COVID-19 Updates

While triage of critical care resources should be a rare event during the COVID-19 crisis, failing to prepare for the worst-case scenario could have serious consequences, according to authors of recent reports that offer advice on how to prepare for surges in demand.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Even modest numbers of critically ill COVID-19 patients have already rapidly overwhelmed existing hospital capacity in hard-hit areas including Italy, Spain, and New York City, said authors of an expert panel report released in CHEST.

“The ethical burden this places on hospitals, health systems, and society is enormous,” said Ryan C. Maves, MD, FCCP, of the Naval Medical Center in San Diego, lead author of the expert panel report from the Task Force for Mass Critical Care and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Mild surges call for a focus on increasing ECMO capacity, while a moderate surge may indicate a need to focus on allocating scarce resources, and a major surge may signal the need to limit or defer use of scarce resources, according to the guidance.

“If your health care system is stretched from a resource standpoint, at what point do you say, ‘we don’t even have the capability to even safely do ECMO, and so, perhaps we should not even be offering the support’?” Dr. Keller said in an interview. “That’s what we tried to get at in the paper – helping institutions think about how to prepare for that pandemic, and then when to make decisions on when it should and should not be offered.”
 

Critical care guidance for COVID-19

The guidance from the Task Force for Mass Critical Care and CHEST offers nine specific actions that authors suggest as part of a framework for communities to establish the infrastructure needed to triage critical care resources and “equitably” meet the needs of the largest number of COVID-19 patients.

“It is the goal of the task force to minimize the need for allocation of scarce resources as much as possible,” the authors stated.

The framework starts with surge planning that includes an inventory of intensive care unit resources such as ventilators, beds, supplies, and staff that could be marshaled to meet a surge in demand, followed by establishing “identification triggers” for triage initiation by a regional authority, should clinical demand reach a crisis stage.

The next step is preparing the triage system, which includes creating a committee at the regional level, identifying members of tertiary triage teams and the support structures they will need, and preparing and distributing training materials.

Agreeing on a triage protocol is important to ensure equitable targeting of resources, and how to allocate limited life-sustaining measures needs to be considered, according to the panel of experts. They also recommend adaptations to the standards of care such as modification of end-of-life care policies, support for health care workers, family, and the public, and consideration of pediatric issues including transport, concentration of care at specific centers, and potential increases in age thresholds to accommodate surges.
 

Barriers to triage?

When asked about potential barriers to rolling out a triage plan, Dr. Maves said the first is acknowledging the possible need for such a plan: “It is a difficult concept for most in critical care to accept – the idea that we may not be able to provide an individual patient with interventions that we consider routine,” he said.

Beyond acknowledging need, other potential barriers to successful implementation include the limited evidence base to support development of these protocols, as well as the need to address public trust.

“If a triage system is perceived as unjust or biased, or if people think that triage favors or excludes certain groups unfairly, it will undermine any system,” Dr. Maves said. “Making sure the public both understands and has input into system development is critical if we are going to be able to make this work.”

Dr. Maves and coauthors reported that some of the authors of their guidance are United States government employees or military service members, and that their opinions and assertions do not reflect the official views or position of those institutions. Dr. Keller reported no disclosures related to the ECMO guidance.

chestphysiciannews@chestnet.org

SOURCES: Maves RC et al. Chest. 2020 Apr 11. pii: S0012-3692(20)30691-7. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.063; Seethara R and Keller SP. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202003-233PS.

While triage of critical care resources should be a rare event during the COVID-19 crisis, failing to prepare for the worst-case scenario could have serious consequences, according to authors of recent reports that offer advice on how to prepare for surges in demand.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Even modest numbers of critically ill COVID-19 patients have already rapidly overwhelmed existing hospital capacity in hard-hit areas including Italy, Spain, and New York City, said authors of an expert panel report released in CHEST.

“The ethical burden this places on hospitals, health systems, and society is enormous,” said Ryan C. Maves, MD, FCCP, of the Naval Medical Center in San Diego, lead author of the expert panel report from the Task Force for Mass Critical Care and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Mild surges call for a focus on increasing ECMO capacity, while a moderate surge may indicate a need to focus on allocating scarce resources, and a major surge may signal the need to limit or defer use of scarce resources, according to the guidance.

“If your health care system is stretched from a resource standpoint, at what point do you say, ‘we don’t even have the capability to even safely do ECMO, and so, perhaps we should not even be offering the support’?” Dr. Keller said in an interview. “That’s what we tried to get at in the paper – helping institutions think about how to prepare for that pandemic, and then when to make decisions on when it should and should not be offered.”
 

Critical care guidance for COVID-19

The guidance from the Task Force for Mass Critical Care and CHEST offers nine specific actions that authors suggest as part of a framework for communities to establish the infrastructure needed to triage critical care resources and “equitably” meet the needs of the largest number of COVID-19 patients.

“It is the goal of the task force to minimize the need for allocation of scarce resources as much as possible,” the authors stated.

The framework starts with surge planning that includes an inventory of intensive care unit resources such as ventilators, beds, supplies, and staff that could be marshaled to meet a surge in demand, followed by establishing “identification triggers” for triage initiation by a regional authority, should clinical demand reach a crisis stage.

The next step is preparing the triage system, which includes creating a committee at the regional level, identifying members of tertiary triage teams and the support structures they will need, and preparing and distributing training materials.

Agreeing on a triage protocol is important to ensure equitable targeting of resources, and how to allocate limited life-sustaining measures needs to be considered, according to the panel of experts. They also recommend adaptations to the standards of care such as modification of end-of-life care policies, support for health care workers, family, and the public, and consideration of pediatric issues including transport, concentration of care at specific centers, and potential increases in age thresholds to accommodate surges.
 

Barriers to triage?

When asked about potential barriers to rolling out a triage plan, Dr. Maves said the first is acknowledging the possible need for such a plan: “It is a difficult concept for most in critical care to accept – the idea that we may not be able to provide an individual patient with interventions that we consider routine,” he said.

Beyond acknowledging need, other potential barriers to successful implementation include the limited evidence base to support development of these protocols, as well as the need to address public trust.

“If a triage system is perceived as unjust or biased, or if people think that triage favors or excludes certain groups unfairly, it will undermine any system,” Dr. Maves said. “Making sure the public both understands and has input into system development is critical if we are going to be able to make this work.”

Dr. Maves and coauthors reported that some of the authors of their guidance are United States government employees or military service members, and that their opinions and assertions do not reflect the official views or position of those institutions. Dr. Keller reported no disclosures related to the ECMO guidance.

chestphysiciannews@chestnet.org

SOURCES: Maves RC et al. Chest. 2020 Apr 11. pii: S0012-3692(20)30691-7. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.063; Seethara R and Keller SP. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202003-233PS.

While triage of critical care resources should be a rare event during the COVID-19 crisis, failing to prepare for the worst-case scenario could have serious consequences, according to authors of recent reports that offer advice on how to prepare for surges in demand.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Even modest numbers of critically ill COVID-19 patients have already rapidly overwhelmed existing hospital capacity in hard-hit areas including Italy, Spain, and New York City, said authors of an expert panel report released in CHEST.

“The ethical burden this places on hospitals, health systems, and society is enormous,” said Ryan C. Maves, MD, FCCP, of the Naval Medical Center in San Diego, lead author of the expert panel report from the Task Force for Mass Critical Care and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Mild surges call for a focus on increasing ECMO capacity, while a moderate surge may indicate a need to focus on allocating scarce resources, and a major surge may signal the need to limit or defer use of scarce resources, according to the guidance.

“If your health care system is stretched from a resource standpoint, at what point do you say, ‘we don’t even have the capability to even safely do ECMO, and so, perhaps we should not even be offering the support’?” Dr. Keller said in an interview. “That’s what we tried to get at in the paper – helping institutions think about how to prepare for that pandemic, and then when to make decisions on when it should and should not be offered.”
 

Critical care guidance for COVID-19

The guidance from the Task Force for Mass Critical Care and CHEST offers nine specific actions that authors suggest as part of a framework for communities to establish the infrastructure needed to triage critical care resources and “equitably” meet the needs of the largest number of COVID-19 patients.

“It is the goal of the task force to minimize the need for allocation of scarce resources as much as possible,” the authors stated.

The framework starts with surge planning that includes an inventory of intensive care unit resources such as ventilators, beds, supplies, and staff that could be marshaled to meet a surge in demand, followed by establishing “identification triggers” for triage initiation by a regional authority, should clinical demand reach a crisis stage.

The next step is preparing the triage system, which includes creating a committee at the regional level, identifying members of tertiary triage teams and the support structures they will need, and preparing and distributing training materials.

Agreeing on a triage protocol is important to ensure equitable targeting of resources, and how to allocate limited life-sustaining measures needs to be considered, according to the panel of experts. They also recommend adaptations to the standards of care such as modification of end-of-life care policies, support for health care workers, family, and the public, and consideration of pediatric issues including transport, concentration of care at specific centers, and potential increases in age thresholds to accommodate surges.
 

Barriers to triage?

When asked about potential barriers to rolling out a triage plan, Dr. Maves said the first is acknowledging the possible need for such a plan: “It is a difficult concept for most in critical care to accept – the idea that we may not be able to provide an individual patient with interventions that we consider routine,” he said.

Beyond acknowledging need, other potential barriers to successful implementation include the limited evidence base to support development of these protocols, as well as the need to address public trust.

“If a triage system is perceived as unjust or biased, or if people think that triage favors or excludes certain groups unfairly, it will undermine any system,” Dr. Maves said. “Making sure the public both understands and has input into system development is critical if we are going to be able to make this work.”

Dr. Maves and coauthors reported that some of the authors of their guidance are United States government employees or military service members, and that their opinions and assertions do not reflect the official views or position of those institutions. Dr. Keller reported no disclosures related to the ECMO guidance.

chestphysiciannews@chestnet.org

SOURCES: Maves RC et al. Chest. 2020 Apr 11. pii: S0012-3692(20)30691-7. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.063; Seethara R and Keller SP. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202003-233PS.

SARS CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome corona-
virus 2) has challenged us all and will continue to do so for at least the next several months. This novel virus has uncovered our medical hubris and our collective failure to acknowledge our vulnerability in the face of biological threats. As government, public health, health systems, medical professionals, and individuals struggle to grasp its enormous impact, we must recognize and seize the opportunities for leadership that the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic presents to us as physicians.

For too long we have abdicated responsibility for driving change in the US health system to politicians, administrators, and those not on the front line of care delivery. We can, however, reclaim our voice and position of influence in 2 primary spheres: first, as ObGyns we have the specific clinical knowledge and experience required to help guide our institutions in the care of our patients under new and ever-changing circumstances; second, beyond our clinical role as ObGyns, we are servant leaders to whom the public, the government, our trainees, and our clinical teams turn for guidance.

Foundations for policy development

Disaster planning in hospitals and public health systems rarely includes consideration for pregnant and delivering patients. As ObGyns, we must create policies and procedures using the best available evidence—which is slim—and, in the absence of evidence, use our clinical and scientific expertise both to optimize patient care and to minimize risk to the health care team.

At this point in time there is much we do not know, such as whether viral particles in blood are contagious, amniotic fluid contains infectious droplets, or newborns are in danger if they room-in with an infected mother. What we do know is that the evidence will evolve and that our policies and procedures must be fluid and allow for rapid change. Here are some guiding principles for such policies.

Maximize telemedicine and remote monitoring

Labor and delivery (L&D) is an emergency department in which people are triaged from the outside. Systems should incorporate the best guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists while reducing infection exposure to staff, laboring patients, and newborns. One way to limit traffic in the triage area is to have a seasoned clinician perform phone triage for women who think they need evaluation for labor.

Maintain universal caution and precautions

All people entering L&D should be presumed to be COVID-19 positive, according to early evidence reported from Columbia University in New York City.¹ After remote or off-site phone triage determines that evaluation is needed in L&D, a transporter could ensure that all people escorted to L&D undergo a rapid COVID-19 test, wear a mask, and wash their hands. Until point-of-care testing is available, we must adopt safety precautions, since current data suggest that asymptomatic people may shed the infectious virus.

Both vaginal and cesarean deliveries expose everyone in the room to respiratory droplets. Common sense tells us that the laboring patient and her support person should wear a mask and that caregivers should be protected with N95 masks as well as face shields. If this were standard for every laboring patient, exposure during emergency situations might be minimized.

Continue to: Maximize support during labor...

Maximize support during labor

We should not need to ban partners and support people. Solid evidence demonstrates that support in labor improves outcomes, reduces the need for cesarean delivery, and increases patient satisfaction. We can and should protect staff and patients by requiring everyone to wear a mask.

Symptomatic patients, of course, require additional measures and personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce the risk of infection among the health care team. These should be identical to the measures the hospital infectious disease experts have implemented in the intensive care unit.

Champion continuous quality improvement

It is our responsibility to implement continuous quality improvement processes so that we can respond to data that become available, and this begins with collecting our own local data.

We have sparse data on the risks of miscarriage, congenital anomalies, and preterm birth, but there have been anecdotal reports of both early miscarriage and premature labor. Given the known increased risk for severe disease with influenza during pregnancy, we understandably are concerned about how our pregnant patients will fare. There are also unknowns with respect to fetal exposure risk. During this pandemic we must capture such data within our own systems and share aggregated, de-identified data broadly and swiftly if real signals indicate a need for change in procedures or policy.

In the meantime, we can apply our expertise and best judgment to work within teams that include all stakeholders—administrators, nurses, engineers, pediatricians, infectious disease experts, and public members—to establish policies that respond to the best current evidence.

Protect vulnerable team members

SARS CoV-2 is highly contagious. Thus far, data do not suggest that pregnant women are at higher risk for severe disease, but we must assume that working in the hospital environment among many COVID-19 patients increases the risk for exposure. With so many current unknowns, it may be prudent to keep pregnant health care workers out of clinical areas in the hospital and reassign them to other duties when feasible. Medical students nationwide similarly have been removed from clinical rotations to minimize their exposure risk as well as to preserve scarce PPE.

These decisions are difficult for all involved, and shared decision making between administrators, clinical leaders, and pregnant staff that promotes transparency, honesty, and openness is key. Since the risk is unknown and financial consequences may result for both the hospital and the staff member, open discussion and thoughtful policies that can be revised as new information is obtained will help achieve the best possible resolution to a difficult situation.

Continue to: ObGyns as servant leaders...

ObGyns as servant leaders

COVID-19 challenges us to balance individual and public health considerations while also considering the economic and social consequences of actions. The emergence of this novel pathogen and its rapid global spread are frightening both to an uninformed public and to our skeptical government officials. Beyond our immediate clinical responsibilities, how should we as knowledgeable professionals respond?

Servant leaders commit to service and support and mentor those around them with empathy and collaboration. Servant leaders have the strategic vision to continuously grow, change, and improve at all times, but especially during a crisis. COVID-19 challenges us to be those servant leaders. To do so we must:

Promote and exhibit transparency by speaking truth to power and communicating with empathy for patients, staff, and those on the front lines who daily place themselves and their families at risk to ensure that we have essential services. Amplifying the needs and concerns of the frontline workers can drive those in power to develop practical and useful solutions.

Nurses and physicians have been threatened, and some actually terminated from their positions, because they publicly disclosed their institutions’ working conditions, lack of PPE, and unpreparedness. For example, a decorated US Navy captain was stripped of his command for writing a letter to drive action in managing a COVID-19 outbreak on the confined quarters of his ship. Such public health heroes have exhibited professionalism and leadership, placing the health and well-being of their colleagues, peers, and patients above their own careers. If we all spoke up with honesty and openness, we could have profound impact.

Hold ourselves and others accountable for scientific rigor and honesty. We must acknowledge what we do not know and be straightforward in discussing risks and benefits. The uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 public health crisis has created anxiety among health care workers, public-facing workers, government officials, and the public. We should not speculate but rather speak clearly and openly about our knowledge deficits.

The US culture in health care drives us to prefer action over inaction. “Doing something” feels proactive, and we are conditioned to think of doing something as a less risky strategy than watchful waiting. In this time of uncertainty, we must be wary of unproven and potentially harmful interventions, and we must use our best judgment and expertise to study procedures and medications that have potential benefit.

Be collaborative and creative in crafting practical workarounds that can be implemented at scale. New processes implemented in the past month to accommodate our new socially and physically distant reality include telemedicine for prenatal care, home monitoring of blood pressure, remote physiologic monitoring of blood sugars for diabetic patients, reviewing digital images to provide remote wound care, and home pulse oximetry to assess COVID-19–positive patients at home.

More workarounds are needed to support women’s ongoing health needs. Our expertise should guide those strategies while we strive to optimize outcomes, minimize resource utilization, and reduce exposure risk for ourselves, our staff, and our patients.

Advocate for systems to collect and analyze robust data so we can adjust interventions rapidly as new information arises. As we navigate the pandemic, the lack of evidence to inform decisions and treatment challenges us daily. We should use the current crisis to promote strategies that will support rapid, comprehensive data collection during disasters. Knowledge truly is power, and without it we are forced to improvise and speculate.

ObGyns must insist that data collection includes all pregnancies—not only those positive for COVID-19 since the testing has been sporadic and imperfect—and that the data are stratified by age, gender, race and ethnicity, and sociodemographics. This would enable us to learn as much as possible as quickly as possible and would therefore inform our responses for the current SARS CoV-2 pandemic as well as for the next disaster.

Continue to: Acknowledge the limitations of the system...

Acknowledge the limitations of the system and be wise stewards of resources. Our health care system does not have sufficient resources to manage patients with severe COVID-19 and the “usual” emergencies like stroke, myocardial infarction, ectopic pregnancy, and broken bones.

Disaster planning should include a regional triage system that can take incoming calls and direct emergency medical technicians, ambulances, and private citizens to appropriate facilities and direct those who do not require urgent medical care away from those facilities.

We must incorporate principles from battlefield medicine, because this is a battle, and we are at war. That means there will be difficult decisions. It is better to engage a regional team of experts to create a system for triage and care delivery than for each provider and institution to be forced by a void in leadership to go it individually. We should engage with government and public health officials to optimize both cure and care. Although we are unable to save everyone, we can work to ensure comfort and care for all.

Demonstrate compassion and caring for patients and each other. During the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, we can each channel our best selves to support and protect each other physically and emotionally. Many of us chose ObGyn because it is generally a “happy” specialty. None of us entered medicine to watch people die or to be unable to comfort them, to be unable to allow their families to be with them, to be unable to “do something.”

A crucial part of disaster planning and response is to prepare for the second victims: those of us forced to keep going through our emotional distress because there is no time to debrief and process our pain. Frontline caregivers need support and help now as well as after the surge passes. We need to speak up to ensure there is adequate PPE, creative staffing, and supportive resources to help caregivers process their anxiety, fatigue, and distress.

Take the lead

Every crisis brings both risk and opportunity. The COVID-19 pandemic provides ObGyns the chance to have a louder voice and a meaningful seat at the table as new and creative policies must be implemented at every level. We can use this opportunity to recapture our roles as champions for women and leaders within our health care system.

Critical steps in servant leadership include speaking up with honesty, transparency, and openness; taking risks to disclose inequities, dangerous conditions, and inadequate resources; and committing ourselves to each other, our teams, and the public. When we take these steps, we will be the driving force for a cohesive, reasoned, structured, and compassionate response to the COVID-19 crisis. As we seize this opportunity to lead, we will rekindle our passion for medicine, caring for the sick, and protecting the well. ●

SARS CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome corona-
virus 2) has challenged us all and will continue to do so for at least the next several months. This novel virus has uncovered our medical hubris and our collective failure to acknowledge our vulnerability in the face of biological threats. As government, public health, health systems, medical professionals, and individuals struggle to grasp its enormous impact, we must recognize and seize the opportunities for leadership that the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic presents to us as physicians.

For too long we have abdicated responsibility for driving change in the US health system to politicians, administrators, and those not on the front line of care delivery. We can, however, reclaim our voice and position of influence in 2 primary spheres: first, as ObGyns we have the specific clinical knowledge and experience required to help guide our institutions in the care of our patients under new and ever-changing circumstances; second, beyond our clinical role as ObGyns, we are servant leaders to whom the public, the government, our trainees, and our clinical teams turn for guidance.

Foundations for policy development

Disaster planning in hospitals and public health systems rarely includes consideration for pregnant and delivering patients. As ObGyns, we must create policies and procedures using the best available evidence—which is slim—and, in the absence of evidence, use our clinical and scientific expertise both to optimize patient care and to minimize risk to the health care team.

At this point in time there is much we do not know, such as whether viral particles in blood are contagious, amniotic fluid contains infectious droplets, or newborns are in danger if they room-in with an infected mother. What we do know is that the evidence will evolve and that our policies and procedures must be fluid and allow for rapid change. Here are some guiding principles for such policies.

Maximize telemedicine and remote monitoring

Labor and delivery (L&D) is an emergency department in which people are triaged from the outside. Systems should incorporate the best guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists while reducing infection exposure to staff, laboring patients, and newborns. One way to limit traffic in the triage area is to have a seasoned clinician perform phone triage for women who think they need evaluation for labor.

Maintain universal caution and precautions

All people entering L&D should be presumed to be COVID-19 positive, according to early evidence reported from Columbia University in New York City.¹ After remote or off-site phone triage determines that evaluation is needed in L&D, a transporter could ensure that all people escorted to L&D undergo a rapid COVID-19 test, wear a mask, and wash their hands. Until point-of-care testing is available, we must adopt safety precautions, since current data suggest that asymptomatic people may shed the infectious virus.

Both vaginal and cesarean deliveries expose everyone in the room to respiratory droplets. Common sense tells us that the laboring patient and her support person should wear a mask and that caregivers should be protected with N95 masks as well as face shields. If this were standard for every laboring patient, exposure during emergency situations might be minimized.

Continue to: Maximize support during labor...

Maximize support during labor

We should not need to ban partners and support people. Solid evidence demonstrates that support in labor improves outcomes, reduces the need for cesarean delivery, and increases patient satisfaction. We can and should protect staff and patients by requiring everyone to wear a mask.

Symptomatic patients, of course, require additional measures and personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce the risk of infection among the health care team. These should be identical to the measures the hospital infectious disease experts have implemented in the intensive care unit.

Champion continuous quality improvement

It is our responsibility to implement continuous quality improvement processes so that we can respond to data that become available, and this begins with collecting our own local data.

We have sparse data on the risks of miscarriage, congenital anomalies, and preterm birth, but there have been anecdotal reports of both early miscarriage and premature labor. Given the known increased risk for severe disease with influenza during pregnancy, we understandably are concerned about how our pregnant patients will fare. There are also unknowns with respect to fetal exposure risk. During this pandemic we must capture such data within our own systems and share aggregated, de-identified data broadly and swiftly if real signals indicate a need for change in procedures or policy.

In the meantime, we can apply our expertise and best judgment to work within teams that include all stakeholders—administrators, nurses, engineers, pediatricians, infectious disease experts, and public members—to establish policies that respond to the best current evidence.

Protect vulnerable team members

SARS CoV-2 is highly contagious. Thus far, data do not suggest that pregnant women are at higher risk for severe disease, but we must assume that working in the hospital environment among many COVID-19 patients increases the risk for exposure. With so many current unknowns, it may be prudent to keep pregnant health care workers out of clinical areas in the hospital and reassign them to other duties when feasible. Medical students nationwide similarly have been removed from clinical rotations to minimize their exposure risk as well as to preserve scarce PPE.

These decisions are difficult for all involved, and shared decision making between administrators, clinical leaders, and pregnant staff that promotes transparency, honesty, and openness is key. Since the risk is unknown and financial consequences may result for both the hospital and the staff member, open discussion and thoughtful policies that can be revised as new information is obtained will help achieve the best possible resolution to a difficult situation.

Continue to: ObGyns as servant leaders...

ObGyns as servant leaders

COVID-19 challenges us to balance individual and public health considerations while also considering the economic and social consequences of actions. The emergence of this novel pathogen and its rapid global spread are frightening both to an uninformed public and to our skeptical government officials. Beyond our immediate clinical responsibilities, how should we as knowledgeable professionals respond?

Servant leaders commit to service and support and mentor those around them with empathy and collaboration. Servant leaders have the strategic vision to continuously grow, change, and improve at all times, but especially during a crisis. COVID-19 challenges us to be those servant leaders. To do so we must:

Promote and exhibit transparency by speaking truth to power and communicating with empathy for patients, staff, and those on the front lines who daily place themselves and their families at risk to ensure that we have essential services. Amplifying the needs and concerns of the frontline workers can drive those in power to develop practical and useful solutions.

Nurses and physicians have been threatened, and some actually terminated from their positions, because they publicly disclosed their institutions’ working conditions, lack of PPE, and unpreparedness. For example, a decorated US Navy captain was stripped of his command for writing a letter to drive action in managing a COVID-19 outbreak on the confined quarters of his ship. Such public health heroes have exhibited professionalism and leadership, placing the health and well-being of their colleagues, peers, and patients above their own careers. If we all spoke up with honesty and openness, we could have profound impact.

Hold ourselves and others accountable for scientific rigor and honesty. We must acknowledge what we do not know and be straightforward in discussing risks and benefits. The uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 public health crisis has created anxiety among health care workers, public-facing workers, government officials, and the public. We should not speculate but rather speak clearly and openly about our knowledge deficits.

The US culture in health care drives us to prefer action over inaction. “Doing something” feels proactive, and we are conditioned to think of doing something as a less risky strategy than watchful waiting. In this time of uncertainty, we must be wary of unproven and potentially harmful interventions, and we must use our best judgment and expertise to study procedures and medications that have potential benefit.

Be collaborative and creative in crafting practical workarounds that can be implemented at scale. New processes implemented in the past month to accommodate our new socially and physically distant reality include telemedicine for prenatal care, home monitoring of blood pressure, remote physiologic monitoring of blood sugars for diabetic patients, reviewing digital images to provide remote wound care, and home pulse oximetry to assess COVID-19–positive patients at home.

More workarounds are needed to support women’s ongoing health needs. Our expertise should guide those strategies while we strive to optimize outcomes, minimize resource utilization, and reduce exposure risk for ourselves, our staff, and our patients.

Advocate for systems to collect and analyze robust data so we can adjust interventions rapidly as new information arises. As we navigate the pandemic, the lack of evidence to inform decisions and treatment challenges us daily. We should use the current crisis to promote strategies that will support rapid, comprehensive data collection during disasters. Knowledge truly is power, and without it we are forced to improvise and speculate.

ObGyns must insist that data collection includes all pregnancies—not only those positive for COVID-19 since the testing has been sporadic and imperfect—and that the data are stratified by age, gender, race and ethnicity, and sociodemographics. This would enable us to learn as much as possible as quickly as possible and would therefore inform our responses for the current SARS CoV-2 pandemic as well as for the next disaster.

Continue to: Acknowledge the limitations of the system...

Acknowledge the limitations of the system and be wise stewards of resources. Our health care system does not have sufficient resources to manage patients with severe COVID-19 and the “usual” emergencies like stroke, myocardial infarction, ectopic pregnancy, and broken bones.

Disaster planning should include a regional triage system that can take incoming calls and direct emergency medical technicians, ambulances, and private citizens to appropriate facilities and direct those who do not require urgent medical care away from those facilities.

We must incorporate principles from battlefield medicine, because this is a battle, and we are at war. That means there will be difficult decisions. It is better to engage a regional team of experts to create a system for triage and care delivery than for each provider and institution to be forced by a void in leadership to go it individually. We should engage with government and public health officials to optimize both cure and care. Although we are unable to save everyone, we can work to ensure comfort and care for all.

Demonstrate compassion and caring for patients and each other. During the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, we can each channel our best selves to support and protect each other physically and emotionally. Many of us chose ObGyn because it is generally a “happy” specialty. None of us entered medicine to watch people die or to be unable to comfort them, to be unable to allow their families to be with them, to be unable to “do something.”

A crucial part of disaster planning and response is to prepare for the second victims: those of us forced to keep going through our emotional distress because there is no time to debrief and process our pain. Frontline caregivers need support and help now as well as after the surge passes. We need to speak up to ensure there is adequate PPE, creative staffing, and supportive resources to help caregivers process their anxiety, fatigue, and distress.

Take the lead

Every crisis brings both risk and opportunity. The COVID-19 pandemic provides ObGyns the chance to have a louder voice and a meaningful seat at the table as new and creative policies must be implemented at every level. We can use this opportunity to recapture our roles as champions for women and leaders within our health care system.

Critical steps in servant leadership include speaking up with honesty, transparency, and openness; taking risks to disclose inequities, dangerous conditions, and inadequate resources; and committing ourselves to each other, our teams, and the public. When we take these steps, we will be the driving force for a cohesive, reasoned, structured, and compassionate response to the COVID-19 crisis. As we seize this opportunity to lead, we will rekindle our passion for medicine, caring for the sick, and protecting the well. ●

SARS CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome corona-
virus 2) has challenged us all and will continue to do so for at least the next several months. This novel virus has uncovered our medical hubris and our collective failure to acknowledge our vulnerability in the face of biological threats. As government, public health, health systems, medical professionals, and individuals struggle to grasp its enormous impact, we must recognize and seize the opportunities for leadership that the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic presents to us as physicians.

For too long we have abdicated responsibility for driving change in the US health system to politicians, administrators, and those not on the front line of care delivery. We can, however, reclaim our voice and position of influence in 2 primary spheres: first, as ObGyns we have the specific clinical knowledge and experience required to help guide our institutions in the care of our patients under new and ever-changing circumstances; second, beyond our clinical role as ObGyns, we are servant leaders to whom the public, the government, our trainees, and our clinical teams turn for guidance.

Foundations for policy development

Disaster planning in hospitals and public health systems rarely includes consideration for pregnant and delivering patients. As ObGyns, we must create policies and procedures using the best available evidence—which is slim—and, in the absence of evidence, use our clinical and scientific expertise both to optimize patient care and to minimize risk to the health care team.

At this point in time there is much we do not know, such as whether viral particles in blood are contagious, amniotic fluid contains infectious droplets, or newborns are in danger if they room-in with an infected mother. What we do know is that the evidence will evolve and that our policies and procedures must be fluid and allow for rapid change. Here are some guiding principles for such policies.

Maximize telemedicine and remote monitoring

Labor and delivery (L&D) is an emergency department in which people are triaged from the outside. Systems should incorporate the best guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists while reducing infection exposure to staff, laboring patients, and newborns. One way to limit traffic in the triage area is to have a seasoned clinician perform phone triage for women who think they need evaluation for labor.

Maintain universal caution and precautions

All people entering L&D should be presumed to be COVID-19 positive, according to early evidence reported from Columbia University in New York City.¹ After remote or off-site phone triage determines that evaluation is needed in L&D, a transporter could ensure that all people escorted to L&D undergo a rapid COVID-19 test, wear a mask, and wash their hands. Until point-of-care testing is available, we must adopt safety precautions, since current data suggest that asymptomatic people may shed the infectious virus.

Both vaginal and cesarean deliveries expose everyone in the room to respiratory droplets. Common sense tells us that the laboring patient and her support person should wear a mask and that caregivers should be protected with N95 masks as well as face shields. If this were standard for every laboring patient, exposure during emergency situations might be minimized.

Continue to: Maximize support during labor...

Maximize support during labor

We should not need to ban partners and support people. Solid evidence demonstrates that support in labor improves outcomes, reduces the need for cesarean delivery, and increases patient satisfaction. We can and should protect staff and patients by requiring everyone to wear a mask.

Symptomatic patients, of course, require additional measures and personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce the risk of infection among the health care team. These should be identical to the measures the hospital infectious disease experts have implemented in the intensive care unit.

Champion continuous quality improvement

It is our responsibility to implement continuous quality improvement processes so that we can respond to data that become available, and this begins with collecting our own local data.

We have sparse data on the risks of miscarriage, congenital anomalies, and preterm birth, but there have been anecdotal reports of both early miscarriage and premature labor. Given the known increased risk for severe disease with influenza during pregnancy, we understandably are concerned about how our pregnant patients will fare. There are also unknowns with respect to fetal exposure risk. During this pandemic we must capture such data within our own systems and share aggregated, de-identified data broadly and swiftly if real signals indicate a need for change in procedures or policy.

In the meantime, we can apply our expertise and best judgment to work within teams that include all stakeholders—administrators, nurses, engineers, pediatricians, infectious disease experts, and public members—to establish policies that respond to the best current evidence.

Protect vulnerable team members

SARS CoV-2 is highly contagious. Thus far, data do not suggest that pregnant women are at higher risk for severe disease, but we must assume that working in the hospital environment among many COVID-19 patients increases the risk for exposure. With so many current unknowns, it may be prudent to keep pregnant health care workers out of clinical areas in the hospital and reassign them to other duties when feasible. Medical students nationwide similarly have been removed from clinical rotations to minimize their exposure risk as well as to preserve scarce PPE.

These decisions are difficult for all involved, and shared decision making between administrators, clinical leaders, and pregnant staff that promotes transparency, honesty, and openness is key. Since the risk is unknown and financial consequences may result for both the hospital and the staff member, open discussion and thoughtful policies that can be revised as new information is obtained will help achieve the best possible resolution to a difficult situation.

Continue to: ObGyns as servant leaders...

ObGyns as servant leaders

COVID-19 challenges us to balance individual and public health considerations while also considering the economic and social consequences of actions. The emergence of this novel pathogen and its rapid global spread are frightening both to an uninformed public and to our skeptical government officials. Beyond our immediate clinical responsibilities, how should we as knowledgeable professionals respond?

Servant leaders commit to service and support and mentor those around them with empathy and collaboration. Servant leaders have the strategic vision to continuously grow, change, and improve at all times, but especially during a crisis. COVID-19 challenges us to be those servant leaders. To do so we must:

Promote and exhibit transparency by speaking truth to power and communicating with empathy for patients, staff, and those on the front lines who daily place themselves and their families at risk to ensure that we have essential services. Amplifying the needs and concerns of the frontline workers can drive those in power to develop practical and useful solutions.

Nurses and physicians have been threatened, and some actually terminated from their positions, because they publicly disclosed their institutions’ working conditions, lack of PPE, and unpreparedness. For example, a decorated US Navy captain was stripped of his command for writing a letter to drive action in managing a COVID-19 outbreak on the confined quarters of his ship. Such public health heroes have exhibited professionalism and leadership, placing the health and well-being of their colleagues, peers, and patients above their own careers. If we all spoke up with honesty and openness, we could have profound impact.

Hold ourselves and others accountable for scientific rigor and honesty. We must acknowledge what we do not know and be straightforward in discussing risks and benefits. The uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 public health crisis has created anxiety among health care workers, public-facing workers, government officials, and the public. We should not speculate but rather speak clearly and openly about our knowledge deficits.

The US culture in health care drives us to prefer action over inaction. “Doing something” feels proactive, and we are conditioned to think of doing something as a less risky strategy than watchful waiting. In this time of uncertainty, we must be wary of unproven and potentially harmful interventions, and we must use our best judgment and expertise to study procedures and medications that have potential benefit.

Be collaborative and creative in crafting practical workarounds that can be implemented at scale. New processes implemented in the past month to accommodate our new socially and physically distant reality include telemedicine for prenatal care, home monitoring of blood pressure, remote physiologic monitoring of blood sugars for diabetic patients, reviewing digital images to provide remote wound care, and home pulse oximetry to assess COVID-19–positive patients at home.

More workarounds are needed to support women’s ongoing health needs. Our expertise should guide those strategies while we strive to optimize outcomes, minimize resource utilization, and reduce exposure risk for ourselves, our staff, and our patients.

Advocate for systems to collect and analyze robust data so we can adjust interventions rapidly as new information arises. As we navigate the pandemic, the lack of evidence to inform decisions and treatment challenges us daily. We should use the current crisis to promote strategies that will support rapid, comprehensive data collection during disasters. Knowledge truly is power, and without it we are forced to improvise and speculate.

ObGyns must insist that data collection includes all pregnancies—not only those positive for COVID-19 since the testing has been sporadic and imperfect—and that the data are stratified by age, gender, race and ethnicity, and sociodemographics. This would enable us to learn as much as possible as quickly as possible and would therefore inform our responses for the current SARS CoV-2 pandemic as well as for the next disaster.

Continue to: Acknowledge the limitations of the system...

Acknowledge the limitations of the system and be wise stewards of resources. Our health care system does not have sufficient resources to manage patients with severe COVID-19 and the “usual” emergencies like stroke, myocardial infarction, ectopic pregnancy, and broken bones.

Disaster planning should include a regional triage system that can take incoming calls and direct emergency medical technicians, ambulances, and private citizens to appropriate facilities and direct those who do not require urgent medical care away from those facilities.

We must incorporate principles from battlefield medicine, because this is a battle, and we are at war. That means there will be difficult decisions. It is better to engage a regional team of experts to create a system for triage and care delivery than for each provider and institution to be forced by a void in leadership to go it individually. We should engage with government and public health officials to optimize both cure and care. Although we are unable to save everyone, we can work to ensure comfort and care for all.

Demonstrate compassion and caring for patients and each other. During the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, we can each channel our best selves to support and protect each other physically and emotionally. Many of us chose ObGyn because it is generally a “happy” specialty. None of us entered medicine to watch people die or to be unable to comfort them, to be unable to allow their families to be with them, to be unable to “do something.”

A crucial part of disaster planning and response is to prepare for the second victims: those of us forced to keep going through our emotional distress because there is no time to debrief and process our pain. Frontline caregivers need support and help now as well as after the surge passes. We need to speak up to ensure there is adequate PPE, creative staffing, and supportive resources to help caregivers process their anxiety, fatigue, and distress.

Take the lead

Every crisis brings both risk and opportunity. The COVID-19 pandemic provides ObGyns the chance to have a louder voice and a meaningful seat at the table as new and creative policies must be implemented at every level. We can use this opportunity to recapture our roles as champions for women and leaders within our health care system.

Critical steps in servant leadership include speaking up with honesty, transparency, and openness; taking risks to disclose inequities, dangerous conditions, and inadequate resources; and committing ourselves to each other, our teams, and the public. When we take these steps, we will be the driving force for a cohesive, reasoned, structured, and compassionate response to the COVID-19 crisis. As we seize this opportunity to lead, we will rekindle our passion for medicine, caring for the sick, and protecting the well. ●

Delivering cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has proved particularly challenging, as minimizing the risk of infection must be balanced with maintaining optimal outcomes.

Healthcare systems and oncologists have had to reorganize standard oncologic care in order to protect vulnerable patients from exposure to COVID-19 as well as deal with pandemic-related issues of equipment and staffing shortages.

A new article now describes how seven cancer centers in Europe rapidly reorganized their oncologic services and are tackling this crisis, as well as offering guidance to other institutions.

This was a major undertaking, to work out a system where patients can still get care but in a safer manner, explained coauthor Emile Voest, MD, medical director of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

“Decisions needed to be taken based on availability of personnel, protective materials, and urgencies,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Because every country had its own speed of development of the COVID pandemic, there were different scenarios in all institutions, but all with a common factor of key expertise on how to de-escalate in a safe manner.”

The article was published April 16 in Nature Medicine.

The Netherlands Cancer Institute (the Netherlands), Karolinska Institute (Sweden), Institute Gustave Roussy (France), Cambridge Cancer Center (United Kingdom), Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (Italy), German Cancer Research Center (Germany), and Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (Spain) have been working closely together in a legal entity since 2014, and have created ‘Cancer Core Europe’ (CCE). The goal is to “maximize coherence and critical mass in cancer research,” the authors note.

The consortium represents roughly 60,000 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, delivers approximately 300,000 treatment courses, and conducts about 1.2 million consultations annually, with more than 1,500 ongoing clinical trials. In a joint effort, the centers collected, translated, and compared the guidelines that had been put in place to treat patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cancer treatment is multidisciplinary and involves many specialties including surgery, radiology, pathology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology. Coordinating care among disciplines is a very complex process, Voest noted.

“Changing treatment also means that you need to reconsider capacities and requirements,” he said. “Hospitals have installed crisis teams that were very good at coordinating these efforts.”
 

Restructuring care

Cancer care had to be reorganized on multiple levels, and the CCE centers looked at several aspects that needed to be accounted for, to ensure continuity in cancer care.

“The biggest challenge for the NHS and other healthcare systems is the surge of patients requiring oxygen and/or intensive care, and the nature and infectiousness of the virus,” said coauthor Carlos Caldas, MD, FMedSci, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. “In hospitals that are mostly run close to capacity, and where all kinds of patients are treated, this has created major resource and logistical problems.”

For regular clinical activities, the institutions with dedicated cancer centers (German Cancer Research Center, Institute Gustave Roussy, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, and Netherlands Cancer Institute) have attempted to stay COVID-19 free. This policy would in turn help ensure that sufficient clinical and intensive-care capacity could be reserved for critical cancer surgeries or management of treatment-related side effects, and allow hospitals outside of the CCE to transfer patients with cancer to these centers. The general hospitals can then focus on caring for patients with COVID-19, as well as other illnesses/injuries that require inpatient care.

As the CCE centers located within general hospitals (Cambridge Cancer Center, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology and Karolinska Institute) have to admit patients with suspected and positive cases of COVID-19, being “COVID-19 free” was never a realistic or pursued goal.

The authors note that it is the responsibility of all healthcare professionals to ensure patients are not exposed to COVID-19, and this has meant minimizing hospital visits and person-to-person contact. For example, whenever possible, consultations take place via telephone calls or over the Internet, and nonurgent appointments that would require a patient’s physical presence at the clinic have been postponed. Visitors are also not permitted to accompany patients when admitted to the hospital or during procedures.

Standard-of-care treatment regimens have been adapted across all centers to minimize the number of hospital visits and hospitalizations and prevent “anticancer treatment-induced” complications of COVID-19.

To minimize visits and hospitalizations, strategies include converting intravenous treatments to oral or subcutaneous regimens when possible; switching from cytotoxic chemotherapy to a less-toxic approach to minimize the risk of complications requiring hospitalization; or to pause therapies when possible (stable disease reached or better). In addition, nonemergency surgeries have been postponed or replaced by radiotherapy.

To prevent anticancer treatment-induced complications of COVID-19, most centers use the paradigm that the added benefit for tumor control should be weighed against the potential risk for COVID-19–related morbidity and mortality. To prevent or reduce the risk of neutropenia and lymphopenia, for example, all centers have suggested a de-escalation of cytotoxic chemotherapy or targeted treatment strategies, or to forgo second or subsequent lines of palliative treatments if response rates from up-front therapy are low.

Some of these changes may be here to stay, noted Caldas. “One of the positive messages that comes out of this is that, clearly, care can be delivered in a safe and compassionate manner without requiring as many hospital visits as in the pre-COVID-19 era,” he said. “In the future, we will take heed of the COVID-19 experience to improve delivery of cancer care.”
 

Capacity of facilities

Many healthcare systems have become overwhelmed as the pandemic has intensified, thus making it necessary to prioritize. To prepare for this possibility, CCE centers have established protocols to categorize and prioritize patients for systemic treatment or surgery. While the protocols vary by center, they are comparable with one another as they prioritize on the basis of anticipated treatment outcome, the authors note.

The guidelines in CCE centers unanimously recommend that neoadjuvant therapies and curative surgeries be the top priority, for the times when operating room and/or ICU capacity is limited. As an alternative, neoadjuvant systemic treatments may be initiated or extended to postpone surgery, and other nonsurgical interventions can be considered.

In addition, some centers agree that certain elective surgeries can be safely delayed if backed by scientific evidence. As an example, an 11-week deferment of surgery may be acceptable for patients with rectal cancer after downstaging.

Cancer centers may also need to upscale and downscale quickly, depending on how the pandemic evolves, and many have already outlined scenarios to prepare for increasing or decreasing their capacity using phased approaches.

The Netherlands Cancer Institute, for example, has defined four phases of increasing severity; in Germany, capacity planning has been coordinated among 18 hospitals and the federal ministry of health, in order to prevent shortages of cancer services.

“We note that the optimal downscaling strategies depend on country- and center-specific capacities and preferences,” they write. “Therefore, it is difficult to propose a common schedule, and it will be most effective if hospitals outline their own phase-specific downscaling strategies based on the prioritization schemes and practical handles discussed above.”
 

Future research

Better strategies will be needed to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in cancer care, and four research priorities were identified to allow for evidence-based adjustments of cancer care protocols while the pandemic continues:

• Collect real-world data about the effects of adjustment and de-escalation of treatment regimens on outcomes
• Determine the incidence of COVID-19 in both the general population and among patients with cancer who have received systemic therapies, with large-scale serological testing
• Develop an epidemiological model that will allow estimates of the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 for a patient with cancer, within a specific time frame
• Determine COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer who have been treated with systemic therapies and/or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Several projects are currently underway, such as the UK Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delivering cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has proved particularly challenging, as minimizing the risk of infection must be balanced with maintaining optimal outcomes.

Healthcare systems and oncologists have had to reorganize standard oncologic care in order to protect vulnerable patients from exposure to COVID-19 as well as deal with pandemic-related issues of equipment and staffing shortages.

A new article now describes how seven cancer centers in Europe rapidly reorganized their oncologic services and are tackling this crisis, as well as offering guidance to other institutions.

This was a major undertaking, to work out a system where patients can still get care but in a safer manner, explained coauthor Emile Voest, MD, medical director of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

“Decisions needed to be taken based on availability of personnel, protective materials, and urgencies,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Because every country had its own speed of development of the COVID pandemic, there were different scenarios in all institutions, but all with a common factor of key expertise on how to de-escalate in a safe manner.”

The article was published April 16 in Nature Medicine.

The Netherlands Cancer Institute (the Netherlands), Karolinska Institute (Sweden), Institute Gustave Roussy (France), Cambridge Cancer Center (United Kingdom), Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (Italy), German Cancer Research Center (Germany), and Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (Spain) have been working closely together in a legal entity since 2014, and have created ‘Cancer Core Europe’ (CCE). The goal is to “maximize coherence and critical mass in cancer research,” the authors note.

The consortium represents roughly 60,000 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, delivers approximately 300,000 treatment courses, and conducts about 1.2 million consultations annually, with more than 1,500 ongoing clinical trials. In a joint effort, the centers collected, translated, and compared the guidelines that had been put in place to treat patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cancer treatment is multidisciplinary and involves many specialties including surgery, radiology, pathology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology. Coordinating care among disciplines is a very complex process, Voest noted.

“Changing treatment also means that you need to reconsider capacities and requirements,” he said. “Hospitals have installed crisis teams that were very good at coordinating these efforts.”
 

Restructuring care

Cancer care had to be reorganized on multiple levels, and the CCE centers looked at several aspects that needed to be accounted for, to ensure continuity in cancer care.

“The biggest challenge for the NHS and other healthcare systems is the surge of patients requiring oxygen and/or intensive care, and the nature and infectiousness of the virus,” said coauthor Carlos Caldas, MD, FMedSci, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. “In hospitals that are mostly run close to capacity, and where all kinds of patients are treated, this has created major resource and logistical problems.”

For regular clinical activities, the institutions with dedicated cancer centers (German Cancer Research Center, Institute Gustave Roussy, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, and Netherlands Cancer Institute) have attempted to stay COVID-19 free. This policy would in turn help ensure that sufficient clinical and intensive-care capacity could be reserved for critical cancer surgeries or management of treatment-related side effects, and allow hospitals outside of the CCE to transfer patients with cancer to these centers. The general hospitals can then focus on caring for patients with COVID-19, as well as other illnesses/injuries that require inpatient care.

As the CCE centers located within general hospitals (Cambridge Cancer Center, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology and Karolinska Institute) have to admit patients with suspected and positive cases of COVID-19, being “COVID-19 free” was never a realistic or pursued goal.

The authors note that it is the responsibility of all healthcare professionals to ensure patients are not exposed to COVID-19, and this has meant minimizing hospital visits and person-to-person contact. For example, whenever possible, consultations take place via telephone calls or over the Internet, and nonurgent appointments that would require a patient’s physical presence at the clinic have been postponed. Visitors are also not permitted to accompany patients when admitted to the hospital or during procedures.

Standard-of-care treatment regimens have been adapted across all centers to minimize the number of hospital visits and hospitalizations and prevent “anticancer treatment-induced” complications of COVID-19.

To minimize visits and hospitalizations, strategies include converting intravenous treatments to oral or subcutaneous regimens when possible; switching from cytotoxic chemotherapy to a less-toxic approach to minimize the risk of complications requiring hospitalization; or to pause therapies when possible (stable disease reached or better). In addition, nonemergency surgeries have been postponed or replaced by radiotherapy.

To prevent anticancer treatment-induced complications of COVID-19, most centers use the paradigm that the added benefit for tumor control should be weighed against the potential risk for COVID-19–related morbidity and mortality. To prevent or reduce the risk of neutropenia and lymphopenia, for example, all centers have suggested a de-escalation of cytotoxic chemotherapy or targeted treatment strategies, or to forgo second or subsequent lines of palliative treatments if response rates from up-front therapy are low.

Some of these changes may be here to stay, noted Caldas. “One of the positive messages that comes out of this is that, clearly, care can be delivered in a safe and compassionate manner without requiring as many hospital visits as in the pre-COVID-19 era,” he said. “In the future, we will take heed of the COVID-19 experience to improve delivery of cancer care.”
 

Capacity of facilities

Many healthcare systems have become overwhelmed as the pandemic has intensified, thus making it necessary to prioritize. To prepare for this possibility, CCE centers have established protocols to categorize and prioritize patients for systemic treatment or surgery. While the protocols vary by center, they are comparable with one another as they prioritize on the basis of anticipated treatment outcome, the authors note.

The guidelines in CCE centers unanimously recommend that neoadjuvant therapies and curative surgeries be the top priority, for the times when operating room and/or ICU capacity is limited. As an alternative, neoadjuvant systemic treatments may be initiated or extended to postpone surgery, and other nonsurgical interventions can be considered.

In addition, some centers agree that certain elective surgeries can be safely delayed if backed by scientific evidence. As an example, an 11-week deferment of surgery may be acceptable for patients with rectal cancer after downstaging.

Cancer centers may also need to upscale and downscale quickly, depending on how the pandemic evolves, and many have already outlined scenarios to prepare for increasing or decreasing their capacity using phased approaches.

The Netherlands Cancer Institute, for example, has defined four phases of increasing severity; in Germany, capacity planning has been coordinated among 18 hospitals and the federal ministry of health, in order to prevent shortages of cancer services.

“We note that the optimal downscaling strategies depend on country- and center-specific capacities and preferences,” they write. “Therefore, it is difficult to propose a common schedule, and it will be most effective if hospitals outline their own phase-specific downscaling strategies based on the prioritization schemes and practical handles discussed above.”
 

Future research

Better strategies will be needed to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in cancer care, and four research priorities were identified to allow for evidence-based adjustments of cancer care protocols while the pandemic continues:

• Collect real-world data about the effects of adjustment and de-escalation of treatment regimens on outcomes
• Determine the incidence of COVID-19 in both the general population and among patients with cancer who have received systemic therapies, with large-scale serological testing
• Develop an epidemiological model that will allow estimates of the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 for a patient with cancer, within a specific time frame
• Determine COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer who have been treated with systemic therapies and/or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Several projects are currently underway, such as the UK Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delivering cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has proved particularly challenging, as minimizing the risk of infection must be balanced with maintaining optimal outcomes.

Healthcare systems and oncologists have had to reorganize standard oncologic care in order to protect vulnerable patients from exposure to COVID-19 as well as deal with pandemic-related issues of equipment and staffing shortages.

A new article now describes how seven cancer centers in Europe rapidly reorganized their oncologic services and are tackling this crisis, as well as offering guidance to other institutions.

This was a major undertaking, to work out a system where patients can still get care but in a safer manner, explained coauthor Emile Voest, MD, medical director of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

“Decisions needed to be taken based on availability of personnel, protective materials, and urgencies,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Because every country had its own speed of development of the COVID pandemic, there were different scenarios in all institutions, but all with a common factor of key expertise on how to de-escalate in a safe manner.”

The article was published April 16 in Nature Medicine.

The Netherlands Cancer Institute (the Netherlands), Karolinska Institute (Sweden), Institute Gustave Roussy (France), Cambridge Cancer Center (United Kingdom), Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (Italy), German Cancer Research Center (Germany), and Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (Spain) have been working closely together in a legal entity since 2014, and have created ‘Cancer Core Europe’ (CCE). The goal is to “maximize coherence and critical mass in cancer research,” the authors note.

The consortium represents roughly 60,000 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, delivers approximately 300,000 treatment courses, and conducts about 1.2 million consultations annually, with more than 1,500 ongoing clinical trials. In a joint effort, the centers collected, translated, and compared the guidelines that had been put in place to treat patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cancer treatment is multidisciplinary and involves many specialties including surgery, radiology, pathology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology. Coordinating care among disciplines is a very complex process, Voest noted.

“Changing treatment also means that you need to reconsider capacities and requirements,” he said. “Hospitals have installed crisis teams that were very good at coordinating these efforts.”
 

Restructuring care

Cancer care had to be reorganized on multiple levels, and the CCE centers looked at several aspects that needed to be accounted for, to ensure continuity in cancer care.

“The biggest challenge for the NHS and other healthcare systems is the surge of patients requiring oxygen and/or intensive care, and the nature and infectiousness of the virus,” said coauthor Carlos Caldas, MD, FMedSci, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. “In hospitals that are mostly run close to capacity, and where all kinds of patients are treated, this has created major resource and logistical problems.”

For regular clinical activities, the institutions with dedicated cancer centers (German Cancer Research Center, Institute Gustave Roussy, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, and Netherlands Cancer Institute) have attempted to stay COVID-19 free. This policy would in turn help ensure that sufficient clinical and intensive-care capacity could be reserved for critical cancer surgeries or management of treatment-related side effects, and allow hospitals outside of the CCE to transfer patients with cancer to these centers. The general hospitals can then focus on caring for patients with COVID-19, as well as other illnesses/injuries that require inpatient care.

As the CCE centers located within general hospitals (Cambridge Cancer Center, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology and Karolinska Institute) have to admit patients with suspected and positive cases of COVID-19, being “COVID-19 free” was never a realistic or pursued goal.

The authors note that it is the responsibility of all healthcare professionals to ensure patients are not exposed to COVID-19, and this has meant minimizing hospital visits and person-to-person contact. For example, whenever possible, consultations take place via telephone calls or over the Internet, and nonurgent appointments that would require a patient’s physical presence at the clinic have been postponed. Visitors are also not permitted to accompany patients when admitted to the hospital or during procedures.

Standard-of-care treatment regimens have been adapted across all centers to minimize the number of hospital visits and hospitalizations and prevent “anticancer treatment-induced” complications of COVID-19.

To minimize visits and hospitalizations, strategies include converting intravenous treatments to oral or subcutaneous regimens when possible; switching from cytotoxic chemotherapy to a less-toxic approach to minimize the risk of complications requiring hospitalization; or to pause therapies when possible (stable disease reached or better). In addition, nonemergency surgeries have been postponed or replaced by radiotherapy.

To prevent anticancer treatment-induced complications of COVID-19, most centers use the paradigm that the added benefit for tumor control should be weighed against the potential risk for COVID-19–related morbidity and mortality. To prevent or reduce the risk of neutropenia and lymphopenia, for example, all centers have suggested a de-escalation of cytotoxic chemotherapy or targeted treatment strategies, or to forgo second or subsequent lines of palliative treatments if response rates from up-front therapy are low.

Some of these changes may be here to stay, noted Caldas. “One of the positive messages that comes out of this is that, clearly, care can be delivered in a safe and compassionate manner without requiring as many hospital visits as in the pre-COVID-19 era,” he said. “In the future, we will take heed of the COVID-19 experience to improve delivery of cancer care.”
 

Capacity of facilities

Many healthcare systems have become overwhelmed as the pandemic has intensified, thus making it necessary to prioritize. To prepare for this possibility, CCE centers have established protocols to categorize and prioritize patients for systemic treatment or surgery. While the protocols vary by center, they are comparable with one another as they prioritize on the basis of anticipated treatment outcome, the authors note.

The guidelines in CCE centers unanimously recommend that neoadjuvant therapies and curative surgeries be the top priority, for the times when operating room and/or ICU capacity is limited. As an alternative, neoadjuvant systemic treatments may be initiated or extended to postpone surgery, and other nonsurgical interventions can be considered.

In addition, some centers agree that certain elective surgeries can be safely delayed if backed by scientific evidence. As an example, an 11-week deferment of surgery may be acceptable for patients with rectal cancer after downstaging.

Cancer centers may also need to upscale and downscale quickly, depending on how the pandemic evolves, and many have already outlined scenarios to prepare for increasing or decreasing their capacity using phased approaches.

The Netherlands Cancer Institute, for example, has defined four phases of increasing severity; in Germany, capacity planning has been coordinated among 18 hospitals and the federal ministry of health, in order to prevent shortages of cancer services.

“We note that the optimal downscaling strategies depend on country- and center-specific capacities and preferences,” they write. “Therefore, it is difficult to propose a common schedule, and it will be most effective if hospitals outline their own phase-specific downscaling strategies based on the prioritization schemes and practical handles discussed above.”
 

Future research

Better strategies will be needed to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in cancer care, and four research priorities were identified to allow for evidence-based adjustments of cancer care protocols while the pandemic continues:

• Collect real-world data about the effects of adjustment and de-escalation of treatment regimens on outcomes
• Determine the incidence of COVID-19 in both the general population and among patients with cancer who have received systemic therapies, with large-scale serological testing
• Develop an epidemiological model that will allow estimates of the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 for a patient with cancer, within a specific time frame
• Determine COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer who have been treated with systemic therapies and/or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Several projects are currently underway, such as the UK Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension and on treatment with an renin-angiotensin system inhibiting drug had significantly better survival, compared with similar hypertensive patients not on these drugs, in observational, propensity score–matched analyses that drew from a pool of more than 3,430 patients hospitalized at any of nine Chinese hospitals during December 2019–February 2020.

Courtesy CDC

“Among patients with hypertension hospitalized with COVID-19, inpatient treatment with ACEI [ACE inhibitor]/ARB [angiotensin receptor blocker] was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers, during 28 days of follow-up. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that inpatient ACEI/ARB would be associated with an increased risk of mortality,” wrote Peng Zhang, MD, a cardiology researcher at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and coauthors in Circulations Research, buttressing recent recommendations from several medical societies to maintain COVID-19 patients on these drugs.

“Our findings in this paper provide evidence supporting continuous use of ACEI/ARB for patients with hypertension infected with SARS-COV-2,” wrote the authors, backing up recent recommendations from cardiology societies that called for not stopping ACEI/ARB prescriptions in patients at risk for contracting or already have COVID-19 infection, including a statement from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America, and also guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.

The study included 1,128 patients with a history of hypertension, including 188 (17%) who received an ACEI/ARB drug during hospitalization. During 28-day follow-up, 99 died (9%), including 7 deaths among the 188 patients (4%) on an ACEI/ARB drug and 92 deaths among the 940 other hypertensive patients (10%).

The authors ran several analyses to try to adjust for the influence of possible confounders. A mixed-effect Cox model with four adjusted variables showed that treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was tied to a statistically significant 58% lower death rate, compared with patients not receiving these drugs.

The researchers also ran several propensity score–adjusted analyses. One matched 174 of the patients who received an ACEI/ARB drug with 522 who did not, and comparing these two matched arms showed that ACEI/ARB use was linked with a statistically significant 63% cut in mortality, compared with patients not getting these drugs. A second propensity score–matched analysis first excluded the 383 patients who were hypertensive but received no antihypertensive medication during hospitalization. From the remaining 745 patients who received at least one antihypertensive medication, the authors identified 181 patients who received an ACEI/ARB and propensity-score matched them with 181 hypertensive patients on a different medication class, finding that ACEI/ARB use linked with a statistically significant 71% lower rate of all-cause mortality.

Additional analyses also showed that patients with hypertension had a statistically significant, 41% increased rate of all-cause death, compared with patients without hypertension, and another propensity score–matched analysis showed that among hypertensives treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was linked with a statistically significant 68% reduced rate of septic shock.

Although this report was received with caution and some skepticism, it was also acknowledged as a step forward in the creation of an evidence base addressing ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 infection.

“These drugs are lifesaving and should not be discontinued” for patients with hypertension, heart failure, and other cardiovascular disease, commented Gian Paolo Rossi, MD, professor and chair of medicine and director of the high blood pressure unit at the University of Padua (Italy). The analysis by Zhang and associates included the largest number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension yet reported to assess the impact of treatment with ACEI/ARB drugs, and adds important evidence in favor of continuing these drugs in patients who develop COVID-19 infection, Dr. Rossi said in an interview. He recently coauthored a review that argued against ACEI/ARB discontinuation in COVID-19 patients based on previously reported evidence (Elife. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57278).

But other researchers take a wary view of the potential impact of ACEI/ARB agents. “If ACEI/ARB therapy increases ACE2 and the virus down-regulates it, and because ACE2 is the viral entry port into cells, why would ACE2-mediated down-regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system lead to amelioration of [COVID-19] disease?” asked Laurence W. Busse, MD, a critical care physician at Emory University, Atlanta. “A number of issues could potentially confound the results, including the definition of COVID-19 and imbalance of antiviral therapy,” added Dr. Busse, who recently coauthored an editorial that posited using angiotensin II (Giapreza), an approved vasopressor drug, as an alternative renin-angiotensin system intervention for COVID-19 patients including both those in shock as well as potentially those not in shock (Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02862-1). Despite these caveats, the new Chinese findings reported by Dr. Zhang and associates “are hypothesis generating and worth further exploration.”

The authors of an editorial that accompanied the Zhang study in Circulation Research made similar points. “While the investigators used standard techniques to attempt to reduce bias in this observational study via propensity matching, it is not a randomized study and the residual confounding inherent to this approach renders the conclusions hypothesis generating at best,” wrote Ravi V. Shah, MD, and two coauthors in the editorial (Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317174). They also agreed with the several society statements that have supported continued use of ACEI/ARB drugs in COVID-19 patients. “Withdrawal of these medications in the context of those conditions in which they have proven benefit (e.g., heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) may actually inflict more harm than good,” they warned. “In the end we must rely on randomized clinical science,” and while this level of evidence is currently lacking, “the study by Zhang and colleagues is a direct step toward that goal.”

Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no commercial disclosures. Dr. Rossi and Dr. Busse had no disclosures. The authors of the Circulation Research editorial reported several disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension and on treatment with an renin-angiotensin system inhibiting drug had significantly better survival, compared with similar hypertensive patients not on these drugs, in observational, propensity score–matched analyses that drew from a pool of more than 3,430 patients hospitalized at any of nine Chinese hospitals during December 2019–February 2020.

Courtesy CDC

“Among patients with hypertension hospitalized with COVID-19, inpatient treatment with ACEI [ACE inhibitor]/ARB [angiotensin receptor blocker] was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers, during 28 days of follow-up. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that inpatient ACEI/ARB would be associated with an increased risk of mortality,” wrote Peng Zhang, MD, a cardiology researcher at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and coauthors in Circulations Research, buttressing recent recommendations from several medical societies to maintain COVID-19 patients on these drugs.

“Our findings in this paper provide evidence supporting continuous use of ACEI/ARB for patients with hypertension infected with SARS-COV-2,” wrote the authors, backing up recent recommendations from cardiology societies that called for not stopping ACEI/ARB prescriptions in patients at risk for contracting or already have COVID-19 infection, including a statement from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America, and also guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.

The study included 1,128 patients with a history of hypertension, including 188 (17%) who received an ACEI/ARB drug during hospitalization. During 28-day follow-up, 99 died (9%), including 7 deaths among the 188 patients (4%) on an ACEI/ARB drug and 92 deaths among the 940 other hypertensive patients (10%).

The authors ran several analyses to try to adjust for the influence of possible confounders. A mixed-effect Cox model with four adjusted variables showed that treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was tied to a statistically significant 58% lower death rate, compared with patients not receiving these drugs.

The researchers also ran several propensity score–adjusted analyses. One matched 174 of the patients who received an ACEI/ARB drug with 522 who did not, and comparing these two matched arms showed that ACEI/ARB use was linked with a statistically significant 63% cut in mortality, compared with patients not getting these drugs. A second propensity score–matched analysis first excluded the 383 patients who were hypertensive but received no antihypertensive medication during hospitalization. From the remaining 745 patients who received at least one antihypertensive medication, the authors identified 181 patients who received an ACEI/ARB and propensity-score matched them with 181 hypertensive patients on a different medication class, finding that ACEI/ARB use linked with a statistically significant 71% lower rate of all-cause mortality.

Additional analyses also showed that patients with hypertension had a statistically significant, 41% increased rate of all-cause death, compared with patients without hypertension, and another propensity score–matched analysis showed that among hypertensives treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was linked with a statistically significant 68% reduced rate of septic shock.

Although this report was received with caution and some skepticism, it was also acknowledged as a step forward in the creation of an evidence base addressing ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 infection.

“These drugs are lifesaving and should not be discontinued” for patients with hypertension, heart failure, and other cardiovascular disease, commented Gian Paolo Rossi, MD, professor and chair of medicine and director of the high blood pressure unit at the University of Padua (Italy). The analysis by Zhang and associates included the largest number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension yet reported to assess the impact of treatment with ACEI/ARB drugs, and adds important evidence in favor of continuing these drugs in patients who develop COVID-19 infection, Dr. Rossi said in an interview. He recently coauthored a review that argued against ACEI/ARB discontinuation in COVID-19 patients based on previously reported evidence (Elife. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57278).

But other researchers take a wary view of the potential impact of ACEI/ARB agents. “If ACEI/ARB therapy increases ACE2 and the virus down-regulates it, and because ACE2 is the viral entry port into cells, why would ACE2-mediated down-regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system lead to amelioration of [COVID-19] disease?” asked Laurence W. Busse, MD, a critical care physician at Emory University, Atlanta. “A number of issues could potentially confound the results, including the definition of COVID-19 and imbalance of antiviral therapy,” added Dr. Busse, who recently coauthored an editorial that posited using angiotensin II (Giapreza), an approved vasopressor drug, as an alternative renin-angiotensin system intervention for COVID-19 patients including both those in shock as well as potentially those not in shock (Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02862-1). Despite these caveats, the new Chinese findings reported by Dr. Zhang and associates “are hypothesis generating and worth further exploration.”

The authors of an editorial that accompanied the Zhang study in Circulation Research made similar points. “While the investigators used standard techniques to attempt to reduce bias in this observational study via propensity matching, it is not a randomized study and the residual confounding inherent to this approach renders the conclusions hypothesis generating at best,” wrote Ravi V. Shah, MD, and two coauthors in the editorial (Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317174). They also agreed with the several society statements that have supported continued use of ACEI/ARB drugs in COVID-19 patients. “Withdrawal of these medications in the context of those conditions in which they have proven benefit (e.g., heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) may actually inflict more harm than good,” they warned. “In the end we must rely on randomized clinical science,” and while this level of evidence is currently lacking, “the study by Zhang and colleagues is a direct step toward that goal.”

Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no commercial disclosures. Dr. Rossi and Dr. Busse had no disclosures. The authors of the Circulation Research editorial reported several disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension and on treatment with an renin-angiotensin system inhibiting drug had significantly better survival, compared with similar hypertensive patients not on these drugs, in observational, propensity score–matched analyses that drew from a pool of more than 3,430 patients hospitalized at any of nine Chinese hospitals during December 2019–February 2020.

Courtesy CDC

“Among patients with hypertension hospitalized with COVID-19, inpatient treatment with ACEI [ACE inhibitor]/ARB [angiotensin receptor blocker] was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers, during 28 days of follow-up. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that inpatient ACEI/ARB would be associated with an increased risk of mortality,” wrote Peng Zhang, MD, a cardiology researcher at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and coauthors in Circulations Research, buttressing recent recommendations from several medical societies to maintain COVID-19 patients on these drugs.

“Our findings in this paper provide evidence supporting continuous use of ACEI/ARB for patients with hypertension infected with SARS-COV-2,” wrote the authors, backing up recent recommendations from cardiology societies that called for not stopping ACEI/ARB prescriptions in patients at risk for contracting or already have COVID-19 infection, including a statement from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America, and also guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.

The study included 1,128 patients with a history of hypertension, including 188 (17%) who received an ACEI/ARB drug during hospitalization. During 28-day follow-up, 99 died (9%), including 7 deaths among the 188 patients (4%) on an ACEI/ARB drug and 92 deaths among the 940 other hypertensive patients (10%).

The authors ran several analyses to try to adjust for the influence of possible confounders. A mixed-effect Cox model with four adjusted variables showed that treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was tied to a statistically significant 58% lower death rate, compared with patients not receiving these drugs.

The researchers also ran several propensity score–adjusted analyses. One matched 174 of the patients who received an ACEI/ARB drug with 522 who did not, and comparing these two matched arms showed that ACEI/ARB use was linked with a statistically significant 63% cut in mortality, compared with patients not getting these drugs. A second propensity score–matched analysis first excluded the 383 patients who were hypertensive but received no antihypertensive medication during hospitalization. From the remaining 745 patients who received at least one antihypertensive medication, the authors identified 181 patients who received an ACEI/ARB and propensity-score matched them with 181 hypertensive patients on a different medication class, finding that ACEI/ARB use linked with a statistically significant 71% lower rate of all-cause mortality.

Additional analyses also showed that patients with hypertension had a statistically significant, 41% increased rate of all-cause death, compared with patients without hypertension, and another propensity score–matched analysis showed that among hypertensives treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was linked with a statistically significant 68% reduced rate of septic shock.

Although this report was received with caution and some skepticism, it was also acknowledged as a step forward in the creation of an evidence base addressing ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 infection.

“These drugs are lifesaving and should not be discontinued” for patients with hypertension, heart failure, and other cardiovascular disease, commented Gian Paolo Rossi, MD, professor and chair of medicine and director of the high blood pressure unit at the University of Padua (Italy). The analysis by Zhang and associates included the largest number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension yet reported to assess the impact of treatment with ACEI/ARB drugs, and adds important evidence in favor of continuing these drugs in patients who develop COVID-19 infection, Dr. Rossi said in an interview. He recently coauthored a review that argued against ACEI/ARB discontinuation in COVID-19 patients based on previously reported evidence (Elife. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57278).

But other researchers take a wary view of the potential impact of ACEI/ARB agents. “If ACEI/ARB therapy increases ACE2 and the virus down-regulates it, and because ACE2 is the viral entry port into cells, why would ACE2-mediated down-regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system lead to amelioration of [COVID-19] disease?” asked Laurence W. Busse, MD, a critical care physician at Emory University, Atlanta. “A number of issues could potentially confound the results, including the definition of COVID-19 and imbalance of antiviral therapy,” added Dr. Busse, who recently coauthored an editorial that posited using angiotensin II (Giapreza), an approved vasopressor drug, as an alternative renin-angiotensin system intervention for COVID-19 patients including both those in shock as well as potentially those not in shock (Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02862-1). Despite these caveats, the new Chinese findings reported by Dr. Zhang and associates “are hypothesis generating and worth further exploration.”

The authors of an editorial that accompanied the Zhang study in Circulation Research made similar points. “While the investigators used standard techniques to attempt to reduce bias in this observational study via propensity matching, it is not a randomized study and the residual confounding inherent to this approach renders the conclusions hypothesis generating at best,” wrote Ravi V. Shah, MD, and two coauthors in the editorial (Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317174). They also agreed with the several society statements that have supported continued use of ACEI/ARB drugs in COVID-19 patients. “Withdrawal of these medications in the context of those conditions in which they have proven benefit (e.g., heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) may actually inflict more harm than good,” they warned. “In the end we must rely on randomized clinical science,” and while this level of evidence is currently lacking, “the study by Zhang and colleagues is a direct step toward that goal.”

Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no commercial disclosures. Dr. Rossi and Dr. Busse had no disclosures. The authors of the Circulation Research editorial reported several disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.

Lung cancer patients should be prioritized for COVID-19 testing, according to an editorial published in Annals of Oncology.

In fact, treatment recommendations should call for baseline COVID-19 testing for all patients with lung cancer, Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, Italy, and colleagues argued in the editorial.

“While all types of malignancies seem to be associated with high COVID-19 prevalence, morbidity, and mortality, lung cancer represents a specific scenario of cumulative risk factors for COVID-19 complications,” the authors wrote.

“[Lung cancer patients] are at a uniquely escalated risk of complications from COVID-19 due to the common features of smoking history, respiratory and cardiac disease, advanced age, and often predisposing risks from treatment, such as lung surgery and immunosuppressive chemotherapy,” said Howard (Jack) West, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., who was not involved in the editorial.

“They also routinely experience a cough as well as chest imaging that may overlap between their underlying lung cancer, possible side effects of treatment, and potential COVID-19, leading to troubling ambiguity that can only be addressed by proactive and widespread testing of patients with lung cancer at the earliest opportunity and as a very high priority,” Dr. West added.

Dr. Passaro and colleagues’ editorial outlined these and other issues that suggest a need to prioritize testing in lung cancer patients.

Disease characteristics, treatment, and imaging

Lung cancer patients may have “defective pulmonary architecture,” such as mechanical obstruction from a tumor or previous lung surgery, that predisposes them to infection and can increase the risk of cytokine release. This is a concern because massive cytokine release during SARS-CoV-2 infection “has been postulated to be the major step in leading to the development of ARDS [acute respiratory distress syndrome],” Dr. Passaro and colleagues wrote.

The authors also argued that similar clinical symptoms among lung cancer patients and those with COVID-19 – such as cough, fever, and dyspnea – underscore the need for an accurate screening model to allow for early COVID-19 detection and potentially improve outcomes.

Similarly, lung cancer patients and COVID-19 patients may have overlapping findings on imaging. The radiologic effects of some common treatments for lung cancer can lead to the same kind of ground glass opacities and other findings seen in COVID-19 patients. Therefore, the authors predict an increase in “COVID-19-suspicious imaging, even in the absence of new symptoms” in the coming weeks.

Another issue to consider is the frequent use of corticosteroids in cancer patients. Corticosteroids may be harmful when used for COVID-19–related acute respiratory distress syndrome and could mask early symptoms of infection. Therefore, routine COVID-19 testing in patients receiving steroids may be warranted, according to Dr. Passaro and colleagues.

In addition, immunosuppression associated with cancer treatment “may impose specific consideration on the schedule and dose of cytotoxic chemotherapy for lung cancer patients in epidemic areas,” the authors wrote.

Increasing awareness: A registry and guidelines

“In the era of COVID-19, the optimal management of patients with lung cancer remains unknown, and the oncology community should have increased awareness to prevent the emergence of an increase in cancer-related and infectious mortality,” Dr. Passaro and colleagues wrote.

To that end, a novel global registry (TERAVOLT) has been launched and is collecting data worldwide with an aim of developing a tailored risk assessment strategy for lung cancer patients. The authors noted that developing international consensus with respect to COVID-19 testing in lung cancer is essential for achieving that goal.

The European Society for Medical Oncology recently released guidelines for treating lung cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, but those guidelines do not include recommendations on COVID-19 testing.

“Baseline SARS-CoV-2 testing for all patients affected by lung cancer should be recommended,” Dr. Passaro and colleagues wrote. “In addition, for those patients with a negative swab test and new ground glass opacities detected on CT scan, with or without new respiratory symptoms, bronchoscopy should be considered to increase testing sensitivity.”

This work was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. West is a regular correspondent for Medscape, which is owned by the same parent company as MDedge.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Passaro A et al. Annals of Oncology. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.04.002.

Lung cancer patients should be prioritized for COVID-19 testing, according to an editorial published in Annals of Oncology.

In fact, treatment recommendations should call for baseline COVID-19 testing for all patients with lung cancer, Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, Italy, and colleagues argued in the editorial.

“While all types of malignancies seem to be associated with high COVID-19 prevalence, morbidity, and mortality, lung cancer represents a specific scenario of cumulative risk factors for COVID-19 complications,” the authors wrote.

“[Lung cancer patients] are at a uniquely escalated risk of complications from COVID-19 due to the common features of smoking history, respiratory and cardiac disease, advanced age, and often predisposing risks from treatment, such as lung surgery and immunosuppressive chemotherapy,” said Howard (Jack) West, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., who was not involved in the editorial.

“They also routinely experience a cough as well as chest imaging that may overlap between their underlying lung cancer, possible side effects of treatment, and potential COVID-19, leading to troubling ambiguity that can only be addressed by proactive and widespread testing of patients with lung cancer at the earliest opportunity and as a very high priority,” Dr. West added.

Dr. Passaro and colleagues’ editorial outlined these and other issues that suggest a need to prioritize testing in lung cancer patients.

Disease characteristics, treatment, and imaging

Lung cancer patients may have “defective pulmonary architecture,” such as mechanical obstruction from a tumor or previous lung surgery, that predisposes them to infection and can increase the risk of cytokine release. This is a concern because massive cytokine release during SARS-CoV-2 infection “has been postulated to be the major step in leading to the development of ARDS [acute respiratory distress syndrome],” Dr. Passaro and colleagues wrote.

The authors also argued that similar clinical symptoms among lung cancer patients and those with COVID-19 – such as cough, fever, and dyspnea – underscore the need for an accurate screening model to allow for early COVID-19 detection and potentially improve outcomes.

Similarly, lung cancer patients and COVID-19 patients may have overlapping findings on imaging. The radiologic effects of some common treatments for lung cancer can lead to the same kind of ground glass opacities and other findings seen in COVID-19 patients. Therefore, the authors predict an increase in “COVID-19-suspicious imaging, even in the absence of new symptoms” in the coming weeks.

Another issue to consider is the frequent use of corticosteroids in cancer patients. Corticosteroids may be harmful when used for COVID-19–related acute respiratory distress syndrome and could mask early symptoms of infection. Therefore, routine COVID-19 testing in patients receiving steroids may be warranted, according to Dr. Passaro and colleagues.

In addition, immunosuppression associated with cancer treatment “may impose specific consideration on the schedule and dose of cytotoxic chemotherapy for lung cancer patients in epidemic areas,” the authors wrote.

Increasing awareness: A registry and guidelines

“In the era of COVID-19, the optimal management of patients with lung cancer remains unknown, and the oncology community should have increased awareness to prevent the emergence of an increase in cancer-related and infectious mortality,” Dr. Passaro and colleagues wrote.

To that end, a novel global registry (TERAVOLT) has been launched and is collecting data worldwide with an aim of developing a tailored risk assessment strategy for lung cancer patients. The authors noted that developing international consensus with respect to COVID-19 testing in lung cancer is essential for achieving that goal.

The European Society for Medical Oncology recently released guidelines for treating lung cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, but those guidelines do not include recommendations on COVID-19 testing.

“Baseline SARS-CoV-2 testing for all patients affected by lung cancer should be recommended,” Dr. Passaro and colleagues wrote. “In addition, for those patients with a negative swab test and new ground glass opacities detected on CT scan, with or without new respiratory symptoms, bronchoscopy should be considered to increase testing sensitivity.”

This work was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. West is a regular correspondent for Medscape, which is owned by the same parent company as MDedge.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Passaro A et al. Annals of Oncology. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.04.002.

Lung cancer patients should be prioritized for COVID-19 testing, according to an editorial published in Annals of Oncology.

In fact, treatment recommendations should call for baseline COVID-19 testing for all patients with lung cancer, Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, Italy, and colleagues argued in the editorial.

“While all types of malignancies seem to be associated with high COVID-19 prevalence, morbidity, and mortality, lung cancer represents a specific scenario of cumulative risk factors for COVID-19 complications,” the authors wrote.

“[Lung cancer patients] are at a uniquely escalated risk of complications from COVID-19 due to the common features of smoking history, respiratory and cardiac disease, advanced age, and often predisposing risks from treatment, such as lung surgery and immunosuppressive chemotherapy,” said Howard (Jack) West, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., who was not involved in the editorial.

“They also routinely experience a cough as well as chest imaging that may overlap between their underlying lung cancer, possible side effects of treatment, and potential COVID-19, leading to troubling ambiguity that can only be addressed by proactive and widespread testing of patients with lung cancer at the earliest opportunity and as a very high priority,” Dr. West added.

Dr. Passaro and colleagues’ editorial outlined these and other issues that suggest a need to prioritize testing in lung cancer patients.

Disease characteristics, treatment, and imaging

Lung cancer patients may have “defective pulmonary architecture,” such as mechanical obstruction from a tumor or previous lung surgery, that predisposes them to infection and can increase the risk of cytokine release. This is a concern because massive cytokine release during SARS-CoV-2 infection “has been postulated to be the major step in leading to the development of ARDS [acute respiratory distress syndrome],” Dr. Passaro and colleagues wrote.

The authors also argued that similar clinical symptoms among lung cancer patients and those with COVID-19 – such as cough, fever, and dyspnea – underscore the need for an accurate screening model to allow for early COVID-19 detection and potentially improve outcomes.

Similarly, lung cancer patients and COVID-19 patients may have overlapping findings on imaging. The radiologic effects of some common treatments for lung cancer can lead to the same kind of ground glass opacities and other findings seen in COVID-19 patients. Therefore, the authors predict an increase in “COVID-19-suspicious imaging, even in the absence of new symptoms” in the coming weeks.

Another issue to consider is the frequent use of corticosteroids in cancer patients. Corticosteroids may be harmful when used for COVID-19–related acute respiratory distress syndrome and could mask early symptoms of infection. Therefore, routine COVID-19 testing in patients receiving steroids may be warranted, according to Dr. Passaro and colleagues.

In addition, immunosuppression associated with cancer treatment “may impose specific consideration on the schedule and dose of cytotoxic chemotherapy for lung cancer patients in epidemic areas,” the authors wrote.

Increasing awareness: A registry and guidelines

“In the era of COVID-19, the optimal management of patients with lung cancer remains unknown, and the oncology community should have increased awareness to prevent the emergence of an increase in cancer-related and infectious mortality,” Dr. Passaro and colleagues wrote.

To that end, a novel global registry (TERAVOLT) has been launched and is collecting data worldwide with an aim of developing a tailored risk assessment strategy for lung cancer patients. The authors noted that developing international consensus with respect to COVID-19 testing in lung cancer is essential for achieving that goal.

The European Society for Medical Oncology recently released guidelines for treating lung cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, but those guidelines do not include recommendations on COVID-19 testing.

“Baseline SARS-CoV-2 testing for all patients affected by lung cancer should be recommended,” Dr. Passaro and colleagues wrote. “In addition, for those patients with a negative swab test and new ground glass opacities detected on CT scan, with or without new respiratory symptoms, bronchoscopy should be considered to increase testing sensitivity.”

This work was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. West is a regular correspondent for Medscape, which is owned by the same parent company as MDedge.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Passaro A et al. Annals of Oncology. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.04.002.

The last few weeks have been confusing and a little overwhelming. A hodgepodge of rapid-fire publications of potential treatments and multiple, sometimes confusing government mandates and initiatives have inundated us. The overriding theme is clear, though: Let’s first concentrate on keeping our civilization intact. State governments have been largely focused on “flattening the curve” of new infections. And the longer we slow this disease down, the better we learn how to treat it.

Multiple existing medications, repurposed from all walks of the pharmacologic world, have been screened and shown to have potential therapeutic benefit, and they are being tested even as I write this column. The nasty form of this disease is a unique form of adult respiratory distress syndrome, and the terminal event appears to be a form of disseminated intravascular coagulation, which may respond to unexpected therapies, such as clot busters (J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1111/jth.14828).

Now, let’s consider the more mundane issue of keeping your medical practice alive.

Some state medical boards have relaxed the rules on licensing, and the federal government on HIPAA compliance, so that telemedicine has finally become practical. Some EHR vendors have even rushed out modules to make it easier to conduct visits with patients through their patient portals. This has all made it almost practical to see, monitor, and treat existing patients with chronic conditions, and even new ones who do not require a biopsy.

But it has also become clear that telemedicine is not a long-term means of keeping your practice viable, at least not in your practice’s current form. It can be difficult to enroll new patients and the process of collecting copays and deductibles can be frustrating and slow. There may also resistance from our patients, who may be used to having this sort of service performed by us free-of-charge. Those selfies that in the past you may have viewed, called the patient to discuss, and then called their medication into the pharmacy – all as a convenience – are coming back to haunt you. It was free before, they say, what has changed?

Another obstacle, as always, is reimbursement. There is an inconsistent patchwork of private insurance coverage that may or may not pay you. The American Academy of Dermatology has put together an excellent resource on its web site on all matters regarding COVID-19 to help you.

But the underlying undeniable reality is that you cannot support your current practice model long term with telemedicine because only about 30% of dermatology reimbursement comes from evaluation and management codes, according to a recently published study – and the rest, procedures, obviously requires patient contact (JAMA Surg. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0422).

The federal government has been economically responsive by injecting money into businesses with less than 500 employees. Most of you will be eligible and probably already have applied for the Paycheck Protection Program. These are small business “loans” that your bank puts the paperwork in for, which can total up to 2.5 times one month’s average payroll. These “loans” may be 100% forgivable (75% must come from two months payroll, another 25% rent and expenses) if you do not lay anyone off.

Employees can be kept busy doing other tasks besides directly helping with patients. Like many of you with state-mandated lockdowns, my office has never been so clean, the cabinets so well stocked, and the files so organized. The stock room has been cleaned out, and any extra personal protective gear has been donated to the hospital and emergency medical services. We have landscaped the front of our building and if it warms up, we will seal and remark the parking lot. You get my drift. I have also applied for and received an advance of three months of Medicare payments, which will be automatically paid back as practice resumes. This is in effect an interest-free loan. A few days ago, my business checking account received a deposit from the Department of Health & Human Services for 6.1% of last year’s Medicare billings. This is unexpected, no obligation support to help keep your medical office open in the time of COVID-19. It appears that the office and practice will be able to weather the fire.

Assuming our practices survive more or less intact, there are major social consequences to consider. Society is a conglomeration of individuals, and individuals act on their Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (a concept introduced by psychologist Abraham Maslow, PhD, over 75 years ago). Our society has already slid down several of Maslow’s levels. We have reset to about level two, which is safety, one level above physiologic needs. Recall the grocery store fights. Look at the gun sales. The toilet paper roll has been reset from wheel of fortune spin to safe cracking mode.

This reset of the societal mindset has many ramifications you may not normally consider. For example, who will risk buying up to that dream home or purchasing a second home, if you are being told to shelter in place? Fewer may gamble $300,000 on a college education at a less-than-top-50 school. Who even knows when college will start next year. Who is going to take that promotion to New York City, or even New Jersey, and ride the train and subway to work every day? Who wants to commute through the crowded airport on the jam packed “plane train”?

It is easy to predict we will see a severe recession followed by higher taxes and inflation (stagflation). There is a financial writer I like to read who has been predicting a “great reset” of American society for several years. COVID-19 may have precipitated that reset, and things may never be the same.


 

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com. He has no disclosures.

The last few weeks have been confusing and a little overwhelming. A hodgepodge of rapid-fire publications of potential treatments and multiple, sometimes confusing government mandates and initiatives have inundated us. The overriding theme is clear, though: Let’s first concentrate on keeping our civilization intact. State governments have been largely focused on “flattening the curve” of new infections. And the longer we slow this disease down, the better we learn how to treat it.

Multiple existing medications, repurposed from all walks of the pharmacologic world, have been screened and shown to have potential therapeutic benefit, and they are being tested even as I write this column. The nasty form of this disease is a unique form of adult respiratory distress syndrome, and the terminal event appears to be a form of disseminated intravascular coagulation, which may respond to unexpected therapies, such as clot busters (J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1111/jth.14828).

Now, let’s consider the more mundane issue of keeping your medical practice alive.

Some state medical boards have relaxed the rules on licensing, and the federal government on HIPAA compliance, so that telemedicine has finally become practical. Some EHR vendors have even rushed out modules to make it easier to conduct visits with patients through their patient portals. This has all made it almost practical to see, monitor, and treat existing patients with chronic conditions, and even new ones who do not require a biopsy.

But it has also become clear that telemedicine is not a long-term means of keeping your practice viable, at least not in your practice’s current form. It can be difficult to enroll new patients and the process of collecting copays and deductibles can be frustrating and slow. There may also resistance from our patients, who may be used to having this sort of service performed by us free-of-charge. Those selfies that in the past you may have viewed, called the patient to discuss, and then called their medication into the pharmacy – all as a convenience – are coming back to haunt you. It was free before, they say, what has changed?

Another obstacle, as always, is reimbursement. There is an inconsistent patchwork of private insurance coverage that may or may not pay you. The American Academy of Dermatology has put together an excellent resource on its web site on all matters regarding COVID-19 to help you.

But the underlying undeniable reality is that you cannot support your current practice model long term with telemedicine because only about 30% of dermatology reimbursement comes from evaluation and management codes, according to a recently published study – and the rest, procedures, obviously requires patient contact (JAMA Surg. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0422).

The federal government has been economically responsive by injecting money into businesses with less than 500 employees. Most of you will be eligible and probably already have applied for the Paycheck Protection Program. These are small business “loans” that your bank puts the paperwork in for, which can total up to 2.5 times one month’s average payroll. These “loans” may be 100% forgivable (75% must come from two months payroll, another 25% rent and expenses) if you do not lay anyone off.

Employees can be kept busy doing other tasks besides directly helping with patients. Like many of you with state-mandated lockdowns, my office has never been so clean, the cabinets so well stocked, and the files so organized. The stock room has been cleaned out, and any extra personal protective gear has been donated to the hospital and emergency medical services. We have landscaped the front of our building and if it warms up, we will seal and remark the parking lot. You get my drift. I have also applied for and received an advance of three months of Medicare payments, which will be automatically paid back as practice resumes. This is in effect an interest-free loan. A few days ago, my business checking account received a deposit from the Department of Health & Human Services for 6.1% of last year’s Medicare billings. This is unexpected, no obligation support to help keep your medical office open in the time of COVID-19. It appears that the office and practice will be able to weather the fire.

Assuming our practices survive more or less intact, there are major social consequences to consider. Society is a conglomeration of individuals, and individuals act on their Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (a concept introduced by psychologist Abraham Maslow, PhD, over 75 years ago). Our society has already slid down several of Maslow’s levels. We have reset to about level two, which is safety, one level above physiologic needs. Recall the grocery store fights. Look at the gun sales. The toilet paper roll has been reset from wheel of fortune spin to safe cracking mode.

This reset of the societal mindset has many ramifications you may not normally consider. For example, who will risk buying up to that dream home or purchasing a second home, if you are being told to shelter in place? Fewer may gamble $300,000 on a college education at a less-than-top-50 school. Who even knows when college will start next year. Who is going to take that promotion to New York City, or even New Jersey, and ride the train and subway to work every day? Who wants to commute through the crowded airport on the jam packed “plane train”?

It is easy to predict we will see a severe recession followed by higher taxes and inflation (stagflation). There is a financial writer I like to read who has been predicting a “great reset” of American society for several years. COVID-19 may have precipitated that reset, and things may never be the same.


 

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com. He has no disclosures.

The last few weeks have been confusing and a little overwhelming. A hodgepodge of rapid-fire publications of potential treatments and multiple, sometimes confusing government mandates and initiatives have inundated us. The overriding theme is clear, though: Let’s first concentrate on keeping our civilization intact. State governments have been largely focused on “flattening the curve” of new infections. And the longer we slow this disease down, the better we learn how to treat it.

Multiple existing medications, repurposed from all walks of the pharmacologic world, have been screened and shown to have potential therapeutic benefit, and they are being tested even as I write this column. The nasty form of this disease is a unique form of adult respiratory distress syndrome, and the terminal event appears to be a form of disseminated intravascular coagulation, which may respond to unexpected therapies, such as clot busters (J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Apr 8. doi: 10.1111/jth.14828).

Now, let’s consider the more mundane issue of keeping your medical practice alive.

Some state medical boards have relaxed the rules on licensing, and the federal government on HIPAA compliance, so that telemedicine has finally become practical. Some EHR vendors have even rushed out modules to make it easier to conduct visits with patients through their patient portals. This has all made it almost practical to see, monitor, and treat existing patients with chronic conditions, and even new ones who do not require a biopsy.

But it has also become clear that telemedicine is not a long-term means of keeping your practice viable, at least not in your practice’s current form. It can be difficult to enroll new patients and the process of collecting copays and deductibles can be frustrating and slow. There may also resistance from our patients, who may be used to having this sort of service performed by us free-of-charge. Those selfies that in the past you may have viewed, called the patient to discuss, and then called their medication into the pharmacy – all as a convenience – are coming back to haunt you. It was free before, they say, what has changed?

Another obstacle, as always, is reimbursement. There is an inconsistent patchwork of private insurance coverage that may or may not pay you. The American Academy of Dermatology has put together an excellent resource on its web site on all matters regarding COVID-19 to help you.

But the underlying undeniable reality is that you cannot support your current practice model long term with telemedicine because only about 30% of dermatology reimbursement comes from evaluation and management codes, according to a recently published study – and the rest, procedures, obviously requires patient contact (JAMA Surg. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0422).

The federal government has been economically responsive by injecting money into businesses with less than 500 employees. Most of you will be eligible and probably already have applied for the Paycheck Protection Program. These are small business “loans” that your bank puts the paperwork in for, which can total up to 2.5 times one month’s average payroll. These “loans” may be 100% forgivable (75% must come from two months payroll, another 25% rent and expenses) if you do not lay anyone off.

Employees can be kept busy doing other tasks besides directly helping with patients. Like many of you with state-mandated lockdowns, my office has never been so clean, the cabinets so well stocked, and the files so organized. The stock room has been cleaned out, and any extra personal protective gear has been donated to the hospital and emergency medical services. We have landscaped the front of our building and if it warms up, we will seal and remark the parking lot. You get my drift. I have also applied for and received an advance of three months of Medicare payments, which will be automatically paid back as practice resumes. This is in effect an interest-free loan. A few days ago, my business checking account received a deposit from the Department of Health & Human Services for 6.1% of last year’s Medicare billings. This is unexpected, no obligation support to help keep your medical office open in the time of COVID-19. It appears that the office and practice will be able to weather the fire.

Assuming our practices survive more or less intact, there are major social consequences to consider. Society is a conglomeration of individuals, and individuals act on their Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (a concept introduced by psychologist Abraham Maslow, PhD, over 75 years ago). Our society has already slid down several of Maslow’s levels. We have reset to about level two, which is safety, one level above physiologic needs. Recall the grocery store fights. Look at the gun sales. The toilet paper roll has been reset from wheel of fortune spin to safe cracking mode.

This reset of the societal mindset has many ramifications you may not normally consider. For example, who will risk buying up to that dream home or purchasing a second home, if you are being told to shelter in place? Fewer may gamble $300,000 on a college education at a less-than-top-50 school. Who even knows when college will start next year. Who is going to take that promotion to New York City, or even New Jersey, and ride the train and subway to work every day? Who wants to commute through the crowded airport on the jam packed “plane train”?

It is easy to predict we will see a severe recession followed by higher taxes and inflation (stagflation). There is a financial writer I like to read who has been predicting a “great reset” of American society for several years. COVID-19 may have precipitated that reset, and things may never be the same.


 

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com. He has no disclosures.

In early March, 35 residents in the Life Care Center in Kirkland, Washington, died due to complications associated with COVID-19. And that facility thus became the first example of how extremely vulnerable nursing home residents are to COVID-19. Since then, around the US, thousands of nursing home residents have died from complications of the virus. US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) nursing homes, while rated high in VA health inspection reports, have not been exempt.

As of April 21, the VA had confirmed > 5,500 coronavirus cases in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. More than 350 veterans have died of COVID-19, according to VA data. The VA calculates its rates by health care system or VA medical center and does not provide separate data for the community living centers (CLCs).

The VA initiated an isolation strategy on March 10 that suspended most new admissions and barred outsiders from all of its 134 nursing homes. The only exception to the rule was when a patient was expected to die soon. The VA has taken other precautions as well, including extra screening and directing patients to use telehealth where possible.

State-run long-term care facilities for veterans have been hard hit across the country. At the Soldiers’ Home in Holyoke, Massachusetts, which is run by the state of Massachusetts, 5 of 11 veterans who died recently tested positive for COVID-19. At the 4 state-run nursing homes in Alabama, as of April 14, 45 people were confirmed positive and 2 residents had died. The largest outbreak was in the Bill Nichols State Veterans Home in Alexander City. Alabama State Rep. Ed Oliver and Commissioner Kent Davis, of the Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs (ADVA), are looking into how the outbreak started and whether it could have been prevented. “We have reports of lack of hand sanitizers, and those are the things we’re looking at right now,” Rep. Oliver said. The ADVA says residents who test positive are isolated for treatment, and infected employees are prohibited from entering the homes.

States have deployed National Guard troops to facilities following large scale outbreaks and multiple deaths. Pennsylvania deployed 30 National Guard troops to its Southeastern Veterans Center facility in Spring City after at least 10 veterans had died and at least 19 health care workers had tested positive for the virus. The facility is 1 of 6 extended-care facilities run by the Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. In New Jersey, 40 National Guard troops, 25 New Jersey Department of Health nurses, and 90 VA nurses were deployed to 2 of its veterans facilities amid worsening outbreaks. At the Paramus facility, 155 residents had tested positive and 39 had died, and at the home in Edison, 86 veterans had tested positive and 25 died; 6 more died at a third state facility.

However, reporting remains inconsistent across many states and facilities. Only on April 19 did the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) order nursing home facilities to inform residents and families about COVID-19 cases inside. This followed similar orders in New Jersey, New York, California, Washington, and other states.

“Nursing homes have been ground zero for COVID-19,” said CMS Administrator Seema Verma in a written statement. “Nursing home reporting to the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] is a critical component of the go-forward national COVID-19 surveillance system and to efforts to reopen America.”

In early March, 35 residents in the Life Care Center in Kirkland, Washington, died due to complications associated with COVID-19. And that facility thus became the first example of how extremely vulnerable nursing home residents are to COVID-19. Since then, around the US, thousands of nursing home residents have died from complications of the virus. US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) nursing homes, while rated high in VA health inspection reports, have not been exempt.

As of April 21, the VA had confirmed > 5,500 coronavirus cases in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. More than 350 veterans have died of COVID-19, according to VA data. The VA calculates its rates by health care system or VA medical center and does not provide separate data for the community living centers (CLCs).

The VA initiated an isolation strategy on March 10 that suspended most new admissions and barred outsiders from all of its 134 nursing homes. The only exception to the rule was when a patient was expected to die soon. The VA has taken other precautions as well, including extra screening and directing patients to use telehealth where possible.

State-run long-term care facilities for veterans have been hard hit across the country. At the Soldiers’ Home in Holyoke, Massachusetts, which is run by the state of Massachusetts, 5 of 11 veterans who died recently tested positive for COVID-19. At the 4 state-run nursing homes in Alabama, as of April 14, 45 people were confirmed positive and 2 residents had died. The largest outbreak was in the Bill Nichols State Veterans Home in Alexander City. Alabama State Rep. Ed Oliver and Commissioner Kent Davis, of the Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs (ADVA), are looking into how the outbreak started and whether it could have been prevented. “We have reports of lack of hand sanitizers, and those are the things we’re looking at right now,” Rep. Oliver said. The ADVA says residents who test positive are isolated for treatment, and infected employees are prohibited from entering the homes.

States have deployed National Guard troops to facilities following large scale outbreaks and multiple deaths. Pennsylvania deployed 30 National Guard troops to its Southeastern Veterans Center facility in Spring City after at least 10 veterans had died and at least 19 health care workers had tested positive for the virus. The facility is 1 of 6 extended-care facilities run by the Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. In New Jersey, 40 National Guard troops, 25 New Jersey Department of Health nurses, and 90 VA nurses were deployed to 2 of its veterans facilities amid worsening outbreaks. At the Paramus facility, 155 residents had tested positive and 39 had died, and at the home in Edison, 86 veterans had tested positive and 25 died; 6 more died at a third state facility.

However, reporting remains inconsistent across many states and facilities. Only on April 19 did the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) order nursing home facilities to inform residents and families about COVID-19 cases inside. This followed similar orders in New Jersey, New York, California, Washington, and other states.

“Nursing homes have been ground zero for COVID-19,” said CMS Administrator Seema Verma in a written statement. “Nursing home reporting to the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] is a critical component of the go-forward national COVID-19 surveillance system and to efforts to reopen America.”

In early March, 35 residents in the Life Care Center in Kirkland, Washington, died due to complications associated with COVID-19. And that facility thus became the first example of how extremely vulnerable nursing home residents are to COVID-19. Since then, around the US, thousands of nursing home residents have died from complications of the virus. US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) nursing homes, while rated high in VA health inspection reports, have not been exempt.

As of April 21, the VA had confirmed > 5,500 coronavirus cases in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. More than 350 veterans have died of COVID-19, according to VA data. The VA calculates its rates by health care system or VA medical center and does not provide separate data for the community living centers (CLCs).

The VA initiated an isolation strategy on March 10 that suspended most new admissions and barred outsiders from all of its 134 nursing homes. The only exception to the rule was when a patient was expected to die soon. The VA has taken other precautions as well, including extra screening and directing patients to use telehealth where possible.

State-run long-term care facilities for veterans have been hard hit across the country. At the Soldiers’ Home in Holyoke, Massachusetts, which is run by the state of Massachusetts, 5 of 11 veterans who died recently tested positive for COVID-19. At the 4 state-run nursing homes in Alabama, as of April 14, 45 people were confirmed positive and 2 residents had died. The largest outbreak was in the Bill Nichols State Veterans Home in Alexander City. Alabama State Rep. Ed Oliver and Commissioner Kent Davis, of the Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs (ADVA), are looking into how the outbreak started and whether it could have been prevented. “We have reports of lack of hand sanitizers, and those are the things we’re looking at right now,” Rep. Oliver said. The ADVA says residents who test positive are isolated for treatment, and infected employees are prohibited from entering the homes.

States have deployed National Guard troops to facilities following large scale outbreaks and multiple deaths. Pennsylvania deployed 30 National Guard troops to its Southeastern Veterans Center facility in Spring City after at least 10 veterans had died and at least 19 health care workers had tested positive for the virus. The facility is 1 of 6 extended-care facilities run by the Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. In New Jersey, 40 National Guard troops, 25 New Jersey Department of Health nurses, and 90 VA nurses were deployed to 2 of its veterans facilities amid worsening outbreaks. At the Paramus facility, 155 residents had tested positive and 39 had died, and at the home in Edison, 86 veterans had tested positive and 25 died; 6 more died at a third state facility.

However, reporting remains inconsistent across many states and facilities. Only on April 19 did the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) order nursing home facilities to inform residents and families about COVID-19 cases inside. This followed similar orders in New Jersey, New York, California, Washington, and other states.

“Nursing homes have been ground zero for COVID-19,” said CMS Administrator Seema Verma in a written statement. “Nursing home reporting to the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] is a critical component of the go-forward national COVID-19 surveillance system and to efforts to reopen America.”

For Luanne Freer, MD, an expert in high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and founder and director of Everest ER, a nonprofit seasonal clinic at the Mt. Everest base camp in Nepal (elevation, 17,600 ft), a sudden flurry of messages and questions she received about a possible COVID-19/HAPE link was startling.

Courtesy Rowie Ververis

“That’s why it kind of poked me in the eye,” she said, referencing her extensive experience treating HAPE, which she described as a pressure-related phenomenon. “My goodness, they are so completely different.”

Dr. Freer, an emergency physician, reached out to several pulmonary intensivists with experience treating both HAPE and COVID-19 to gauge their reactions, and within 36 hours, they had drafted their response. In the commentary, published in High Altitude Medicine & Biology, the clinicians note that the comparison between HAPE and COVID-19 is potentially risky.

“As a group of physicians who have in some cases cared for patients with COVID-19 and in all cases cared for patients with HAPE and studied its pathophysiology and management, we feel it important to correct this misconception, as continued amplification of this message could have adverse effects on management of these patients,” they wrote.

The suggestion that COVID-19 lung injury sometimes looks more like HAPE than like acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) appeared in a journal review article in late March and was put forth by medical professionals on social media where it gained traction in recent weeks and was amplified in multiple media outlets, including this one.

“With COVID, we don’t understand everything that’s going on, but we know for sure it’s an inflammatory process – not a pressure-related problem,” Dr. Freer said. “I thought ... this could be so dangerous to load the medicines that we use when we’re treating HAPE onto patients with COVID-19.”

The pathophysiological mechanisms in HAPE are different than those in other respiratory syndromes, including those associated with COVID-19, said Andrew M. Luks, MD, of the UW Medicine, Seattle, and the first author on the commentary.

“HAPE is a noncardiogenic form of pulmonary edema, as are ARDS due to bacteria or viral pneumonia, re-expansion pulmonary edema, immersion pulmonary edema, negative pressure pulmonary edema, and neurogenic pulmonary edema,” Dr. Luks, Dr. Freer, and colleagues wrote in the commentary, explaining that all of these entities cause varying degrees of hypoxemia and diffuse bilateral opacities on chest imaging. “Importantly, in all of these cases, edema accumulates in the interstitial and alveolar spaces of the lung as a result of imbalance in Starling forces.”

A difference between these entities, however, is “the mechanism by which that imbalance develops,” they noted.

The excessive and uneven hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction that leads to a marked increase in pulmonary artery pressure, subsequent lung overperfusion, increased pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, and leakage of fluid from the vascular space into the alveolar space as seen in HAPE, is a “fundamentally different phenomenon than what is seen in COVID-19-related ARDS, which involves viral-mediated inflammatory responses as the primary pathophysiological mechanism,” they added.

The authors described several other differences between the conditions, ultimately noting that “understanding the distinction between the pathophysiological mechanisms of these entities is critical for patient management.”

In HAPE, supplemental oxygen alone may be sufficient; in COVID-19, it may improve hypoxemia but won’t resolve the underlying inflammation or injury, they explained, adding that “only good supportive care including mechanical ventilation, quite often for long periods of time, allows some patients to survive until their disease resolves.”

Further, HAPE can be prevented or treated with pulmonary vasodilators such a nifedipine or sildenafil, which decrease pulmonary artery pressure and, as a result lower pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, they said.

Use of such medications for COVID-19 might decrease pulmonary artery pressure and improve right ventricular function in COVID-19, but “by releasing hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and increasing perfusion to nonventilated regions of the lung, they could also worsen ventilation-perfusion mismatch” and thereby worsen hypoxemia, they explained, adding that the treatments can also cause or worsen hypotension.

Efforts to share observations and experience are important in medicine, but sometimes, as in this circumstance, “they get out there, spread around – like a brushfire almost – and get [unwarranted] face validity,” Dr. Luks said, noting that in response to information circulating about COVID-19 and HAPE, he has already heard medical professionals floating the idea of treating COVID-19 with treatments used for HAPE.

It’s true that some COVID-19 lung injury cases are behaving differently than typical ARDS, he said, adding that presentation can vary.

“But trying to equate HAPE and COVID-19 is just wrong,” he said. “HAPE and COVID-19 may share several features ...but those are features that are shared by a lot of different forms of respiratory failure.”

In a recent video interview, WebMD’s chief medical officer John Whyte, MD, spoke with a New York City physician trained in critical care and emergency medicine, Cameron Kyle-Sidell, MD, who raised the need to consider different respiratory protocols for COVID-19, noting that standard protocols were falling short in many cases.

“What we’re seeing ... is something unusual, it’s something that we are not used to,” Dr. Kyle-Sidell of Maimonides Medical Center said in that interview, stressing that the presentation differed from that seen in typical ARDS. “The patterns I was seeing did not make sense.”

Like others, he noted that COVID-19 patients were presenting with illness that clinically looked more like HAPE, but that the pathophysiology is not necessary similar to HAPE.

At around the same time, Luciano Gattinoni, MD, of the Medical University of Göttingen in Germany and colleagues, published a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine stressing that the ARDS presentation in COVID-19 patients is atypical and requires a patient physiology–driven treatment approach, rather than a standard protocol–driven approach. Dr. Gattinoni and colleagues suggested that instead of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), physicians should consider the lowest possible PEEP and gentle ventilation.

Dr. Luks agreed that “some patients with COVID-19 do not have the same physiologic derangements that we see in a lot of other people with ARDS.”

“[Dr. Gattinoni] is making the point that we need to treat these people differently ... and I think that’s a valid point, and honestly, that’s a point that applied even before COVID-19,” he said. “Most of the things that we see in clinical practice – there’s a lot of heterogeneity between patients, and you have to be prepared to tailor your therapy in light of the differences that you’re picking up from your observations at the bedside and other data that you’re getting on the patient.”

The main concern Dr. Luks and his coauthors wanted to convey, they said, is making sure that the anecdotal experiences and observations of clinicians struggling to find answers don’t spiral out of control without proper vetting, thereby leading to patient harm.

“In this challenging time, we must identify the best means to care for these critically ill patients. That approach should be grounded in sound pulmonary physiology, clinical experience and, when available, evidence from clinical studies,” they concluded.

Dr. Luks and Dr. Freer reported having no financial disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

For Luanne Freer, MD, an expert in high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and founder and director of Everest ER, a nonprofit seasonal clinic at the Mt. Everest base camp in Nepal (elevation, 17,600 ft), a sudden flurry of messages and questions she received about a possible COVID-19/HAPE link was startling.

Courtesy Rowie Ververis

“That’s why it kind of poked me in the eye,” she said, referencing her extensive experience treating HAPE, which she described as a pressure-related phenomenon. “My goodness, they are so completely different.”

Dr. Freer, an emergency physician, reached out to several pulmonary intensivists with experience treating both HAPE and COVID-19 to gauge their reactions, and within 36 hours, they had drafted their response. In the commentary, published in High Altitude Medicine & Biology, the clinicians note that the comparison between HAPE and COVID-19 is potentially risky.

“As a group of physicians who have in some cases cared for patients with COVID-19 and in all cases cared for patients with HAPE and studied its pathophysiology and management, we feel it important to correct this misconception, as continued amplification of this message could have adverse effects on management of these patients,” they wrote.

The suggestion that COVID-19 lung injury sometimes looks more like HAPE than like acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) appeared in a journal review article in late March and was put forth by medical professionals on social media where it gained traction in recent weeks and was amplified in multiple media outlets, including this one.

“With COVID, we don’t understand everything that’s going on, but we know for sure it’s an inflammatory process – not a pressure-related problem,” Dr. Freer said. “I thought ... this could be so dangerous to load the medicines that we use when we’re treating HAPE onto patients with COVID-19.”

The pathophysiological mechanisms in HAPE are different than those in other respiratory syndromes, including those associated with COVID-19, said Andrew M. Luks, MD, of the UW Medicine, Seattle, and the first author on the commentary.

“HAPE is a noncardiogenic form of pulmonary edema, as are ARDS due to bacteria or viral pneumonia, re-expansion pulmonary edema, immersion pulmonary edema, negative pressure pulmonary edema, and neurogenic pulmonary edema,” Dr. Luks, Dr. Freer, and colleagues wrote in the commentary, explaining that all of these entities cause varying degrees of hypoxemia and diffuse bilateral opacities on chest imaging. “Importantly, in all of these cases, edema accumulates in the interstitial and alveolar spaces of the lung as a result of imbalance in Starling forces.”

A difference between these entities, however, is “the mechanism by which that imbalance develops,” they noted.

The excessive and uneven hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction that leads to a marked increase in pulmonary artery pressure, subsequent lung overperfusion, increased pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, and leakage of fluid from the vascular space into the alveolar space as seen in HAPE, is a “fundamentally different phenomenon than what is seen in COVID-19-related ARDS, which involves viral-mediated inflammatory responses as the primary pathophysiological mechanism,” they added.

The authors described several other differences between the conditions, ultimately noting that “understanding the distinction between the pathophysiological mechanisms of these entities is critical for patient management.”

In HAPE, supplemental oxygen alone may be sufficient; in COVID-19, it may improve hypoxemia but won’t resolve the underlying inflammation or injury, they explained, adding that “only good supportive care including mechanical ventilation, quite often for long periods of time, allows some patients to survive until their disease resolves.”

Further, HAPE can be prevented or treated with pulmonary vasodilators such a nifedipine or sildenafil, which decrease pulmonary artery pressure and, as a result lower pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, they said.

Use of such medications for COVID-19 might decrease pulmonary artery pressure and improve right ventricular function in COVID-19, but “by releasing hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and increasing perfusion to nonventilated regions of the lung, they could also worsen ventilation-perfusion mismatch” and thereby worsen hypoxemia, they explained, adding that the treatments can also cause or worsen hypotension.

Efforts to share observations and experience are important in medicine, but sometimes, as in this circumstance, “they get out there, spread around – like a brushfire almost – and get [unwarranted] face validity,” Dr. Luks said, noting that in response to information circulating about COVID-19 and HAPE, he has already heard medical professionals floating the idea of treating COVID-19 with treatments used for HAPE.

It’s true that some COVID-19 lung injury cases are behaving differently than typical ARDS, he said, adding that presentation can vary.

“But trying to equate HAPE and COVID-19 is just wrong,” he said. “HAPE and COVID-19 may share several features ...but those are features that are shared by a lot of different forms of respiratory failure.”

In a recent video interview, WebMD’s chief medical officer John Whyte, MD, spoke with a New York City physician trained in critical care and emergency medicine, Cameron Kyle-Sidell, MD, who raised the need to consider different respiratory protocols for COVID-19, noting that standard protocols were falling short in many cases.

“What we’re seeing ... is something unusual, it’s something that we are not used to,” Dr. Kyle-Sidell of Maimonides Medical Center said in that interview, stressing that the presentation differed from that seen in typical ARDS. “The patterns I was seeing did not make sense.”

Like others, he noted that COVID-19 patients were presenting with illness that clinically looked more like HAPE, but that the pathophysiology is not necessary similar to HAPE.

At around the same time, Luciano Gattinoni, MD, of the Medical University of Göttingen in Germany and colleagues, published a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine stressing that the ARDS presentation in COVID-19 patients is atypical and requires a patient physiology–driven treatment approach, rather than a standard protocol–driven approach. Dr. Gattinoni and colleagues suggested that instead of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), physicians should consider the lowest possible PEEP and gentle ventilation.

Dr. Luks agreed that “some patients with COVID-19 do not have the same physiologic derangements that we see in a lot of other people with ARDS.”

“[Dr. Gattinoni] is making the point that we need to treat these people differently ... and I think that’s a valid point, and honestly, that’s a point that applied even before COVID-19,” he said. “Most of the things that we see in clinical practice – there’s a lot of heterogeneity between patients, and you have to be prepared to tailor your therapy in light of the differences that you’re picking up from your observations at the bedside and other data that you’re getting on the patient.”

The main concern Dr. Luks and his coauthors wanted to convey, they said, is making sure that the anecdotal experiences and observations of clinicians struggling to find answers don’t spiral out of control without proper vetting, thereby leading to patient harm.

“In this challenging time, we must identify the best means to care for these critically ill patients. That approach should be grounded in sound pulmonary physiology, clinical experience and, when available, evidence from clinical studies,” they concluded.

Dr. Luks and Dr. Freer reported having no financial disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

For Luanne Freer, MD, an expert in high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and founder and director of Everest ER, a nonprofit seasonal clinic at the Mt. Everest base camp in Nepal (elevation, 17,600 ft), a sudden flurry of messages and questions she received about a possible COVID-19/HAPE link was startling.

Courtesy Rowie Ververis

“That’s why it kind of poked me in the eye,” she said, referencing her extensive experience treating HAPE, which she described as a pressure-related phenomenon. “My goodness, they are so completely different.”

Dr. Freer, an emergency physician, reached out to several pulmonary intensivists with experience treating both HAPE and COVID-19 to gauge their reactions, and within 36 hours, they had drafted their response. In the commentary, published in High Altitude Medicine & Biology, the clinicians note that the comparison between HAPE and COVID-19 is potentially risky.

“As a group of physicians who have in some cases cared for patients with COVID-19 and in all cases cared for patients with HAPE and studied its pathophysiology and management, we feel it important to correct this misconception, as continued amplification of this message could have adverse effects on management of these patients,” they wrote.

The suggestion that COVID-19 lung injury sometimes looks more like HAPE than like acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) appeared in a journal review article in late March and was put forth by medical professionals on social media where it gained traction in recent weeks and was amplified in multiple media outlets, including this one.

“With COVID, we don’t understand everything that’s going on, but we know for sure it’s an inflammatory process – not a pressure-related problem,” Dr. Freer said. “I thought ... this could be so dangerous to load the medicines that we use when we’re treating HAPE onto patients with COVID-19.”

The pathophysiological mechanisms in HAPE are different than those in other respiratory syndromes, including those associated with COVID-19, said Andrew M. Luks, MD, of the UW Medicine, Seattle, and the first author on the commentary.

“HAPE is a noncardiogenic form of pulmonary edema, as are ARDS due to bacteria or viral pneumonia, re-expansion pulmonary edema, immersion pulmonary edema, negative pressure pulmonary edema, and neurogenic pulmonary edema,” Dr. Luks, Dr. Freer, and colleagues wrote in the commentary, explaining that all of these entities cause varying degrees of hypoxemia and diffuse bilateral opacities on chest imaging. “Importantly, in all of these cases, edema accumulates in the interstitial and alveolar spaces of the lung as a result of imbalance in Starling forces.”

A difference between these entities, however, is “the mechanism by which that imbalance develops,” they noted.

The excessive and uneven hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction that leads to a marked increase in pulmonary artery pressure, subsequent lung overperfusion, increased pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, and leakage of fluid from the vascular space into the alveolar space as seen in HAPE, is a “fundamentally different phenomenon than what is seen in COVID-19-related ARDS, which involves viral-mediated inflammatory responses as the primary pathophysiological mechanism,” they added.

The authors described several other differences between the conditions, ultimately noting that “understanding the distinction between the pathophysiological mechanisms of these entities is critical for patient management.”

In HAPE, supplemental oxygen alone may be sufficient; in COVID-19, it may improve hypoxemia but won’t resolve the underlying inflammation or injury, they explained, adding that “only good supportive care including mechanical ventilation, quite often for long periods of time, allows some patients to survive until their disease resolves.”

Further, HAPE can be prevented or treated with pulmonary vasodilators such a nifedipine or sildenafil, which decrease pulmonary artery pressure and, as a result lower pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, they said.

Use of such medications for COVID-19 might decrease pulmonary artery pressure and improve right ventricular function in COVID-19, but “by releasing hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and increasing perfusion to nonventilated regions of the lung, they could also worsen ventilation-perfusion mismatch” and thereby worsen hypoxemia, they explained, adding that the treatments can also cause or worsen hypotension.

Efforts to share observations and experience are important in medicine, but sometimes, as in this circumstance, “they get out there, spread around – like a brushfire almost – and get [unwarranted] face validity,” Dr. Luks said, noting that in response to information circulating about COVID-19 and HAPE, he has already heard medical professionals floating the idea of treating COVID-19 with treatments used for HAPE.

It’s true that some COVID-19 lung injury cases are behaving differently than typical ARDS, he said, adding that presentation can vary.

“But trying to equate HAPE and COVID-19 is just wrong,” he said. “HAPE and COVID-19 may share several features ...but those are features that are shared by a lot of different forms of respiratory failure.”

In a recent video interview, WebMD’s chief medical officer John Whyte, MD, spoke with a New York City physician trained in critical care and emergency medicine, Cameron Kyle-Sidell, MD, who raised the need to consider different respiratory protocols for COVID-19, noting that standard protocols were falling short in many cases.

“What we’re seeing ... is something unusual, it’s something that we are not used to,” Dr. Kyle-Sidell of Maimonides Medical Center said in that interview, stressing that the presentation differed from that seen in typical ARDS. “The patterns I was seeing did not make sense.”

Like others, he noted that COVID-19 patients were presenting with illness that clinically looked more like HAPE, but that the pathophysiology is not necessary similar to HAPE.

At around the same time, Luciano Gattinoni, MD, of the Medical University of Göttingen in Germany and colleagues, published a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine stressing that the ARDS presentation in COVID-19 patients is atypical and requires a patient physiology–driven treatment approach, rather than a standard protocol–driven approach. Dr. Gattinoni and colleagues suggested that instead of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), physicians should consider the lowest possible PEEP and gentle ventilation.

Dr. Luks agreed that “some patients with COVID-19 do not have the same physiologic derangements that we see in a lot of other people with ARDS.”

“[Dr. Gattinoni] is making the point that we need to treat these people differently ... and I think that’s a valid point, and honestly, that’s a point that applied even before COVID-19,” he said. “Most of the things that we see in clinical practice – there’s a lot of heterogeneity between patients, and you have to be prepared to tailor your therapy in light of the differences that you’re picking up from your observations at the bedside and other data that you’re getting on the patient.”

The main concern Dr. Luks and his coauthors wanted to convey, they said, is making sure that the anecdotal experiences and observations of clinicians struggling to find answers don’t spiral out of control without proper vetting, thereby leading to patient harm.

“In this challenging time, we must identify the best means to care for these critically ill patients. That approach should be grounded in sound pulmonary physiology, clinical experience and, when available, evidence from clinical studies,” they concluded.

Dr. Luks and Dr. Freer reported having no financial disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) has issued a statement on protecting patients and echocardiography service providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Given the risk for cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19, echocardiographic services will likely be needed for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, meaning echo providers will be exposed to SARS-CoV-2, write the statement authors, led by James N. Kirkpatrick, MD, director of the echocardiography laboratory at University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle.

The statement was published online April 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors say the statement is intended to help guide the practice of echocardiography in this “challenging time.” It was developed with input from a variety of echocardiography providers and institutions who have experience with the COVID-19, or have been “actively and thoughtfully preparing for it.”

Who, When, Where, and How

The statement covers triaging and decision pathways for handling requests for echocardiography, as well as indications and recommended procedures, in cases of suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

Among the recommendations:

• Only perform transthoracic echocardiograms (TTE), stress echocardiograms, and transesophageal echocardiograms (TEE) if they are expected to provide clinical benefit. Appropriate-use criteria represent the first decision point as to whether an echocardiographic test should be performed.
• Determine which studies are “elective” and reschedule them, performing all others. Identify “nonelective” (urgent/emergent) indications and defer all others.
• Determine the clinical benefit of echocardiography for symptomatic patients whose SARS-CoV-2 status is unknown.
• Cautiously consider the benefit of a TEE examination weighed against the risk for exposure of healthcare personnel to aerosolization in a patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
• Postpone or cancel TEEs if an alternative imaging modality can provide the necessary information.
• Note that treadmill or bicycle stress echo tests in patients with COVID-19 may lead to exposure because of deep breathing and/or coughing during exercise. These tests should generally be deferred or converted to a pharmacologic stress echo.
   

   

The ASE statement also provides advice on safe imaging protocol and adequate personal protection measures.

“In addition to limiting the number of echocardiography practitioners involved in scanning, consideration should be given to limiting the exposure of staff who may be particularly susceptible to severe complications of COVID-19,” the ASE advises.

Staff who are older than 60 years, who have chronic conditions, are immunocompromised or are pregnant may wish to avoid contact with patients suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19.

It’s also important to realize the risk for transmission in reading rooms. “Keyboards, monitors, mice, chairs, phones, desktops, and door knobs should be frequently cleaned, and ventilation provided wherever possible,” the ASE advises. When the echo lab reading room is located in a high-traffic area, remote review of images or via webinar might be advisable, they suggest.

Summing up, Kirkland and colleagues say providing echocardiographic service “remains crucial in this difficult time of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Working together, we can continue to provide high-quality care while minimizing risk to ourselves, our patients, and the public at large. Carefully considering ‘Whom to Image’, ‘Where to Image’ and ‘How to Image’ has the potential to reduce the risks of transmission.”

The authors note that the statements and recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion rather than on scientifically verified data and are subject to change as the COVID-19 outbreak continues to evolve and new data emerges.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) has issued a statement on protecting patients and echocardiography service providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Given the risk for cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19, echocardiographic services will likely be needed for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, meaning echo providers will be exposed to SARS-CoV-2, write the statement authors, led by James N. Kirkpatrick, MD, director of the echocardiography laboratory at University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle.

The statement was published online April 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors say the statement is intended to help guide the practice of echocardiography in this “challenging time.” It was developed with input from a variety of echocardiography providers and institutions who have experience with the COVID-19, or have been “actively and thoughtfully preparing for it.”

Who, When, Where, and How

The statement covers triaging and decision pathways for handling requests for echocardiography, as well as indications and recommended procedures, in cases of suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

Among the recommendations:

• Only perform transthoracic echocardiograms (TTE), stress echocardiograms, and transesophageal echocardiograms (TEE) if they are expected to provide clinical benefit. Appropriate-use criteria represent the first decision point as to whether an echocardiographic test should be performed.
• Determine which studies are “elective” and reschedule them, performing all others. Identify “nonelective” (urgent/emergent) indications and defer all others.
• Determine the clinical benefit of echocardiography for symptomatic patients whose SARS-CoV-2 status is unknown.
• Cautiously consider the benefit of a TEE examination weighed against the risk for exposure of healthcare personnel to aerosolization in a patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
• Postpone or cancel TEEs if an alternative imaging modality can provide the necessary information.
• Note that treadmill or bicycle stress echo tests in patients with COVID-19 may lead to exposure because of deep breathing and/or coughing during exercise. These tests should generally be deferred or converted to a pharmacologic stress echo.
   

   

The ASE statement also provides advice on safe imaging protocol and adequate personal protection measures.

“In addition to limiting the number of echocardiography practitioners involved in scanning, consideration should be given to limiting the exposure of staff who may be particularly susceptible to severe complications of COVID-19,” the ASE advises.

Staff who are older than 60 years, who have chronic conditions, are immunocompromised or are pregnant may wish to avoid contact with patients suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19.

It’s also important to realize the risk for transmission in reading rooms. “Keyboards, monitors, mice, chairs, phones, desktops, and door knobs should be frequently cleaned, and ventilation provided wherever possible,” the ASE advises. When the echo lab reading room is located in a high-traffic area, remote review of images or via webinar might be advisable, they suggest.

Summing up, Kirkland and colleagues say providing echocardiographic service “remains crucial in this difficult time of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Working together, we can continue to provide high-quality care while minimizing risk to ourselves, our patients, and the public at large. Carefully considering ‘Whom to Image’, ‘Where to Image’ and ‘How to Image’ has the potential to reduce the risks of transmission.”

The authors note that the statements and recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion rather than on scientifically verified data and are subject to change as the COVID-19 outbreak continues to evolve and new data emerges.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) has issued a statement on protecting patients and echocardiography service providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Given the risk for cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19, echocardiographic services will likely be needed for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, meaning echo providers will be exposed to SARS-CoV-2, write the statement authors, led by James N. Kirkpatrick, MD, director of the echocardiography laboratory at University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle.

The statement was published online April 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors say the statement is intended to help guide the practice of echocardiography in this “challenging time.” It was developed with input from a variety of echocardiography providers and institutions who have experience with the COVID-19, or have been “actively and thoughtfully preparing for it.”

Who, When, Where, and How

The statement covers triaging and decision pathways for handling requests for echocardiography, as well as indications and recommended procedures, in cases of suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

Among the recommendations:

• Only perform transthoracic echocardiograms (TTE), stress echocardiograms, and transesophageal echocardiograms (TEE) if they are expected to provide clinical benefit. Appropriate-use criteria represent the first decision point as to whether an echocardiographic test should be performed.
• Determine which studies are “elective” and reschedule them, performing all others. Identify “nonelective” (urgent/emergent) indications and defer all others.
• Determine the clinical benefit of echocardiography for symptomatic patients whose SARS-CoV-2 status is unknown.
• Cautiously consider the benefit of a TEE examination weighed against the risk for exposure of healthcare personnel to aerosolization in a patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
• Postpone or cancel TEEs if an alternative imaging modality can provide the necessary information.
• Note that treadmill or bicycle stress echo tests in patients with COVID-19 may lead to exposure because of deep breathing and/or coughing during exercise. These tests should generally be deferred or converted to a pharmacologic stress echo.
   

   

The ASE statement also provides advice on safe imaging protocol and adequate personal protection measures.

“In addition to limiting the number of echocardiography practitioners involved in scanning, consideration should be given to limiting the exposure of staff who may be particularly susceptible to severe complications of COVID-19,” the ASE advises.

Staff who are older than 60 years, who have chronic conditions, are immunocompromised or are pregnant may wish to avoid contact with patients suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19.

It’s also important to realize the risk for transmission in reading rooms. “Keyboards, monitors, mice, chairs, phones, desktops, and door knobs should be frequently cleaned, and ventilation provided wherever possible,” the ASE advises. When the echo lab reading room is located in a high-traffic area, remote review of images or via webinar might be advisable, they suggest.

Summing up, Kirkland and colleagues say providing echocardiographic service “remains crucial in this difficult time of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Working together, we can continue to provide high-quality care while minimizing risk to ourselves, our patients, and the public at large. Carefully considering ‘Whom to Image’, ‘Where to Image’ and ‘How to Image’ has the potential to reduce the risks of transmission.”

The authors note that the statements and recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion rather than on scientifically verified data and are subject to change as the COVID-19 outbreak continues to evolve and new data emerges.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Family physician Frank Maselli, MD, saw approximately 30 patients a day in his office in the Bronx before COVID-19. But New York City has become a hot spot for the virus that has claimed the lives of the lives of more than 40,000 people nationwide.

Now Maselli and the other 10 physicians in the practice each treat only eight or nine patients a day via telemedicine. He spends most of his time on the phone answering patients’ questions about COVID-19 symptoms and potential exposure. Although he tries to bill for telemedicine and phone calls, he says many commercial payers reject the claims because their processing systems aren’t updated to reflect new coverage policies. He has enough cash in reserve to cover two payrolls, but he knows he needs a backup plan if patient volumes continue to decrease indefinitely.

“Our doctors will take a pay cut before we let people go,” says Maselli. “So far we’re OK because we’re getting paid for things we did two months ago before all of this happened.”

Ninety-seven percent of medical practices have experienced a negative financial impact directly or indirectly related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to new data from the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA). On average, practices report a 60% decrease in patient volume and a 55% decrease in revenue since the beginning of the public health emergency.
 

Four options for financial assistance

However, there are ways to offset revenue loss and remain financially viable during the economic uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic. Options include the US Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program; the SBA’s Emergency Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL); Medicare’s advanced payment program; and an SBA Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act (CESA) loan. These are in addition to several other strategies aimed at reducing costs and improving revenue.

1. Maselli, for example, applied for the Paycheck Protection Program, a short-term loan that helps small businesses (i.e., for physician offices, those with an annual revenue of under $12 million) keep staff employed during the COVID-19 crisis. The loan covers a variety of costs, including payroll, rent, utilities, mortgage interest, and interest on any other debt obligations incurred before February 15 of this year.

“We have no idea if this is coming and when, but it would be a big help,” he adds.

(As of press time, the Paycheck Protection Program had stopped accepting applications, having reached the limit of its $349 billion budget. Congress must now agree on legislation to add additional funding to assist small businesses.)

Practices can take out a loan of up to 2.5 times the average monthly payroll (excluding payroll for those making more than $100,000 annually) with a cap of $10 million. For example, if the average monthly payroll is $10,000 – and no employees earn more than $100,000 annually – the maximum loan amount is $25,000.

Practices approved for this loan can expect to receive the funds from their SBA-approved lender within 10 calendar days of the date of loan approval. Although it’s technically a loan, the good news is that it doesn’t need to be repaid if the practice complies with all of the loan requirements – particularly these two: The practice uses at least 75% of the loan specifically for payroll, and the practice keeps employees on the payroll (or rehire, when necessary) for 8 weeks after the loan origination date.

Forgiveness is reduced if full-time headcount declines, or if salaries and wages decrease. If a practice does need to repay all or a portion of the loan, it must do so within 2 years at an interest rate of 1%, and payments are deferred for 6 months.

Andrew D. McDonald, FACHE, practice leader of health care consulting at LBMC Healthcare, says it behooves practices to apply for this loan because it’s essentially free money during a time when revenue may be at an all-time low. “While the devil is in the details, on the surface, the paycheck protection funds appear to be a no-brainer. However, each practice will need to confirm with their lender that it’s a solid decision.”

One challenge with this loan is that some banks weren’t necessarily ready to accept applications on April 3, and many continue to lag behind in processing these applications.

2. A second option is the SBA’s EIDL, a low-interest, long-term loan (capped at 3.75% for small businesses) that practices with 500 or fewer employees can use to pay fixed debts, payrolls, accounts payable, and other bills that could have been paid had the disaster not occurred. Borrowers can ask for up to $2 million, and the maximum term of this loan is 30 years, though the overall process for obtaining these loans will depend on the lender.

Practices have until December 16 to apply for this loan. They can also apply for an expedited disbursement (i.e., an Economic Injury Disaster Advance) of up to $10,000 that’s paid within 3 days of the request.

3. A third option is Medicare’s COVID-19 advanced payment program. Under this program, eligible physicians are those who:

• Billed Medicare for claims within 180 days prior to the date of the request
• Are financially solvent (i.e., aren’t in bankruptcy)
• Are free from any active medical review or program integrity investigations
• Are in good standing with Medicare (i.e., don’t have an outstanding delinquent Medicare overpayment)

If physicians meet this criteria, they can ask their Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) to provide an advanced payment of up to 100% of the Medicare payment amount based on a 3-month lookback period.

Once requested, MACs will issue payment within 7 calendar days from the date of the request. Repayment will occur in the form of automatic recoupments beginning 120 days after the advanced payment is received. Medicare has already approved more than 21,000 requests totaling more than $51 billion. CMS has provided a fact sheet to learn more about how to request an accelerated payment.

“The key is that you need to repay this, so you want to set a reasonable goal,” says Sarah Hostetter, senior consultant at Advisory Board, a health care research & data consulting firm. She says practices should consider what they’ll realistically be able to repay within 120 days.

4. A fourth option – specifically for mid-size practices – is a CESA loan, the details of which have yet to be announced, that will enable practices to access funds with an annualized rate no greater than 2% and with no principal or interest due for at least 6 months. The CARES Act, signed into law 3 weeks ago, provides $454 billion for this program.
 

Selecting the right option for your practice

Which singular option – or combination of options – is best for your practice? McDonald says to ask these questions:

• How well are patient volumes holding up?
• How well are physicians pivoting to telehealth?
• What is the overall economic loss?
• What are the available liquid assets, and how long can the practice maintain its financial viability over the next couple of months and beyond?

Cheryl Mongillo, MBA, administrative director of two independent family practices in Delaware, applied for both the Paycheck Protection Program and Medicare advanced payments because she’s worried about being able to pay staff while also covering costs related to personal protective equipment, medical waste, and cleaning, all of which have tripled since the pandemic began. One of the practices includes one physician and four nurse practitioners. The other includes five physicians and three nurse practitioners. In total, both practices employ 35 additional staff.

“I want our staff to know how much we care about them. My hope is that after this is over, our business will pick back up pretty quickly,” she adds. “However, until I can get the business back, I needed something to keep us afloat.”

Others are being more cautious. Crystal Bruning, practice manager at an Ob/Gyn clinic in Orlando, Florida, says her practice applied for the Paycheck Protection Program but is waiting another month or so before deciding whether it will also take advantage of Medicare advanced payments.

The practice is still trying to assess the true financial impact of its 30% reduction in patient volume. Bruning says the advanced payments wouldn’t amount to much anyway because only 10% of the practice’s patients have Medicare.
 

Making tough financial decisions while awaiting assistance

Kansas-based family physician Jennifer Bacani McKenney, MD, says she hasn’t paid herself a salary in weeks because of the revenue loss her practice has incurred.

“I want to make sure we can pay [all 12] employees,” she says. “In my family, we have two incomes, and we’re pretty good at saving money. However, I know not every physician can afford to do this.”

Although McKenney’s practice has seen a 75% reduction in patient volume, staff continue to provide virtual visits – including Zoom-based nursing home visits – phone visits, and in-person visits for acute illnesses. They also provide curbside immunizations. Still, long-term revenue loss is a concern. “I have a threshold in mind based on what we have in reserves,” she says. “If we hit that point, we would need to talk about a loan or Medicare advanced payments.”

Arkansas-based family physician Lonnie S. Robinson, MD, says he immediately applied for the Paycheck Protection Program after it was announced. “We also made sure we had a line of credit with our local bank during the very first discussions about what the pandemic would mean for our revenue streams,” he says.

However, because he’s in a rural area of the state, he continues to struggle with telemedicine due to broadband and connectivity challenges. Cash flow is another challenge because a lot of insurance companies are waiving copayments.

“I didn’t realize the amount of money we collect immediately from the patient,” he says. “This was a substantial revenue stream, and it was immediate revenue – not revenue waiting on a claim to be paid.”

Illinois-based family physician Deborah L. Winiger, MD, says she also applied for the Paycheck Protection Program but in the meantime had to reduce staff hours by a third because her patient volume dropped by more than half. She will also encourage staff to pursue temporary positions at a local hospital if the federal funds don’t materialize.

Kelly Shackleton, practice manager at a New York-based internal medicine practice, says she laid off 7 of her 16 staff members (including lab technicians, licensed practical nurses, billers, a referral specialist, and a file clerk) due to a 70% decrease in patient volume.

“I didn’t lay them all off at once,” she says. “I kept them until things were all caught up in each department. I plan to get them all back when the time is right, but I want to be sure to keep the practice afloat so they have a place to return to.” If the Paycheck Protection Program for which she applied comes through, then she will rehire them. She also applied for Medicare advanced payments and increased the practice’s line of credit.
 

Bill properly – and for everything you are still doing

Accurate and complete coding is critical during this time of financial instability, says Maselli. “I keep telling doctors to bill for everything they do,” he says. This includes phone calls between patients and physicians or other qualified healthcare providers (CPT codes 99441-99443). Note that these are time-based codes, requiring a minimum of five minutes of medical discussion.

Remote physiologic monitoring (including monitoring a patient’s oxygen saturation levels using pulse oximetry), virtual check-ins, and online digital evaluation and management services are also covered by Medicare and some commercial payers.

Other good news is that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services added more than 80 additional services that providers can furnish using telehealth, including new patient office visits, home visits, prolonged office visits, smoking and tobacco cessation counseling, annual depression and alcohol screenings, advanced care planning, and much more.

Mongillo, the family practice administrator in Delaware, agrees that physicians need to bill for as many services as possible. At one of the family medicine practices she manages, physicians perform wellness visits, when appropriate, if patients are already coming into the office for another ailment.

Also look for ways to cut costs. For example, Mongillo was able to renegotiate the practice’s telemedicine contract after she received several proposals from other vendors offering three months of complimentary service. Shackleton discontinued provider dictation services to save money.

Physicians need to take a hard look at what’s going on to help them sustain their business through times of uncertainty, says Advisory Board’s Hostetter. “Now is the time to evaluate options and figure out what’s right for your practice,” she adds.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Family physician Frank Maselli, MD, saw approximately 30 patients a day in his office in the Bronx before COVID-19. But New York City has become a hot spot for the virus that has claimed the lives of the lives of more than 40,000 people nationwide.

Now Maselli and the other 10 physicians in the practice each treat only eight or nine patients a day via telemedicine. He spends most of his time on the phone answering patients’ questions about COVID-19 symptoms and potential exposure. Although he tries to bill for telemedicine and phone calls, he says many commercial payers reject the claims because their processing systems aren’t updated to reflect new coverage policies. He has enough cash in reserve to cover two payrolls, but he knows he needs a backup plan if patient volumes continue to decrease indefinitely.

“Our doctors will take a pay cut before we let people go,” says Maselli. “So far we’re OK because we’re getting paid for things we did two months ago before all of this happened.”

Ninety-seven percent of medical practices have experienced a negative financial impact directly or indirectly related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to new data from the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA). On average, practices report a 60% decrease in patient volume and a 55% decrease in revenue since the beginning of the public health emergency.
 

Four options for financial assistance

However, there are ways to offset revenue loss and remain financially viable during the economic uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic. Options include the US Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program; the SBA’s Emergency Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL); Medicare’s advanced payment program; and an SBA Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act (CESA) loan. These are in addition to several other strategies aimed at reducing costs and improving revenue.

1. Maselli, for example, applied for the Paycheck Protection Program, a short-term loan that helps small businesses (i.e., for physician offices, those with an annual revenue of under $12 million) keep staff employed during the COVID-19 crisis. The loan covers a variety of costs, including payroll, rent, utilities, mortgage interest, and interest on any other debt obligations incurred before February 15 of this year.

“We have no idea if this is coming and when, but it would be a big help,” he adds.

(As of press time, the Paycheck Protection Program had stopped accepting applications, having reached the limit of its $349 billion budget. Congress must now agree on legislation to add additional funding to assist small businesses.)

Practices can take out a loan of up to 2.5 times the average monthly payroll (excluding payroll for those making more than $100,000 annually) with a cap of $10 million. For example, if the average monthly payroll is $10,000 – and no employees earn more than $100,000 annually – the maximum loan amount is $25,000.

Practices approved for this loan can expect to receive the funds from their SBA-approved lender within 10 calendar days of the date of loan approval. Although it’s technically a loan, the good news is that it doesn’t need to be repaid if the practice complies with all of the loan requirements – particularly these two: The practice uses at least 75% of the loan specifically for payroll, and the practice keeps employees on the payroll (or rehire, when necessary) for 8 weeks after the loan origination date.

Forgiveness is reduced if full-time headcount declines, or if salaries and wages decrease. If a practice does need to repay all or a portion of the loan, it must do so within 2 years at an interest rate of 1%, and payments are deferred for 6 months.

Andrew D. McDonald, FACHE, practice leader of health care consulting at LBMC Healthcare, says it behooves practices to apply for this loan because it’s essentially free money during a time when revenue may be at an all-time low. “While the devil is in the details, on the surface, the paycheck protection funds appear to be a no-brainer. However, each practice will need to confirm with their lender that it’s a solid decision.”

One challenge with this loan is that some banks weren’t necessarily ready to accept applications on April 3, and many continue to lag behind in processing these applications.

2. A second option is the SBA’s EIDL, a low-interest, long-term loan (capped at 3.75% for small businesses) that practices with 500 or fewer employees can use to pay fixed debts, payrolls, accounts payable, and other bills that could have been paid had the disaster not occurred. Borrowers can ask for up to $2 million, and the maximum term of this loan is 30 years, though the overall process for obtaining these loans will depend on the lender.

Practices have until December 16 to apply for this loan. They can also apply for an expedited disbursement (i.e., an Economic Injury Disaster Advance) of up to $10,000 that’s paid within 3 days of the request.

3. A third option is Medicare’s COVID-19 advanced payment program. Under this program, eligible physicians are those who:

• Billed Medicare for claims within 180 days prior to the date of the request
• Are financially solvent (i.e., aren’t in bankruptcy)
• Are free from any active medical review or program integrity investigations
• Are in good standing with Medicare (i.e., don’t have an outstanding delinquent Medicare overpayment)

If physicians meet this criteria, they can ask their Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) to provide an advanced payment of up to 100% of the Medicare payment amount based on a 3-month lookback period.

Once requested, MACs will issue payment within 7 calendar days from the date of the request. Repayment will occur in the form of automatic recoupments beginning 120 days after the advanced payment is received. Medicare has already approved more than 21,000 requests totaling more than $51 billion. CMS has provided a fact sheet to learn more about how to request an accelerated payment.

“The key is that you need to repay this, so you want to set a reasonable goal,” says Sarah Hostetter, senior consultant at Advisory Board, a health care research & data consulting firm. She says practices should consider what they’ll realistically be able to repay within 120 days.

4. A fourth option – specifically for mid-size practices – is a CESA loan, the details of which have yet to be announced, that will enable practices to access funds with an annualized rate no greater than 2% and with no principal or interest due for at least 6 months. The CARES Act, signed into law 3 weeks ago, provides $454 billion for this program.
 

Selecting the right option for your practice

Which singular option – or combination of options – is best for your practice? McDonald says to ask these questions:

• How well are patient volumes holding up?
• How well are physicians pivoting to telehealth?
• What is the overall economic loss?
• What are the available liquid assets, and how long can the practice maintain its financial viability over the next couple of months and beyond?

Cheryl Mongillo, MBA, administrative director of two independent family practices in Delaware, applied for both the Paycheck Protection Program and Medicare advanced payments because she’s worried about being able to pay staff while also covering costs related to personal protective equipment, medical waste, and cleaning, all of which have tripled since the pandemic began. One of the practices includes one physician and four nurse practitioners. The other includes five physicians and three nurse practitioners. In total, both practices employ 35 additional staff.

“I want our staff to know how much we care about them. My hope is that after this is over, our business will pick back up pretty quickly,” she adds. “However, until I can get the business back, I needed something to keep us afloat.”

Others are being more cautious. Crystal Bruning, practice manager at an Ob/Gyn clinic in Orlando, Florida, says her practice applied for the Paycheck Protection Program but is waiting another month or so before deciding whether it will also take advantage of Medicare advanced payments.

The practice is still trying to assess the true financial impact of its 30% reduction in patient volume. Bruning says the advanced payments wouldn’t amount to much anyway because only 10% of the practice’s patients have Medicare.
 

Making tough financial decisions while awaiting assistance

Kansas-based family physician Jennifer Bacani McKenney, MD, says she hasn’t paid herself a salary in weeks because of the revenue loss her practice has incurred.

“I want to make sure we can pay [all 12] employees,” she says. “In my family, we have two incomes, and we’re pretty good at saving money. However, I know not every physician can afford to do this.”

Although McKenney’s practice has seen a 75% reduction in patient volume, staff continue to provide virtual visits – including Zoom-based nursing home visits – phone visits, and in-person visits for acute illnesses. They also provide curbside immunizations. Still, long-term revenue loss is a concern. “I have a threshold in mind based on what we have in reserves,” she says. “If we hit that point, we would need to talk about a loan or Medicare advanced payments.”

Arkansas-based family physician Lonnie S. Robinson, MD, says he immediately applied for the Paycheck Protection Program after it was announced. “We also made sure we had a line of credit with our local bank during the very first discussions about what the pandemic would mean for our revenue streams,” he says.

However, because he’s in a rural area of the state, he continues to struggle with telemedicine due to broadband and connectivity challenges. Cash flow is another challenge because a lot of insurance companies are waiving copayments.

“I didn’t realize the amount of money we collect immediately from the patient,” he says. “This was a substantial revenue stream, and it was immediate revenue – not revenue waiting on a claim to be paid.”

Illinois-based family physician Deborah L. Winiger, MD, says she also applied for the Paycheck Protection Program but in the meantime had to reduce staff hours by a third because her patient volume dropped by more than half. She will also encourage staff to pursue temporary positions at a local hospital if the federal funds don’t materialize.

Kelly Shackleton, practice manager at a New York-based internal medicine practice, says she laid off 7 of her 16 staff members (including lab technicians, licensed practical nurses, billers, a referral specialist, and a file clerk) due to a 70% decrease in patient volume.

“I didn’t lay them all off at once,” she says. “I kept them until things were all caught up in each department. I plan to get them all back when the time is right, but I want to be sure to keep the practice afloat so they have a place to return to.” If the Paycheck Protection Program for which she applied comes through, then she will rehire them. She also applied for Medicare advanced payments and increased the practice’s line of credit.
 

Bill properly – and for everything you are still doing

Accurate and complete coding is critical during this time of financial instability, says Maselli. “I keep telling doctors to bill for everything they do,” he says. This includes phone calls between patients and physicians or other qualified healthcare providers (CPT codes 99441-99443). Note that these are time-based codes, requiring a minimum of five minutes of medical discussion.

Remote physiologic monitoring (including monitoring a patient’s oxygen saturation levels using pulse oximetry), virtual check-ins, and online digital evaluation and management services are also covered by Medicare and some commercial payers.

Other good news is that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services added more than 80 additional services that providers can furnish using telehealth, including new patient office visits, home visits, prolonged office visits, smoking and tobacco cessation counseling, annual depression and alcohol screenings, advanced care planning, and much more.

Mongillo, the family practice administrator in Delaware, agrees that physicians need to bill for as many services as possible. At one of the family medicine practices she manages, physicians perform wellness visits, when appropriate, if patients are already coming into the office for another ailment.

Also look for ways to cut costs. For example, Mongillo was able to renegotiate the practice’s telemedicine contract after she received several proposals from other vendors offering three months of complimentary service. Shackleton discontinued provider dictation services to save money.

Physicians need to take a hard look at what’s going on to help them sustain their business through times of uncertainty, says Advisory Board’s Hostetter. “Now is the time to evaluate options and figure out what’s right for your practice,” she adds.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Family physician Frank Maselli, MD, saw approximately 30 patients a day in his office in the Bronx before COVID-19. But New York City has become a hot spot for the virus that has claimed the lives of the lives of more than 40,000 people nationwide.

Now Maselli and the other 10 physicians in the practice each treat only eight or nine patients a day via telemedicine. He spends most of his time on the phone answering patients’ questions about COVID-19 symptoms and potential exposure. Although he tries to bill for telemedicine and phone calls, he says many commercial payers reject the claims because their processing systems aren’t updated to reflect new coverage policies. He has enough cash in reserve to cover two payrolls, but he knows he needs a backup plan if patient volumes continue to decrease indefinitely.

“Our doctors will take a pay cut before we let people go,” says Maselli. “So far we’re OK because we’re getting paid for things we did two months ago before all of this happened.”

Ninety-seven percent of medical practices have experienced a negative financial impact directly or indirectly related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to new data from the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA). On average, practices report a 60% decrease in patient volume and a 55% decrease in revenue since the beginning of the public health emergency.
 

Four options for financial assistance

However, there are ways to offset revenue loss and remain financially viable during the economic uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic. Options include the US Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program; the SBA’s Emergency Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL); Medicare’s advanced payment program; and an SBA Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act (CESA) loan. These are in addition to several other strategies aimed at reducing costs and improving revenue.

1. Maselli, for example, applied for the Paycheck Protection Program, a short-term loan that helps small businesses (i.e., for physician offices, those with an annual revenue of under $12 million) keep staff employed during the COVID-19 crisis. The loan covers a variety of costs, including payroll, rent, utilities, mortgage interest, and interest on any other debt obligations incurred before February 15 of this year.

“We have no idea if this is coming and when, but it would be a big help,” he adds.

(As of press time, the Paycheck Protection Program had stopped accepting applications, having reached the limit of its $349 billion budget. Congress must now agree on legislation to add additional funding to assist small businesses.)

Practices can take out a loan of up to 2.5 times the average monthly payroll (excluding payroll for those making more than $100,000 annually) with a cap of $10 million. For example, if the average monthly payroll is $10,000 – and no employees earn more than $100,000 annually – the maximum loan amount is $25,000.

Practices approved for this loan can expect to receive the funds from their SBA-approved lender within 10 calendar days of the date of loan approval. Although it’s technically a loan, the good news is that it doesn’t need to be repaid if the practice complies with all of the loan requirements – particularly these two: The practice uses at least 75% of the loan specifically for payroll, and the practice keeps employees on the payroll (or rehire, when necessary) for 8 weeks after the loan origination date.

Forgiveness is reduced if full-time headcount declines, or if salaries and wages decrease. If a practice does need to repay all or a portion of the loan, it must do so within 2 years at an interest rate of 1%, and payments are deferred for 6 months.

Andrew D. McDonald, FACHE, practice leader of health care consulting at LBMC Healthcare, says it behooves practices to apply for this loan because it’s essentially free money during a time when revenue may be at an all-time low. “While the devil is in the details, on the surface, the paycheck protection funds appear to be a no-brainer. However, each practice will need to confirm with their lender that it’s a solid decision.”

One challenge with this loan is that some banks weren’t necessarily ready to accept applications on April 3, and many continue to lag behind in processing these applications.

2. A second option is the SBA’s EIDL, a low-interest, long-term loan (capped at 3.75% for small businesses) that practices with 500 or fewer employees can use to pay fixed debts, payrolls, accounts payable, and other bills that could have been paid had the disaster not occurred. Borrowers can ask for up to $2 million, and the maximum term of this loan is 30 years, though the overall process for obtaining these loans will depend on the lender.

Practices have until December 16 to apply for this loan. They can also apply for an expedited disbursement (i.e., an Economic Injury Disaster Advance) of up to $10,000 that’s paid within 3 days of the request.

3. A third option is Medicare’s COVID-19 advanced payment program. Under this program, eligible physicians are those who:

• Billed Medicare for claims within 180 days prior to the date of the request
• Are financially solvent (i.e., aren’t in bankruptcy)
• Are free from any active medical review or program integrity investigations
• Are in good standing with Medicare (i.e., don’t have an outstanding delinquent Medicare overpayment)

If physicians meet this criteria, they can ask their Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) to provide an advanced payment of up to 100% of the Medicare payment amount based on a 3-month lookback period.

Once requested, MACs will issue payment within 7 calendar days from the date of the request. Repayment will occur in the form of automatic recoupments beginning 120 days after the advanced payment is received. Medicare has already approved more than 21,000 requests totaling more than $51 billion. CMS has provided a fact sheet to learn more about how to request an accelerated payment.

“The key is that you need to repay this, so you want to set a reasonable goal,” says Sarah Hostetter, senior consultant at Advisory Board, a health care research & data consulting firm. She says practices should consider what they’ll realistically be able to repay within 120 days.

4. A fourth option – specifically for mid-size practices – is a CESA loan, the details of which have yet to be announced, that will enable practices to access funds with an annualized rate no greater than 2% and with no principal or interest due for at least 6 months. The CARES Act, signed into law 3 weeks ago, provides $454 billion for this program.
 

Selecting the right option for your practice

Which singular option – or combination of options – is best for your practice? McDonald says to ask these questions:

• How well are patient volumes holding up?
• How well are physicians pivoting to telehealth?
• What is the overall economic loss?
• What are the available liquid assets, and how long can the practice maintain its financial viability over the next couple of months and beyond?

Cheryl Mongillo, MBA, administrative director of two independent family practices in Delaware, applied for both the Paycheck Protection Program and Medicare advanced payments because she’s worried about being able to pay staff while also covering costs related to personal protective equipment, medical waste, and cleaning, all of which have tripled since the pandemic began. One of the practices includes one physician and four nurse practitioners. The other includes five physicians and three nurse practitioners. In total, both practices employ 35 additional staff.

“I want our staff to know how much we care about them. My hope is that after this is over, our business will pick back up pretty quickly,” she adds. “However, until I can get the business back, I needed something to keep us afloat.”

Others are being more cautious. Crystal Bruning, practice manager at an Ob/Gyn clinic in Orlando, Florida, says her practice applied for the Paycheck Protection Program but is waiting another month or so before deciding whether it will also take advantage of Medicare advanced payments.

The practice is still trying to assess the true financial impact of its 30% reduction in patient volume. Bruning says the advanced payments wouldn’t amount to much anyway because only 10% of the practice’s patients have Medicare.
 

Making tough financial decisions while awaiting assistance

Kansas-based family physician Jennifer Bacani McKenney, MD, says she hasn’t paid herself a salary in weeks because of the revenue loss her practice has incurred.

“I want to make sure we can pay [all 12] employees,” she says. “In my family, we have two incomes, and we’re pretty good at saving money. However, I know not every physician can afford to do this.”

Although McKenney’s practice has seen a 75% reduction in patient volume, staff continue to provide virtual visits – including Zoom-based nursing home visits – phone visits, and in-person visits for acute illnesses. They also provide curbside immunizations. Still, long-term revenue loss is a concern. “I have a threshold in mind based on what we have in reserves,” she says. “If we hit that point, we would need to talk about a loan or Medicare advanced payments.”

Arkansas-based family physician Lonnie S. Robinson, MD, says he immediately applied for the Paycheck Protection Program after it was announced. “We also made sure we had a line of credit with our local bank during the very first discussions about what the pandemic would mean for our revenue streams,” he says.

However, because he’s in a rural area of the state, he continues to struggle with telemedicine due to broadband and connectivity challenges. Cash flow is another challenge because a lot of insurance companies are waiving copayments.

“I didn’t realize the amount of money we collect immediately from the patient,” he says. “This was a substantial revenue stream, and it was immediate revenue – not revenue waiting on a claim to be paid.”

Illinois-based family physician Deborah L. Winiger, MD, says she also applied for the Paycheck Protection Program but in the meantime had to reduce staff hours by a third because her patient volume dropped by more than half. She will also encourage staff to pursue temporary positions at a local hospital if the federal funds don’t materialize.

Kelly Shackleton, practice manager at a New York-based internal medicine practice, says she laid off 7 of her 16 staff members (including lab technicians, licensed practical nurses, billers, a referral specialist, and a file clerk) due to a 70% decrease in patient volume.

“I didn’t lay them all off at once,” she says. “I kept them until things were all caught up in each department. I plan to get them all back when the time is right, but I want to be sure to keep the practice afloat so they have a place to return to.” If the Paycheck Protection Program for which she applied comes through, then she will rehire them. She also applied for Medicare advanced payments and increased the practice’s line of credit.
 

Bill properly – and for everything you are still doing

Accurate and complete coding is critical during this time of financial instability, says Maselli. “I keep telling doctors to bill for everything they do,” he says. This includes phone calls between patients and physicians or other qualified healthcare providers (CPT codes 99441-99443). Note that these are time-based codes, requiring a minimum of five minutes of medical discussion.

Remote physiologic monitoring (including monitoring a patient’s oxygen saturation levels using pulse oximetry), virtual check-ins, and online digital evaluation and management services are also covered by Medicare and some commercial payers.

Other good news is that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services added more than 80 additional services that providers can furnish using telehealth, including new patient office visits, home visits, prolonged office visits, smoking and tobacco cessation counseling, annual depression and alcohol screenings, advanced care planning, and much more.

Mongillo, the family practice administrator in Delaware, agrees that physicians need to bill for as many services as possible. At one of the family medicine practices she manages, physicians perform wellness visits, when appropriate, if patients are already coming into the office for another ailment.

Also look for ways to cut costs. For example, Mongillo was able to renegotiate the practice’s telemedicine contract after she received several proposals from other vendors offering three months of complimentary service. Shackleton discontinued provider dictation services to save money.

Physicians need to take a hard look at what’s going on to help them sustain their business through times of uncertainty, says Advisory Board’s Hostetter. “Now is the time to evaluate options and figure out what’s right for your practice,” she adds.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.