good news is that the public worldwide did believe scientists about the threat of a pandemic and the need to flatten the curve. Saving lives has not been about the strength of an antibiotic or the skill in managing a ventilator, but the credibility of medical scientists. The degree of acceptance was variable and subject to a variety of delays caused by regional politicians, but The bad news is that the public’s trust in that scientific advice has waned, the willingness to accept onerous restrictions has fatigued, and the cooperation for maintaining these social changes is evaporating.
I will leave pontificating about the spread of COVID-19 to other experts in other forums. My focus is on the public’s trust in the professionalism of physicians, nurses, medical scientists, and the health care industry as a whole. That trust has been our most valuable tool in fighting the pandemic so far. There have been situations in which weaknesses in modern science have let society down during the pandemic of the century. In my February 2020 column, at the beginning of the outbreak, a month before it was declared a pandemic, when its magnitude was still unclear, I emphasized the importance of having a trusted scientific spokesperson providing timely, accurate information to the public. That, obviously, did not happen in the United States and the degree of the ensuing disaster is still to be revealed.
Scientists have made some wrong decisions about this novel threat. The advice on masks is an illustrative example. For many years, infection control nurses have insisted that medical students wear a mask to protect themselves, even if they were observing rounds from just inside the doorway of a room of a baby with bronchiolitis. The landfills are full of briefly worn surgical masks. Now the story goes: Surgical masks don’t protect staff; they protect others. Changes like that contribute to a credibility gap.
For 3 months, there was conflicting advice about the appropriateness of masks. In early March 2020, some health care workers were disciplined for wearing personal masks. Now, most scientists recommend the public use masks to reduce contagion. Significant subgroups in the U.S. population have refused, mostly to signal their contrarian politics. In June there was an anecdote of a success story from the Show Me state of Missouri, where a mask is credited for preventing an outbreak from a sick hair stylist.
It is hard to find something more reliable than an anecdote. On June 1, a meta-analysis funded by the World Health Organization was published online by Lancet. It supports the idea that masks are beneficial. It is mostly forest plots, so you can try to interpret it yourself. There were 172 observational studies in the systematic review, and the meta-analysis contains 44 relevant comparative studies and 0 randomized controlled trials. Most of those forest plots have an I2 of 75% or worse, which to me indicates that they are not much more reliable than a good anecdote. My primary conclusion was that modern academic science, in an era with a shortage of toilet paper, should convert to printing on soft tissue paper.
It is important to note that the guesstimated overall benefit of cloth masks was a relative risk of 0.30. That benefit is easily nullified if the false security of a mask causes people to congregate together in groups three times larger or for three times more minutes. N95 masks were more effective.
A different article was published in PNAS on June 11. Its senior author was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995. That article touted the benefits of masks. The article is facing heavy criticism for flaws in methodology and flaws in the peer review process. A long list of signatories have joined a letter asking for the article’s retraction.
This article, when combined with the two instances of prominent articles being retracted in the prior month by the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, is accumulating evidence the peer review system is not working as intended.
There are many heroes in this pandemic, from the frontline health care workers in hotspots to the grocery workers and cleaning staff. There is hope, indeed some faith, that medical scientists in the foreseeable future will provide treatments and a vaccine for this viral plague. This month, the credibility of scientists again plays a major role as communities respond to outbreaks related to reopening the economy. Let’s celebrate the victories, resolve to fix the impure system, and restore a high level of public trust in science. Lives depend on it.
Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Having been a bench research scientist 30 years ago, I am flabbergasted at what is and is not currently possible. In a few weeks, scientists sequenced a novel coronavirus and used the genetic sequence to select candidate molecules for a vaccine. But we still can’t reliably say how much protection a cloth mask provides. Worse yet, even if/when we could reliably quantify contagion, it isn’t clear that the public will believe us anyhow.
The good news is that the public worldwide did believe scientists about the threat of a pandemic and the need to flatten the curve. Saving lives has not been about the strength of an antibiotic or the skill in managing a ventilator, but the credibility of medical scientists. The degree of acceptance was variable and subject to a variety of delays caused by regional politicians, but The bad news is that the public’s trust in that scientific advice has waned, the willingness to accept onerous restrictions has fatigued, and the cooperation for maintaining these social changes is evaporating.
I will leave pontificating about the spread of COVID-19 to other experts in other forums. My focus is on the public’s trust in the professionalism of physicians, nurses, medical scientists, and the health care industry as a whole. That trust has been our most valuable tool in fighting the pandemic so far. There have been situations in which weaknesses in modern science have let society down during the pandemic of the century. In my February 2020 column, at the beginning of the outbreak, a month before it was declared a pandemic, when its magnitude was still unclear, I emphasized the importance of having a trusted scientific spokesperson providing timely, accurate information to the public. That, obviously, did not happen in the United States and the degree of the ensuing disaster is still to be revealed.
Scientists have made some wrong decisions about this novel threat. The advice on masks is an illustrative example. For many years, infection control nurses have insisted that medical students wear a mask to protect themselves, even if they were observing rounds from just inside the doorway of a room of a baby with bronchiolitis. The landfills are full of briefly worn surgical masks. Now the story goes: Surgical masks don’t protect staff; they protect others. Changes like that contribute to a credibility gap.
For 3 months, there was conflicting advice about the appropriateness of masks. In early March 2020, some health care workers were disciplined for wearing personal masks. Now, most scientists recommend the public use masks to reduce contagion. Significant subgroups in the U.S. population have refused, mostly to signal their contrarian politics. In June there was an anecdote of a success story from the Show Me state of Missouri, where a mask is credited for preventing an outbreak from a sick hair stylist.
It is hard to find something more reliable than an anecdote. On June 1, a meta-analysis funded by the World Health Organization was published online by Lancet. It supports the idea that masks are beneficial. It is mostly forest plots, so you can try to interpret it yourself. There were 172 observational studies in the systematic review, and the meta-analysis contains 44 relevant comparative studies and 0 randomized controlled trials. Most of those forest plots have an I2 of 75% or worse, which to me indicates that they are not much more reliable than a good anecdote. My primary conclusion was that modern academic science, in an era with a shortage of toilet paper, should convert to printing on soft tissue paper.
It is important to note that the guesstimated overall benefit of cloth masks was a relative risk of 0.30. That benefit is easily nullified if the false security of a mask causes people to congregate together in groups three times larger or for three times more minutes. N95 masks were more effective.
A different article was published in PNAS on June 11. Its senior author was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995. That article touted the benefits of masks. The article is facing heavy criticism for flaws in methodology and flaws in the peer review process. A long list of signatories have joined a letter asking for the article’s retraction.
This article, when combined with the two instances of prominent articles being retracted in the prior month by the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, is accumulating evidence the peer review system is not working as intended.
There are many heroes in this pandemic, from the frontline health care workers in hotspots to the grocery workers and cleaning staff. There is hope, indeed some faith, that medical scientists in the foreseeable future will provide treatments and a vaccine for this viral plague. This month, the credibility of scientists again plays a major role as communities respond to outbreaks related to reopening the economy. Let’s celebrate the victories, resolve to fix the impure system, and restore a high level of public trust in science. Lives depend on it.
Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Having been a bench research scientist 30 years ago, I am flabbergasted at what is and is not currently possible. In a few weeks, scientists sequenced a novel coronavirus and used the genetic sequence to select candidate molecules for a vaccine. But we still can’t reliably say how much protection a cloth mask provides. Worse yet, even if/when we could reliably quantify contagion, it isn’t clear that the public will believe us anyhow.
The good news is that the public worldwide did believe scientists about the threat of a pandemic and the need to flatten the curve. Saving lives has not been about the strength of an antibiotic or the skill in managing a ventilator, but the credibility of medical scientists. The degree of acceptance was variable and subject to a variety of delays caused by regional politicians, but The bad news is that the public’s trust in that scientific advice has waned, the willingness to accept onerous restrictions has fatigued, and the cooperation for maintaining these social changes is evaporating.
I will leave pontificating about the spread of COVID-19 to other experts in other forums. My focus is on the public’s trust in the professionalism of physicians, nurses, medical scientists, and the health care industry as a whole. That trust has been our most valuable tool in fighting the pandemic so far. There have been situations in which weaknesses in modern science have let society down during the pandemic of the century. In my February 2020 column, at the beginning of the outbreak, a month before it was declared a pandemic, when its magnitude was still unclear, I emphasized the importance of having a trusted scientific spokesperson providing timely, accurate information to the public. That, obviously, did not happen in the United States and the degree of the ensuing disaster is still to be revealed.
Scientists have made some wrong decisions about this novel threat. The advice on masks is an illustrative example. For many years, infection control nurses have insisted that medical students wear a mask to protect themselves, even if they were observing rounds from just inside the doorway of a room of a baby with bronchiolitis. The landfills are full of briefly worn surgical masks. Now the story goes: Surgical masks don’t protect staff; they protect others. Changes like that contribute to a credibility gap.
For 3 months, there was conflicting advice about the appropriateness of masks. In early March 2020, some health care workers were disciplined for wearing personal masks. Now, most scientists recommend the public use masks to reduce contagion. Significant subgroups in the U.S. population have refused, mostly to signal their contrarian politics. In June there was an anecdote of a success story from the Show Me state of Missouri, where a mask is credited for preventing an outbreak from a sick hair stylist.
It is hard to find something more reliable than an anecdote. On June 1, a meta-analysis funded by the World Health Organization was published online by Lancet. It supports the idea that masks are beneficial. It is mostly forest plots, so you can try to interpret it yourself. There were 172 observational studies in the systematic review, and the meta-analysis contains 44 relevant comparative studies and 0 randomized controlled trials. Most of those forest plots have an I2 of 75% or worse, which to me indicates that they are not much more reliable than a good anecdote. My primary conclusion was that modern academic science, in an era with a shortage of toilet paper, should convert to printing on soft tissue paper.
It is important to note that the guesstimated overall benefit of cloth masks was a relative risk of 0.30. That benefit is easily nullified if the false security of a mask causes people to congregate together in groups three times larger or for three times more minutes. N95 masks were more effective.
A different article was published in PNAS on June 11. Its senior author was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1995. That article touted the benefits of masks. The article is facing heavy criticism for flaws in methodology and flaws in the peer review process. A long list of signatories have joined a letter asking for the article’s retraction.
This article, when combined with the two instances of prominent articles being retracted in the prior month by the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, is accumulating evidence the peer review system is not working as intended.
There are many heroes in this pandemic, from the frontline health care workers in hotspots to the grocery workers and cleaning staff. There is hope, indeed some faith, that medical scientists in the foreseeable future will provide treatments and a vaccine for this viral plague. This month, the credibility of scientists again plays a major role as communities respond to outbreaks related to reopening the economy. Let’s celebrate the victories, resolve to fix the impure system, and restore a high level of public trust in science. Lives depend on it.
Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Wave, surge, or tsunami
Different COVID-19 models and predicting inpatient bed capacity
The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the defining moments in history for this generation’s health care leaders. In 2019, most of us wrongly assumed that this virus would be similar to the past viral epidemics and pandemics such as 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome–CoV in Asia, 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome–CoV in Saudi Arabia, and 2014-2016 Ebola in West Africa. Moreover, we understood that the 50% fatality rate of Ebola, a single-stranded RNA virus, was deadly on the continent of Africa, but its transmission was through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids. Hence, the infectivity of Ebola to the general public was lower than SARS-CoV-2, which is spread by respiratory droplets and contact routes in addition to being the virus that causes COVID-19.1 Many of us did not expect that SARS-CoV-2, a single-stranded RNA virus consisting of 32 kilobytes, would reach the shores of the United States from the Hubei province of China, the northern Lombardy region of Italy, or other initial hotspots. We could not imagine its effects would be so devastating from an economic and medical perspective. Until it did.
The first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 was on Jan. 20, 2020 in Snohomish County, Wash., and the first known death from COVID-19 occurred on Feb. 6, 2020 in Santa Clara County, Calif.2,3 Since then, the United States has lost over 135,000 people from COVID-19 with death(s) reported in every state and the highest number of overall deaths of any country in the world.4 At the beginning of 2020, at our institution, Wake Forest Baptist Health System in Winston-Salem, N.C., we began preparing for the wave, surge, or tsunami of inpatients that was coming. Plans were afoot to increase our staff, even perhaps by hiring out-of-state physicians and nurses if needed, and every possible bed was considered within the system. It was not an if, but rather a when, as to the arrival of COVID-19.
Epidemiologists and biostatisticians developed predictive COVID-19 models so that health care leaders could plan accordingly, especially those patients that required critical care or inpatient medical care. These predictive models have been used across the globe and can be categorized into three groups: Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered, Agent-Based, and Curve Fitting Extrapolation.5 Our original predictions were based on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model from Washington state (Curve Fitting Extrapolation). It creates projections from COVID-19 mortality data and assumes a 3% infection rate. Other health systems in our region used the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics–University of Pennsylvania model. It pins its suppositions on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regional infection rates, and hospital market shares. Lastly, the agent-based mode, such as the Global Epidemic and Mobility Project, takes simulated populations and forecasts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 anchoring on the interplay of individuals and groups. The assumptions are created secondary to the interactions of people, time, health care interventions, and public health policies.
Based on these predictive simulations, health systems have spent countless hours of planning and have utilized resources for the anticipated needs related to beds, ventilators, supplies, and staffing. Frontline staff were retrained how to don and doff personal protective equipment. Our teams were ready if we saw a wave of 250, a surge of 500, or a tsunami of 750 COVID-19 inpatients. We were prepared to run into the fire fully knowing the personal risks and consequences.
But, as yet, the tsunami in North Carolina has never come. On April 21, 2020, the COVID-19 mortality data in North Carolina peaked at 34 deaths, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,510 as of July 13, 2020.6 A surge did not hit our institutional shores at Wake Forest Baptist Health. As we looked through the proverbial back window and hear about the tsunami in Houston, Texas, we are very thankful that the tsunami turned out to be a small wave so far in North Carolina. We are grateful that there were fewer deaths than expected. The dust is settling now and the question, spoken or unspoken, is: “How could we be so wrong with our predictions?”
Models have strengths and weaknesses and none are perfect.7 There is an old aphorism in statistics that is often attributed to George Box that says: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”8 Predictions and projections are good, but not perfect. Our measurements and tests should not only be accurate, but also be as precise as possible.9 Moreover, the assumptions we make should be on solid ground. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there may have been undercounts and delays in reporting. The assumptions of the effects of social distancing may have been inaccurate. Just as important, the lack of early testing in our pandemic and the relatively limited testing currently available provide challenges not only in attributing past deaths to COVID-19, but also with planning and public health measures. To be fair, the tsunami that turned out to be a small wave in North Carolina may be caused by the strong leadership from politicians, public health officials, and health system leaders for their stay-at-home decree and vigorous public health measures in our state.
Some of the health systems in the United States have created “reemergence plans” to care for those patients who have stayed at home for the past several months. Elective surgeries and procedures have begun in different regions of the United States and will likely continue reopening into the late summer. Nevertheless, challenges and opportunities continue to abound during these difficult times of COVID-19. The tsunamis or surges will continue to occur in the United States and the premature reopening of some of the public places and businesses have not helped our collective efforts. In addition, the personal costs have been and will be immeasurable. Many of us have lost loved ones, been laid off, or face mental health crises because of the social isolation and false news.
COVID-19 is here to stay and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Health care providers have been literally risking their lives to serve the public and we will continue to do so. Hitting the target of needed inpatient beds and critical care beds is critically important and is tough without accurate data. We simply have inadequate and unreliable data of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence rates in the communities that we serve. More available testing would allow frontline health care providers and health care leaders to match hospital demand to supply, at individual hospitals and within the health care system. Moreover, contact tracing capabilities would give us the opportunity to isolate individuals and extinguish population-based hotspots.
We may have seen the first wave, but other waves of COVID-19 in North Carolina are sure to come. Since the partial reopening of North Carolina on May 8, 2020, coupled with pockets of nonadherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we expect a second wave sooner rather than later. Interestingly, daily new lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Carolina have been on the rise, with the highest one-day total occurring on June 12, 2020 with 1,768 cases reported.6 As a result, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, placed a temporary pause on the Phase 2 reopening plan and mandated masks in public on June 24, 2020. It is unclear whether these intermittent daily spikes in lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are a foreshadowing of our next wave, surge, or tsunami, or just an anomaly. Only time will tell, but as Jim Kim, MD, PhD, has stated so well, there is still time for social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.10 There is still time for us, for our loved ones, for our hospital systems, and for our public health system.
Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Lippert is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Mr. Payne is the associate vice president of Wake Forest Baptist Health. He is responsible for engineering, facilities planning & design as well as environmental health and safety departments. Dr. Pariyadath is comedical director of the Patient Flow Operations Center which facilitates patient placement throughout the Wake Forest Baptist Health system. He is also the associate medical director for the adult emergency department. Dr. Sunkara is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. He is the medical director for hospital medicine units and the newly established PUI unit.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Julie Freischlag, MD; Kevin High, MD, MS; Gary Rosenthal, MD; Wayne Meredith, MD;Russ Howerton, MD; Mike Waid, Andrea Fernandez, MD; Brian Hiestand, MD; the Wake Forest Baptist Health System COVID-19 task force, the Operations Center, and the countless frontline staff at all five hospitals within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.
References
1. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020 June 30. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.
2. Holshue et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 929-36.
3. Fuller T, Baker M. Coronavirus death in California came weeks before first known U.S. death. New York Times. 2020 Apr 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-first-united-states-death.html.
4. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map. Accessed 2020 May 28.
5. Michaud J et al. COVID-19 models: Can they tell us what we want to know? 2020 April 16. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-policy-watch/covid-19-models.
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed 2020 June 30.
7. Jewell N et al. Caution warranted: Using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model for predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1-3.
8. Box G. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;71:791-9.
9. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-34.
10. Kim J. It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus. The New Yorker. 2020 Apr 20. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/its-not-too-late-to-go-on-offense-against-the-coronavirus.
Different COVID-19 models and predicting inpatient bed capacity
Different COVID-19 models and predicting inpatient bed capacity
The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the defining moments in history for this generation’s health care leaders. In 2019, most of us wrongly assumed that this virus would be similar to the past viral epidemics and pandemics such as 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome–CoV in Asia, 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome–CoV in Saudi Arabia, and 2014-2016 Ebola in West Africa. Moreover, we understood that the 50% fatality rate of Ebola, a single-stranded RNA virus, was deadly on the continent of Africa, but its transmission was through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids. Hence, the infectivity of Ebola to the general public was lower than SARS-CoV-2, which is spread by respiratory droplets and contact routes in addition to being the virus that causes COVID-19.1 Many of us did not expect that SARS-CoV-2, a single-stranded RNA virus consisting of 32 kilobytes, would reach the shores of the United States from the Hubei province of China, the northern Lombardy region of Italy, or other initial hotspots. We could not imagine its effects would be so devastating from an economic and medical perspective. Until it did.
The first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 was on Jan. 20, 2020 in Snohomish County, Wash., and the first known death from COVID-19 occurred on Feb. 6, 2020 in Santa Clara County, Calif.2,3 Since then, the United States has lost over 135,000 people from COVID-19 with death(s) reported in every state and the highest number of overall deaths of any country in the world.4 At the beginning of 2020, at our institution, Wake Forest Baptist Health System in Winston-Salem, N.C., we began preparing for the wave, surge, or tsunami of inpatients that was coming. Plans were afoot to increase our staff, even perhaps by hiring out-of-state physicians and nurses if needed, and every possible bed was considered within the system. It was not an if, but rather a when, as to the arrival of COVID-19.
Epidemiologists and biostatisticians developed predictive COVID-19 models so that health care leaders could plan accordingly, especially those patients that required critical care or inpatient medical care. These predictive models have been used across the globe and can be categorized into three groups: Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered, Agent-Based, and Curve Fitting Extrapolation.5 Our original predictions were based on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model from Washington state (Curve Fitting Extrapolation). It creates projections from COVID-19 mortality data and assumes a 3% infection rate. Other health systems in our region used the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics–University of Pennsylvania model. It pins its suppositions on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regional infection rates, and hospital market shares. Lastly, the agent-based mode, such as the Global Epidemic and Mobility Project, takes simulated populations and forecasts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 anchoring on the interplay of individuals and groups. The assumptions are created secondary to the interactions of people, time, health care interventions, and public health policies.
Based on these predictive simulations, health systems have spent countless hours of planning and have utilized resources for the anticipated needs related to beds, ventilators, supplies, and staffing. Frontline staff were retrained how to don and doff personal protective equipment. Our teams were ready if we saw a wave of 250, a surge of 500, or a tsunami of 750 COVID-19 inpatients. We were prepared to run into the fire fully knowing the personal risks and consequences.
But, as yet, the tsunami in North Carolina has never come. On April 21, 2020, the COVID-19 mortality data in North Carolina peaked at 34 deaths, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,510 as of July 13, 2020.6 A surge did not hit our institutional shores at Wake Forest Baptist Health. As we looked through the proverbial back window and hear about the tsunami in Houston, Texas, we are very thankful that the tsunami turned out to be a small wave so far in North Carolina. We are grateful that there were fewer deaths than expected. The dust is settling now and the question, spoken or unspoken, is: “How could we be so wrong with our predictions?”
Models have strengths and weaknesses and none are perfect.7 There is an old aphorism in statistics that is often attributed to George Box that says: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”8 Predictions and projections are good, but not perfect. Our measurements and tests should not only be accurate, but also be as precise as possible.9 Moreover, the assumptions we make should be on solid ground. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there may have been undercounts and delays in reporting. The assumptions of the effects of social distancing may have been inaccurate. Just as important, the lack of early testing in our pandemic and the relatively limited testing currently available provide challenges not only in attributing past deaths to COVID-19, but also with planning and public health measures. To be fair, the tsunami that turned out to be a small wave in North Carolina may be caused by the strong leadership from politicians, public health officials, and health system leaders for their stay-at-home decree and vigorous public health measures in our state.
Some of the health systems in the United States have created “reemergence plans” to care for those patients who have stayed at home for the past several months. Elective surgeries and procedures have begun in different regions of the United States and will likely continue reopening into the late summer. Nevertheless, challenges and opportunities continue to abound during these difficult times of COVID-19. The tsunamis or surges will continue to occur in the United States and the premature reopening of some of the public places and businesses have not helped our collective efforts. In addition, the personal costs have been and will be immeasurable. Many of us have lost loved ones, been laid off, or face mental health crises because of the social isolation and false news.
COVID-19 is here to stay and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Health care providers have been literally risking their lives to serve the public and we will continue to do so. Hitting the target of needed inpatient beds and critical care beds is critically important and is tough without accurate data. We simply have inadequate and unreliable data of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence rates in the communities that we serve. More available testing would allow frontline health care providers and health care leaders to match hospital demand to supply, at individual hospitals and within the health care system. Moreover, contact tracing capabilities would give us the opportunity to isolate individuals and extinguish population-based hotspots.
We may have seen the first wave, but other waves of COVID-19 in North Carolina are sure to come. Since the partial reopening of North Carolina on May 8, 2020, coupled with pockets of nonadherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we expect a second wave sooner rather than later. Interestingly, daily new lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Carolina have been on the rise, with the highest one-day total occurring on June 12, 2020 with 1,768 cases reported.6 As a result, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, placed a temporary pause on the Phase 2 reopening plan and mandated masks in public on June 24, 2020. It is unclear whether these intermittent daily spikes in lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are a foreshadowing of our next wave, surge, or tsunami, or just an anomaly. Only time will tell, but as Jim Kim, MD, PhD, has stated so well, there is still time for social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.10 There is still time for us, for our loved ones, for our hospital systems, and for our public health system.
Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Lippert is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Mr. Payne is the associate vice president of Wake Forest Baptist Health. He is responsible for engineering, facilities planning & design as well as environmental health and safety departments. Dr. Pariyadath is comedical director of the Patient Flow Operations Center which facilitates patient placement throughout the Wake Forest Baptist Health system. He is also the associate medical director for the adult emergency department. Dr. Sunkara is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. He is the medical director for hospital medicine units and the newly established PUI unit.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Julie Freischlag, MD; Kevin High, MD, MS; Gary Rosenthal, MD; Wayne Meredith, MD;Russ Howerton, MD; Mike Waid, Andrea Fernandez, MD; Brian Hiestand, MD; the Wake Forest Baptist Health System COVID-19 task force, the Operations Center, and the countless frontline staff at all five hospitals within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.
References
1. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020 June 30. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.
2. Holshue et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 929-36.
3. Fuller T, Baker M. Coronavirus death in California came weeks before first known U.S. death. New York Times. 2020 Apr 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-first-united-states-death.html.
4. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map. Accessed 2020 May 28.
5. Michaud J et al. COVID-19 models: Can they tell us what we want to know? 2020 April 16. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-policy-watch/covid-19-models.
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed 2020 June 30.
7. Jewell N et al. Caution warranted: Using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model for predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1-3.
8. Box G. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;71:791-9.
9. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-34.
10. Kim J. It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus. The New Yorker. 2020 Apr 20. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/its-not-too-late-to-go-on-offense-against-the-coronavirus.
The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the defining moments in history for this generation’s health care leaders. In 2019, most of us wrongly assumed that this virus would be similar to the past viral epidemics and pandemics such as 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome–CoV in Asia, 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome–CoV in Saudi Arabia, and 2014-2016 Ebola in West Africa. Moreover, we understood that the 50% fatality rate of Ebola, a single-stranded RNA virus, was deadly on the continent of Africa, but its transmission was through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids. Hence, the infectivity of Ebola to the general public was lower than SARS-CoV-2, which is spread by respiratory droplets and contact routes in addition to being the virus that causes COVID-19.1 Many of us did not expect that SARS-CoV-2, a single-stranded RNA virus consisting of 32 kilobytes, would reach the shores of the United States from the Hubei province of China, the northern Lombardy region of Italy, or other initial hotspots. We could not imagine its effects would be so devastating from an economic and medical perspective. Until it did.
The first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 was on Jan. 20, 2020 in Snohomish County, Wash., and the first known death from COVID-19 occurred on Feb. 6, 2020 in Santa Clara County, Calif.2,3 Since then, the United States has lost over 135,000 people from COVID-19 with death(s) reported in every state and the highest number of overall deaths of any country in the world.4 At the beginning of 2020, at our institution, Wake Forest Baptist Health System in Winston-Salem, N.C., we began preparing for the wave, surge, or tsunami of inpatients that was coming. Plans were afoot to increase our staff, even perhaps by hiring out-of-state physicians and nurses if needed, and every possible bed was considered within the system. It was not an if, but rather a when, as to the arrival of COVID-19.
Epidemiologists and biostatisticians developed predictive COVID-19 models so that health care leaders could plan accordingly, especially those patients that required critical care or inpatient medical care. These predictive models have been used across the globe and can be categorized into three groups: Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered, Agent-Based, and Curve Fitting Extrapolation.5 Our original predictions were based on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model from Washington state (Curve Fitting Extrapolation). It creates projections from COVID-19 mortality data and assumes a 3% infection rate. Other health systems in our region used the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics–University of Pennsylvania model. It pins its suppositions on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regional infection rates, and hospital market shares. Lastly, the agent-based mode, such as the Global Epidemic and Mobility Project, takes simulated populations and forecasts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 anchoring on the interplay of individuals and groups. The assumptions are created secondary to the interactions of people, time, health care interventions, and public health policies.
Based on these predictive simulations, health systems have spent countless hours of planning and have utilized resources for the anticipated needs related to beds, ventilators, supplies, and staffing. Frontline staff were retrained how to don and doff personal protective equipment. Our teams were ready if we saw a wave of 250, a surge of 500, or a tsunami of 750 COVID-19 inpatients. We were prepared to run into the fire fully knowing the personal risks and consequences.
But, as yet, the tsunami in North Carolina has never come. On April 21, 2020, the COVID-19 mortality data in North Carolina peaked at 34 deaths, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,510 as of July 13, 2020.6 A surge did not hit our institutional shores at Wake Forest Baptist Health. As we looked through the proverbial back window and hear about the tsunami in Houston, Texas, we are very thankful that the tsunami turned out to be a small wave so far in North Carolina. We are grateful that there were fewer deaths than expected. The dust is settling now and the question, spoken or unspoken, is: “How could we be so wrong with our predictions?”
Models have strengths and weaknesses and none are perfect.7 There is an old aphorism in statistics that is often attributed to George Box that says: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”8 Predictions and projections are good, but not perfect. Our measurements and tests should not only be accurate, but also be as precise as possible.9 Moreover, the assumptions we make should be on solid ground. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there may have been undercounts and delays in reporting. The assumptions of the effects of social distancing may have been inaccurate. Just as important, the lack of early testing in our pandemic and the relatively limited testing currently available provide challenges not only in attributing past deaths to COVID-19, but also with planning and public health measures. To be fair, the tsunami that turned out to be a small wave in North Carolina may be caused by the strong leadership from politicians, public health officials, and health system leaders for their stay-at-home decree and vigorous public health measures in our state.
Some of the health systems in the United States have created “reemergence plans” to care for those patients who have stayed at home for the past several months. Elective surgeries and procedures have begun in different regions of the United States and will likely continue reopening into the late summer. Nevertheless, challenges and opportunities continue to abound during these difficult times of COVID-19. The tsunamis or surges will continue to occur in the United States and the premature reopening of some of the public places and businesses have not helped our collective efforts. In addition, the personal costs have been and will be immeasurable. Many of us have lost loved ones, been laid off, or face mental health crises because of the social isolation and false news.
COVID-19 is here to stay and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Health care providers have been literally risking their lives to serve the public and we will continue to do so. Hitting the target of needed inpatient beds and critical care beds is critically important and is tough without accurate data. We simply have inadequate and unreliable data of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence rates in the communities that we serve. More available testing would allow frontline health care providers and health care leaders to match hospital demand to supply, at individual hospitals and within the health care system. Moreover, contact tracing capabilities would give us the opportunity to isolate individuals and extinguish population-based hotspots.
We may have seen the first wave, but other waves of COVID-19 in North Carolina are sure to come. Since the partial reopening of North Carolina on May 8, 2020, coupled with pockets of nonadherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we expect a second wave sooner rather than later. Interestingly, daily new lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Carolina have been on the rise, with the highest one-day total occurring on June 12, 2020 with 1,768 cases reported.6 As a result, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, placed a temporary pause on the Phase 2 reopening plan and mandated masks in public on June 24, 2020. It is unclear whether these intermittent daily spikes in lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are a foreshadowing of our next wave, surge, or tsunami, or just an anomaly. Only time will tell, but as Jim Kim, MD, PhD, has stated so well, there is still time for social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.10 There is still time for us, for our loved ones, for our hospital systems, and for our public health system.
Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Lippert is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Mr. Payne is the associate vice president of Wake Forest Baptist Health. He is responsible for engineering, facilities planning & design as well as environmental health and safety departments. Dr. Pariyadath is comedical director of the Patient Flow Operations Center which facilitates patient placement throughout the Wake Forest Baptist Health system. He is also the associate medical director for the adult emergency department. Dr. Sunkara is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. He is the medical director for hospital medicine units and the newly established PUI unit.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Julie Freischlag, MD; Kevin High, MD, MS; Gary Rosenthal, MD; Wayne Meredith, MD;Russ Howerton, MD; Mike Waid, Andrea Fernandez, MD; Brian Hiestand, MD; the Wake Forest Baptist Health System COVID-19 task force, the Operations Center, and the countless frontline staff at all five hospitals within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.
References
1. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020 June 30. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.
2. Holshue et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 929-36.
3. Fuller T, Baker M. Coronavirus death in California came weeks before first known U.S. death. New York Times. 2020 Apr 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-first-united-states-death.html.
4. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map. Accessed 2020 May 28.
5. Michaud J et al. COVID-19 models: Can they tell us what we want to know? 2020 April 16. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-policy-watch/covid-19-models.
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed 2020 June 30.
7. Jewell N et al. Caution warranted: Using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model for predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1-3.
8. Box G. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;71:791-9.
9. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-34.
10. Kim J. It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus. The New Yorker. 2020 Apr 20. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/its-not-too-late-to-go-on-offense-against-the-coronavirus.
Infants around the world with bronchiolitis received excess tests despite guidelines
While guidelines for bronchiolitis aim to reduce gratuitous tests and treatments, one-third of infants presenting at EDs with bronchiolitis receive an unnecessary intervention, according to a new global study.
For infants with symptoms of bronchiolitis, viral testing, blood tests, and chest x-rays are discouraged in most cases. Antibiotics are not recommended as treatment.
In a study published in Pediatrics, Amy Zipursky, MD, of the Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto, and colleagues, reviewed records for 2,359 infants aged 2-11 months diagnosed with bronchiolitis during the year 2013. The data came from a network of 38 EDs in the Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Dr. Zipursky and colleagues found that, while 8% of infants in the cohort had been treated with antibiotics, 33% had received at least one nonrecommended test, with rates ranging widely across regions. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, for example, only 15% received such a test, compared with 50% in Spain and Portugal.
Of the children given antibiotics, two-thirds had suspected bacterial infections, the researchers found. Antibiotic use was highest in the United States, at 11% of infants seen for bronchiolitis, and lowest in the United Kingdom and Ireland at 4%. Administration of chest x-rays – which occurred in nearly a quarter of the cohort – increased the likelihood of antibiotics being administered (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-3.24) independent of fever or severe symptoms.
The most common nonrecommended tests performed in the study were:
- Nasopharyngeal viral testing without admission to hospital (n = 591).
- Chest x-ray without ICU admission (n = 507).
- Complete blood counts (n = 222).
- Blood cultures (n = 129).
- Urinalysis in the absence of fever (n = 86).
- Febrile infants 3 months of age or less had blood cultures (n = 49).
In some treatment centers the rate of nonrecommended tests performed was 6%, while others saw rates of 74%.
“Despite the evidence that laboratory testing rarely impacts bronchiolitis management and that bacterial infections in bronchiolitis are uncommon, our study reveals that these tests continue to be performed frequently in many parts of the world,” Dr. Zipursky and colleagues wrote in their analysis.
“Plausible reasons may include ‘automatic’ blood draws with intravenous placement, uncertainty about institutional policies, perceived need for reassurance about the diagnosis, perception of ‘doing something,’ and parental desire for a viral label,” the authors surmised. “Because parental pressure to provide interventions may be a driver of care in infants with bronchiolitis in some countries, ED clinicians need to have higher confidence in the evidence-based bronchiolitis care and convey this trust to families.”
The researchers listed among the weaknesses of their study its retrospective design, and that results from x-rays and lab tests performed were not available.
In an editorial comment accompanying the study, Joseph J. Zorc, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, noted that some of the regional differences seen in the study may be attributable to different clinical criteria used to diagnose bronchiolitis. In the United Kingdom, for example, national guidelines include the presence of crackles, while in North America guidelines focus on wheeze. “Perhaps clinicians in the United Kingdom accept the presence of crackles as an expected finding in infant with bronchiolitis and are less likely to order imaging,” Dr. Zorc said (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146[2]:e20193684).
He also pointed out that the coronavirus pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID- 19) could have an impact on global testing and treatment practices for bronchiolitis, as coronaviruses are a known cause of bronchiolitis. The Pediatric Emergency Research Network, comprising the 38 EDs from which Dr. Zipursky and colleagues drew their data, is conducting a prospective study looking at pediatric disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.
The “collaboration of international networks of pediatric emergency providers is an encouraging sign of potential opportunities to come ... [providing] an opportunity to evaluate variation that can lead to innovation,” Dr. Zorc concluded.
Dr. Zipursky and colleagues reported no external funding or relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zorc reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Zipursky A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146(2):e2020002311.
While guidelines for bronchiolitis aim to reduce gratuitous tests and treatments, one-third of infants presenting at EDs with bronchiolitis receive an unnecessary intervention, according to a new global study.
For infants with symptoms of bronchiolitis, viral testing, blood tests, and chest x-rays are discouraged in most cases. Antibiotics are not recommended as treatment.
In a study published in Pediatrics, Amy Zipursky, MD, of the Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto, and colleagues, reviewed records for 2,359 infants aged 2-11 months diagnosed with bronchiolitis during the year 2013. The data came from a network of 38 EDs in the Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Dr. Zipursky and colleagues found that, while 8% of infants in the cohort had been treated with antibiotics, 33% had received at least one nonrecommended test, with rates ranging widely across regions. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, for example, only 15% received such a test, compared with 50% in Spain and Portugal.
Of the children given antibiotics, two-thirds had suspected bacterial infections, the researchers found. Antibiotic use was highest in the United States, at 11% of infants seen for bronchiolitis, and lowest in the United Kingdom and Ireland at 4%. Administration of chest x-rays – which occurred in nearly a quarter of the cohort – increased the likelihood of antibiotics being administered (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-3.24) independent of fever or severe symptoms.
The most common nonrecommended tests performed in the study were:
- Nasopharyngeal viral testing without admission to hospital (n = 591).
- Chest x-ray without ICU admission (n = 507).
- Complete blood counts (n = 222).
- Blood cultures (n = 129).
- Urinalysis in the absence of fever (n = 86).
- Febrile infants 3 months of age or less had blood cultures (n = 49).
In some treatment centers the rate of nonrecommended tests performed was 6%, while others saw rates of 74%.
“Despite the evidence that laboratory testing rarely impacts bronchiolitis management and that bacterial infections in bronchiolitis are uncommon, our study reveals that these tests continue to be performed frequently in many parts of the world,” Dr. Zipursky and colleagues wrote in their analysis.
“Plausible reasons may include ‘automatic’ blood draws with intravenous placement, uncertainty about institutional policies, perceived need for reassurance about the diagnosis, perception of ‘doing something,’ and parental desire for a viral label,” the authors surmised. “Because parental pressure to provide interventions may be a driver of care in infants with bronchiolitis in some countries, ED clinicians need to have higher confidence in the evidence-based bronchiolitis care and convey this trust to families.”
The researchers listed among the weaknesses of their study its retrospective design, and that results from x-rays and lab tests performed were not available.
In an editorial comment accompanying the study, Joseph J. Zorc, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, noted that some of the regional differences seen in the study may be attributable to different clinical criteria used to diagnose bronchiolitis. In the United Kingdom, for example, national guidelines include the presence of crackles, while in North America guidelines focus on wheeze. “Perhaps clinicians in the United Kingdom accept the presence of crackles as an expected finding in infant with bronchiolitis and are less likely to order imaging,” Dr. Zorc said (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146[2]:e20193684).
He also pointed out that the coronavirus pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID- 19) could have an impact on global testing and treatment practices for bronchiolitis, as coronaviruses are a known cause of bronchiolitis. The Pediatric Emergency Research Network, comprising the 38 EDs from which Dr. Zipursky and colleagues drew their data, is conducting a prospective study looking at pediatric disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.
The “collaboration of international networks of pediatric emergency providers is an encouraging sign of potential opportunities to come ... [providing] an opportunity to evaluate variation that can lead to innovation,” Dr. Zorc concluded.
Dr. Zipursky and colleagues reported no external funding or relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zorc reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Zipursky A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146(2):e2020002311.
While guidelines for bronchiolitis aim to reduce gratuitous tests and treatments, one-third of infants presenting at EDs with bronchiolitis receive an unnecessary intervention, according to a new global study.
For infants with symptoms of bronchiolitis, viral testing, blood tests, and chest x-rays are discouraged in most cases. Antibiotics are not recommended as treatment.
In a study published in Pediatrics, Amy Zipursky, MD, of the Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto, and colleagues, reviewed records for 2,359 infants aged 2-11 months diagnosed with bronchiolitis during the year 2013. The data came from a network of 38 EDs in the Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Dr. Zipursky and colleagues found that, while 8% of infants in the cohort had been treated with antibiotics, 33% had received at least one nonrecommended test, with rates ranging widely across regions. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, for example, only 15% received such a test, compared with 50% in Spain and Portugal.
Of the children given antibiotics, two-thirds had suspected bacterial infections, the researchers found. Antibiotic use was highest in the United States, at 11% of infants seen for bronchiolitis, and lowest in the United Kingdom and Ireland at 4%. Administration of chest x-rays – which occurred in nearly a quarter of the cohort – increased the likelihood of antibiotics being administered (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-3.24) independent of fever or severe symptoms.
The most common nonrecommended tests performed in the study were:
- Nasopharyngeal viral testing without admission to hospital (n = 591).
- Chest x-ray without ICU admission (n = 507).
- Complete blood counts (n = 222).
- Blood cultures (n = 129).
- Urinalysis in the absence of fever (n = 86).
- Febrile infants 3 months of age or less had blood cultures (n = 49).
In some treatment centers the rate of nonrecommended tests performed was 6%, while others saw rates of 74%.
“Despite the evidence that laboratory testing rarely impacts bronchiolitis management and that bacterial infections in bronchiolitis are uncommon, our study reveals that these tests continue to be performed frequently in many parts of the world,” Dr. Zipursky and colleagues wrote in their analysis.
“Plausible reasons may include ‘automatic’ blood draws with intravenous placement, uncertainty about institutional policies, perceived need for reassurance about the diagnosis, perception of ‘doing something,’ and parental desire for a viral label,” the authors surmised. “Because parental pressure to provide interventions may be a driver of care in infants with bronchiolitis in some countries, ED clinicians need to have higher confidence in the evidence-based bronchiolitis care and convey this trust to families.”
The researchers listed among the weaknesses of their study its retrospective design, and that results from x-rays and lab tests performed were not available.
In an editorial comment accompanying the study, Joseph J. Zorc, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, noted that some of the regional differences seen in the study may be attributable to different clinical criteria used to diagnose bronchiolitis. In the United Kingdom, for example, national guidelines include the presence of crackles, while in North America guidelines focus on wheeze. “Perhaps clinicians in the United Kingdom accept the presence of crackles as an expected finding in infant with bronchiolitis and are less likely to order imaging,” Dr. Zorc said (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146[2]:e20193684).
He also pointed out that the coronavirus pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID- 19) could have an impact on global testing and treatment practices for bronchiolitis, as coronaviruses are a known cause of bronchiolitis. The Pediatric Emergency Research Network, comprising the 38 EDs from which Dr. Zipursky and colleagues drew their data, is conducting a prospective study looking at pediatric disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.
The “collaboration of international networks of pediatric emergency providers is an encouraging sign of potential opportunities to come ... [providing] an opportunity to evaluate variation that can lead to innovation,” Dr. Zorc concluded.
Dr. Zipursky and colleagues reported no external funding or relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zorc reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Zipursky A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146(2):e2020002311.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: In a global cohort, 33% of infants received at least one nonrecommended test, most commonly viral tests, chest x-rays, and blood cultures.
Study details: A retrospective cohort of 2,359 infants aged 2-11 months seen in 38 EDs in developed countries.
Disclosures: Dr. Zipursky and colleagues reported no external funding or relevant financial disclosures.
Source: Zipursky A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146(2):e2020002311.
Children rarely transmit SARS-CoV-2 within households
“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.
In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.
In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said
In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.
The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.
Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).
The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.
In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.
the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”
“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.
“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.
In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.
In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said
In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.
The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.
Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).
The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.
In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.
the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”
“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.
“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.
In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.
In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said
In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.
The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.
Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).
The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.
In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.
the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”
“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Despite guidelines, children receive opioids and steroids for pneumonia and sinusitis
A significant percentage of children receive opioids and systemic corticosteroids for pneumonia and sinusitis despite guidelines, according to an analysis of 2016 Medicaid data from South Carolina.
Prescriptions for these drugs were more likely after visits to EDs than after ambulatory visits, researchers reported in Pediatrics.
“Each of the 828 opioid and 2,737 systemic steroid prescriptions in the data set represent a potentially inappropriate prescription,” wrote Karina G. Phang, MD, MPH, of Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., and colleagues. “These rates appear excessive given that the use of these medications is not supported by available research or recommended in national guidelines.”
To compare the frequency of opioid and corticosteroid prescriptions for children with pneumonia or sinusitis in ED and ambulatory care settings, the investigators studied 2016 South Carolina Medicaid claims, examining data for patients aged 5-18 years with pneumonia or sinusitis. They excluded children with chronic conditions and acute secondary diagnoses with potentially appropriate indications for steroids, such as asthma. They also excluded children seen at more than one type of clinical location or hospitalized within a week of the visit. Only the primary diagnosis of pneumonia or sinusitis during the first visit of the year for each patient was included.
The researchers included data from 31,838 children in the study, including 2,140 children with pneumonia and 29,698 with sinusitis.
Pneumonia was linked to an opioid prescription in 6% of ED visits (34 of 542) and 1.5% of ambulatory visits (24 of 1,590) (P ≤ .0001). Pneumonia was linked to a steroid prescription in 20% of ED visits (106 of 542) and 12% of ambulatory visits (196 of 1,590) (P ≤ .0001).
Sinusitis was linked to an opioid prescription in 7.5% of ED visits (202 of 2,705) and 2% of ambulatory visits (568 of 26,866) (P ≤ .0001). Sinusitis was linked to a steroid prescription in 19% of ED visits (510 of 2,705) and 7% of ambulatory visits (1,922 of 26,866) (P ≤ .0001).
In logistic regression analyses, ED visits for pneumonia or sinusitis were more than four times more likely to result in children receiving opioids, relative to ambulatory visits (adjusted odds ratio, 4.69 and 4.02, respectively). ED visits also were more likely to result in steroid prescriptions, with aORs of 1.67 for pneumonia and 3.05 for sinusitis.
“I was disappointed to read of these results, although not necessarily surprised,” Michael E. Pichichero, MD, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital, said in an interview.
The data suggest that improved prescribing practices may be needed, “especially in the ED,” wrote Dr. Phang and colleagues. “Although more children who are acutely ill may be seen in the ED, national practice guidelines and research remain relevant for these patients.”
Repeated or prolonged courses of systemic corticosteroids put children at risk for adrenal suppression and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis dysfunction. “Providers for children must also be aware of the trends in opioid abuse and diversion and must mitigate those risks while still providing adequate analgesia and symptom control,” they wrote.
The use of Medicaid data from 1 year in one state limits the generalizability of the findings. Nevertheless, the visits occurred “well after publication of relevant guidelines and after concerns of opioid prescribing had become widespread,” according to Dr. Phang and colleagues.
A post hoc evaluation identified one patient with a secondary diagnosis of fracture and 24 patients with a secondary diagnosis of pain, but none of these patients had received an opioid. “Thus, the small subset of patients who may have had secondary diagnoses that would warrant an opioid prescription would not have changed the overall results,” they wrote.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Phang KG et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 2. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3690.
A significant percentage of children receive opioids and systemic corticosteroids for pneumonia and sinusitis despite guidelines, according to an analysis of 2016 Medicaid data from South Carolina.
Prescriptions for these drugs were more likely after visits to EDs than after ambulatory visits, researchers reported in Pediatrics.
“Each of the 828 opioid and 2,737 systemic steroid prescriptions in the data set represent a potentially inappropriate prescription,” wrote Karina G. Phang, MD, MPH, of Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., and colleagues. “These rates appear excessive given that the use of these medications is not supported by available research or recommended in national guidelines.”
To compare the frequency of opioid and corticosteroid prescriptions for children with pneumonia or sinusitis in ED and ambulatory care settings, the investigators studied 2016 South Carolina Medicaid claims, examining data for patients aged 5-18 years with pneumonia or sinusitis. They excluded children with chronic conditions and acute secondary diagnoses with potentially appropriate indications for steroids, such as asthma. They also excluded children seen at more than one type of clinical location or hospitalized within a week of the visit. Only the primary diagnosis of pneumonia or sinusitis during the first visit of the year for each patient was included.
The researchers included data from 31,838 children in the study, including 2,140 children with pneumonia and 29,698 with sinusitis.
Pneumonia was linked to an opioid prescription in 6% of ED visits (34 of 542) and 1.5% of ambulatory visits (24 of 1,590) (P ≤ .0001). Pneumonia was linked to a steroid prescription in 20% of ED visits (106 of 542) and 12% of ambulatory visits (196 of 1,590) (P ≤ .0001).
Sinusitis was linked to an opioid prescription in 7.5% of ED visits (202 of 2,705) and 2% of ambulatory visits (568 of 26,866) (P ≤ .0001). Sinusitis was linked to a steroid prescription in 19% of ED visits (510 of 2,705) and 7% of ambulatory visits (1,922 of 26,866) (P ≤ .0001).
In logistic regression analyses, ED visits for pneumonia or sinusitis were more than four times more likely to result in children receiving opioids, relative to ambulatory visits (adjusted odds ratio, 4.69 and 4.02, respectively). ED visits also were more likely to result in steroid prescriptions, with aORs of 1.67 for pneumonia and 3.05 for sinusitis.
“I was disappointed to read of these results, although not necessarily surprised,” Michael E. Pichichero, MD, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital, said in an interview.
The data suggest that improved prescribing practices may be needed, “especially in the ED,” wrote Dr. Phang and colleagues. “Although more children who are acutely ill may be seen in the ED, national practice guidelines and research remain relevant for these patients.”
Repeated or prolonged courses of systemic corticosteroids put children at risk for adrenal suppression and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis dysfunction. “Providers for children must also be aware of the trends in opioid abuse and diversion and must mitigate those risks while still providing adequate analgesia and symptom control,” they wrote.
The use of Medicaid data from 1 year in one state limits the generalizability of the findings. Nevertheless, the visits occurred “well after publication of relevant guidelines and after concerns of opioid prescribing had become widespread,” according to Dr. Phang and colleagues.
A post hoc evaluation identified one patient with a secondary diagnosis of fracture and 24 patients with a secondary diagnosis of pain, but none of these patients had received an opioid. “Thus, the small subset of patients who may have had secondary diagnoses that would warrant an opioid prescription would not have changed the overall results,” they wrote.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Phang KG et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 2. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3690.
A significant percentage of children receive opioids and systemic corticosteroids for pneumonia and sinusitis despite guidelines, according to an analysis of 2016 Medicaid data from South Carolina.
Prescriptions for these drugs were more likely after visits to EDs than after ambulatory visits, researchers reported in Pediatrics.
“Each of the 828 opioid and 2,737 systemic steroid prescriptions in the data set represent a potentially inappropriate prescription,” wrote Karina G. Phang, MD, MPH, of Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., and colleagues. “These rates appear excessive given that the use of these medications is not supported by available research or recommended in national guidelines.”
To compare the frequency of opioid and corticosteroid prescriptions for children with pneumonia or sinusitis in ED and ambulatory care settings, the investigators studied 2016 South Carolina Medicaid claims, examining data for patients aged 5-18 years with pneumonia or sinusitis. They excluded children with chronic conditions and acute secondary diagnoses with potentially appropriate indications for steroids, such as asthma. They also excluded children seen at more than one type of clinical location or hospitalized within a week of the visit. Only the primary diagnosis of pneumonia or sinusitis during the first visit of the year for each patient was included.
The researchers included data from 31,838 children in the study, including 2,140 children with pneumonia and 29,698 with sinusitis.
Pneumonia was linked to an opioid prescription in 6% of ED visits (34 of 542) and 1.5% of ambulatory visits (24 of 1,590) (P ≤ .0001). Pneumonia was linked to a steroid prescription in 20% of ED visits (106 of 542) and 12% of ambulatory visits (196 of 1,590) (P ≤ .0001).
Sinusitis was linked to an opioid prescription in 7.5% of ED visits (202 of 2,705) and 2% of ambulatory visits (568 of 26,866) (P ≤ .0001). Sinusitis was linked to a steroid prescription in 19% of ED visits (510 of 2,705) and 7% of ambulatory visits (1,922 of 26,866) (P ≤ .0001).
In logistic regression analyses, ED visits for pneumonia or sinusitis were more than four times more likely to result in children receiving opioids, relative to ambulatory visits (adjusted odds ratio, 4.69 and 4.02, respectively). ED visits also were more likely to result in steroid prescriptions, with aORs of 1.67 for pneumonia and 3.05 for sinusitis.
“I was disappointed to read of these results, although not necessarily surprised,” Michael E. Pichichero, MD, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital, said in an interview.
The data suggest that improved prescribing practices may be needed, “especially in the ED,” wrote Dr. Phang and colleagues. “Although more children who are acutely ill may be seen in the ED, national practice guidelines and research remain relevant for these patients.”
Repeated or prolonged courses of systemic corticosteroids put children at risk for adrenal suppression and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis dysfunction. “Providers for children must also be aware of the trends in opioid abuse and diversion and must mitigate those risks while still providing adequate analgesia and symptom control,” they wrote.
The use of Medicaid data from 1 year in one state limits the generalizability of the findings. Nevertheless, the visits occurred “well after publication of relevant guidelines and after concerns of opioid prescribing had become widespread,” according to Dr. Phang and colleagues.
A post hoc evaluation identified one patient with a secondary diagnosis of fracture and 24 patients with a secondary diagnosis of pain, but none of these patients had received an opioid. “Thus, the small subset of patients who may have had secondary diagnoses that would warrant an opioid prescription would not have changed the overall results,” they wrote.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Phang KG et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 2. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3690.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Diagnostic criteria may miss some MIS-C cases, experts say
New data from active surveillance of the severe inflammatory condition associated with COVID-19 in previously healthy children provide further insight into the prevalence and course of the rare syndrome, but experts are concerned that current diagnostic criteria may not capture the true scope of the problem.
In separate reports published online June 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers from the New York State Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describe the epidemiology and clinical features of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) on the basis of information derived from targeted surveillance programs in New York State and across the country.
For the New York study, Elizabeth M. Dufort, MD, from the New York Department of Health in Albany and colleagues analyzed MIS-C surveillance data from 106 hospitals across the state. Of 191 suspected MIS-C cases reported to the Department of Health from March 1 through May 10, 99 met the state’s interim case definition of the condition and were included in the analysis.
The incidence rate for MIS-C was two cases per 100,000 individuals younger than 21 years, whereas the incidence rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases in this age group was 322 per 100,000. Most cases occurred approximately 1 month after the state’s COVID-19 peak.
“Among our patients, predominantly from the New York Metropolitan Region, 40% were black and 36% were Hispanic. This may be a reflection of the well-documented elevated incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among black and Hispanic communities,” the authors report.
All children presented with fever or chills, and most had tachycardia (97%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (80%). Rash (60%), conjunctival infection (56%), hypotension (32%), and mucosal changes (27%) were reported. Among all of the children, levels of inflammatory markers were elevated, including levels of C-reactive protein (100%), D-dimer (91%), and troponin (71%). More than one third of the patients (36%) were diagnosed with myocarditis, and an additional 16% had clinical myocarditis.
Of the full cohort, 80% of the children required intensive care, 62% received vasopressor support, and two children died.
The high prevalence of cardiac dysfunction or depression, coagulopathy, gastrointestinal symptoms, mild respiratory symptoms, and indications for supplemental oxygen in patients with MIS-C stands in contrast to the clinical picture observed in most acute cases of COVID-19 in hospitalized children, the authors write.
“Although most children have mild or no illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, MIS-C may follow Covid-19 or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recognition of the syndrome and early identification of children with MIS-C, including early monitoring of blood pressure and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic evaluation, could inform appropriate supportive care and other potential therapeutic options,” they continue.
The incidence of MIS-C among children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is unclear because children with COVID-19 often have mild or no symptoms and because children are not tested as frequently, the authors state. For this reason, “[i]t is crucial to establish surveillance for MIS-C cases, particularly in communities with higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”
Important Differences From Kawasaki Disease
In a separate study, Leora R. Feldstein, MD, of the CDC, and colleagues report 186 cases of MIS-C collected through targeted surveillance of pediatric health centers in 26 US states from March 15 to May 20, 2020. As with the New York cohort, a disproportionate number of children in this cohort were black (25%) and Hispanic or Latino (31%).
Similar to the New York cohort, 80% of the children in this group required intensive care, 48% received vasoactive support, 20% required invasive mechanical ventilation, and four children died. Skin rashes, gastrointestinal symptoms, cardiovascular and hematologic effects, mucous changes, and elevations of inflammatory biomarkers were also similarly observed.
The researchers note that, although many of the features of MIS-C overlap with Kawasaki disease, there are some important differences, particularly with respect to the nature of cardiovascular involvement. “Approximately 5% of children with Kawasaki’s disease in the United States present with cardiovascular shock leading to vasopressor or inotropic support, as compared with 50% of the patients in our series,” the authors write.
In addition, coronary-artery aneurysms affect approximately one quarter of Kawasaki disease patients within 21 days of disease onset. “In our series, a maximum z score of 2.5 or higher in the left anterior descending or right coronary artery was reported in 8% of the patients overall and in 9% of patients with echocardiograms,” they report.
Additional differentiating features include patient age and race/ethnicity. Kawasaki disease occurs most commonly in children younger than 5 years. The median age in the multistate study was 8.3 years, and nearly half of the children in the New York cohort were in the 6- to 12-year age group. Further, Kawasaki disease is disproportionately prevalent in children of Asian descent.
Despite the differences, “until more is known about long-term cardiac sequelae of MIS-C, providers could consider following Kawasaki’s disease guidelines for follow-up, which recommend repeat echocardiographic imaging at 1 to 2 weeks.”
As was the case in the New York series, treatment in the multistate cohort most commonly included intravenous immunoglobulin and systemic glucocorticoids. Optimal management, however, will require a better understanding of the pathogenesis of MIS-C, Feldstein and colleagues write.
Questions Remain
With the accumulating data on this syndrome, the MIS-C picture seems to be getting incrementally clearer, but there is still much uncertainty, according to Michael Levin, FMedSci, PhD, from the Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, United Kingdom.
“The recognition and description of new diseases often resemble the parable of the blind men and the elephant, with each declaring that the part of the beast they have touched fully defines it,” he writes in an accompanying editorial.
“As the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has evolved, case reports have appeared describing children with unusual febrile illnesses that have features of Kawasaki’s disease, toxic shock syndrome, acute abdominal conditions, and encephalopathy, along with other reports of children with fever, elevated inflammatory markers, and multisystem involvement. It is now apparent that these reports were describing different clinical presentations of a new childhood inflammatory disorder.”
Although a consistent clinical picture is emerging, “[t]he published reports have used a variety of hastily developed case definitions based on the most severe cases, possibly missing less serious cases,” Levin writes. In particular, both the CDC and World Health Organization definitions require evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or exposure, which might contribute to underrecognition and underreporting because asymptomatic infections are common and antibody testing is not universally available.
“There is concern that children meeting current diagnostic criteria for MIS-C are the ‘tip of the iceberg,’ and a bigger problem may be lurking below the waterline,” Levin states. With approximately 1000 cases of the syndrome reported worldwide, “do we now have a clear picture of the new disorder, or as in the story of the blind men and the elephant, has only part of the beast been described?”
Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, who is a coauthor of the multistate report, agrees that there is still much to learn about MIS-C before the whole beast can be understood. In an interview with Medscape Medical News, she listed the following key questions that have yet to be answered:
- Why do some children get MIS-C and not others?
- What is the long-term outcome of children with MIS-C?
- How can we differentiate MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection in children with respiratory failure?
- Does MIS-C occur in young adults?
Randolph said her team is taking the best path forward toward answering these questions, including conducting a second study to identify risk factors for MIS-C and longer-term follow-up studies with the National Institutes of Health. “We are also getting consent to collect blood samples and look at other tests to help distinguish MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection,” she said. She encouraged heightened awareness among physicians who care for young adults to consider MIS-C in patients aged 21 years and older who present with similar signs and symptoms.
On the basis of the answers to these and additional questions, the case definitions for MIS-C may need refinement to capture the wider spectrum of illness, Levin writes in his editorial. “The challenges of this new condition will now be to understand its pathophysiological mechanisms, to develop diagnostics, and to define the best treatment.”
Kleinman has received grants from the Health Services Resources Administration outside the submitted work. Maddux has received grants from the NIH/NICHD and the Francis Family Foundation outside the submitted work. Randolph has received grants from Genentech and personal fees from La Jolla Pharma outside the submitted work and others from the CDC during the conduct of the study.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New data from active surveillance of the severe inflammatory condition associated with COVID-19 in previously healthy children provide further insight into the prevalence and course of the rare syndrome, but experts are concerned that current diagnostic criteria may not capture the true scope of the problem.
In separate reports published online June 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers from the New York State Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describe the epidemiology and clinical features of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) on the basis of information derived from targeted surveillance programs in New York State and across the country.
For the New York study, Elizabeth M. Dufort, MD, from the New York Department of Health in Albany and colleagues analyzed MIS-C surveillance data from 106 hospitals across the state. Of 191 suspected MIS-C cases reported to the Department of Health from March 1 through May 10, 99 met the state’s interim case definition of the condition and were included in the analysis.
The incidence rate for MIS-C was two cases per 100,000 individuals younger than 21 years, whereas the incidence rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases in this age group was 322 per 100,000. Most cases occurred approximately 1 month after the state’s COVID-19 peak.
“Among our patients, predominantly from the New York Metropolitan Region, 40% were black and 36% were Hispanic. This may be a reflection of the well-documented elevated incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among black and Hispanic communities,” the authors report.
All children presented with fever or chills, and most had tachycardia (97%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (80%). Rash (60%), conjunctival infection (56%), hypotension (32%), and mucosal changes (27%) were reported. Among all of the children, levels of inflammatory markers were elevated, including levels of C-reactive protein (100%), D-dimer (91%), and troponin (71%). More than one third of the patients (36%) were diagnosed with myocarditis, and an additional 16% had clinical myocarditis.
Of the full cohort, 80% of the children required intensive care, 62% received vasopressor support, and two children died.
The high prevalence of cardiac dysfunction or depression, coagulopathy, gastrointestinal symptoms, mild respiratory symptoms, and indications for supplemental oxygen in patients with MIS-C stands in contrast to the clinical picture observed in most acute cases of COVID-19 in hospitalized children, the authors write.
“Although most children have mild or no illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, MIS-C may follow Covid-19 or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recognition of the syndrome and early identification of children with MIS-C, including early monitoring of blood pressure and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic evaluation, could inform appropriate supportive care and other potential therapeutic options,” they continue.
The incidence of MIS-C among children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is unclear because children with COVID-19 often have mild or no symptoms and because children are not tested as frequently, the authors state. For this reason, “[i]t is crucial to establish surveillance for MIS-C cases, particularly in communities with higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”
Important Differences From Kawasaki Disease
In a separate study, Leora R. Feldstein, MD, of the CDC, and colleagues report 186 cases of MIS-C collected through targeted surveillance of pediatric health centers in 26 US states from March 15 to May 20, 2020. As with the New York cohort, a disproportionate number of children in this cohort were black (25%) and Hispanic or Latino (31%).
Similar to the New York cohort, 80% of the children in this group required intensive care, 48% received vasoactive support, 20% required invasive mechanical ventilation, and four children died. Skin rashes, gastrointestinal symptoms, cardiovascular and hematologic effects, mucous changes, and elevations of inflammatory biomarkers were also similarly observed.
The researchers note that, although many of the features of MIS-C overlap with Kawasaki disease, there are some important differences, particularly with respect to the nature of cardiovascular involvement. “Approximately 5% of children with Kawasaki’s disease in the United States present with cardiovascular shock leading to vasopressor or inotropic support, as compared with 50% of the patients in our series,” the authors write.
In addition, coronary-artery aneurysms affect approximately one quarter of Kawasaki disease patients within 21 days of disease onset. “In our series, a maximum z score of 2.5 or higher in the left anterior descending or right coronary artery was reported in 8% of the patients overall and in 9% of patients with echocardiograms,” they report.
Additional differentiating features include patient age and race/ethnicity. Kawasaki disease occurs most commonly in children younger than 5 years. The median age in the multistate study was 8.3 years, and nearly half of the children in the New York cohort were in the 6- to 12-year age group. Further, Kawasaki disease is disproportionately prevalent in children of Asian descent.
Despite the differences, “until more is known about long-term cardiac sequelae of MIS-C, providers could consider following Kawasaki’s disease guidelines for follow-up, which recommend repeat echocardiographic imaging at 1 to 2 weeks.”
As was the case in the New York series, treatment in the multistate cohort most commonly included intravenous immunoglobulin and systemic glucocorticoids. Optimal management, however, will require a better understanding of the pathogenesis of MIS-C, Feldstein and colleagues write.
Questions Remain
With the accumulating data on this syndrome, the MIS-C picture seems to be getting incrementally clearer, but there is still much uncertainty, according to Michael Levin, FMedSci, PhD, from the Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, United Kingdom.
“The recognition and description of new diseases often resemble the parable of the blind men and the elephant, with each declaring that the part of the beast they have touched fully defines it,” he writes in an accompanying editorial.
“As the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has evolved, case reports have appeared describing children with unusual febrile illnesses that have features of Kawasaki’s disease, toxic shock syndrome, acute abdominal conditions, and encephalopathy, along with other reports of children with fever, elevated inflammatory markers, and multisystem involvement. It is now apparent that these reports were describing different clinical presentations of a new childhood inflammatory disorder.”
Although a consistent clinical picture is emerging, “[t]he published reports have used a variety of hastily developed case definitions based on the most severe cases, possibly missing less serious cases,” Levin writes. In particular, both the CDC and World Health Organization definitions require evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or exposure, which might contribute to underrecognition and underreporting because asymptomatic infections are common and antibody testing is not universally available.
“There is concern that children meeting current diagnostic criteria for MIS-C are the ‘tip of the iceberg,’ and a bigger problem may be lurking below the waterline,” Levin states. With approximately 1000 cases of the syndrome reported worldwide, “do we now have a clear picture of the new disorder, or as in the story of the blind men and the elephant, has only part of the beast been described?”
Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, who is a coauthor of the multistate report, agrees that there is still much to learn about MIS-C before the whole beast can be understood. In an interview with Medscape Medical News, she listed the following key questions that have yet to be answered:
- Why do some children get MIS-C and not others?
- What is the long-term outcome of children with MIS-C?
- How can we differentiate MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection in children with respiratory failure?
- Does MIS-C occur in young adults?
Randolph said her team is taking the best path forward toward answering these questions, including conducting a second study to identify risk factors for MIS-C and longer-term follow-up studies with the National Institutes of Health. “We are also getting consent to collect blood samples and look at other tests to help distinguish MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection,” she said. She encouraged heightened awareness among physicians who care for young adults to consider MIS-C in patients aged 21 years and older who present with similar signs and symptoms.
On the basis of the answers to these and additional questions, the case definitions for MIS-C may need refinement to capture the wider spectrum of illness, Levin writes in his editorial. “The challenges of this new condition will now be to understand its pathophysiological mechanisms, to develop diagnostics, and to define the best treatment.”
Kleinman has received grants from the Health Services Resources Administration outside the submitted work. Maddux has received grants from the NIH/NICHD and the Francis Family Foundation outside the submitted work. Randolph has received grants from Genentech and personal fees from La Jolla Pharma outside the submitted work and others from the CDC during the conduct of the study.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New data from active surveillance of the severe inflammatory condition associated with COVID-19 in previously healthy children provide further insight into the prevalence and course of the rare syndrome, but experts are concerned that current diagnostic criteria may not capture the true scope of the problem.
In separate reports published online June 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers from the New York State Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describe the epidemiology and clinical features of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) on the basis of information derived from targeted surveillance programs in New York State and across the country.
For the New York study, Elizabeth M. Dufort, MD, from the New York Department of Health in Albany and colleagues analyzed MIS-C surveillance data from 106 hospitals across the state. Of 191 suspected MIS-C cases reported to the Department of Health from March 1 through May 10, 99 met the state’s interim case definition of the condition and were included in the analysis.
The incidence rate for MIS-C was two cases per 100,000 individuals younger than 21 years, whereas the incidence rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases in this age group was 322 per 100,000. Most cases occurred approximately 1 month after the state’s COVID-19 peak.
“Among our patients, predominantly from the New York Metropolitan Region, 40% were black and 36% were Hispanic. This may be a reflection of the well-documented elevated incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among black and Hispanic communities,” the authors report.
All children presented with fever or chills, and most had tachycardia (97%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (80%). Rash (60%), conjunctival infection (56%), hypotension (32%), and mucosal changes (27%) were reported. Among all of the children, levels of inflammatory markers were elevated, including levels of C-reactive protein (100%), D-dimer (91%), and troponin (71%). More than one third of the patients (36%) were diagnosed with myocarditis, and an additional 16% had clinical myocarditis.
Of the full cohort, 80% of the children required intensive care, 62% received vasopressor support, and two children died.
The high prevalence of cardiac dysfunction or depression, coagulopathy, gastrointestinal symptoms, mild respiratory symptoms, and indications for supplemental oxygen in patients with MIS-C stands in contrast to the clinical picture observed in most acute cases of COVID-19 in hospitalized children, the authors write.
“Although most children have mild or no illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, MIS-C may follow Covid-19 or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recognition of the syndrome and early identification of children with MIS-C, including early monitoring of blood pressure and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic evaluation, could inform appropriate supportive care and other potential therapeutic options,” they continue.
The incidence of MIS-C among children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is unclear because children with COVID-19 often have mild or no symptoms and because children are not tested as frequently, the authors state. For this reason, “[i]t is crucial to establish surveillance for MIS-C cases, particularly in communities with higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”
Important Differences From Kawasaki Disease
In a separate study, Leora R. Feldstein, MD, of the CDC, and colleagues report 186 cases of MIS-C collected through targeted surveillance of pediatric health centers in 26 US states from March 15 to May 20, 2020. As with the New York cohort, a disproportionate number of children in this cohort were black (25%) and Hispanic or Latino (31%).
Similar to the New York cohort, 80% of the children in this group required intensive care, 48% received vasoactive support, 20% required invasive mechanical ventilation, and four children died. Skin rashes, gastrointestinal symptoms, cardiovascular and hematologic effects, mucous changes, and elevations of inflammatory biomarkers were also similarly observed.
The researchers note that, although many of the features of MIS-C overlap with Kawasaki disease, there are some important differences, particularly with respect to the nature of cardiovascular involvement. “Approximately 5% of children with Kawasaki’s disease in the United States present with cardiovascular shock leading to vasopressor or inotropic support, as compared with 50% of the patients in our series,” the authors write.
In addition, coronary-artery aneurysms affect approximately one quarter of Kawasaki disease patients within 21 days of disease onset. “In our series, a maximum z score of 2.5 or higher in the left anterior descending or right coronary artery was reported in 8% of the patients overall and in 9% of patients with echocardiograms,” they report.
Additional differentiating features include patient age and race/ethnicity. Kawasaki disease occurs most commonly in children younger than 5 years. The median age in the multistate study was 8.3 years, and nearly half of the children in the New York cohort were in the 6- to 12-year age group. Further, Kawasaki disease is disproportionately prevalent in children of Asian descent.
Despite the differences, “until more is known about long-term cardiac sequelae of MIS-C, providers could consider following Kawasaki’s disease guidelines for follow-up, which recommend repeat echocardiographic imaging at 1 to 2 weeks.”
As was the case in the New York series, treatment in the multistate cohort most commonly included intravenous immunoglobulin and systemic glucocorticoids. Optimal management, however, will require a better understanding of the pathogenesis of MIS-C, Feldstein and colleagues write.
Questions Remain
With the accumulating data on this syndrome, the MIS-C picture seems to be getting incrementally clearer, but there is still much uncertainty, according to Michael Levin, FMedSci, PhD, from the Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, United Kingdom.
“The recognition and description of new diseases often resemble the parable of the blind men and the elephant, with each declaring that the part of the beast they have touched fully defines it,” he writes in an accompanying editorial.
“As the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has evolved, case reports have appeared describing children with unusual febrile illnesses that have features of Kawasaki’s disease, toxic shock syndrome, acute abdominal conditions, and encephalopathy, along with other reports of children with fever, elevated inflammatory markers, and multisystem involvement. It is now apparent that these reports were describing different clinical presentations of a new childhood inflammatory disorder.”
Although a consistent clinical picture is emerging, “[t]he published reports have used a variety of hastily developed case definitions based on the most severe cases, possibly missing less serious cases,” Levin writes. In particular, both the CDC and World Health Organization definitions require evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or exposure, which might contribute to underrecognition and underreporting because asymptomatic infections are common and antibody testing is not universally available.
“There is concern that children meeting current diagnostic criteria for MIS-C are the ‘tip of the iceberg,’ and a bigger problem may be lurking below the waterline,” Levin states. With approximately 1000 cases of the syndrome reported worldwide, “do we now have a clear picture of the new disorder, or as in the story of the blind men and the elephant, has only part of the beast been described?”
Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, who is a coauthor of the multistate report, agrees that there is still much to learn about MIS-C before the whole beast can be understood. In an interview with Medscape Medical News, she listed the following key questions that have yet to be answered:
- Why do some children get MIS-C and not others?
- What is the long-term outcome of children with MIS-C?
- How can we differentiate MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection in children with respiratory failure?
- Does MIS-C occur in young adults?
Randolph said her team is taking the best path forward toward answering these questions, including conducting a second study to identify risk factors for MIS-C and longer-term follow-up studies with the National Institutes of Health. “We are also getting consent to collect blood samples and look at other tests to help distinguish MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection,” she said. She encouraged heightened awareness among physicians who care for young adults to consider MIS-C in patients aged 21 years and older who present with similar signs and symptoms.
On the basis of the answers to these and additional questions, the case definitions for MIS-C may need refinement to capture the wider spectrum of illness, Levin writes in his editorial. “The challenges of this new condition will now be to understand its pathophysiological mechanisms, to develop diagnostics, and to define the best treatment.”
Kleinman has received grants from the Health Services Resources Administration outside the submitted work. Maddux has received grants from the NIH/NICHD and the Francis Family Foundation outside the submitted work. Randolph has received grants from Genentech and personal fees from La Jolla Pharma outside the submitted work and others from the CDC during the conduct of the study.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ACIP plans priority groups in advance of COVID-19 vaccine
according to Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
A COVID-19 vaccine work group is developing strategies and identifying priority groups for vaccination to help inform discussions about the use of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Mbaeyi said at a virtual meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
“Preparing for vaccination during a pandemic has long been a priority of the CDC and the U.S. government,” said Dr. Mbaeyi. The work group is building on a tiered approach to vaccination that was updated in 2018 after the H1N1 flu pandemic, with occupational and high-risk populations placed in the highest-priority groups, Dr. Mbaeyi said.
There are important differences between COVID-19 and influenza, Dr. Mbaeyi said. “Vaccine prioritization is challenging due to incomplete information on COVID-19 epidemiology and vaccines, including characteristics, timing, and number of doses.”
However, guidance for vaccine prioritization developed after the H1N1 outbreak in 2018 can be adapted for COVID-19.
To help inform ACIP deliberations, the work group reviewed the epidemiology of COVID-19. A large proportion of the population remains susceptible, and prioritizations should be based on data to date and continually refined, she said.
The work group defined the objectives of the COVID-19 vaccine program as follows: “Ensure safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines; reduce transmission, morbidity, and mortality in the population; help minimize disruption to society and economy, including maintaining health care capacity; and ensure equity in vaccine allocation and distribution.”
Based on current information, the work group has proposed that vaccine priority be given to health care personnel, essential workers, adults aged 65 years and older, long-term care facility residents, and persons with high-risk medical conditions.
Among these groups “a subset of critical health care and other workers should receive initial doses,” Dr. Mbaeyi said.
However, vaccines will not be administered until safety and efficacy have been demonstrated, she emphasized. The timing and number of vaccine doses are unknown, and subprioritization may be needed, assuming the vaccine becomes available in incremental quantities over several months.
Next steps for the work group are refinement of priority groups based on ACIP feedback, and assignment of tiers to other groups such as children, pregnant women, and racial/ethnic groups at high risk, Dr. Mbaeyi said.
The goal of the work group is to have a prioritization framework for COVID-19 vaccination to present at the next ACIP meeting.
Committee member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., emphasized that “one of the things we need to know is how is the virus [is] transmitted and who is transmitting,” and that this information will be key to developing strategies for vaccination.
Sarah E. Oliver, MD, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, responded that household transmission studies are in progress that will help inform the prioritization process.
Dr. Mbaeyi and Dr. Oliver had no financial conflicts to disclose.
according to Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
A COVID-19 vaccine work group is developing strategies and identifying priority groups for vaccination to help inform discussions about the use of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Mbaeyi said at a virtual meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
“Preparing for vaccination during a pandemic has long been a priority of the CDC and the U.S. government,” said Dr. Mbaeyi. The work group is building on a tiered approach to vaccination that was updated in 2018 after the H1N1 flu pandemic, with occupational and high-risk populations placed in the highest-priority groups, Dr. Mbaeyi said.
There are important differences between COVID-19 and influenza, Dr. Mbaeyi said. “Vaccine prioritization is challenging due to incomplete information on COVID-19 epidemiology and vaccines, including characteristics, timing, and number of doses.”
However, guidance for vaccine prioritization developed after the H1N1 outbreak in 2018 can be adapted for COVID-19.
To help inform ACIP deliberations, the work group reviewed the epidemiology of COVID-19. A large proportion of the population remains susceptible, and prioritizations should be based on data to date and continually refined, she said.
The work group defined the objectives of the COVID-19 vaccine program as follows: “Ensure safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines; reduce transmission, morbidity, and mortality in the population; help minimize disruption to society and economy, including maintaining health care capacity; and ensure equity in vaccine allocation and distribution.”
Based on current information, the work group has proposed that vaccine priority be given to health care personnel, essential workers, adults aged 65 years and older, long-term care facility residents, and persons with high-risk medical conditions.
Among these groups “a subset of critical health care and other workers should receive initial doses,” Dr. Mbaeyi said.
However, vaccines will not be administered until safety and efficacy have been demonstrated, she emphasized. The timing and number of vaccine doses are unknown, and subprioritization may be needed, assuming the vaccine becomes available in incremental quantities over several months.
Next steps for the work group are refinement of priority groups based on ACIP feedback, and assignment of tiers to other groups such as children, pregnant women, and racial/ethnic groups at high risk, Dr. Mbaeyi said.
The goal of the work group is to have a prioritization framework for COVID-19 vaccination to present at the next ACIP meeting.
Committee member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., emphasized that “one of the things we need to know is how is the virus [is] transmitted and who is transmitting,” and that this information will be key to developing strategies for vaccination.
Sarah E. Oliver, MD, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, responded that household transmission studies are in progress that will help inform the prioritization process.
Dr. Mbaeyi and Dr. Oliver had no financial conflicts to disclose.
according to Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
A COVID-19 vaccine work group is developing strategies and identifying priority groups for vaccination to help inform discussions about the use of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Mbaeyi said at a virtual meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
“Preparing for vaccination during a pandemic has long been a priority of the CDC and the U.S. government,” said Dr. Mbaeyi. The work group is building on a tiered approach to vaccination that was updated in 2018 after the H1N1 flu pandemic, with occupational and high-risk populations placed in the highest-priority groups, Dr. Mbaeyi said.
There are important differences between COVID-19 and influenza, Dr. Mbaeyi said. “Vaccine prioritization is challenging due to incomplete information on COVID-19 epidemiology and vaccines, including characteristics, timing, and number of doses.”
However, guidance for vaccine prioritization developed after the H1N1 outbreak in 2018 can be adapted for COVID-19.
To help inform ACIP deliberations, the work group reviewed the epidemiology of COVID-19. A large proportion of the population remains susceptible, and prioritizations should be based on data to date and continually refined, she said.
The work group defined the objectives of the COVID-19 vaccine program as follows: “Ensure safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines; reduce transmission, morbidity, and mortality in the population; help minimize disruption to society and economy, including maintaining health care capacity; and ensure equity in vaccine allocation and distribution.”
Based on current information, the work group has proposed that vaccine priority be given to health care personnel, essential workers, adults aged 65 years and older, long-term care facility residents, and persons with high-risk medical conditions.
Among these groups “a subset of critical health care and other workers should receive initial doses,” Dr. Mbaeyi said.
However, vaccines will not be administered until safety and efficacy have been demonstrated, she emphasized. The timing and number of vaccine doses are unknown, and subprioritization may be needed, assuming the vaccine becomes available in incremental quantities over several months.
Next steps for the work group are refinement of priority groups based on ACIP feedback, and assignment of tiers to other groups such as children, pregnant women, and racial/ethnic groups at high risk, Dr. Mbaeyi said.
The goal of the work group is to have a prioritization framework for COVID-19 vaccination to present at the next ACIP meeting.
Committee member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., emphasized that “one of the things we need to know is how is the virus [is] transmitted and who is transmitting,” and that this information will be key to developing strategies for vaccination.
Sarah E. Oliver, MD, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, responded that household transmission studies are in progress that will help inform the prioritization process.
Dr. Mbaeyi and Dr. Oliver had no financial conflicts to disclose.