COVID-19 Updates

Although cases of COVID-19 in children is reported to be low, we are seeing a surge in Wisconsin with a 27.6% positivity rate reported on Sept. 27. Numerous other states across the country are reporting similar jumps of 10% or more.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as of Sept. 20, 2020, there were 10,644 cumulative cases in persons aged less than 18 years. This rise in cases is consistent with a return to school and sports. This cumulative case load amounts to 836.7/100, 000 cases. This population may not experience the level of illness seen in the older populations with hospitalization rates of only 3% under the age of 9 years and 13% of those age 10- 19-years, yet exposing older family and members of the community is driving the death rates. The combined influenza and COVID-19 season may greatly impact hospitalization rates of young and old. Additionally, we may see a surge in pediatric cancer rates and autoimmune diseases secondary to these trends.

I believe the overall number of adolescents with COVID-19 is underreported. Teens admit to a lack of understanding of symptoms. Many do not realize they have COVID-19 until someone points out the symptoms they describe such as a loss of taste or smell are COVID-19 symptoms. Others report they do not report symptoms to prevent quarantine. Additionally, others endorse ridicule from peers if they have tested positive and contract tracing identifies others potentially exposed and forced to sit out of sports because of quarantine. They have been bullied into amnesia when contract tracers call to prevent identifying others at school or in the community. All these behaviors proliferate the spread of disease within the community and will continue to drive both exposures and death rates.

Teens in high schools require increased education of the symptoms of COVID-19, promotion of the flu vaccine, and knowledge of the impact they can have on preventing the spread of viruses.

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Reference

COVID-19: Wisconsin Cases, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Accessed 2020 Sep 27.

Although cases of COVID-19 in children is reported to be low, we are seeing a surge in Wisconsin with a 27.6% positivity rate reported on Sept. 27. Numerous other states across the country are reporting similar jumps of 10% or more.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as of Sept. 20, 2020, there were 10,644 cumulative cases in persons aged less than 18 years. This rise in cases is consistent with a return to school and sports. This cumulative case load amounts to 836.7/100, 000 cases. This population may not experience the level of illness seen in the older populations with hospitalization rates of only 3% under the age of 9 years and 13% of those age 10- 19-years, yet exposing older family and members of the community is driving the death rates. The combined influenza and COVID-19 season may greatly impact hospitalization rates of young and old. Additionally, we may see a surge in pediatric cancer rates and autoimmune diseases secondary to these trends.

I believe the overall number of adolescents with COVID-19 is underreported. Teens admit to a lack of understanding of symptoms. Many do not realize they have COVID-19 until someone points out the symptoms they describe such as a loss of taste or smell are COVID-19 symptoms. Others report they do not report symptoms to prevent quarantine. Additionally, others endorse ridicule from peers if they have tested positive and contract tracing identifies others potentially exposed and forced to sit out of sports because of quarantine. They have been bullied into amnesia when contract tracers call to prevent identifying others at school or in the community. All these behaviors proliferate the spread of disease within the community and will continue to drive both exposures and death rates.

Teens in high schools require increased education of the symptoms of COVID-19, promotion of the flu vaccine, and knowledge of the impact they can have on preventing the spread of viruses.

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Reference

COVID-19: Wisconsin Cases, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Accessed 2020 Sep 27.

Although cases of COVID-19 in children is reported to be low, we are seeing a surge in Wisconsin with a 27.6% positivity rate reported on Sept. 27. Numerous other states across the country are reporting similar jumps of 10% or more.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as of Sept. 20, 2020, there were 10,644 cumulative cases in persons aged less than 18 years. This rise in cases is consistent with a return to school and sports. This cumulative case load amounts to 836.7/100, 000 cases. This population may not experience the level of illness seen in the older populations with hospitalization rates of only 3% under the age of 9 years and 13% of those age 10- 19-years, yet exposing older family and members of the community is driving the death rates. The combined influenza and COVID-19 season may greatly impact hospitalization rates of young and old. Additionally, we may see a surge in pediatric cancer rates and autoimmune diseases secondary to these trends.

I believe the overall number of adolescents with COVID-19 is underreported. Teens admit to a lack of understanding of symptoms. Many do not realize they have COVID-19 until someone points out the symptoms they describe such as a loss of taste or smell are COVID-19 symptoms. Others report they do not report symptoms to prevent quarantine. Additionally, others endorse ridicule from peers if they have tested positive and contract tracing identifies others potentially exposed and forced to sit out of sports because of quarantine. They have been bullied into amnesia when contract tracers call to prevent identifying others at school or in the community. All these behaviors proliferate the spread of disease within the community and will continue to drive both exposures and death rates.

Teens in high schools require increased education of the symptoms of COVID-19, promotion of the flu vaccine, and knowledge of the impact they can have on preventing the spread of viruses.

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Reference

COVID-19: Wisconsin Cases, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Accessed 2020 Sep 27.

Pediatric fractures dropped by 2.5-fold during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, but more breaks happened at home and on bicycles, and younger kids were more affected, new research indicates.

The study of 1,745 patients also found that those with distal radius torus fractures were more likely to receive a Velcro splint during the pandemic. Experts said this key trend points toward widespread shifts to streamline treatment, which should persist after the pandemic.

“We expected to see a drop in fracture volume, but what was a bit unexpected was the proportional rise in at-home injuries, which we weren’t immediately aware of,” said senior author Apurva Shah, MD, MBA, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“As time went on, it became more apparent that trampoline and bicycle injuries were on the rise, but at the beginning of the pandemic, we didn’t intuitively expect that,” he added.

“Whenever there’s a major shift in how the world is working, we want to understand how that impacts child safety,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “The message to get out to parents is that it’s obviously difficult to supervise kids while working from home” during the pandemic “and that supervision obviously is not always working as well as intended.”

Joshua T. Bram, a medical student, presented the study at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference.

Dr. Bram, Dr. Shah, and colleagues compared patients with acute fractures who presented at CHOP between March and April 2020 with those who presented during the same months in 2018 and 2019.

Overall, the number of patients with pediatric fractures who presented to CHOP fell to an average of just under 10 per day, compared with more than 22 per day in prior years (P < .001). In addition, the age of the patients fell from an average of 9.4 years to 7.5 years (P < .001), with fewer adolescents affected in 2020.

“I think when you cancel a 14-year-old’s baseball season” because of the pandemic, “unfortunately, that lost outdoor time might be substituted with time on a screen,” he explained. “But canceling a 6-year-old’s soccer season might mean substituting that with more time outside on bikes or on a trampoline.”

As noted, because of the pandemic, a higher proportion of pediatric fractures occurred at home (57.8% vs. 32.5%; P < .001) or on bicycles (18.3% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), but there were fewer organized sports–related (7.2% vs. 26.0%; P < .001) or playground-related injuries (5.2% vs. 9.0%; P < .001).

In the study period this year, the researchers saw no increase in the amount of time between injury and presentation. However, data suggest that, in more recent months, “kids are presenting with fractures late, with sometimes great consequences,” Dr. Shah said.

“What has changed is that a lot of adults have lost their jobs, and as a consequence, a lot of children have lost their access to private insurance,” he said. “But fracture is really a major injury, and this is a reminder for pediatricians and primary care physicians to recognize that families are going through these changes and that delays in care can really be detrimental to children.”
 

Velcro splints more common

A potential upside to shifts seen during the pandemic, Dr. Shah said, is the finding that distal radius torus fractures were more likely to be treated with a Velcro splint than in previous years (44.2% vs. 25.9%; P = .010).

“This is hitting on something important – that sometimes it’s crisis that forces us as physicians to evolve,” he said. “This is something I think is here to stay.

“Although research had already been there suggesting a close equivalent between splints and casting, culturally, a lot of surgeons hadn’t made that shift when historically the gold standard had been casting,” Dr. Shah added. “But with the pandemic, the shift to minimize contact with the health care system to keep families safe in their COVID bubble helped [usage of] splints take off.

“I suspect – and we’ll only know when we’re on the other side of this – when physicians see good results in splints in their own patients, they’re going to adopt those strategies more permanently,” he said.

Benjamin Shore, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Shah’s prediction that fracture care will be more streamlined after the pandemic. Dr. Shore, who wasn’t involved in the study, said not only are more orthopedic providers treating patients with Velcro splints and bivalve casts, but they are also monitoring patients via telehealth.

“All of these are great examples of innovation, and one of the unique parts of the pandemic is it created a lot of rapid change across healthcare because it caused us to scrutinize the ways we practice and make a change,” Dr. Shore said in an interview.

“It wasn’t a very fancy study, but it’s very important in terms of demonstrating a change in practice,” Dr. Shore said. “The research here basically validated what many of us are seeing and hopefully will help us in future pandemics – which hopefully won’t happen – to tell families what to be proactive about.”

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore agreed that, because fewer fractures are occurring in kids during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to redeploy orthopedic providers to other clinical areas on the basis of volume and need.

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Pediatric fractures dropped by 2.5-fold during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, but more breaks happened at home and on bicycles, and younger kids were more affected, new research indicates.

The study of 1,745 patients also found that those with distal radius torus fractures were more likely to receive a Velcro splint during the pandemic. Experts said this key trend points toward widespread shifts to streamline treatment, which should persist after the pandemic.

“We expected to see a drop in fracture volume, but what was a bit unexpected was the proportional rise in at-home injuries, which we weren’t immediately aware of,” said senior author Apurva Shah, MD, MBA, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“As time went on, it became more apparent that trampoline and bicycle injuries were on the rise, but at the beginning of the pandemic, we didn’t intuitively expect that,” he added.

“Whenever there’s a major shift in how the world is working, we want to understand how that impacts child safety,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “The message to get out to parents is that it’s obviously difficult to supervise kids while working from home” during the pandemic “and that supervision obviously is not always working as well as intended.”

Joshua T. Bram, a medical student, presented the study at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference.

Dr. Bram, Dr. Shah, and colleagues compared patients with acute fractures who presented at CHOP between March and April 2020 with those who presented during the same months in 2018 and 2019.

Overall, the number of patients with pediatric fractures who presented to CHOP fell to an average of just under 10 per day, compared with more than 22 per day in prior years (P < .001). In addition, the age of the patients fell from an average of 9.4 years to 7.5 years (P < .001), with fewer adolescents affected in 2020.

“I think when you cancel a 14-year-old’s baseball season” because of the pandemic, “unfortunately, that lost outdoor time might be substituted with time on a screen,” he explained. “But canceling a 6-year-old’s soccer season might mean substituting that with more time outside on bikes or on a trampoline.”

As noted, because of the pandemic, a higher proportion of pediatric fractures occurred at home (57.8% vs. 32.5%; P < .001) or on bicycles (18.3% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), but there were fewer organized sports–related (7.2% vs. 26.0%; P < .001) or playground-related injuries (5.2% vs. 9.0%; P < .001).

In the study period this year, the researchers saw no increase in the amount of time between injury and presentation. However, data suggest that, in more recent months, “kids are presenting with fractures late, with sometimes great consequences,” Dr. Shah said.

“What has changed is that a lot of adults have lost their jobs, and as a consequence, a lot of children have lost their access to private insurance,” he said. “But fracture is really a major injury, and this is a reminder for pediatricians and primary care physicians to recognize that families are going through these changes and that delays in care can really be detrimental to children.”
 

Velcro splints more common

A potential upside to shifts seen during the pandemic, Dr. Shah said, is the finding that distal radius torus fractures were more likely to be treated with a Velcro splint than in previous years (44.2% vs. 25.9%; P = .010).

“This is hitting on something important – that sometimes it’s crisis that forces us as physicians to evolve,” he said. “This is something I think is here to stay.

“Although research had already been there suggesting a close equivalent between splints and casting, culturally, a lot of surgeons hadn’t made that shift when historically the gold standard had been casting,” Dr. Shah added. “But with the pandemic, the shift to minimize contact with the health care system to keep families safe in their COVID bubble helped [usage of] splints take off.

“I suspect – and we’ll only know when we’re on the other side of this – when physicians see good results in splints in their own patients, they’re going to adopt those strategies more permanently,” he said.

Benjamin Shore, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Shah’s prediction that fracture care will be more streamlined after the pandemic. Dr. Shore, who wasn’t involved in the study, said not only are more orthopedic providers treating patients with Velcro splints and bivalve casts, but they are also monitoring patients via telehealth.

“All of these are great examples of innovation, and one of the unique parts of the pandemic is it created a lot of rapid change across healthcare because it caused us to scrutinize the ways we practice and make a change,” Dr. Shore said in an interview.

“It wasn’t a very fancy study, but it’s very important in terms of demonstrating a change in practice,” Dr. Shore said. “The research here basically validated what many of us are seeing and hopefully will help us in future pandemics – which hopefully won’t happen – to tell families what to be proactive about.”

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore agreed that, because fewer fractures are occurring in kids during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to redeploy orthopedic providers to other clinical areas on the basis of volume and need.

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Pediatric fractures dropped by 2.5-fold during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, but more breaks happened at home and on bicycles, and younger kids were more affected, new research indicates.

The study of 1,745 patients also found that those with distal radius torus fractures were more likely to receive a Velcro splint during the pandemic. Experts said this key trend points toward widespread shifts to streamline treatment, which should persist after the pandemic.

“We expected to see a drop in fracture volume, but what was a bit unexpected was the proportional rise in at-home injuries, which we weren’t immediately aware of,” said senior author Apurva Shah, MD, MBA, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“As time went on, it became more apparent that trampoline and bicycle injuries were on the rise, but at the beginning of the pandemic, we didn’t intuitively expect that,” he added.

“Whenever there’s a major shift in how the world is working, we want to understand how that impacts child safety,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “The message to get out to parents is that it’s obviously difficult to supervise kids while working from home” during the pandemic “and that supervision obviously is not always working as well as intended.”

Joshua T. Bram, a medical student, presented the study at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference.

Dr. Bram, Dr. Shah, and colleagues compared patients with acute fractures who presented at CHOP between March and April 2020 with those who presented during the same months in 2018 and 2019.

Overall, the number of patients with pediatric fractures who presented to CHOP fell to an average of just under 10 per day, compared with more than 22 per day in prior years (P < .001). In addition, the age of the patients fell from an average of 9.4 years to 7.5 years (P < .001), with fewer adolescents affected in 2020.

“I think when you cancel a 14-year-old’s baseball season” because of the pandemic, “unfortunately, that lost outdoor time might be substituted with time on a screen,” he explained. “But canceling a 6-year-old’s soccer season might mean substituting that with more time outside on bikes or on a trampoline.”

As noted, because of the pandemic, a higher proportion of pediatric fractures occurred at home (57.8% vs. 32.5%; P < .001) or on bicycles (18.3% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), but there were fewer organized sports–related (7.2% vs. 26.0%; P < .001) or playground-related injuries (5.2% vs. 9.0%; P < .001).

In the study period this year, the researchers saw no increase in the amount of time between injury and presentation. However, data suggest that, in more recent months, “kids are presenting with fractures late, with sometimes great consequences,” Dr. Shah said.

“What has changed is that a lot of adults have lost their jobs, and as a consequence, a lot of children have lost their access to private insurance,” he said. “But fracture is really a major injury, and this is a reminder for pediatricians and primary care physicians to recognize that families are going through these changes and that delays in care can really be detrimental to children.”
 

Velcro splints more common

A potential upside to shifts seen during the pandemic, Dr. Shah said, is the finding that distal radius torus fractures were more likely to be treated with a Velcro splint than in previous years (44.2% vs. 25.9%; P = .010).

“This is hitting on something important – that sometimes it’s crisis that forces us as physicians to evolve,” he said. “This is something I think is here to stay.

“Although research had already been there suggesting a close equivalent between splints and casting, culturally, a lot of surgeons hadn’t made that shift when historically the gold standard had been casting,” Dr. Shah added. “But with the pandemic, the shift to minimize contact with the health care system to keep families safe in their COVID bubble helped [usage of] splints take off.

“I suspect – and we’ll only know when we’re on the other side of this – when physicians see good results in splints in their own patients, they’re going to adopt those strategies more permanently,” he said.

Benjamin Shore, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Shah’s prediction that fracture care will be more streamlined after the pandemic. Dr. Shore, who wasn’t involved in the study, said not only are more orthopedic providers treating patients with Velcro splints and bivalve casts, but they are also monitoring patients via telehealth.

“All of these are great examples of innovation, and one of the unique parts of the pandemic is it created a lot of rapid change across healthcare because it caused us to scrutinize the ways we practice and make a change,” Dr. Shore said in an interview.

“It wasn’t a very fancy study, but it’s very important in terms of demonstrating a change in practice,” Dr. Shore said. “The research here basically validated what many of us are seeing and hopefully will help us in future pandemics – which hopefully won’t happen – to tell families what to be proactive about.”

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore agreed that, because fewer fractures are occurring in kids during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to redeploy orthopedic providers to other clinical areas on the basis of volume and need.

Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Half of fellows training in pulmonary and critical care medicine screened positive for either burnout or depressive symptoms, results from a national survey demonstrated.

“Given the high prevalence of burnout and depressive symptoms among fellows training in pulmonary and critical care medicine, it is crucial for fellowship training programs and academic hospitals to consider policies and programs that can improve this public health crisis,” first author Michelle Sharp, MD, MHS, and colleagues wrote in a study published in CHEST.

Dr. Sharp, of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues developed a cross-sectional electronic survey to assess burnout and depression symptoms in fellows enrolled in pulmonary and critical care medicine training programs in the United States. Between January and February 2019, a total of 976 fellows received the survey, which used the Maslach Burnout Index two-item measure to assess burnout and the two-item Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Procedure to screen for depressive symptoms. For both burnout and depression, the researchers constructed three multivariate logistic regression models to assess individual fellow characteristics, program structure, and institutional policies associated with the symptoms.

Of the 976 surveys sent, 502 completed both outcome measures, for a response rate of 51%. More than half (59%) were male, 57% described themselves as White/non-Hispanic, and 39% reported at least $200,000 in student loan debt. The researchers found that 50% of respondents screened positive for either burnout of depressive symptoms. Specifically, 41% met criteria for depressive symptoms, 32% were positive for burnout, and 23% were positive for both.

Factors significantly associated with a higher odds of burnout included working more than 70 hours in an average clinical week (adjusted odds ratio, 2.80) and reporting a somewhat negative or very negative impact of the EHR on joy in medicine (aOR, 1.91).

Factors significantly associated with a higher odds of depressive symptoms were financial concern (aOR, 1.13), being located in the Association of American Medical Colleges West region (aOR 3.96), working more than 70 hours in an average clinical week (aOR, 2.24), and spending a moderately high or excessive amount of time at home on the EHR (aOR, 1.71).

Of respondents who reported working in an institution with a coverage system for personal illness or emergency, 29% were uncomfortable accessing the system or felt comfortable only if unable to find their own coverage. In addition, among respondents who indicated that they had access to mental health resources through their place of employment, 15% said they were reluctant to access those resources if needed. Formal use of these programs was not measured by the survey.

“Our results suggest that further study of systemic solutions at the programmatic and institutional levels rather than at the individual level are needed,” Dr. Sharp and colleagues wrote. “Strategies such as providing an easily accessible coverage system, providing access to mental health resources, addressing work hour burden, reducing the EHR burden, and addressing financial concerns among trainees may help reduce burnout and/or depressive symptoms and should be further studied.”

In an interview, David Schulman, MD, FCCP, characterized the survey findings as “disheartening” but not surprising. “Burnout and depressive symptoms are a problem because almost everything we do to mitigate them works a little, but nothing works a lot,” said Dr. Schulman, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care, and sleep medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not affiliated with the study. “The limited availability of resources to fight this is a challenge. The thing that seems to correlate best with mitigating burnout and depression rates is just giving people time. In my experience, most people just want the space and time they need to mitigate burnout in their own way by having schedule flexibility or arranging time to spend with family or involved in other wellness activities.”

Dr. Schulman, who served as training program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine fellows at Emory for 14 years until stepping down from that role in September 2020, said that nurturing a culture where trainees and seasoned colleagues are comfortable talking about burnout and depressive symptoms is one way to foster change. “It’s weird to say that we should try to normalize burnout, but I don’t think the health care system is changing anytime soon. The health care system is a harsh mistress. It will continue to take and take from everyone involved in it until they have nothing left to give. It’s unfortunate, because people are sick, and hospitals can be relatively understaffed, particularly in the context of a major public health emergency. What we really need to do is try to normalize this by saying to trainees: ‘Hey. Everybody is under the gun. We’re going to share in this workload together because we can’t abandon our patients. We will do our best to make sure that the workload is shared amongst everybody.’ ”

He emphasized that most trainees recognize the importance of the work they do, “and they don’t shirk from it. But I think that drive sometimes gets in the way of self-care. I do think there needs to be a happy medium, where we definitely want you to work, because that’s how you learn and the system needs you, but we also recognize that there’s a need for you to take care of yourself.”

Dr. Schulman recommended that such discussions take place not remotely on Zoom calls and the like but rather in person with small groups of trainees and seasoned clinicians, “where people are more comfortable candidly discussing how they’re feeling. I don’t think grand rounds on burnout or depression are particularly effective. It needs to be interactive, and we need to listen as much as we’re talking.”

Although the survey by Dr. Sharp and colleagues was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Schulman has a hunch that the current driver of burnout and depression has more to do with trainees feeling a sense of physical isolation than with being overwhelmed by their workload. “I don’t think that’s unique to medicine,” he said. “When people get home from work, they can’t go out with friends or out to dinner, or travel, whatever they do to decompress. I think that’s a major driver for the current phenomenon, and I don’t think that’s unique to medicine. The psychological ramifications of isolation due to the coronavirus may eventually outpace the physical ramifications of all the illness that we have seen. Depression and burnout may not be as obviously damaging to people, but I think they’re affecting many more people than the virus itself.”

The survey was supported by the Association of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Program Directors.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Half of fellows training in pulmonary and critical care medicine screened positive for either burnout or depressive symptoms, results from a national survey demonstrated.

“Given the high prevalence of burnout and depressive symptoms among fellows training in pulmonary and critical care medicine, it is crucial for fellowship training programs and academic hospitals to consider policies and programs that can improve this public health crisis,” first author Michelle Sharp, MD, MHS, and colleagues wrote in a study published in CHEST.

Dr. Sharp, of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues developed a cross-sectional electronic survey to assess burnout and depression symptoms in fellows enrolled in pulmonary and critical care medicine training programs in the United States. Between January and February 2019, a total of 976 fellows received the survey, which used the Maslach Burnout Index two-item measure to assess burnout and the two-item Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Procedure to screen for depressive symptoms. For both burnout and depression, the researchers constructed three multivariate logistic regression models to assess individual fellow characteristics, program structure, and institutional policies associated with the symptoms.

Of the 976 surveys sent, 502 completed both outcome measures, for a response rate of 51%. More than half (59%) were male, 57% described themselves as White/non-Hispanic, and 39% reported at least $200,000 in student loan debt. The researchers found that 50% of respondents screened positive for either burnout of depressive symptoms. Specifically, 41% met criteria for depressive symptoms, 32% were positive for burnout, and 23% were positive for both.

Factors significantly associated with a higher odds of burnout included working more than 70 hours in an average clinical week (adjusted odds ratio, 2.80) and reporting a somewhat negative or very negative impact of the EHR on joy in medicine (aOR, 1.91).

Factors significantly associated with a higher odds of depressive symptoms were financial concern (aOR, 1.13), being located in the Association of American Medical Colleges West region (aOR 3.96), working more than 70 hours in an average clinical week (aOR, 2.24), and spending a moderately high or excessive amount of time at home on the EHR (aOR, 1.71).

Of respondents who reported working in an institution with a coverage system for personal illness or emergency, 29% were uncomfortable accessing the system or felt comfortable only if unable to find their own coverage. In addition, among respondents who indicated that they had access to mental health resources through their place of employment, 15% said they were reluctant to access those resources if needed. Formal use of these programs was not measured by the survey.

“Our results suggest that further study of systemic solutions at the programmatic and institutional levels rather than at the individual level are needed,” Dr. Sharp and colleagues wrote. “Strategies such as providing an easily accessible coverage system, providing access to mental health resources, addressing work hour burden, reducing the EHR burden, and addressing financial concerns among trainees may help reduce burnout and/or depressive symptoms and should be further studied.”

In an interview, David Schulman, MD, FCCP, characterized the survey findings as “disheartening” but not surprising. “Burnout and depressive symptoms are a problem because almost everything we do to mitigate them works a little, but nothing works a lot,” said Dr. Schulman, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care, and sleep medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not affiliated with the study. “The limited availability of resources to fight this is a challenge. The thing that seems to correlate best with mitigating burnout and depression rates is just giving people time. In my experience, most people just want the space and time they need to mitigate burnout in their own way by having schedule flexibility or arranging time to spend with family or involved in other wellness activities.”

Dr. Schulman, who served as training program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine fellows at Emory for 14 years until stepping down from that role in September 2020, said that nurturing a culture where trainees and seasoned colleagues are comfortable talking about burnout and depressive symptoms is one way to foster change. “It’s weird to say that we should try to normalize burnout, but I don’t think the health care system is changing anytime soon. The health care system is a harsh mistress. It will continue to take and take from everyone involved in it until they have nothing left to give. It’s unfortunate, because people are sick, and hospitals can be relatively understaffed, particularly in the context of a major public health emergency. What we really need to do is try to normalize this by saying to trainees: ‘Hey. Everybody is under the gun. We’re going to share in this workload together because we can’t abandon our patients. We will do our best to make sure that the workload is shared amongst everybody.’ ”

He emphasized that most trainees recognize the importance of the work they do, “and they don’t shirk from it. But I think that drive sometimes gets in the way of self-care. I do think there needs to be a happy medium, where we definitely want you to work, because that’s how you learn and the system needs you, but we also recognize that there’s a need for you to take care of yourself.”

Dr. Schulman recommended that such discussions take place not remotely on Zoom calls and the like but rather in person with small groups of trainees and seasoned clinicians, “where people are more comfortable candidly discussing how they’re feeling. I don’t think grand rounds on burnout or depression are particularly effective. It needs to be interactive, and we need to listen as much as we’re talking.”

Although the survey by Dr. Sharp and colleagues was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Schulman has a hunch that the current driver of burnout and depression has more to do with trainees feeling a sense of physical isolation than with being overwhelmed by their workload. “I don’t think that’s unique to medicine,” he said. “When people get home from work, they can’t go out with friends or out to dinner, or travel, whatever they do to decompress. I think that’s a major driver for the current phenomenon, and I don’t think that’s unique to medicine. The psychological ramifications of isolation due to the coronavirus may eventually outpace the physical ramifications of all the illness that we have seen. Depression and burnout may not be as obviously damaging to people, but I think they’re affecting many more people than the virus itself.”

The survey was supported by the Association of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Program Directors.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Half of fellows training in pulmonary and critical care medicine screened positive for either burnout or depressive symptoms, results from a national survey demonstrated.

“Given the high prevalence of burnout and depressive symptoms among fellows training in pulmonary and critical care medicine, it is crucial for fellowship training programs and academic hospitals to consider policies and programs that can improve this public health crisis,” first author Michelle Sharp, MD, MHS, and colleagues wrote in a study published in CHEST.

Dr. Sharp, of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues developed a cross-sectional electronic survey to assess burnout and depression symptoms in fellows enrolled in pulmonary and critical care medicine training programs in the United States. Between January and February 2019, a total of 976 fellows received the survey, which used the Maslach Burnout Index two-item measure to assess burnout and the two-item Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Procedure to screen for depressive symptoms. For both burnout and depression, the researchers constructed three multivariate logistic regression models to assess individual fellow characteristics, program structure, and institutional policies associated with the symptoms.

Of the 976 surveys sent, 502 completed both outcome measures, for a response rate of 51%. More than half (59%) were male, 57% described themselves as White/non-Hispanic, and 39% reported at least $200,000 in student loan debt. The researchers found that 50% of respondents screened positive for either burnout of depressive symptoms. Specifically, 41% met criteria for depressive symptoms, 32% were positive for burnout, and 23% were positive for both.

Factors significantly associated with a higher odds of burnout included working more than 70 hours in an average clinical week (adjusted odds ratio, 2.80) and reporting a somewhat negative or very negative impact of the EHR on joy in medicine (aOR, 1.91).

Factors significantly associated with a higher odds of depressive symptoms were financial concern (aOR, 1.13), being located in the Association of American Medical Colleges West region (aOR 3.96), working more than 70 hours in an average clinical week (aOR, 2.24), and spending a moderately high or excessive amount of time at home on the EHR (aOR, 1.71).

Of respondents who reported working in an institution with a coverage system for personal illness or emergency, 29% were uncomfortable accessing the system or felt comfortable only if unable to find their own coverage. In addition, among respondents who indicated that they had access to mental health resources through their place of employment, 15% said they were reluctant to access those resources if needed. Formal use of these programs was not measured by the survey.

“Our results suggest that further study of systemic solutions at the programmatic and institutional levels rather than at the individual level are needed,” Dr. Sharp and colleagues wrote. “Strategies such as providing an easily accessible coverage system, providing access to mental health resources, addressing work hour burden, reducing the EHR burden, and addressing financial concerns among trainees may help reduce burnout and/or depressive symptoms and should be further studied.”

In an interview, David Schulman, MD, FCCP, characterized the survey findings as “disheartening” but not surprising. “Burnout and depressive symptoms are a problem because almost everything we do to mitigate them works a little, but nothing works a lot,” said Dr. Schulman, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care, and sleep medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not affiliated with the study. “The limited availability of resources to fight this is a challenge. The thing that seems to correlate best with mitigating burnout and depression rates is just giving people time. In my experience, most people just want the space and time they need to mitigate burnout in their own way by having schedule flexibility or arranging time to spend with family or involved in other wellness activities.”

Dr. Schulman, who served as training program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine fellows at Emory for 14 years until stepping down from that role in September 2020, said that nurturing a culture where trainees and seasoned colleagues are comfortable talking about burnout and depressive symptoms is one way to foster change. “It’s weird to say that we should try to normalize burnout, but I don’t think the health care system is changing anytime soon. The health care system is a harsh mistress. It will continue to take and take from everyone involved in it until they have nothing left to give. It’s unfortunate, because people are sick, and hospitals can be relatively understaffed, particularly in the context of a major public health emergency. What we really need to do is try to normalize this by saying to trainees: ‘Hey. Everybody is under the gun. We’re going to share in this workload together because we can’t abandon our patients. We will do our best to make sure that the workload is shared amongst everybody.’ ”

He emphasized that most trainees recognize the importance of the work they do, “and they don’t shirk from it. But I think that drive sometimes gets in the way of self-care. I do think there needs to be a happy medium, where we definitely want you to work, because that’s how you learn and the system needs you, but we also recognize that there’s a need for you to take care of yourself.”

Dr. Schulman recommended that such discussions take place not remotely on Zoom calls and the like but rather in person with small groups of trainees and seasoned clinicians, “where people are more comfortable candidly discussing how they’re feeling. I don’t think grand rounds on burnout or depression are particularly effective. It needs to be interactive, and we need to listen as much as we’re talking.”

Although the survey by Dr. Sharp and colleagues was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Schulman has a hunch that the current driver of burnout and depression has more to do with trainees feeling a sense of physical isolation than with being overwhelmed by their workload. “I don’t think that’s unique to medicine,” he said. “When people get home from work, they can’t go out with friends or out to dinner, or travel, whatever they do to decompress. I think that’s a major driver for the current phenomenon, and I don’t think that’s unique to medicine. The psychological ramifications of isolation due to the coronavirus may eventually outpace the physical ramifications of all the illness that we have seen. Depression and burnout may not be as obviously damaging to people, but I think they’re affecting many more people than the virus itself.”

The survey was supported by the Association of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Program Directors.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer is associated with general clinical and demographic factors, cancer-specific factors, cancer treatment variables, and laboratory parameters, according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.

The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.

Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
 

Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72

The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.

The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.

Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).

Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).

In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).

Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
 

Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71

An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.

Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.

Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.

The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).

The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.

An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.

Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.

“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.

This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.

SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer is associated with general clinical and demographic factors, cancer-specific factors, cancer treatment variables, and laboratory parameters, according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.

The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.

Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
 

Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72

The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.

The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.

Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).

Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).

In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).

Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
 

Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71

An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.

Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.

Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.

The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).

The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.

An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.

Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.

“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.

This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.

SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.

Mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer is associated with general clinical and demographic factors, cancer-specific factors, cancer treatment variables, and laboratory parameters, according to two presentations at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Two analyses of data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) were presented at the meeting.

The data suggest that older age, male sex, more comorbidities, poor performance status, progressive cancer or multiple cancers, hematologic malignancy, and recent cancer therapy are all associated with higher mortality among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Anti-CD20 therapy is associated with an especially high mortality rate, according to an investigator.

Among hospitalized patients, increased absolute neutrophil count as well as abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein are associated with a higher risk of mortality.

Prior analyses of CCC19 data pointed to several factors associated with higher COVID-19 death rates, according to Petros Grivas, MD, PhD, of University of Washington, Seattle, who presented some CCC19 data at the meeting. However, the prior analyses were limited by weak statistical power and low event rates, Dr. Grivas said.
 

Clinical and laboratory factors: Abstract LBA72

The aim of Dr. Grivas’s analysis was to validate a priori identified demographic and clinicopathologic factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Dr. Grivas and colleagues also explored the potential association between laboratory parameters and 30-day all-cause mortality.

The analysis included 3,899 patients with cancer and COVID-19 from 124 centers. Most centers are in the United States, but 4% are in Canada, and 2% are in Spain. About two-thirds of patients were 60 years of age or younger at baseline, half were men, 79% had solid tumors, and 21% had hematologic malignancies.

Cancer-specific factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were having progressive cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.9), receiving cancer therapy within 3 months (aOR, 1.2), having a hematologic versus solid tumor (aOR, 1.7), and having multiple malignancies (aOR, 1.5).

Clinical factors associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality were Black versus White race (aOR, 1.5), older age (aOR, 1.7 per 10 years), three or more actively treated comorbidities (versus none; aOR, 2.1), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more (versus 0; aOR, 4.6).

In hospitalized patients, several laboratory variables were associated with an increased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Having an absolute neutrophil count above the upper limit of normal doubled the risk (aOR, 2.0), while abnormal D-dimer, high-sensitivity troponin, and C-reactive protein all more than doubled the risk of mortality (aORs of 2.5, 2.5, and 2.4, respectively).

Further risk modeling with multivariable analysis will be performed after longer follow-up, Dr. Grivas noted.
 

Treatment-related outcomes: Abstract LBA71

An additional analysis of CCC19 data encompassed 3,654 patients. In this analysis, researchers investigated the correlation between timing of cancer treatment and COVID-19–related complications and 30-day mortality.

Mortality was highest among cancer patients treated 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis, with all-cause mortality at 28%, said Trisha M. Wise-Draper, MD, PhD, of University of Cincinnati, when presenting the data at the meeting.

Rates for other complications (hospitalization, oxygen required, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation) were similar regardless of treatment timing.

The unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was highest for patients treated most recently with chemoimmunotherapy (30%), followed by chemotherapy (18%), chemoradiotherapy (18%), and targeted therapy (17%).

The mortality rate was “particularly high,” at 50%, in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy 1-3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis – the time period for which significant B-cell depletion develops, Dr. Wise-Draper observed.

An analysis of disease status among 1,449 patients treated within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis showed mortality risk increasing from 6% among patients in remission or with newly emergent disease, to 22% in patients with any active cancer, to 34% in those with progressing disease, Dr. Wise-Draper said.

Discussant Benjamin Solomon, MD, PhD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, made note of the high 30-day mortality rate seen in patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy as well as the elevated standardized mortality ratios with recent chemoimmunotherapy and targeted therapy.

“Although there are some limitations of this analysis, it provides the best data we have to date about the effects of treatment on early mortality in patients with COVID-19 and cancer. It points to a modest but heterogeneous effect of treatment on outcome, one which is likely to become clearer with larger cohorts and additional analysis,” Dr. Solomon said.

This research was funded by the American Cancer Society, Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, Jim and Carol O’Hare Fund, National Cancer Institute, National Human Genome Research Institute, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Sante. Dr. Grivas disclosed relationships with many companies, but none are related to this work. Dr. Wise-Draper disclosed relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, and Rakuten. Dr. Solomon disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech.

SOURCES: Grivas P et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA72; Wise-Draper TM et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract LBA71.

After increasing for several weeks, the proportion of new COVID-19 cases occurring in children has dropped for the second week in a row, according to data in a new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

COVID-19 cases in children accounted for 12.3% of all new cases in the United States for the week ending Oct. 1, down from 15.2% the previous week. That measure had reached its highest point, 16.9%, just one week earlier (Sept. 17), the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The total number of COVID-19 cases in children now stands as 657,572, or 10.6% of the more than 6.2 million cases reported among Americans of all ages, based on data from the health departments of 49 states (New York does not provide ages on its website), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The child COVID-19 rate for the United States was 874 per 100,000 children as of Oct. 1, and that figure has doubled since the end of July. At the state level, the highest rates can be found in Tennessee (2,031.4 per 100,000), North Dakota (2,029.6), and South Carolina (2,002.6), with the lowest rates in Vermont (168.9), Maine (229.1), and New Hampshire (268.3), the AAP/CHA report shows.

The children of Wyoming make up the largest share, 22.4%, of any state’s COVID-19 cases, followed by North Dakota and Tennessee, both at 18.3%. New Jersey is lower than any other state at 3.9%, although New York City is a slightly lower 3.6%, the AAP and CHA said.

“The data are limited because the states differ in how they report the data, and it is unknown how many children have been infected but not tested. It is unclear how much of the increase in child cases is due to increased testing capacity,” the AAP said in an earlier statement.

rfranki@mdedge.com

After increasing for several weeks, the proportion of new COVID-19 cases occurring in children has dropped for the second week in a row, according to data in a new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

COVID-19 cases in children accounted for 12.3% of all new cases in the United States for the week ending Oct. 1, down from 15.2% the previous week. That measure had reached its highest point, 16.9%, just one week earlier (Sept. 17), the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The total number of COVID-19 cases in children now stands as 657,572, or 10.6% of the more than 6.2 million cases reported among Americans of all ages, based on data from the health departments of 49 states (New York does not provide ages on its website), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The child COVID-19 rate for the United States was 874 per 100,000 children as of Oct. 1, and that figure has doubled since the end of July. At the state level, the highest rates can be found in Tennessee (2,031.4 per 100,000), North Dakota (2,029.6), and South Carolina (2,002.6), with the lowest rates in Vermont (168.9), Maine (229.1), and New Hampshire (268.3), the AAP/CHA report shows.

The children of Wyoming make up the largest share, 22.4%, of any state’s COVID-19 cases, followed by North Dakota and Tennessee, both at 18.3%. New Jersey is lower than any other state at 3.9%, although New York City is a slightly lower 3.6%, the AAP and CHA said.

“The data are limited because the states differ in how they report the data, and it is unknown how many children have been infected but not tested. It is unclear how much of the increase in child cases is due to increased testing capacity,” the AAP said in an earlier statement.

rfranki@mdedge.com

After increasing for several weeks, the proportion of new COVID-19 cases occurring in children has dropped for the second week in a row, according to data in a new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

COVID-19 cases in children accounted for 12.3% of all new cases in the United States for the week ending Oct. 1, down from 15.2% the previous week. That measure had reached its highest point, 16.9%, just one week earlier (Sept. 17), the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The total number of COVID-19 cases in children now stands as 657,572, or 10.6% of the more than 6.2 million cases reported among Americans of all ages, based on data from the health departments of 49 states (New York does not provide ages on its website), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The child COVID-19 rate for the United States was 874 per 100,000 children as of Oct. 1, and that figure has doubled since the end of July. At the state level, the highest rates can be found in Tennessee (2,031.4 per 100,000), North Dakota (2,029.6), and South Carolina (2,002.6), with the lowest rates in Vermont (168.9), Maine (229.1), and New Hampshire (268.3), the AAP/CHA report shows.

The children of Wyoming make up the largest share, 22.4%, of any state’s COVID-19 cases, followed by North Dakota and Tennessee, both at 18.3%. New Jersey is lower than any other state at 3.9%, although New York City is a slightly lower 3.6%, the AAP and CHA said.

“The data are limited because the states differ in how they report the data, and it is unknown how many children have been infected but not tested. It is unclear how much of the increase in child cases is due to increased testing capacity,” the AAP said in an earlier statement.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

According to the best available evidence, analagosedation remains the focus for managing COVID-19 ICU patients, according to Steven B. Greenberg, MD, FCCP, FCCM.

“The choice of sedation and analgesia is important,” Dr. Greenberg, vice chair of education in the department of anesthesiology at Evanston Hospital, part of NorthShore University Health System, Chicago, said at a Society for Critical Care virtual meeting: COVID-19: What’s Next. “We know that the right choice of these two components may increase liberation from ventilators, earlier ICU discharge, and return to normal brain function and independent functional status.”
 

Analgesia first

Prior to the current pandemic, the approach to sedation of patients in the ICU was based on the PADIS Guidelines of 2018, which call for an assessment-driven, protocol-based stepwise approach to pain and sedation management in critically ill adults (Crit Care Med. 2018;46:e825-73). “[A strategy for COVID-19 in the ICU] should focus on analagosedation defined as analgesia-first sedation rather than jumping to sedation first,” Dr. Greenberg said. “We know that pain management should be a priority of sedation, because pain may increase the risk of delirium, anxiety, and endocrine suppression, and may increase the risk of release of endogenous catecholamines, ischemia, and hypermetabolic states.”

Fentanyl appears to be the most common opioid analgesic used for patients in the ICU, “but fentanyl is a very lipophilic drug and has a long context-sensitive half-life,” he said. “There are components to fentanyl that allow it to become a very long-acting drug upon days and days of infusion. Another opioid used is remifentanil, which is typically short-acting because it is broken down in the blood by esterases, but may cause rigidity at higher doses. Dilaudid seems to be the least affected by organ dysfunction. In our very critically ill, prolonged mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, we’ve been using methadone for its NMDA [N-methyl-D-aspartate] antagonistic effect and its opioid-sparing effects.”

As for nonopioid analgesics, Dr. Greenberg said that clinicians have shied away from using NSAIDs because of their side effects. “Tramadol indirectly inhibits reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin, and ketamine is being used a lot more because of its NMDA antagonist effect,” he said. “Lidocaine and gabapentin have also been used.”

In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers assessed 34 trials that examined adjuvant analgesic use with an opioid in critically ill patients versus an opioid alone (Crit Care Expl. 2020;2:e0157). They found that when using an adjuvant such as acetaminophen, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, ketamine, magnesium, nefopam, NSAIDs, pregabalin, and tramadol, there was a reduction in pain scores as well as a reduction in opioid consumption. “So, clinicians should consider using adjuvant agents to limit opioid exposure and improve pain scores in the critically ill,” Dr. Greenberg said.
 

ICU delirium: Risk factors, prevention

Delirium in COVID-19 patients treated in the ICU of particular concern. According to a systematic review of 33 studies, 11 risk factors for delirium in the ICU were supported by strong or moderate levels of evidence (Crit Care Med. 2015;43:40-7). These include age, dementia, hypertension, emergency surgery, trauma, APACHE score of II, need for mechanical ventilation, metabolic acidosis, delirium on prior day, coma, and dexmedetomidine use. Risk factors for ICU delirium among COVID-19 patients, however, “are far different,” Dr. Greenberg said. “Why? First and foremost, we are restricting visitation of family,” he said. “That family connection largely can be lost. Second, there are limitations of nonpharmacologic interventions. There is less mobility and physical therapy employed because of the risk of health care workers’ exposure to the virus. There’s also uncertainty about the global pandemic. Anxiety and depression come with that, as well as disruptions to spiritual and religious services.”

Strategies for preventing delirium remain the same as before the pandemic and in accord with recent clinical practice guidelines: Reduce the use of certain drugs such as benzodiazepines and narcotics, reorient the patients, treat dehydration, use hearing aids and eyeglasses in patients who have them, use ear plugs to cancel noise, mobilize patients, maintain sleep/awake cycles, and encourage sedation holidays (Crit Care Med. 2018;46[9]:e825-73).

A recent study from France found that among 58 patients with COVID-19, 65% had positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM)–ICU findings and 69% had agitation (N Engl J Med 2020;382:2268-70). Most of the patients (86%) received midazolam, 47% received propofol, and all received sufentanil. “In the pre-COVID days, we would use midazolam as a second-line agent for many of these patients,” Dr. Greenberg said. “So, times really have changed.”

The fate of COVID-19 patients following discharge from the ICU remains a concern, continued Dr. Greenberg, clinical professor of anesthesiology at the University of Chicago. A recent journal article by Michelle Biehl, MD, and Denise Sese, MD, noted that post–intensive care syndrome (PICS) or new or worsening impairment in any physical, cognitive, or mental domain is of significant concern among COVID-19 patients following their ICU stay (Cleveland Clin J Med 2020 Aug doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.ccc055). The authors stated that COVID-19 patients may face a higher risk of PICS because of restricted family visitation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, exposure to higher amounts of sedatives, and limited physical therapy during hospital stay.

No ideal sedative agent

The 2018 PADIS Guidelines on the use of ICU sedation suggested strong evidence for modifiable risk factors producing delirium in the context of benzodiazepines and blood transfusion. They recommend a light level of sedation and the use of propofol or dexmedetomidine over benzodiazepines. They also recommend routine delirium testing such as using the CAM-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and nonpharmacologic therapies such as reorientation, cognitive stimulation, sleep improvement, and mobilization.

Several sedation-related factors may be related to an increased risk of delirium. “The type, dose, duration, and mode of delivery are very important,” Dr. Greenberg said. “The ideal sedative agent has a rapid, predictable onset; is short-acting; has anxiolytic, amnestic, and analgesic properties; is soluble; has a high therapeutic index; and no toxicity. The ideal sedative is also easy to administrate, contains no active metabolites, has minimal actions with other drugs, is reversible, and is cost effective. The problem is, there really is no ideal sedative agent. There is inadequate knowledge about the drugs [used to treat COVID-19 in the ICU] available to us, the dosage, and importantly, the pharmacokinetics and dynamics of these medications.”

The classic types of sedation being used in the ICU, he said, include the benzodiazepines midazolam, lorazepam, and diazepam, as well as propofol. Alternatives include dexmedetomidine, clonidine, ketamine, and the neuroleptics – haloperidol, quetiapine, olanzapine, ziprasidone, and risperidone. “The advantages of benzos are that they are anxiolytics, amnestics, and they are good sedatives with minimal hemodynamic effects,” Dr. Greenberg said.

Advantages of propofol include its sedative, hypnotic, and anxiolytic properties, he said. It reduces the cerebral metabolic rate and can relieve bronchospasm. “However, small studies have found that its use may be associated with an increased risk of delirium,” he said. “It is a respiratory depressant, and it can cause hypotension and decreased contractility. It has no analgesic properties, and two of the big concerns of its use in COVID-19 are the potential for hypertriglyceridemia and propofol infusion syndrome, particularly at doses of greater than 5 mg/kg per hour for greater than 48 hours. It is being given in high doses because patients are requiring higher doses to maintain ventilator synchrony.”
 

Choosing the right drug

The keys to success for sedation of ICU patients are choosing the right drug at the right dose for the right duration and the right mode of delivery, and applying them to the right population. However, as noted in a recent study, the pandemic poses unique challenges to clinicians in how they care for critically ill COVID-19 patients who require sedation (Anesth Analg. 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004887). The use of provisional work areas “has escalated because of the amount of patients we’ve had to care for over the past nine months,” Dr. Greenberg said. “We’ve used alternate providers who are not necessarily familiar with the sedation and analgesic protocols and how to use these specific medications. Drug shortages have been on the rise, so there’s a need to understand alternative agents that can be used.”

COVID-19 patients face the potential risk for an increase in drug-drug interactions and side effects due to the polypharmacy that is often required to provide adequate sedation during mechanical ventilation. He noted that these patients may have “unusually high” analgesia and sedation requirements, particularly when they’re mechanically ventilated. A hypothesis as to why patients with COVID-19 require so much sedation and analgesia is that they often have a high respiratory drive and ventilator dyssynchrony, which requires increased neuromuscular blockade. “They also have an intense inflammatory response, which may be linked to tolerance of specific opioids and other medications,” Dr. Greenberg said. “Many ventilated COVID-19 patients are of younger age and previously in good health, and therefore, have an excellent metabolism. Health care providers are concerned about self-extubation. This prompts bedside providers to administer more sedatives to prevent this unwanted complication. There may also be a reduction of drip modifications by health care workers because of the potential risk of contracting COVID-19 when going into the room multiple times and for long periods of time” (Anesth Analg. 2020;131[1]:e34-e35).

According to a sedation resource on the SCCM website, about 5% of COVID-19 patients require mechanical ventilation. “There has been a massive shortage of the usual drugs that we use,” Dr. Greenberg said. “The demand for sedatives has increased by approximately 91%, while the demand for analgesics has increased by 79%, and neuromuscular blocker demand has increased by 105%.”

A retrospective study of 24 COVID-19 patients who required ventilation in the ICU found that the median daily dose of benzodiazepines was significantly higher, compared with the median daily dose used in the OSCILLATE trial (a median of 270 mg vs. 199 mg, respectively; Anesth Analg. 2020;131[4]e198-e200. doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000005131). In addition, their median daily dose of opioid was approximately three times higher, compared with patients in the OSCILLATE trial (a median of 775 mg vs. 289 mg). Other agents used included propofol (84%), dexmedetomidine (53%), and ketamine (11%).

“A potential strategy for COVID-19 ICU patient sedation should be analgesia first, as indicated in the 2018 PADIS guidelines,” Dr. Greenberg advised. “We should also apply nonpharmacologic measures to reduce delirium. In nonintubated patients, we should use light to moderate sedation, targeting a RASS of –2 to +1, using hydromorphone or fentanyl boluses for analgesia and midazolam boluses or dexmedetomidine for sedation,.”

For intubated patients, he continued, target a RASS of –3 to –4, or –4 to –5 in those who require neuromuscular blockade. “Use propofol first then intermittent boluses of benzodiazepines,” said Dr. Greenberg, editor-in-chief of the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation newsletter. “For heavy sedation, use midazolam and supplement with ketamine and other analgesics and sedatives such as barbiturates, methadone, and even inhalation anesthetics in some cases.”

For analgesia in intubated patients, use fentanyl boluses then infusion. “Patients can easily become tachyphylactic to fentanyl, and it has a long context-sensitive half time,” he said. “Hydromorphone may be least affected by organ dysfunction.”

Dr. Greenberg concluded his presentation by stating that more studies are required “to delineate the best analgesia/sedation strategies and monitoring modalities for COVID-19 ICU patients.”

In commenting on the presentation, Mangala Narasimhan, DO, FCCP, senior vice president and director of critical care services at Northwell Health, said that the recommendations regarding sedation highlight a struggle that ICU providers have been dealing with during the COVID-19 epidemic.

“There have been unique challenges with COVID-19 and intubated patients. We have seen severe ventilator dyssynchrony and prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation. I think we can all agree that these patients have extremely high metabolic rates, have required high levels of sedation, have an increased need for neuromuscular blockade, and have high levels of delirium for extended periods of time. The recommendations provided here are reasonable. Strategies to prevent delirium should be employed, pain management should be prioritized, analgesics can help reduce the need for opioids. Alternatives to sedation are useful in this patient population and are well tolerated. Drug shortages have provided additional challenges to these strategies and have required us to think about the use of alternative agents. The recommendations echo the experience we have had with large numbers of intubated COVID-19 patients.”

Dr. Greenberg disclosed that he receives a stipend from the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation for serving as editor-in-chief of the foundation’s newsletter.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

According to the best available evidence, analagosedation remains the focus for managing COVID-19 ICU patients, according to Steven B. Greenberg, MD, FCCP, FCCM.

“The choice of sedation and analgesia is important,” Dr. Greenberg, vice chair of education in the department of anesthesiology at Evanston Hospital, part of NorthShore University Health System, Chicago, said at a Society for Critical Care virtual meeting: COVID-19: What’s Next. “We know that the right choice of these two components may increase liberation from ventilators, earlier ICU discharge, and return to normal brain function and independent functional status.”
 

Analgesia first

Prior to the current pandemic, the approach to sedation of patients in the ICU was based on the PADIS Guidelines of 2018, which call for an assessment-driven, protocol-based stepwise approach to pain and sedation management in critically ill adults (Crit Care Med. 2018;46:e825-73). “[A strategy for COVID-19 in the ICU] should focus on analagosedation defined as analgesia-first sedation rather than jumping to sedation first,” Dr. Greenberg said. “We know that pain management should be a priority of sedation, because pain may increase the risk of delirium, anxiety, and endocrine suppression, and may increase the risk of release of endogenous catecholamines, ischemia, and hypermetabolic states.”

Fentanyl appears to be the most common opioid analgesic used for patients in the ICU, “but fentanyl is a very lipophilic drug and has a long context-sensitive half-life,” he said. “There are components to fentanyl that allow it to become a very long-acting drug upon days and days of infusion. Another opioid used is remifentanil, which is typically short-acting because it is broken down in the blood by esterases, but may cause rigidity at higher doses. Dilaudid seems to be the least affected by organ dysfunction. In our very critically ill, prolonged mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, we’ve been using methadone for its NMDA [N-methyl-D-aspartate] antagonistic effect and its opioid-sparing effects.”

As for nonopioid analgesics, Dr. Greenberg said that clinicians have shied away from using NSAIDs because of their side effects. “Tramadol indirectly inhibits reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin, and ketamine is being used a lot more because of its NMDA antagonist effect,” he said. “Lidocaine and gabapentin have also been used.”

In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers assessed 34 trials that examined adjuvant analgesic use with an opioid in critically ill patients versus an opioid alone (Crit Care Expl. 2020;2:e0157). They found that when using an adjuvant such as acetaminophen, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, ketamine, magnesium, nefopam, NSAIDs, pregabalin, and tramadol, there was a reduction in pain scores as well as a reduction in opioid consumption. “So, clinicians should consider using adjuvant agents to limit opioid exposure and improve pain scores in the critically ill,” Dr. Greenberg said.
 

ICU delirium: Risk factors, prevention

Delirium in COVID-19 patients treated in the ICU of particular concern. According to a systematic review of 33 studies, 11 risk factors for delirium in the ICU were supported by strong or moderate levels of evidence (Crit Care Med. 2015;43:40-7). These include age, dementia, hypertension, emergency surgery, trauma, APACHE score of II, need for mechanical ventilation, metabolic acidosis, delirium on prior day, coma, and dexmedetomidine use. Risk factors for ICU delirium among COVID-19 patients, however, “are far different,” Dr. Greenberg said. “Why? First and foremost, we are restricting visitation of family,” he said. “That family connection largely can be lost. Second, there are limitations of nonpharmacologic interventions. There is less mobility and physical therapy employed because of the risk of health care workers’ exposure to the virus. There’s also uncertainty about the global pandemic. Anxiety and depression come with that, as well as disruptions to spiritual and religious services.”

Strategies for preventing delirium remain the same as before the pandemic and in accord with recent clinical practice guidelines: Reduce the use of certain drugs such as benzodiazepines and narcotics, reorient the patients, treat dehydration, use hearing aids and eyeglasses in patients who have them, use ear plugs to cancel noise, mobilize patients, maintain sleep/awake cycles, and encourage sedation holidays (Crit Care Med. 2018;46[9]:e825-73).

A recent study from France found that among 58 patients with COVID-19, 65% had positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM)–ICU findings and 69% had agitation (N Engl J Med 2020;382:2268-70). Most of the patients (86%) received midazolam, 47% received propofol, and all received sufentanil. “In the pre-COVID days, we would use midazolam as a second-line agent for many of these patients,” Dr. Greenberg said. “So, times really have changed.”

The fate of COVID-19 patients following discharge from the ICU remains a concern, continued Dr. Greenberg, clinical professor of anesthesiology at the University of Chicago. A recent journal article by Michelle Biehl, MD, and Denise Sese, MD, noted that post–intensive care syndrome (PICS) or new or worsening impairment in any physical, cognitive, or mental domain is of significant concern among COVID-19 patients following their ICU stay (Cleveland Clin J Med 2020 Aug doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.ccc055). The authors stated that COVID-19 patients may face a higher risk of PICS because of restricted family visitation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, exposure to higher amounts of sedatives, and limited physical therapy during hospital stay.

No ideal sedative agent

The 2018 PADIS Guidelines on the use of ICU sedation suggested strong evidence for modifiable risk factors producing delirium in the context of benzodiazepines and blood transfusion. They recommend a light level of sedation and the use of propofol or dexmedetomidine over benzodiazepines. They also recommend routine delirium testing such as using the CAM-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and nonpharmacologic therapies such as reorientation, cognitive stimulation, sleep improvement, and mobilization.

Several sedation-related factors may be related to an increased risk of delirium. “The type, dose, duration, and mode of delivery are very important,” Dr. Greenberg said. “The ideal sedative agent has a rapid, predictable onset; is short-acting; has anxiolytic, amnestic, and analgesic properties; is soluble; has a high therapeutic index; and no toxicity. The ideal sedative is also easy to administrate, contains no active metabolites, has minimal actions with other drugs, is reversible, and is cost effective. The problem is, there really is no ideal sedative agent. There is inadequate knowledge about the drugs [used to treat COVID-19 in the ICU] available to us, the dosage, and importantly, the pharmacokinetics and dynamics of these medications.”

The classic types of sedation being used in the ICU, he said, include the benzodiazepines midazolam, lorazepam, and diazepam, as well as propofol. Alternatives include dexmedetomidine, clonidine, ketamine, and the neuroleptics – haloperidol, quetiapine, olanzapine, ziprasidone, and risperidone. “The advantages of benzos are that they are anxiolytics, amnestics, and they are good sedatives with minimal hemodynamic effects,” Dr. Greenberg said.

Advantages of propofol include its sedative, hypnotic, and anxiolytic properties, he said. It reduces the cerebral metabolic rate and can relieve bronchospasm. “However, small studies have found that its use may be associated with an increased risk of delirium,” he said. “It is a respiratory depressant, and it can cause hypotension and decreased contractility. It has no analgesic properties, and two of the big concerns of its use in COVID-19 are the potential for hypertriglyceridemia and propofol infusion syndrome, particularly at doses of greater than 5 mg/kg per hour for greater than 48 hours. It is being given in high doses because patients are requiring higher doses to maintain ventilator synchrony.”
 

Choosing the right drug

The keys to success for sedation of ICU patients are choosing the right drug at the right dose for the right duration and the right mode of delivery, and applying them to the right population. However, as noted in a recent study, the pandemic poses unique challenges to clinicians in how they care for critically ill COVID-19 patients who require sedation (Anesth Analg. 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004887). The use of provisional work areas “has escalated because of the amount of patients we’ve had to care for over the past nine months,” Dr. Greenberg said. “We’ve used alternate providers who are not necessarily familiar with the sedation and analgesic protocols and how to use these specific medications. Drug shortages have been on the rise, so there’s a need to understand alternative agents that can be used.”

COVID-19 patients face the potential risk for an increase in drug-drug interactions and side effects due to the polypharmacy that is often required to provide adequate sedation during mechanical ventilation. He noted that these patients may have “unusually high” analgesia and sedation requirements, particularly when they’re mechanically ventilated. A hypothesis as to why patients with COVID-19 require so much sedation and analgesia is that they often have a high respiratory drive and ventilator dyssynchrony, which requires increased neuromuscular blockade. “They also have an intense inflammatory response, which may be linked to tolerance of specific opioids and other medications,” Dr. Greenberg said. “Many ventilated COVID-19 patients are of younger age and previously in good health, and therefore, have an excellent metabolism. Health care providers are concerned about self-extubation. This prompts bedside providers to administer more sedatives to prevent this unwanted complication. There may also be a reduction of drip modifications by health care workers because of the potential risk of contracting COVID-19 when going into the room multiple times and for long periods of time” (Anesth Analg. 2020;131[1]:e34-e35).

According to a sedation resource on the SCCM website, about 5% of COVID-19 patients require mechanical ventilation. “There has been a massive shortage of the usual drugs that we use,” Dr. Greenberg said. “The demand for sedatives has increased by approximately 91%, while the demand for analgesics has increased by 79%, and neuromuscular blocker demand has increased by 105%.”

A retrospective study of 24 COVID-19 patients who required ventilation in the ICU found that the median daily dose of benzodiazepines was significantly higher, compared with the median daily dose used in the OSCILLATE trial (a median of 270 mg vs. 199 mg, respectively; Anesth Analg. 2020;131[4]e198-e200. doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000005131). In addition, their median daily dose of opioid was approximately three times higher, compared with patients in the OSCILLATE trial (a median of 775 mg vs. 289 mg). Other agents used included propofol (84%), dexmedetomidine (53%), and ketamine (11%).

“A potential strategy for COVID-19 ICU patient sedation should be analgesia first, as indicated in the 2018 PADIS guidelines,” Dr. Greenberg advised. “We should also apply nonpharmacologic measures to reduce delirium. In nonintubated patients, we should use light to moderate sedation, targeting a RASS of –2 to +1, using hydromorphone or fentanyl boluses for analgesia and midazolam boluses or dexmedetomidine for sedation,.”

For intubated patients, he continued, target a RASS of –3 to –4, or –4 to –5 in those who require neuromuscular blockade. “Use propofol first then intermittent boluses of benzodiazepines,” said Dr. Greenberg, editor-in-chief of the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation newsletter. “For heavy sedation, use midazolam and supplement with ketamine and other analgesics and sedatives such as barbiturates, methadone, and even inhalation anesthetics in some cases.”

For analgesia in intubated patients, use fentanyl boluses then infusion. “Patients can easily become tachyphylactic to fentanyl, and it has a long context-sensitive half time,” he said. “Hydromorphone may be least affected by organ dysfunction.”

Dr. Greenberg concluded his presentation by stating that more studies are required “to delineate the best analgesia/sedation strategies and monitoring modalities for COVID-19 ICU patients.”

In commenting on the presentation, Mangala Narasimhan, DO, FCCP, senior vice president and director of critical care services at Northwell Health, said that the recommendations regarding sedation highlight a struggle that ICU providers have been dealing with during the COVID-19 epidemic.

“There have been unique challenges with COVID-19 and intubated patients. We have seen severe ventilator dyssynchrony and prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation. I think we can all agree that these patients have extremely high metabolic rates, have required high levels of sedation, have an increased need for neuromuscular blockade, and have high levels of delirium for extended periods of time. The recommendations provided here are reasonable. Strategies to prevent delirium should be employed, pain management should be prioritized, analgesics can help reduce the need for opioids. Alternatives to sedation are useful in this patient population and are well tolerated. Drug shortages have provided additional challenges to these strategies and have required us to think about the use of alternative agents. The recommendations echo the experience we have had with large numbers of intubated COVID-19 patients.”

Dr. Greenberg disclosed that he receives a stipend from the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation for serving as editor-in-chief of the foundation’s newsletter.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

According to the best available evidence, analagosedation remains the focus for managing COVID-19 ICU patients, according to Steven B. Greenberg, MD, FCCP, FCCM.

“The choice of sedation and analgesia is important,” Dr. Greenberg, vice chair of education in the department of anesthesiology at Evanston Hospital, part of NorthShore University Health System, Chicago, said at a Society for Critical Care virtual meeting: COVID-19: What’s Next. “We know that the right choice of these two components may increase liberation from ventilators, earlier ICU discharge, and return to normal brain function and independent functional status.”
 

Analgesia first

Prior to the current pandemic, the approach to sedation of patients in the ICU was based on the PADIS Guidelines of 2018, which call for an assessment-driven, protocol-based stepwise approach to pain and sedation management in critically ill adults (Crit Care Med. 2018;46:e825-73). “[A strategy for COVID-19 in the ICU] should focus on analagosedation defined as analgesia-first sedation rather than jumping to sedation first,” Dr. Greenberg said. “We know that pain management should be a priority of sedation, because pain may increase the risk of delirium, anxiety, and endocrine suppression, and may increase the risk of release of endogenous catecholamines, ischemia, and hypermetabolic states.”

Fentanyl appears to be the most common opioid analgesic used for patients in the ICU, “but fentanyl is a very lipophilic drug and has a long context-sensitive half-life,” he said. “There are components to fentanyl that allow it to become a very long-acting drug upon days and days of infusion. Another opioid used is remifentanil, which is typically short-acting because it is broken down in the blood by esterases, but may cause rigidity at higher doses. Dilaudid seems to be the least affected by organ dysfunction. In our very critically ill, prolonged mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, we’ve been using methadone for its NMDA [N-methyl-D-aspartate] antagonistic effect and its opioid-sparing effects.”

As for nonopioid analgesics, Dr. Greenberg said that clinicians have shied away from using NSAIDs because of their side effects. “Tramadol indirectly inhibits reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin, and ketamine is being used a lot more because of its NMDA antagonist effect,” he said. “Lidocaine and gabapentin have also been used.”

In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers assessed 34 trials that examined adjuvant analgesic use with an opioid in critically ill patients versus an opioid alone (Crit Care Expl. 2020;2:e0157). They found that when using an adjuvant such as acetaminophen, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, ketamine, magnesium, nefopam, NSAIDs, pregabalin, and tramadol, there was a reduction in pain scores as well as a reduction in opioid consumption. “So, clinicians should consider using adjuvant agents to limit opioid exposure and improve pain scores in the critically ill,” Dr. Greenberg said.
 

ICU delirium: Risk factors, prevention

Delirium in COVID-19 patients treated in the ICU of particular concern. According to a systematic review of 33 studies, 11 risk factors for delirium in the ICU were supported by strong or moderate levels of evidence (Crit Care Med. 2015;43:40-7). These include age, dementia, hypertension, emergency surgery, trauma, APACHE score of II, need for mechanical ventilation, metabolic acidosis, delirium on prior day, coma, and dexmedetomidine use. Risk factors for ICU delirium among COVID-19 patients, however, “are far different,” Dr. Greenberg said. “Why? First and foremost, we are restricting visitation of family,” he said. “That family connection largely can be lost. Second, there are limitations of nonpharmacologic interventions. There is less mobility and physical therapy employed because of the risk of health care workers’ exposure to the virus. There’s also uncertainty about the global pandemic. Anxiety and depression come with that, as well as disruptions to spiritual and religious services.”

Strategies for preventing delirium remain the same as before the pandemic and in accord with recent clinical practice guidelines: Reduce the use of certain drugs such as benzodiazepines and narcotics, reorient the patients, treat dehydration, use hearing aids and eyeglasses in patients who have them, use ear plugs to cancel noise, mobilize patients, maintain sleep/awake cycles, and encourage sedation holidays (Crit Care Med. 2018;46[9]:e825-73).

A recent study from France found that among 58 patients with COVID-19, 65% had positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM)–ICU findings and 69% had agitation (N Engl J Med 2020;382:2268-70). Most of the patients (86%) received midazolam, 47% received propofol, and all received sufentanil. “In the pre-COVID days, we would use midazolam as a second-line agent for many of these patients,” Dr. Greenberg said. “So, times really have changed.”

The fate of COVID-19 patients following discharge from the ICU remains a concern, continued Dr. Greenberg, clinical professor of anesthesiology at the University of Chicago. A recent journal article by Michelle Biehl, MD, and Denise Sese, MD, noted that post–intensive care syndrome (PICS) or new or worsening impairment in any physical, cognitive, or mental domain is of significant concern among COVID-19 patients following their ICU stay (Cleveland Clin J Med 2020 Aug doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.ccc055). The authors stated that COVID-19 patients may face a higher risk of PICS because of restricted family visitation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, exposure to higher amounts of sedatives, and limited physical therapy during hospital stay.

No ideal sedative agent

The 2018 PADIS Guidelines on the use of ICU sedation suggested strong evidence for modifiable risk factors producing delirium in the context of benzodiazepines and blood transfusion. They recommend a light level of sedation and the use of propofol or dexmedetomidine over benzodiazepines. They also recommend routine delirium testing such as using the CAM-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and nonpharmacologic therapies such as reorientation, cognitive stimulation, sleep improvement, and mobilization.

Several sedation-related factors may be related to an increased risk of delirium. “The type, dose, duration, and mode of delivery are very important,” Dr. Greenberg said. “The ideal sedative agent has a rapid, predictable onset; is short-acting; has anxiolytic, amnestic, and analgesic properties; is soluble; has a high therapeutic index; and no toxicity. The ideal sedative is also easy to administrate, contains no active metabolites, has minimal actions with other drugs, is reversible, and is cost effective. The problem is, there really is no ideal sedative agent. There is inadequate knowledge about the drugs [used to treat COVID-19 in the ICU] available to us, the dosage, and importantly, the pharmacokinetics and dynamics of these medications.”

The classic types of sedation being used in the ICU, he said, include the benzodiazepines midazolam, lorazepam, and diazepam, as well as propofol. Alternatives include dexmedetomidine, clonidine, ketamine, and the neuroleptics – haloperidol, quetiapine, olanzapine, ziprasidone, and risperidone. “The advantages of benzos are that they are anxiolytics, amnestics, and they are good sedatives with minimal hemodynamic effects,” Dr. Greenberg said.

Advantages of propofol include its sedative, hypnotic, and anxiolytic properties, he said. It reduces the cerebral metabolic rate and can relieve bronchospasm. “However, small studies have found that its use may be associated with an increased risk of delirium,” he said. “It is a respiratory depressant, and it can cause hypotension and decreased contractility. It has no analgesic properties, and two of the big concerns of its use in COVID-19 are the potential for hypertriglyceridemia and propofol infusion syndrome, particularly at doses of greater than 5 mg/kg per hour for greater than 48 hours. It is being given in high doses because patients are requiring higher doses to maintain ventilator synchrony.”
 

Choosing the right drug

The keys to success for sedation of ICU patients are choosing the right drug at the right dose for the right duration and the right mode of delivery, and applying them to the right population. However, as noted in a recent study, the pandemic poses unique challenges to clinicians in how they care for critically ill COVID-19 patients who require sedation (Anesth Analg. 2020 Apr 22. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004887). The use of provisional work areas “has escalated because of the amount of patients we’ve had to care for over the past nine months,” Dr. Greenberg said. “We’ve used alternate providers who are not necessarily familiar with the sedation and analgesic protocols and how to use these specific medications. Drug shortages have been on the rise, so there’s a need to understand alternative agents that can be used.”

COVID-19 patients face the potential risk for an increase in drug-drug interactions and side effects due to the polypharmacy that is often required to provide adequate sedation during mechanical ventilation. He noted that these patients may have “unusually high” analgesia and sedation requirements, particularly when they’re mechanically ventilated. A hypothesis as to why patients with COVID-19 require so much sedation and analgesia is that they often have a high respiratory drive and ventilator dyssynchrony, which requires increased neuromuscular blockade. “They also have an intense inflammatory response, which may be linked to tolerance of specific opioids and other medications,” Dr. Greenberg said. “Many ventilated COVID-19 patients are of younger age and previously in good health, and therefore, have an excellent metabolism. Health care providers are concerned about self-extubation. This prompts bedside providers to administer more sedatives to prevent this unwanted complication. There may also be a reduction of drip modifications by health care workers because of the potential risk of contracting COVID-19 when going into the room multiple times and for long periods of time” (Anesth Analg. 2020;131[1]:e34-e35).

According to a sedation resource on the SCCM website, about 5% of COVID-19 patients require mechanical ventilation. “There has been a massive shortage of the usual drugs that we use,” Dr. Greenberg said. “The demand for sedatives has increased by approximately 91%, while the demand for analgesics has increased by 79%, and neuromuscular blocker demand has increased by 105%.”

A retrospective study of 24 COVID-19 patients who required ventilation in the ICU found that the median daily dose of benzodiazepines was significantly higher, compared with the median daily dose used in the OSCILLATE trial (a median of 270 mg vs. 199 mg, respectively; Anesth Analg. 2020;131[4]e198-e200. doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000005131). In addition, their median daily dose of opioid was approximately three times higher, compared with patients in the OSCILLATE trial (a median of 775 mg vs. 289 mg). Other agents used included propofol (84%), dexmedetomidine (53%), and ketamine (11%).

“A potential strategy for COVID-19 ICU patient sedation should be analgesia first, as indicated in the 2018 PADIS guidelines,” Dr. Greenberg advised. “We should also apply nonpharmacologic measures to reduce delirium. In nonintubated patients, we should use light to moderate sedation, targeting a RASS of –2 to +1, using hydromorphone or fentanyl boluses for analgesia and midazolam boluses or dexmedetomidine for sedation,.”

For intubated patients, he continued, target a RASS of –3 to –4, or –4 to –5 in those who require neuromuscular blockade. “Use propofol first then intermittent boluses of benzodiazepines,” said Dr. Greenberg, editor-in-chief of the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation newsletter. “For heavy sedation, use midazolam and supplement with ketamine and other analgesics and sedatives such as barbiturates, methadone, and even inhalation anesthetics in some cases.”

For analgesia in intubated patients, use fentanyl boluses then infusion. “Patients can easily become tachyphylactic to fentanyl, and it has a long context-sensitive half time,” he said. “Hydromorphone may be least affected by organ dysfunction.”

Dr. Greenberg concluded his presentation by stating that more studies are required “to delineate the best analgesia/sedation strategies and monitoring modalities for COVID-19 ICU patients.”

In commenting on the presentation, Mangala Narasimhan, DO, FCCP, senior vice president and director of critical care services at Northwell Health, said that the recommendations regarding sedation highlight a struggle that ICU providers have been dealing with during the COVID-19 epidemic.

“There have been unique challenges with COVID-19 and intubated patients. We have seen severe ventilator dyssynchrony and prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation. I think we can all agree that these patients have extremely high metabolic rates, have required high levels of sedation, have an increased need for neuromuscular blockade, and have high levels of delirium for extended periods of time. The recommendations provided here are reasonable. Strategies to prevent delirium should be employed, pain management should be prioritized, analgesics can help reduce the need for opioids. Alternatives to sedation are useful in this patient population and are well tolerated. Drug shortages have provided additional challenges to these strategies and have required us to think about the use of alternative agents. The recommendations echo the experience we have had with large numbers of intubated COVID-19 patients.”

Dr. Greenberg disclosed that he receives a stipend from the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation for serving as editor-in-chief of the foundation’s newsletter.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Restarting breast cancer screening programs after the COVID-19 disruption will be challenging given a trade-off between minimizing excess mortality from the disease and strain on programs, according to a modeling study reported at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

Fallout of the pandemic has included reductions in cancer screening and diagnosis, said study investigator Lindy M. Kregting, a PhD student in the department of public health at Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands).

In the Netherlands, new breast cancer diagnoses fell dramatically from historical levels starting in February. The number in April was less than half of that expected.

Ms. Kregting and colleagues used modeling to assess the impact of four strategies for restarting breast cancer screening in the Netherlands. The strategies differed regarding the population affected, the duration of the effects, and changes in stopping age. The usual situation, without any disruption, served as the comparator.

Results showed wide variation across strategies with respect to the increase in screening capacity needed during the latter half of this year – from 0% to 100% – and the excess breast cancer mortality occurring during 2020-2030 – from as many as 181 excess breast cancer deaths to as few as 14.

“The effects of the disruption are dependent on the chosen restart strategy,” Ms. Kregting summarized. “It would be preferred to immediately catch up because this minimizes the impact, but it also requires a very high capacity, so it may not always be possible. A proper alternative would be to increase the stopping age, so no screens are omitted, because this requires a rather normal capacity, and it will result in only small effects on incidence and mortality.”

As screening programs restart in some countries, there are still a lot of unknowns that could affect outcomes, including how many women will attend given that some may stay away out of fear, Ms. Kregting cautioned.

“We plan to do further model calculations when we know exactly what has happened. ... For now, we just assumed some reasonable disruption periods, and we assumed that capacity would be back to the original, before COVID-19, but I think we can say this is probably not the case,” she added.
 

Study details

Ms. Kregting and colleagues used Dutch breast cancer screening program parameters (biennial digital mammography for women aged 50-75 years) and a microsimulation screening analysis model to simulate four strategies for restarting breast cancer screening after a 6-month disruption:

• “Everyone delay,” a strategy in which all screening continues in the order planned with no change in the stopping age of 75 years (so that one in four women ultimately miss a screening during their lifetime)
• “First rounds no delay,” in which there is a delay in screening except for women having their first screening
• “Continue after stopping age,” in which there is a delay in screening but temporary increasing of the stopping age (to 76.5 years) to ensure all women get their final screen
• “Catch-up after stop,” in which capacity is increased to ensure full catch-up, with all delayed screens caught up in a 6-month period (the second half of 2020).

Results showed that 5,872 women would be screened in the latter half of 2020 if screening proceeded as usual without disruption. The necessary capacity was essentially the same with all of the restarting strategies, except for the catch-up-after-stop strategy, which would require a doubling of that number.

The temporal pattern of breast cancer incidence varied according to restart strategy early on, but incidence essentially returned to that expected with undisrupted screening by 2025 for all four strategies, with some small fluctuations thereafter.

The impact on breast cancer mortality differed considerably long term. It increased slightly and transiently above the expected level with the catch-up-after-stop strategy, but there were sizable, long-lasting increases with the other strategies, with excess deaths still seen in 2060 for the everyone-delay strategy.

In absolute terms, the excess number of breast cancer deaths during 2020-2030, compared with undisrupted screening, was 181 with the everyone-delay strategy, 155 with the first-rounds-no-delay strategy, 145 with the continue-after-stopping-age strategy, and just 14 with the catch-up-after-stop strategy. Ms. Kregting declined to provide numbers for other countries, given that the model is based on the Dutch population and screening program.
 

Results in context

“The unprecedented burden of COVID-19 on health systems worldwide has important implications for cancer care,” said invited discussant Alessandra Gennari, MD, PhD, of the University of Eastern Piedmont and Maggiore della Carità Hospital, both in Novara, Italy.

“There is a delay in diagnosis due to the fact that screening programs and diagnostic programs have been decreased or suspended in many Western countries where this is standard of care. Patients also are more reluctant to present to health care services, delaying their diagnosis,” Dr. Gennari said.

Findings of this new study add to those of similar studies undertaken in Italy (published in In Vivo) and the United Kingdom (published in The Lancet Oncology) showing the likely marked toll of the pandemic on cancer diagnosis and mortality, Dr. Gennari noted. Taken together, the findings underscore the urgent need for policy interventions to mitigate this impact.

“These interventions should focus on increasing routine diagnostic capacity, through which up to 40% of patients with cancer are diagnosed,” Dr. Gennari recommended. “Public health messaging is needed that accurately conveys the risk of severe illness from COVID-19 versus the risks of not seeking health care advice if patients are symptomatic. Finally, there is a need for provision of evidence-based data on which clinicians can adequately base their decision on how to manage the risks of cancer patients and the risks and benefits of procedures during the pandemic.”

The current study did not have any specific funding, and Ms. Kregting disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gennari disclosed relationships with Roche, Eisai, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Kregting L et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Conference, Abstract 24.

Restarting breast cancer screening programs after the COVID-19 disruption will be challenging given a trade-off between minimizing excess mortality from the disease and strain on programs, according to a modeling study reported at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

Fallout of the pandemic has included reductions in cancer screening and diagnosis, said study investigator Lindy M. Kregting, a PhD student in the department of public health at Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands).

In the Netherlands, new breast cancer diagnoses fell dramatically from historical levels starting in February. The number in April was less than half of that expected.

Ms. Kregting and colleagues used modeling to assess the impact of four strategies for restarting breast cancer screening in the Netherlands. The strategies differed regarding the population affected, the duration of the effects, and changes in stopping age. The usual situation, without any disruption, served as the comparator.

Results showed wide variation across strategies with respect to the increase in screening capacity needed during the latter half of this year – from 0% to 100% – and the excess breast cancer mortality occurring during 2020-2030 – from as many as 181 excess breast cancer deaths to as few as 14.

“The effects of the disruption are dependent on the chosen restart strategy,” Ms. Kregting summarized. “It would be preferred to immediately catch up because this minimizes the impact, but it also requires a very high capacity, so it may not always be possible. A proper alternative would be to increase the stopping age, so no screens are omitted, because this requires a rather normal capacity, and it will result in only small effects on incidence and mortality.”

As screening programs restart in some countries, there are still a lot of unknowns that could affect outcomes, including how many women will attend given that some may stay away out of fear, Ms. Kregting cautioned.

“We plan to do further model calculations when we know exactly what has happened. ... For now, we just assumed some reasonable disruption periods, and we assumed that capacity would be back to the original, before COVID-19, but I think we can say this is probably not the case,” she added.
 

Study details

Ms. Kregting and colleagues used Dutch breast cancer screening program parameters (biennial digital mammography for women aged 50-75 years) and a microsimulation screening analysis model to simulate four strategies for restarting breast cancer screening after a 6-month disruption:

• “Everyone delay,” a strategy in which all screening continues in the order planned with no change in the stopping age of 75 years (so that one in four women ultimately miss a screening during their lifetime)
• “First rounds no delay,” in which there is a delay in screening except for women having their first screening
• “Continue after stopping age,” in which there is a delay in screening but temporary increasing of the stopping age (to 76.5 years) to ensure all women get their final screen
• “Catch-up after stop,” in which capacity is increased to ensure full catch-up, with all delayed screens caught up in a 6-month period (the second half of 2020).

Results showed that 5,872 women would be screened in the latter half of 2020 if screening proceeded as usual without disruption. The necessary capacity was essentially the same with all of the restarting strategies, except for the catch-up-after-stop strategy, which would require a doubling of that number.

The temporal pattern of breast cancer incidence varied according to restart strategy early on, but incidence essentially returned to that expected with undisrupted screening by 2025 for all four strategies, with some small fluctuations thereafter.

The impact on breast cancer mortality differed considerably long term. It increased slightly and transiently above the expected level with the catch-up-after-stop strategy, but there were sizable, long-lasting increases with the other strategies, with excess deaths still seen in 2060 for the everyone-delay strategy.

In absolute terms, the excess number of breast cancer deaths during 2020-2030, compared with undisrupted screening, was 181 with the everyone-delay strategy, 155 with the first-rounds-no-delay strategy, 145 with the continue-after-stopping-age strategy, and just 14 with the catch-up-after-stop strategy. Ms. Kregting declined to provide numbers for other countries, given that the model is based on the Dutch population and screening program.
 

Results in context

“The unprecedented burden of COVID-19 on health systems worldwide has important implications for cancer care,” said invited discussant Alessandra Gennari, MD, PhD, of the University of Eastern Piedmont and Maggiore della Carità Hospital, both in Novara, Italy.

“There is a delay in diagnosis due to the fact that screening programs and diagnostic programs have been decreased or suspended in many Western countries where this is standard of care. Patients also are more reluctant to present to health care services, delaying their diagnosis,” Dr. Gennari said.

Findings of this new study add to those of similar studies undertaken in Italy (published in In Vivo) and the United Kingdom (published in The Lancet Oncology) showing the likely marked toll of the pandemic on cancer diagnosis and mortality, Dr. Gennari noted. Taken together, the findings underscore the urgent need for policy interventions to mitigate this impact.

“These interventions should focus on increasing routine diagnostic capacity, through which up to 40% of patients with cancer are diagnosed,” Dr. Gennari recommended. “Public health messaging is needed that accurately conveys the risk of severe illness from COVID-19 versus the risks of not seeking health care advice if patients are symptomatic. Finally, there is a need for provision of evidence-based data on which clinicians can adequately base their decision on how to manage the risks of cancer patients and the risks and benefits of procedures during the pandemic.”

The current study did not have any specific funding, and Ms. Kregting disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gennari disclosed relationships with Roche, Eisai, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Kregting L et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Conference, Abstract 24.

Restarting breast cancer screening programs after the COVID-19 disruption will be challenging given a trade-off between minimizing excess mortality from the disease and strain on programs, according to a modeling study reported at the 12th European Breast Cancer Conference.

Fallout of the pandemic has included reductions in cancer screening and diagnosis, said study investigator Lindy M. Kregting, a PhD student in the department of public health at Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands).

In the Netherlands, new breast cancer diagnoses fell dramatically from historical levels starting in February. The number in April was less than half of that expected.

Ms. Kregting and colleagues used modeling to assess the impact of four strategies for restarting breast cancer screening in the Netherlands. The strategies differed regarding the population affected, the duration of the effects, and changes in stopping age. The usual situation, without any disruption, served as the comparator.

Results showed wide variation across strategies with respect to the increase in screening capacity needed during the latter half of this year – from 0% to 100% – and the excess breast cancer mortality occurring during 2020-2030 – from as many as 181 excess breast cancer deaths to as few as 14.

“The effects of the disruption are dependent on the chosen restart strategy,” Ms. Kregting summarized. “It would be preferred to immediately catch up because this minimizes the impact, but it also requires a very high capacity, so it may not always be possible. A proper alternative would be to increase the stopping age, so no screens are omitted, because this requires a rather normal capacity, and it will result in only small effects on incidence and mortality.”

As screening programs restart in some countries, there are still a lot of unknowns that could affect outcomes, including how many women will attend given that some may stay away out of fear, Ms. Kregting cautioned.

“We plan to do further model calculations when we know exactly what has happened. ... For now, we just assumed some reasonable disruption periods, and we assumed that capacity would be back to the original, before COVID-19, but I think we can say this is probably not the case,” she added.
 

Study details

Ms. Kregting and colleagues used Dutch breast cancer screening program parameters (biennial digital mammography for women aged 50-75 years) and a microsimulation screening analysis model to simulate four strategies for restarting breast cancer screening after a 6-month disruption:

• “Everyone delay,” a strategy in which all screening continues in the order planned with no change in the stopping age of 75 years (so that one in four women ultimately miss a screening during their lifetime)
• “First rounds no delay,” in which there is a delay in screening except for women having their first screening
• “Continue after stopping age,” in which there is a delay in screening but temporary increasing of the stopping age (to 76.5 years) to ensure all women get their final screen
• “Catch-up after stop,” in which capacity is increased to ensure full catch-up, with all delayed screens caught up in a 6-month period (the second half of 2020).

Results showed that 5,872 women would be screened in the latter half of 2020 if screening proceeded as usual without disruption. The necessary capacity was essentially the same with all of the restarting strategies, except for the catch-up-after-stop strategy, which would require a doubling of that number.

The temporal pattern of breast cancer incidence varied according to restart strategy early on, but incidence essentially returned to that expected with undisrupted screening by 2025 for all four strategies, with some small fluctuations thereafter.

The impact on breast cancer mortality differed considerably long term. It increased slightly and transiently above the expected level with the catch-up-after-stop strategy, but there were sizable, long-lasting increases with the other strategies, with excess deaths still seen in 2060 for the everyone-delay strategy.

In absolute terms, the excess number of breast cancer deaths during 2020-2030, compared with undisrupted screening, was 181 with the everyone-delay strategy, 155 with the first-rounds-no-delay strategy, 145 with the continue-after-stopping-age strategy, and just 14 with the catch-up-after-stop strategy. Ms. Kregting declined to provide numbers for other countries, given that the model is based on the Dutch population and screening program.
 

Results in context

“The unprecedented burden of COVID-19 on health systems worldwide has important implications for cancer care,” said invited discussant Alessandra Gennari, MD, PhD, of the University of Eastern Piedmont and Maggiore della Carità Hospital, both in Novara, Italy.

“There is a delay in diagnosis due to the fact that screening programs and diagnostic programs have been decreased or suspended in many Western countries where this is standard of care. Patients also are more reluctant to present to health care services, delaying their diagnosis,” Dr. Gennari said.

Findings of this new study add to those of similar studies undertaken in Italy (published in In Vivo) and the United Kingdom (published in The Lancet Oncology) showing the likely marked toll of the pandemic on cancer diagnosis and mortality, Dr. Gennari noted. Taken together, the findings underscore the urgent need for policy interventions to mitigate this impact.

“These interventions should focus on increasing routine diagnostic capacity, through which up to 40% of patients with cancer are diagnosed,” Dr. Gennari recommended. “Public health messaging is needed that accurately conveys the risk of severe illness from COVID-19 versus the risks of not seeking health care advice if patients are symptomatic. Finally, there is a need for provision of evidence-based data on which clinicians can adequately base their decision on how to manage the risks of cancer patients and the risks and benefits of procedures during the pandemic.”

The current study did not have any specific funding, and Ms. Kregting disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gennari disclosed relationships with Roche, Eisai, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Kregting L et al. EBCC-12 Virtual Conference, Abstract 24.

May 20 of this plague year, Reuters reported the death of a 32-year-old Florida nurse who had worked tirelessly to treat patients with COVID-19.¹ The presumption is that, like so many selfless health care providers (HCPs), this nurse was exposed to and then sadly succumbed to the virus. That presumption would be wrong: COVID-19 did not take his young life. The other pandemic—addiction— did. Bereaved friends and family reported that the nurse had been in recovery from opioid use disorder (OUD) before the onslaught of the public health crisis. The chronicle of his relapse is instructive for the devastating effect COVID-19 has had on persons struggling with addiction, even those like the nurse who was in sustained remission from OUD with a bright future.

Many of the themes are familiar to HCPs and have been the subject of prior columns in this COVID-19 series. The nurse experienced acute stress symptoms, such as nightmares from the repeated crises of sick and dying patients in the intensive care unit where he worked.² Like so many other HCPs, while he was desperately trying to save others, he also worried about having sufficient access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

Most relevant to this column, the caregiver was unable to access his primary source of support for his sobriety—attendance at 12-step meetings. Social distancing, which is one of the only proven means we have of reducing transmission of the virus, has had unintended consequences. Although many have found virtual connections rewarding, this nurse needed the curtailed face-to-face contact. The courage that had led him to volunteer for hazardous duty unwontedly resulted in his estrangement: Friends feared that he would expose them to the virus, and he worried that he would expose his family to danger. As in the 1918 flu pandemic, the humans we depend on for reality testing and companionship have been cruelly transformed into potential vectors of the virus.³

Isolation is the worst of all possible counselors as the great Spanish philosopher of alienation Miguel de Unamuno has argued. The deceptive promise of a rapid deliverance from anxiety and pain that substances of abuse proffer apparently led the nurse back to opioids. The virtue of being clean permitted the dirty drug to take advantage of the nurses’ reduced physiologic tolerance to opioids. It is suspected but not confirmed that he fatally overdosed alone in his car.

This Florida nurse is an especially tragic example of a terrible phenomenon being repeated all over the country. And the epidemic of substance use disorders (SUDs) related to COVID-19 is not confined to the US; there are similar reports from other afflicted nations, making addiction truly the other pandemic.⁴ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 13.3% of American adults have started or increased their substance use as a means of managing the negative emotions associated with the pandemic.⁵ Also from March to May 2020, researchers in Baltimore found a 17.6% increase in suspected overdoses in counties advising social distancing and/or mandating stay at home orders.⁵

These data reinforce a well-known maxim in the addiction community that “addiction is a disease of isolation.”^6-8 The burden of the lockdown falls harder on many of the patients we treat in the federal health care system whose other mental and physical health conditions, including chronic pain, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder already placed them at elevated risk of SUDs.⁹ Director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse Nora Volkow, MD, recently traced the well-known arc from isolation to increased use of drugs and alcohol.¹⁰ Isolation is stressful and amplifies negative thoughts, dysphoria, and fearful emotions, which are recognized triggers for the use of substances of abuse. The usually available means of coping with craving, and in many cases withdrawal, such as prescribed medications, visits to therapists, participation in support groups are either not available or much more difficult to access.¹⁰ Nor are those without a current or even historical SUD immune to the psychosocial pressures of the pandemic: Isolation also constitutes a risk for the development of de novo addiction particularly among already marginalized groups, such as the elderly and disabled.

The federal government has initiated several important measures to reduce the adverse impact of isolation on persons with SUDs. The Drug Enforcement Administration is exempting qualified practitioners of medication-assisted treatment from the in-person evaluation that is usually required for the prescription of controlled substances, including buprenorphine. This exemption applies to both established patient prescriptions for buprenorphine and new buprenorphine patient prescriptions.¹¹ These and other administrative contingencies at the federal government level can assist persons with OUD to continue to receive medicationassisted treatment.

As individual clinicians in federal practice, we alone cannot engineer such major policy accommodations in response to COVID-19, yet we can still make a difference in the lives of our patients. We can focus a few minutes of our telehealth interactions on checking in with patients who have a history or a current SUD. We can remember to use evidence-based screens for these patients and those with other risk factors to detect drug or alcohol use before it becomes a disorder. And we can identify and refer not only patients but also our beleaguered colleagues who feel alone at sea—to the many lifelines our agencies have cast into what other commentators have referred to as a Perfect Storm of COVID-19 and the opioid crisis (Table).¹²

May 20 of this plague year, Reuters reported the death of a 32-year-old Florida nurse who had worked tirelessly to treat patients with COVID-19.¹ The presumption is that, like so many selfless health care providers (HCPs), this nurse was exposed to and then sadly succumbed to the virus. That presumption would be wrong: COVID-19 did not take his young life. The other pandemic—addiction— did. Bereaved friends and family reported that the nurse had been in recovery from opioid use disorder (OUD) before the onslaught of the public health crisis. The chronicle of his relapse is instructive for the devastating effect COVID-19 has had on persons struggling with addiction, even those like the nurse who was in sustained remission from OUD with a bright future.

Many of the themes are familiar to HCPs and have been the subject of prior columns in this COVID-19 series. The nurse experienced acute stress symptoms, such as nightmares from the repeated crises of sick and dying patients in the intensive care unit where he worked.² Like so many other HCPs, while he was desperately trying to save others, he also worried about having sufficient access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

Most relevant to this column, the caregiver was unable to access his primary source of support for his sobriety—attendance at 12-step meetings. Social distancing, which is one of the only proven means we have of reducing transmission of the virus, has had unintended consequences. Although many have found virtual connections rewarding, this nurse needed the curtailed face-to-face contact. The courage that had led him to volunteer for hazardous duty unwontedly resulted in his estrangement: Friends feared that he would expose them to the virus, and he worried that he would expose his family to danger. As in the 1918 flu pandemic, the humans we depend on for reality testing and companionship have been cruelly transformed into potential vectors of the virus.³

Isolation is the worst of all possible counselors as the great Spanish philosopher of alienation Miguel de Unamuno has argued. The deceptive promise of a rapid deliverance from anxiety and pain that substances of abuse proffer apparently led the nurse back to opioids. The virtue of being clean permitted the dirty drug to take advantage of the nurses’ reduced physiologic tolerance to opioids. It is suspected but not confirmed that he fatally overdosed alone in his car.

This Florida nurse is an especially tragic example of a terrible phenomenon being repeated all over the country. And the epidemic of substance use disorders (SUDs) related to COVID-19 is not confined to the US; there are similar reports from other afflicted nations, making addiction truly the other pandemic.⁴ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 13.3% of American adults have started or increased their substance use as a means of managing the negative emotions associated with the pandemic.⁵ Also from March to May 2020, researchers in Baltimore found a 17.6% increase in suspected overdoses in counties advising social distancing and/or mandating stay at home orders.⁵

These data reinforce a well-known maxim in the addiction community that “addiction is a disease of isolation.”^6-8 The burden of the lockdown falls harder on many of the patients we treat in the federal health care system whose other mental and physical health conditions, including chronic pain, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder already placed them at elevated risk of SUDs.⁹ Director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse Nora Volkow, MD, recently traced the well-known arc from isolation to increased use of drugs and alcohol.¹⁰ Isolation is stressful and amplifies negative thoughts, dysphoria, and fearful emotions, which are recognized triggers for the use of substances of abuse. The usually available means of coping with craving, and in many cases withdrawal, such as prescribed medications, visits to therapists, participation in support groups are either not available or much more difficult to access.¹⁰ Nor are those without a current or even historical SUD immune to the psychosocial pressures of the pandemic: Isolation also constitutes a risk for the development of de novo addiction particularly among already marginalized groups, such as the elderly and disabled.

The federal government has initiated several important measures to reduce the adverse impact of isolation on persons with SUDs. The Drug Enforcement Administration is exempting qualified practitioners of medication-assisted treatment from the in-person evaluation that is usually required for the prescription of controlled substances, including buprenorphine. This exemption applies to both established patient prescriptions for buprenorphine and new buprenorphine patient prescriptions.¹¹ These and other administrative contingencies at the federal government level can assist persons with OUD to continue to receive medicationassisted treatment.

As individual clinicians in federal practice, we alone cannot engineer such major policy accommodations in response to COVID-19, yet we can still make a difference in the lives of our patients. We can focus a few minutes of our telehealth interactions on checking in with patients who have a history or a current SUD. We can remember to use evidence-based screens for these patients and those with other risk factors to detect drug or alcohol use before it becomes a disorder. And we can identify and refer not only patients but also our beleaguered colleagues who feel alone at sea—to the many lifelines our agencies have cast into what other commentators have referred to as a Perfect Storm of COVID-19 and the opioid crisis (Table).¹²

May 20 of this plague year, Reuters reported the death of a 32-year-old Florida nurse who had worked tirelessly to treat patients with COVID-19.¹ The presumption is that, like so many selfless health care providers (HCPs), this nurse was exposed to and then sadly succumbed to the virus. That presumption would be wrong: COVID-19 did not take his young life. The other pandemic—addiction— did. Bereaved friends and family reported that the nurse had been in recovery from opioid use disorder (OUD) before the onslaught of the public health crisis. The chronicle of his relapse is instructive for the devastating effect COVID-19 has had on persons struggling with addiction, even those like the nurse who was in sustained remission from OUD with a bright future.

Many of the themes are familiar to HCPs and have been the subject of prior columns in this COVID-19 series. The nurse experienced acute stress symptoms, such as nightmares from the repeated crises of sick and dying patients in the intensive care unit where he worked.² Like so many other HCPs, while he was desperately trying to save others, he also worried about having sufficient access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

Most relevant to this column, the caregiver was unable to access his primary source of support for his sobriety—attendance at 12-step meetings. Social distancing, which is one of the only proven means we have of reducing transmission of the virus, has had unintended consequences. Although many have found virtual connections rewarding, this nurse needed the curtailed face-to-face contact. The courage that had led him to volunteer for hazardous duty unwontedly resulted in his estrangement: Friends feared that he would expose them to the virus, and he worried that he would expose his family to danger. As in the 1918 flu pandemic, the humans we depend on for reality testing and companionship have been cruelly transformed into potential vectors of the virus.³

Isolation is the worst of all possible counselors as the great Spanish philosopher of alienation Miguel de Unamuno has argued. The deceptive promise of a rapid deliverance from anxiety and pain that substances of abuse proffer apparently led the nurse back to opioids. The virtue of being clean permitted the dirty drug to take advantage of the nurses’ reduced physiologic tolerance to opioids. It is suspected but not confirmed that he fatally overdosed alone in his car.

This Florida nurse is an especially tragic example of a terrible phenomenon being repeated all over the country. And the epidemic of substance use disorders (SUDs) related to COVID-19 is not confined to the US; there are similar reports from other afflicted nations, making addiction truly the other pandemic.⁴ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 13.3% of American adults have started or increased their substance use as a means of managing the negative emotions associated with the pandemic.⁵ Also from March to May 2020, researchers in Baltimore found a 17.6% increase in suspected overdoses in counties advising social distancing and/or mandating stay at home orders.⁵

These data reinforce a well-known maxim in the addiction community that “addiction is a disease of isolation.”^6-8 The burden of the lockdown falls harder on many of the patients we treat in the federal health care system whose other mental and physical health conditions, including chronic pain, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder already placed them at elevated risk of SUDs.⁹ Director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse Nora Volkow, MD, recently traced the well-known arc from isolation to increased use of drugs and alcohol.¹⁰ Isolation is stressful and amplifies negative thoughts, dysphoria, and fearful emotions, which are recognized triggers for the use of substances of abuse. The usually available means of coping with craving, and in many cases withdrawal, such as prescribed medications, visits to therapists, participation in support groups are either not available or much more difficult to access.¹⁰ Nor are those without a current or even historical SUD immune to the psychosocial pressures of the pandemic: Isolation also constitutes a risk for the development of de novo addiction particularly among already marginalized groups, such as the elderly and disabled.

The federal government has initiated several important measures to reduce the adverse impact of isolation on persons with SUDs. The Drug Enforcement Administration is exempting qualified practitioners of medication-assisted treatment from the in-person evaluation that is usually required for the prescription of controlled substances, including buprenorphine. This exemption applies to both established patient prescriptions for buprenorphine and new buprenorphine patient prescriptions.¹¹ These and other administrative contingencies at the federal government level can assist persons with OUD to continue to receive medicationassisted treatment.

As individual clinicians in federal practice, we alone cannot engineer such major policy accommodations in response to COVID-19, yet we can still make a difference in the lives of our patients. We can focus a few minutes of our telehealth interactions on checking in with patients who have a history or a current SUD. We can remember to use evidence-based screens for these patients and those with other risk factors to detect drug or alcohol use before it becomes a disorder. And we can identify and refer not only patients but also our beleaguered colleagues who feel alone at sea—to the many lifelines our agencies have cast into what other commentators have referred to as a Perfect Storm of COVID-19 and the opioid crisis (Table).¹²