About 8.1 million adults were using e-cigarettes in 2018, with use varying significantly by cigarette-smoking status and sociodemographics, according to a report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Those 8.1 million individuals who were using e-cigarettes either every day or some days represented 3.2% of the total adult population, based on data from the 2018 National Health Interview Survey. An even larger proportion, 14.9%, said that they had at least tried an e-cigarette, Maria A. Villarroel, PhD, and associates at the NCHS said in a recent data brief.

Most cigarette smokers, both current and former, were even more likely to use e-cigarettes, they noted.

Former cigarette smokers who had quit within the last year were the most likely to use e-cigarettes – 57.3% had ever used one and 25.2% were current users – while current cigarette users (49.4% ever use and 9.7% current use) and former smokers who had quit 1-5 years before (48.6% ever use, 17.3% current) also were above-average e-cigarette consumers, they reported.

Use was significantly lower, however, among former cigarette smokers who had quit 5 or more years earlier (9.0% and 1.7%, respectively) and those who had never smoked (6.5% and 1.1%), the NCHS investigators said.

The survey data also showed much variation among the sociodemographic subgroups:

• E-cigarette ever/current use was significantly higher in men (17.9% and 4.2%) than women (12.3% and 2.3%).
• Whites were significantly more likely to use e-cigarettes (16.9% and 3.7%), compared with Hispanic (11.5% and 2.5%), black (10.0% and 1.6%), and Asian (10.2% and 2.2%) adults.
• There was significant trend of decreasing use from age 18-24 years (25.8% and 7.6%) to 65 years and older (4.7% and 0.8%).

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Villarroel MA et al. NCHS Data Brief No. 365, April 2020.

About 8.1 million adults were using e-cigarettes in 2018, with use varying significantly by cigarette-smoking status and sociodemographics, according to a report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Those 8.1 million individuals who were using e-cigarettes either every day or some days represented 3.2% of the total adult population, based on data from the 2018 National Health Interview Survey. An even larger proportion, 14.9%, said that they had at least tried an e-cigarette, Maria A. Villarroel, PhD, and associates at the NCHS said in a recent data brief.

Most cigarette smokers, both current and former, were even more likely to use e-cigarettes, they noted.

Former cigarette smokers who had quit within the last year were the most likely to use e-cigarettes – 57.3% had ever used one and 25.2% were current users – while current cigarette users (49.4% ever use and 9.7% current use) and former smokers who had quit 1-5 years before (48.6% ever use, 17.3% current) also were above-average e-cigarette consumers, they reported.

Use was significantly lower, however, among former cigarette smokers who had quit 5 or more years earlier (9.0% and 1.7%, respectively) and those who had never smoked (6.5% and 1.1%), the NCHS investigators said.

The survey data also showed much variation among the sociodemographic subgroups:

• E-cigarette ever/current use was significantly higher in men (17.9% and 4.2%) than women (12.3% and 2.3%).
• Whites were significantly more likely to use e-cigarettes (16.9% and 3.7%), compared with Hispanic (11.5% and 2.5%), black (10.0% and 1.6%), and Asian (10.2% and 2.2%) adults.
• There was significant trend of decreasing use from age 18-24 years (25.8% and 7.6%) to 65 years and older (4.7% and 0.8%).

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Villarroel MA et al. NCHS Data Brief No. 365, April 2020.

About 8.1 million adults were using e-cigarettes in 2018, with use varying significantly by cigarette-smoking status and sociodemographics, according to a report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Those 8.1 million individuals who were using e-cigarettes either every day or some days represented 3.2% of the total adult population, based on data from the 2018 National Health Interview Survey. An even larger proportion, 14.9%, said that they had at least tried an e-cigarette, Maria A. Villarroel, PhD, and associates at the NCHS said in a recent data brief.

Most cigarette smokers, both current and former, were even more likely to use e-cigarettes, they noted.

Former cigarette smokers who had quit within the last year were the most likely to use e-cigarettes – 57.3% had ever used one and 25.2% were current users – while current cigarette users (49.4% ever use and 9.7% current use) and former smokers who had quit 1-5 years before (48.6% ever use, 17.3% current) also were above-average e-cigarette consumers, they reported.

Use was significantly lower, however, among former cigarette smokers who had quit 5 or more years earlier (9.0% and 1.7%, respectively) and those who had never smoked (6.5% and 1.1%), the NCHS investigators said.

The survey data also showed much variation among the sociodemographic subgroups:

• E-cigarette ever/current use was significantly higher in men (17.9% and 4.2%) than women (12.3% and 2.3%).
• Whites were significantly more likely to use e-cigarettes (16.9% and 3.7%), compared with Hispanic (11.5% and 2.5%), black (10.0% and 1.6%), and Asian (10.2% and 2.2%) adults.
• There was significant trend of decreasing use from age 18-24 years (25.8% and 7.6%) to 65 years and older (4.7% and 0.8%).

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Villarroel MA et al. NCHS Data Brief No. 365, April 2020.

Oxygen supplementation for pregnant women with COVID-19 should begin when saturations fall below 94%, according to physicians in the divisions of maternal-fetal medicine and surgical critical care at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

That’s a bit higher than the 92% cut point for nonpregnant women, but necessary due to the increased oxygen demand and oxygen partial pressure in pregnancy. The goal is a saturation of 94%-96%, said Luis Pacheco, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine and critical care specialist at the university, and associates.

Most pregnant women with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) will have mild disease, but some might require respiratory support, so Dr. Pacheco and associates addressed the issue in a commentary in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Women on respiratory support should lie prone if under 20 weeks’ gestation to help with posterior lung recruitment and oxygenation.

If conventional oxygen therapy isn’t enough, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) at 60 L/min and 100% oxygen should be the next step, not positive-pressure ventilation. Positive pressure, another option, kicks off aerosols that increase the risk of viral transmission to medical staff. “This makes high-flow nasal cannula the first-line option for patients not responding to conventional oxygen therapy but who are not yet candidates for endotracheal intubation,” the team said. If women do well, the fraction of inspired oxygen should be weaned before the nasal cannula flow is decreased.

However, if they continue to struggle with dyspnea, tachypnea, and oxygen saturation after 30-60 minutes on HFNC, it’s time for mechanical ventilation, and fast. “Delays in recognizing early failure of high-flow nasal cannula ... may result in life-threatening hypoxemia at the time of induction and intubation (especially in pregnant patients with difficult airway anatomy),” the authors said.

For birth, Dr. Pacheco and associates recommended controlled delivery, likely cesarean, if respiration continues to deteriorate despite intubation, especially after 28 weeks’ gestation, instead of waiting for fetal distress and an ICU delivery. A single course of steroids is reasonable to help fetal lung development beforehand, if indicated.

As for fluid strategy during respiratory support, pregnant women are at higher risk for pulmonary edema with lung inflammation, so the authors cautioned against giving maintenance fluids, and said “if daily positive fluid balances are present, combined with worsening respiratory status, the use of furosemide (10-20 mg intravenously every 12 hours) may be indicated.”

For women stable on conventional oxygen therapy or HFNC, they suggested daily nonstress tests starting at 25 weeks’ gestation instead of continuous monitoring, to minimize the COVID-19 transmission risk for staff.

The team cautioned against nebulized treatments and sputum-inducing agents when possible as this may aerosolize the virus.

There was no external funding for the report, and the authors didn’t have any relevant financial disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Pacheco LD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003929.

Oxygen supplementation for pregnant women with COVID-19 should begin when saturations fall below 94%, according to physicians in the divisions of maternal-fetal medicine and surgical critical care at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

That’s a bit higher than the 92% cut point for nonpregnant women, but necessary due to the increased oxygen demand and oxygen partial pressure in pregnancy. The goal is a saturation of 94%-96%, said Luis Pacheco, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine and critical care specialist at the university, and associates.

Most pregnant women with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) will have mild disease, but some might require respiratory support, so Dr. Pacheco and associates addressed the issue in a commentary in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Women on respiratory support should lie prone if under 20 weeks’ gestation to help with posterior lung recruitment and oxygenation.

If conventional oxygen therapy isn’t enough, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) at 60 L/min and 100% oxygen should be the next step, not positive-pressure ventilation. Positive pressure, another option, kicks off aerosols that increase the risk of viral transmission to medical staff. “This makes high-flow nasal cannula the first-line option for patients not responding to conventional oxygen therapy but who are not yet candidates for endotracheal intubation,” the team said. If women do well, the fraction of inspired oxygen should be weaned before the nasal cannula flow is decreased.

However, if they continue to struggle with dyspnea, tachypnea, and oxygen saturation after 30-60 minutes on HFNC, it’s time for mechanical ventilation, and fast. “Delays in recognizing early failure of high-flow nasal cannula ... may result in life-threatening hypoxemia at the time of induction and intubation (especially in pregnant patients with difficult airway anatomy),” the authors said.

For birth, Dr. Pacheco and associates recommended controlled delivery, likely cesarean, if respiration continues to deteriorate despite intubation, especially after 28 weeks’ gestation, instead of waiting for fetal distress and an ICU delivery. A single course of steroids is reasonable to help fetal lung development beforehand, if indicated.

As for fluid strategy during respiratory support, pregnant women are at higher risk for pulmonary edema with lung inflammation, so the authors cautioned against giving maintenance fluids, and said “if daily positive fluid balances are present, combined with worsening respiratory status, the use of furosemide (10-20 mg intravenously every 12 hours) may be indicated.”

For women stable on conventional oxygen therapy or HFNC, they suggested daily nonstress tests starting at 25 weeks’ gestation instead of continuous monitoring, to minimize the COVID-19 transmission risk for staff.

The team cautioned against nebulized treatments and sputum-inducing agents when possible as this may aerosolize the virus.

There was no external funding for the report, and the authors didn’t have any relevant financial disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Pacheco LD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003929.

Oxygen supplementation for pregnant women with COVID-19 should begin when saturations fall below 94%, according to physicians in the divisions of maternal-fetal medicine and surgical critical care at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

That’s a bit higher than the 92% cut point for nonpregnant women, but necessary due to the increased oxygen demand and oxygen partial pressure in pregnancy. The goal is a saturation of 94%-96%, said Luis Pacheco, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine and critical care specialist at the university, and associates.

Most pregnant women with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) will have mild disease, but some might require respiratory support, so Dr. Pacheco and associates addressed the issue in a commentary in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Women on respiratory support should lie prone if under 20 weeks’ gestation to help with posterior lung recruitment and oxygenation.

If conventional oxygen therapy isn’t enough, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) at 60 L/min and 100% oxygen should be the next step, not positive-pressure ventilation. Positive pressure, another option, kicks off aerosols that increase the risk of viral transmission to medical staff. “This makes high-flow nasal cannula the first-line option for patients not responding to conventional oxygen therapy but who are not yet candidates for endotracheal intubation,” the team said. If women do well, the fraction of inspired oxygen should be weaned before the nasal cannula flow is decreased.

However, if they continue to struggle with dyspnea, tachypnea, and oxygen saturation after 30-60 minutes on HFNC, it’s time for mechanical ventilation, and fast. “Delays in recognizing early failure of high-flow nasal cannula ... may result in life-threatening hypoxemia at the time of induction and intubation (especially in pregnant patients with difficult airway anatomy),” the authors said.

For birth, Dr. Pacheco and associates recommended controlled delivery, likely cesarean, if respiration continues to deteriorate despite intubation, especially after 28 weeks’ gestation, instead of waiting for fetal distress and an ICU delivery. A single course of steroids is reasonable to help fetal lung development beforehand, if indicated.

As for fluid strategy during respiratory support, pregnant women are at higher risk for pulmonary edema with lung inflammation, so the authors cautioned against giving maintenance fluids, and said “if daily positive fluid balances are present, combined with worsening respiratory status, the use of furosemide (10-20 mg intravenously every 12 hours) may be indicated.”

For women stable on conventional oxygen therapy or HFNC, they suggested daily nonstress tests starting at 25 weeks’ gestation instead of continuous monitoring, to minimize the COVID-19 transmission risk for staff.

The team cautioned against nebulized treatments and sputum-inducing agents when possible as this may aerosolize the virus.

There was no external funding for the report, and the authors didn’t have any relevant financial disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Pacheco LD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003929.

Individuals who sleep more or less than average report significantly more constipation, compared with normal sleepers, based on data from 14,590 adults.

“Normal sleep duration is thought to be essential for healthy bowel function; however, the effect of either limited or excessive sleep duration on bowel patterns is poorly understood,” Adeyinka Adejumo, MD, of North Shore Medical Center, Salem, Mass., and colleagues wrote in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week^®, which was canceled because of COVID-19.

To examine the association between sleep duration and bowel function, the researchers identified 14,590 adults aged 20 years and older who completed questionnaires on sleep and bowel health as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 2005-2010.

Sleep was divided into three categories based on standards from the National Sleep Foundation: short (less than 7 hours), normal (7-8 hours) and long (more than 8 hours).

Overall, constipation rates were significantly lower among normal sleepers (8.3%) compared with both short and long sleepers (11.0% and 12.5%, respectively; P < .0001 for both).

Bowel function was defined as normal, constipation, or diarrhea based on stool form and bowel movements per week. After controlling for demographic, lifestyle, and dietary factors, long sleepers and short sleepers were 61% and 38% more likely, respectively, to report constipation, compared with normal sleepers.

However, sleep duration was not related to diarrhea, the researchers noted. In addition, “A sensitivity analysis revealed that sleep duration did not mediate the relationship between comorbid factors (such as overall health, poverty index, obesity, and body mass index) and constipation,” they wrote.

The results suggest that decreased sleep is associated with constipation among adults in the United States, the researchers said. However, “further studies are needed to evaluate the physiologic mechanisms driving the impact of sleep duration on bowel function to determine whether sleep disorders or their underlying causes affect constipation,” they concluded.

“This study was necessary because up to 50% of Americans suffer from sleep disorders, out of which abnormal sleep duration is one of the most common and underdiagnosed, and associated with other diseases such as hypertension and diabetes,” Dr. Adejumo said in an interview. “However, disorders of bowel function (constipation and diarrhea), which affect almost 10%-15% of the population and result in significant health care burden, such as higher cost, hospital visits, abdominal discomfort, have not been studied among individuals with suboptimal sleep duration.”

Dr. Adejumo said he and his colleagues were surprised by their findings. “Although, based on our hypothesis, we thought that sleeping too long may be associated with constipation, we were shocked to note similar results among people who also sleep for short durations,” he noted.

“Previous studies had suggested that bowel contraction slows down considerably during sleep. It, therefore, will make sense that sleeping for too long may result in suppressed bowel motility and decreased bowel movement,” he said. “However, our results showed similar findings among short sleepers. We do not know the exact mechanism of these results. It may be that short sleep resulted in inadequate bowel rest, bowel muscle fatigue, and, subsequently, decreased bowel movement,” said Dr. Adejumo. “Or it may also be that brain-gut signaling pathways are disrupted among short sleepers, as is seen among IBS patients after a poor night sleep, resulting in higher constipation,” he added.

Clinicians should be aware of the impact of both short and long sleep on constipation, said Dr. Adejumo. “Individuals who are unable to have adequate periods of sleep due to other diseases, including insomnia, disrupted job schedules, or conditions with too long sleep, such as narcolepsy, may all additionally suffer from constipation. Such patients may need regular evaluation and treatment for constipation to improve their discomfort,” he said.

“To confirm our findings, other clinical studies with more granular data on sleep and constipation, are needed, as well as translational research to uncover the potential mechanisms of these findings,” he emphasized.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Adejumo A et al. DDW 2020. Abstract Sa1711.

Individuals who sleep more or less than average report significantly more constipation, compared with normal sleepers, based on data from 14,590 adults.

“Normal sleep duration is thought to be essential for healthy bowel function; however, the effect of either limited or excessive sleep duration on bowel patterns is poorly understood,” Adeyinka Adejumo, MD, of North Shore Medical Center, Salem, Mass., and colleagues wrote in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week^®, which was canceled because of COVID-19.

To examine the association between sleep duration and bowel function, the researchers identified 14,590 adults aged 20 years and older who completed questionnaires on sleep and bowel health as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 2005-2010.

Sleep was divided into three categories based on standards from the National Sleep Foundation: short (less than 7 hours), normal (7-8 hours) and long (more than 8 hours).

Overall, constipation rates were significantly lower among normal sleepers (8.3%) compared with both short and long sleepers (11.0% and 12.5%, respectively; P < .0001 for both).

Bowel function was defined as normal, constipation, or diarrhea based on stool form and bowel movements per week. After controlling for demographic, lifestyle, and dietary factors, long sleepers and short sleepers were 61% and 38% more likely, respectively, to report constipation, compared with normal sleepers.

However, sleep duration was not related to diarrhea, the researchers noted. In addition, “A sensitivity analysis revealed that sleep duration did not mediate the relationship between comorbid factors (such as overall health, poverty index, obesity, and body mass index) and constipation,” they wrote.

The results suggest that decreased sleep is associated with constipation among adults in the United States, the researchers said. However, “further studies are needed to evaluate the physiologic mechanisms driving the impact of sleep duration on bowel function to determine whether sleep disorders or their underlying causes affect constipation,” they concluded.

“This study was necessary because up to 50% of Americans suffer from sleep disorders, out of which abnormal sleep duration is one of the most common and underdiagnosed, and associated with other diseases such as hypertension and diabetes,” Dr. Adejumo said in an interview. “However, disorders of bowel function (constipation and diarrhea), which affect almost 10%-15% of the population and result in significant health care burden, such as higher cost, hospital visits, abdominal discomfort, have not been studied among individuals with suboptimal sleep duration.”

Dr. Adejumo said he and his colleagues were surprised by their findings. “Although, based on our hypothesis, we thought that sleeping too long may be associated with constipation, we were shocked to note similar results among people who also sleep for short durations,” he noted.

“Previous studies had suggested that bowel contraction slows down considerably during sleep. It, therefore, will make sense that sleeping for too long may result in suppressed bowel motility and decreased bowel movement,” he said. “However, our results showed similar findings among short sleepers. We do not know the exact mechanism of these results. It may be that short sleep resulted in inadequate bowel rest, bowel muscle fatigue, and, subsequently, decreased bowel movement,” said Dr. Adejumo. “Or it may also be that brain-gut signaling pathways are disrupted among short sleepers, as is seen among IBS patients after a poor night sleep, resulting in higher constipation,” he added.

Clinicians should be aware of the impact of both short and long sleep on constipation, said Dr. Adejumo. “Individuals who are unable to have adequate periods of sleep due to other diseases, including insomnia, disrupted job schedules, or conditions with too long sleep, such as narcolepsy, may all additionally suffer from constipation. Such patients may need regular evaluation and treatment for constipation to improve their discomfort,” he said.

“To confirm our findings, other clinical studies with more granular data on sleep and constipation, are needed, as well as translational research to uncover the potential mechanisms of these findings,” he emphasized.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Adejumo A et al. DDW 2020. Abstract Sa1711.

Individuals who sleep more or less than average report significantly more constipation, compared with normal sleepers, based on data from 14,590 adults.

“Normal sleep duration is thought to be essential for healthy bowel function; however, the effect of either limited or excessive sleep duration on bowel patterns is poorly understood,” Adeyinka Adejumo, MD, of North Shore Medical Center, Salem, Mass., and colleagues wrote in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week^®, which was canceled because of COVID-19.

To examine the association between sleep duration and bowel function, the researchers identified 14,590 adults aged 20 years and older who completed questionnaires on sleep and bowel health as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 2005-2010.

Sleep was divided into three categories based on standards from the National Sleep Foundation: short (less than 7 hours), normal (7-8 hours) and long (more than 8 hours).

Overall, constipation rates were significantly lower among normal sleepers (8.3%) compared with both short and long sleepers (11.0% and 12.5%, respectively; P < .0001 for both).

Bowel function was defined as normal, constipation, or diarrhea based on stool form and bowel movements per week. After controlling for demographic, lifestyle, and dietary factors, long sleepers and short sleepers were 61% and 38% more likely, respectively, to report constipation, compared with normal sleepers.

However, sleep duration was not related to diarrhea, the researchers noted. In addition, “A sensitivity analysis revealed that sleep duration did not mediate the relationship between comorbid factors (such as overall health, poverty index, obesity, and body mass index) and constipation,” they wrote.

The results suggest that decreased sleep is associated with constipation among adults in the United States, the researchers said. However, “further studies are needed to evaluate the physiologic mechanisms driving the impact of sleep duration on bowel function to determine whether sleep disorders or their underlying causes affect constipation,” they concluded.

“This study was necessary because up to 50% of Americans suffer from sleep disorders, out of which abnormal sleep duration is one of the most common and underdiagnosed, and associated with other diseases such as hypertension and diabetes,” Dr. Adejumo said in an interview. “However, disorders of bowel function (constipation and diarrhea), which affect almost 10%-15% of the population and result in significant health care burden, such as higher cost, hospital visits, abdominal discomfort, have not been studied among individuals with suboptimal sleep duration.”

Dr. Adejumo said he and his colleagues were surprised by their findings. “Although, based on our hypothesis, we thought that sleeping too long may be associated with constipation, we were shocked to note similar results among people who also sleep for short durations,” he noted.

“Previous studies had suggested that bowel contraction slows down considerably during sleep. It, therefore, will make sense that sleeping for too long may result in suppressed bowel motility and decreased bowel movement,” he said. “However, our results showed similar findings among short sleepers. We do not know the exact mechanism of these results. It may be that short sleep resulted in inadequate bowel rest, bowel muscle fatigue, and, subsequently, decreased bowel movement,” said Dr. Adejumo. “Or it may also be that brain-gut signaling pathways are disrupted among short sleepers, as is seen among IBS patients after a poor night sleep, resulting in higher constipation,” he added.

Clinicians should be aware of the impact of both short and long sleep on constipation, said Dr. Adejumo. “Individuals who are unable to have adequate periods of sleep due to other diseases, including insomnia, disrupted job schedules, or conditions with too long sleep, such as narcolepsy, may all additionally suffer from constipation. Such patients may need regular evaluation and treatment for constipation to improve their discomfort,” he said.

“To confirm our findings, other clinical studies with more granular data on sleep and constipation, are needed, as well as translational research to uncover the potential mechanisms of these findings,” he emphasized.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Adejumo A et al. DDW 2020. Abstract Sa1711.

In late March of 2020, when it became clear that hospitals in the greater New York City area would face a capacity crisis in caring for seriously ill patients with COVID-19, members of the leadership team at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore (CHAM) in the Bronx, N.Y., convened to draft a response plan.

Courtesy Montefiore Health System

The recommendations put into action that day included moving the hospital’s emergency department from the lower level to the fourth floor, increasing the age limit for patients seen in the ED from 21 years of age to 30 and freeing up an entire hospital floor and a half to accommodate the anticipated surge of patients with COVID-19 admitted to Montefiore’s interconnected adult hospital, according to Sarah E. Norris, MD.

“We made multiple moves all at once,” said Dr. Norris, director of pediatric palliative care at CHAM. “It struck everyone as logical that palliative care had to be expanded, because all of the news we had received as the surge came to New York from around the world was full of death and uncertainty, and would require thoughtful conversations about end-of-life wishes at critical times and how to really respect the person and understand their values.”

When Dr. Norris left the leadership team meeting, she returned to her office, put her face in her hands, and sobbed as she began to process the gravity of what was ahead. “I cried because I knew that so many families were going to suffer a heartbreak, no matter how much we could do,” she said.
 

Stitching the QUILT

Over the next few days, Dr. Norris began recruiting colleagues from the large Montefiore Health System – most of whom she did not know – who met criteria for work deployment to expand CHAM’s palliative care program of clinician to 27 clinicians consisting of pediatricians, nurse practitioners, and psychologists, to meet the projected needs of COVID-19 patients and their families.

Some candidates for the effort, known as the Quality in Life Team (QUILT), were 65 years of age or older, considered at high risk for developing COVID-19-related complications themselves. Others were immunocompromised or had medical conditions that would not allow them to have direct contact with COVID-19 patients. “There were also clinicians in other parts of our health system whose practice hours were going to be severely reduced,” said Dr. Norris, who is board-certified in general pediatrics and in hospice and palliative care medicine.

Once she assembled QUILT, members participated in a 1-day rapid training webinar covering the basics of palliative care and grief, and readied themselves for one of three roles: physicians to provide face-to-face palliative care in CHAM; supportive callers to provide support to patients with COVID-19 and their families between 12:00-8:00 p.m. each day; and bereavement callers to reach out to families who lost loved ones to COVID-19 and provide grief counseling for 3 weeks.

“This allows families to have at least two contacts a day from the hospital: one from the medical team that’s giving them technical, medical information, and another from members of the QUILT team,” Dr. Norris said. “We provide support for the worry, anxiety, and fear that we know creeps in when you’re separated from your family member, especially during a pandemic when you watch TV and there’s a death count rising.”

During her early meetings with QUILT members via Zoom or on the phone, Dr. Norris encouraged them to stretch their skill sets and mindsets as they shifted from caring for children and adolescents to mostly adults. “Pediatricians are all about family; that’s why we get into this,” she said. “We’re used to treating your kids, but then, suddenly, the parent becomes our patient, like in COVID-19, or the grandparent becomes our patient. We treat you all the same; you’re part of our family. There has been no adult who has died ‘within our house’ that has died alone. There has either been a staff member at their bedside, or when possible, a family member. We are witnessing life until the last breath here.”
 

‘They have no loved ones with them’

One day, members of CHAM’s medical team contacted Dr. Norris about a patient with COVID-19 who’d been cared for by Montefiore clinicians all of his young life. The boy’s mother, who did not speak English, was at his bedside in the ICU, and the clinicians asked Dr. Norris to speak with her by cell phone while they prepared him for intubation.

“We were looking at each other through a glass window wall in our ICU,” Dr. Norris recalled. “I talked to her the entire time the team worked to put him on the breathing machine, through an interpreter. I asked her to tell me about her son and about her family, and she did. We developed a warm relationship. After that, every day I would see her son through the glass window wall. Every couple of days, I would have the privilege of talking to his mother by phone. At one point, she asked me, ‘Dr. Norris, do you think his lungs will heal?’ I had to tell her no. Almost selfishly, I was relieved we were on the phone, because she cried, and so did I. When he died, she was able to be by his side.”

Frederick J. Kaskel, MD, PhD, joined QUILT as a supportive caller after being asked to go home during his on-call shift on St. Patrick’s Day at CHAM, where he serves as chief emeritus of nephrology. “I was told that I was deemed to be at high risk because of my age,” the 75-year-old said. “The next day, a junior person took over for me, and 2 days later she got sick with COVID-19. She’s fine but she was home for 3 weeks sick as a dog. It was scary.”

In his role as a supportive caller, Dr. Kaskel found himself engaged in his share of detective work, trying to find phone numbers of next of kin for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. “When they come into the ER, they may not have been with a loved one or a family member; they may have been brought in by an EMT,” he said. “Some of them speak little English and others have little documentation with them. It takes a lot of work to get phone numbers.”

Once Dr. Kaskel reaches a loved one by phone, he introduces himself as a member of the QUILT team. “I tell them I’m not calling to update the medical status but just to talk to them about their loved one,” he said. “Then I usually ask, ‘So, how are you doing with this? The stress is enormous, the uncertainties.’ Then they open up and express their fears. I’ve had a lot of people say, ‘we have no money, and I don’t know how we’re going to pay rent for the apartment. We have to line up for food.’ I also ask what they do to alleviate stress. One guy said, ‘I drink a lot, but I’m careful.’ ”

Dr. Kaskel, who is also a past president of the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology, applies that same personable approach in daily conversations with adult patients hospitalized at CHAM with COVID-19, the majority of whom are African Americans in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. “Invariably, they ask, ‘Has my loved one been updated as to my status?’ ” he said. “The second thing they often say is, ‘I’m worried about infecting other people, but I also worry if I’m going to get through this. I’m really afraid I’m going to die.’ I say, ‘You have a wonderful team keeping track of you. They’re seeing you all the time and making changes to your medicines.’ ”

When patients express their fear of dying from the virus, Dr. Kaskel asks them how they’re coping with that fear. Most tell him that they pray.

“If they don’t answer, I ask if they have any hobbies, like ‘Are you watching TV? Are you reading? Do you have your cell phone?’ ” he said. “Then they open up and say things like, ‘I’m listening to music on the cell phone,’ or ‘I’m FaceTiming with my loved ones.’ The use of FaceTime is crucial, because they are in a hospital, critically ill, potentially dying alone with strangers. This really hit me on the first day [of this work]. They have no loved ones with them. They have strangers: the CHAM nurses, the medical residents, the social workers, and the doctors.”
 

No hospital cheeseburgers

QUILT began its work on April 6, and at one time provided palliative care services for a peak of 92 mostly adult patients with COVID-19. The supportive callers made 249 individual connections with patients and family members by phone from April 6-13, 162 connections from April 13-19, and 130 connections from April 20-26, according to Dr. Norris. As of April 28, the CHAM inpatient census of patients aged 18 years and over with COVID-19 was 42, “and we’re making 130 connections by phone to patients and family members each day,” she said.

QUILT bereavement callers are following 30 families, providing 3 weeks of acute grief counseling from the date of death. “A sad truth is that, here in New York, our entire funeral, burial, cremation system is overwhelmed in volume,” Dr. Norris said. “Only half of the patients we’re following 3 weeks out have been able to have their family member buried or cremated; many are still waiting. What strikes me here is that pediatricians are often partners in care. With time, we’re partners in care in heartbreak, and in the occasional victory. We mourn patients who have died. We’ve had colleagues who died from COVID-19 right here at our hospital. But we stand together like a family.”

Courtesy Dr. Sarah E. Norris

Dr. Norris recalled an older woman who came into CHAM’s ICU on a ventilator, critically ill from COVID-19. She called her husband at home every day with updates. “I got to know her husband, and I got to know her through him,” Dr. Norris said. “We talked every single day and she was able to graduate off of the breathing tube and out of the ICU, which was amazing.” The woman was moved to a floor in the adult hospital, but Dr. Norris continues to visit her and to provide her husband with updates, “because I’m devoted to them,” she said.

Recently, physicians in the adult hospital consulted with Dr. Norris about the woman. “They were trying to figure out what to do with her next,” she said. “Could she go home, or did she need rehab? They said, ‘We called you, Dr. Norris, because her husband thinks he can take her home.’ We know that COVID-19 really weakens people, so I went over to see her myself. I thought, ‘No single person could take care of an adult so weak at home.’ So, I called her husband and said, ‘I’m here with your wife, and I have to tell you; if she were my mother, I couldn’t take her home today. I need you to trust me.’ He said, ‘OK. We trust you and know that you have her best interest at heart.’ ”

Dr. Kaskel relayed the story of an older patient who was slowly recovering from COVID-19. During a phone call, he asked the man if there was anything he wanted at that moment.

“He said, ‘I’d love to see my wife and my children and my grandkids. I know I’m going to see them again, but right now, doc, if you could get me a cheeseburger with lettuce and tomato and ketchup and French fries from outside of the hospital, I’d be the happiest man in the world.’

I said, ‘What’s the matter with the cheeseburger made at the hospital?’

He said, ‘No! They can’t make the cheeseburger I want.’

I promised him I’d relay that message to the social worker responsible for the patient. I told her please, if you buy this for him, I’ll pay you back.”
 

Self-care and the next chapter

Twice each week, QUILT members gather in front of their computer monitors for mandatory Zoom meetings facilitated by two psychologists to share challenges, best practices, and to discuss the difficult work they’re doing. “We meet, because you cannot help someone if you cannot help yourself,” Dr. Norris said. “We have been encouraged each and every meeting to practice self-compassion, and to recognize that things happen during a pandemic – some will be the best you can do.”

She described organizing and serving on QUILT as a grounding experience with important lessons for the delivery of health care after the pandemic subsides and the team members return to their respective practices. “I think we’ve all gained a greater sense of humility, and we understand that the badge I wear every day does not protect me from becoming a patient, or from having my own family fall ill,” she said. “Here, we think about it very simply: ‘I’m going to treat you like you’re part of my own family.’ ”

Dr. Kaskel said that serving on QUILT as a supportive caller is an experience he won’t soon forget.

“The human bond is so accessible if you accept it,” he said. “If someone is an introvert that might not be able to draw out a stranger on the phone, then [he or she] shouldn’t do this [work]. But the fact that you can make a bond with someone that you’re not even seeing in person and know that both sides of this phone call are getting good vibes, that’s a remarkable feeling that I never really knew before, because I’ve never really had to do that before. It brings up feelings like I had after 9/11 – a unified approach to surviving this as people, as a community, the idea that ‘we will get through this,’ even though it’s totally different than anything before. The idea that there’s still hope. Those are things you can’t put a price on.”

An article about how CHAM transformed to provide care to adult COVID-19 patients was published online May 4, 2020, in the Journal of Pediatrics: doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.04.060.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

In late March of 2020, when it became clear that hospitals in the greater New York City area would face a capacity crisis in caring for seriously ill patients with COVID-19, members of the leadership team at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore (CHAM) in the Bronx, N.Y., convened to draft a response plan.

Courtesy Montefiore Health System

The recommendations put into action that day included moving the hospital’s emergency department from the lower level to the fourth floor, increasing the age limit for patients seen in the ED from 21 years of age to 30 and freeing up an entire hospital floor and a half to accommodate the anticipated surge of patients with COVID-19 admitted to Montefiore’s interconnected adult hospital, according to Sarah E. Norris, MD.

“We made multiple moves all at once,” said Dr. Norris, director of pediatric palliative care at CHAM. “It struck everyone as logical that palliative care had to be expanded, because all of the news we had received as the surge came to New York from around the world was full of death and uncertainty, and would require thoughtful conversations about end-of-life wishes at critical times and how to really respect the person and understand their values.”

When Dr. Norris left the leadership team meeting, she returned to her office, put her face in her hands, and sobbed as she began to process the gravity of what was ahead. “I cried because I knew that so many families were going to suffer a heartbreak, no matter how much we could do,” she said.
 

Stitching the QUILT

Over the next few days, Dr. Norris began recruiting colleagues from the large Montefiore Health System – most of whom she did not know – who met criteria for work deployment to expand CHAM’s palliative care program of clinician to 27 clinicians consisting of pediatricians, nurse practitioners, and psychologists, to meet the projected needs of COVID-19 patients and their families.

Some candidates for the effort, known as the Quality in Life Team (QUILT), were 65 years of age or older, considered at high risk for developing COVID-19-related complications themselves. Others were immunocompromised or had medical conditions that would not allow them to have direct contact with COVID-19 patients. “There were also clinicians in other parts of our health system whose practice hours were going to be severely reduced,” said Dr. Norris, who is board-certified in general pediatrics and in hospice and palliative care medicine.

Once she assembled QUILT, members participated in a 1-day rapid training webinar covering the basics of palliative care and grief, and readied themselves for one of three roles: physicians to provide face-to-face palliative care in CHAM; supportive callers to provide support to patients with COVID-19 and their families between 12:00-8:00 p.m. each day; and bereavement callers to reach out to families who lost loved ones to COVID-19 and provide grief counseling for 3 weeks.

“This allows families to have at least two contacts a day from the hospital: one from the medical team that’s giving them technical, medical information, and another from members of the QUILT team,” Dr. Norris said. “We provide support for the worry, anxiety, and fear that we know creeps in when you’re separated from your family member, especially during a pandemic when you watch TV and there’s a death count rising.”

During her early meetings with QUILT members via Zoom or on the phone, Dr. Norris encouraged them to stretch their skill sets and mindsets as they shifted from caring for children and adolescents to mostly adults. “Pediatricians are all about family; that’s why we get into this,” she said. “We’re used to treating your kids, but then, suddenly, the parent becomes our patient, like in COVID-19, or the grandparent becomes our patient. We treat you all the same; you’re part of our family. There has been no adult who has died ‘within our house’ that has died alone. There has either been a staff member at their bedside, or when possible, a family member. We are witnessing life until the last breath here.”
 

‘They have no loved ones with them’

One day, members of CHAM’s medical team contacted Dr. Norris about a patient with COVID-19 who’d been cared for by Montefiore clinicians all of his young life. The boy’s mother, who did not speak English, was at his bedside in the ICU, and the clinicians asked Dr. Norris to speak with her by cell phone while they prepared him for intubation.

“We were looking at each other through a glass window wall in our ICU,” Dr. Norris recalled. “I talked to her the entire time the team worked to put him on the breathing machine, through an interpreter. I asked her to tell me about her son and about her family, and she did. We developed a warm relationship. After that, every day I would see her son through the glass window wall. Every couple of days, I would have the privilege of talking to his mother by phone. At one point, she asked me, ‘Dr. Norris, do you think his lungs will heal?’ I had to tell her no. Almost selfishly, I was relieved we were on the phone, because she cried, and so did I. When he died, she was able to be by his side.”

Frederick J. Kaskel, MD, PhD, joined QUILT as a supportive caller after being asked to go home during his on-call shift on St. Patrick’s Day at CHAM, where he serves as chief emeritus of nephrology. “I was told that I was deemed to be at high risk because of my age,” the 75-year-old said. “The next day, a junior person took over for me, and 2 days later she got sick with COVID-19. She’s fine but she was home for 3 weeks sick as a dog. It was scary.”

In his role as a supportive caller, Dr. Kaskel found himself engaged in his share of detective work, trying to find phone numbers of next of kin for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. “When they come into the ER, they may not have been with a loved one or a family member; they may have been brought in by an EMT,” he said. “Some of them speak little English and others have little documentation with them. It takes a lot of work to get phone numbers.”

Once Dr. Kaskel reaches a loved one by phone, he introduces himself as a member of the QUILT team. “I tell them I’m not calling to update the medical status but just to talk to them about their loved one,” he said. “Then I usually ask, ‘So, how are you doing with this? The stress is enormous, the uncertainties.’ Then they open up and express their fears. I’ve had a lot of people say, ‘we have no money, and I don’t know how we’re going to pay rent for the apartment. We have to line up for food.’ I also ask what they do to alleviate stress. One guy said, ‘I drink a lot, but I’m careful.’ ”

Dr. Kaskel, who is also a past president of the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology, applies that same personable approach in daily conversations with adult patients hospitalized at CHAM with COVID-19, the majority of whom are African Americans in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. “Invariably, they ask, ‘Has my loved one been updated as to my status?’ ” he said. “The second thing they often say is, ‘I’m worried about infecting other people, but I also worry if I’m going to get through this. I’m really afraid I’m going to die.’ I say, ‘You have a wonderful team keeping track of you. They’re seeing you all the time and making changes to your medicines.’ ”

When patients express their fear of dying from the virus, Dr. Kaskel asks them how they’re coping with that fear. Most tell him that they pray.

“If they don’t answer, I ask if they have any hobbies, like ‘Are you watching TV? Are you reading? Do you have your cell phone?’ ” he said. “Then they open up and say things like, ‘I’m listening to music on the cell phone,’ or ‘I’m FaceTiming with my loved ones.’ The use of FaceTime is crucial, because they are in a hospital, critically ill, potentially dying alone with strangers. This really hit me on the first day [of this work]. They have no loved ones with them. They have strangers: the CHAM nurses, the medical residents, the social workers, and the doctors.”
 

No hospital cheeseburgers

QUILT began its work on April 6, and at one time provided palliative care services for a peak of 92 mostly adult patients with COVID-19. The supportive callers made 249 individual connections with patients and family members by phone from April 6-13, 162 connections from April 13-19, and 130 connections from April 20-26, according to Dr. Norris. As of April 28, the CHAM inpatient census of patients aged 18 years and over with COVID-19 was 42, “and we’re making 130 connections by phone to patients and family members each day,” she said.

QUILT bereavement callers are following 30 families, providing 3 weeks of acute grief counseling from the date of death. “A sad truth is that, here in New York, our entire funeral, burial, cremation system is overwhelmed in volume,” Dr. Norris said. “Only half of the patients we’re following 3 weeks out have been able to have their family member buried or cremated; many are still waiting. What strikes me here is that pediatricians are often partners in care. With time, we’re partners in care in heartbreak, and in the occasional victory. We mourn patients who have died. We’ve had colleagues who died from COVID-19 right here at our hospital. But we stand together like a family.”

Courtesy Dr. Sarah E. Norris

Dr. Norris recalled an older woman who came into CHAM’s ICU on a ventilator, critically ill from COVID-19. She called her husband at home every day with updates. “I got to know her husband, and I got to know her through him,” Dr. Norris said. “We talked every single day and she was able to graduate off of the breathing tube and out of the ICU, which was amazing.” The woman was moved to a floor in the adult hospital, but Dr. Norris continues to visit her and to provide her husband with updates, “because I’m devoted to them,” she said.

Recently, physicians in the adult hospital consulted with Dr. Norris about the woman. “They were trying to figure out what to do with her next,” she said. “Could she go home, or did she need rehab? They said, ‘We called you, Dr. Norris, because her husband thinks he can take her home.’ We know that COVID-19 really weakens people, so I went over to see her myself. I thought, ‘No single person could take care of an adult so weak at home.’ So, I called her husband and said, ‘I’m here with your wife, and I have to tell you; if she were my mother, I couldn’t take her home today. I need you to trust me.’ He said, ‘OK. We trust you and know that you have her best interest at heart.’ ”

Dr. Kaskel relayed the story of an older patient who was slowly recovering from COVID-19. During a phone call, he asked the man if there was anything he wanted at that moment.

“He said, ‘I’d love to see my wife and my children and my grandkids. I know I’m going to see them again, but right now, doc, if you could get me a cheeseburger with lettuce and tomato and ketchup and French fries from outside of the hospital, I’d be the happiest man in the world.’

I said, ‘What’s the matter with the cheeseburger made at the hospital?’

He said, ‘No! They can’t make the cheeseburger I want.’

I promised him I’d relay that message to the social worker responsible for the patient. I told her please, if you buy this for him, I’ll pay you back.”
 

Self-care and the next chapter

Twice each week, QUILT members gather in front of their computer monitors for mandatory Zoom meetings facilitated by two psychologists to share challenges, best practices, and to discuss the difficult work they’re doing. “We meet, because you cannot help someone if you cannot help yourself,” Dr. Norris said. “We have been encouraged each and every meeting to practice self-compassion, and to recognize that things happen during a pandemic – some will be the best you can do.”

She described organizing and serving on QUILT as a grounding experience with important lessons for the delivery of health care after the pandemic subsides and the team members return to their respective practices. “I think we’ve all gained a greater sense of humility, and we understand that the badge I wear every day does not protect me from becoming a patient, or from having my own family fall ill,” she said. “Here, we think about it very simply: ‘I’m going to treat you like you’re part of my own family.’ ”

Dr. Kaskel said that serving on QUILT as a supportive caller is an experience he won’t soon forget.

“The human bond is so accessible if you accept it,” he said. “If someone is an introvert that might not be able to draw out a stranger on the phone, then [he or she] shouldn’t do this [work]. But the fact that you can make a bond with someone that you’re not even seeing in person and know that both sides of this phone call are getting good vibes, that’s a remarkable feeling that I never really knew before, because I’ve never really had to do that before. It brings up feelings like I had after 9/11 – a unified approach to surviving this as people, as a community, the idea that ‘we will get through this,’ even though it’s totally different than anything before. The idea that there’s still hope. Those are things you can’t put a price on.”

An article about how CHAM transformed to provide care to adult COVID-19 patients was published online May 4, 2020, in the Journal of Pediatrics: doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.04.060.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

In late March of 2020, when it became clear that hospitals in the greater New York City area would face a capacity crisis in caring for seriously ill patients with COVID-19, members of the leadership team at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore (CHAM) in the Bronx, N.Y., convened to draft a response plan.

Courtesy Montefiore Health System

The recommendations put into action that day included moving the hospital’s emergency department from the lower level to the fourth floor, increasing the age limit for patients seen in the ED from 21 years of age to 30 and freeing up an entire hospital floor and a half to accommodate the anticipated surge of patients with COVID-19 admitted to Montefiore’s interconnected adult hospital, according to Sarah E. Norris, MD.

“We made multiple moves all at once,” said Dr. Norris, director of pediatric palliative care at CHAM. “It struck everyone as logical that palliative care had to be expanded, because all of the news we had received as the surge came to New York from around the world was full of death and uncertainty, and would require thoughtful conversations about end-of-life wishes at critical times and how to really respect the person and understand their values.”

When Dr. Norris left the leadership team meeting, she returned to her office, put her face in her hands, and sobbed as she began to process the gravity of what was ahead. “I cried because I knew that so many families were going to suffer a heartbreak, no matter how much we could do,” she said.
 

Stitching the QUILT

Over the next few days, Dr. Norris began recruiting colleagues from the large Montefiore Health System – most of whom she did not know – who met criteria for work deployment to expand CHAM’s palliative care program of clinician to 27 clinicians consisting of pediatricians, nurse practitioners, and psychologists, to meet the projected needs of COVID-19 patients and their families.

Some candidates for the effort, known as the Quality in Life Team (QUILT), were 65 years of age or older, considered at high risk for developing COVID-19-related complications themselves. Others were immunocompromised or had medical conditions that would not allow them to have direct contact with COVID-19 patients. “There were also clinicians in other parts of our health system whose practice hours were going to be severely reduced,” said Dr. Norris, who is board-certified in general pediatrics and in hospice and palliative care medicine.

Once she assembled QUILT, members participated in a 1-day rapid training webinar covering the basics of palliative care and grief, and readied themselves for one of three roles: physicians to provide face-to-face palliative care in CHAM; supportive callers to provide support to patients with COVID-19 and their families between 12:00-8:00 p.m. each day; and bereavement callers to reach out to families who lost loved ones to COVID-19 and provide grief counseling for 3 weeks.

“This allows families to have at least two contacts a day from the hospital: one from the medical team that’s giving them technical, medical information, and another from members of the QUILT team,” Dr. Norris said. “We provide support for the worry, anxiety, and fear that we know creeps in when you’re separated from your family member, especially during a pandemic when you watch TV and there’s a death count rising.”

During her early meetings with QUILT members via Zoom or on the phone, Dr. Norris encouraged them to stretch their skill sets and mindsets as they shifted from caring for children and adolescents to mostly adults. “Pediatricians are all about family; that’s why we get into this,” she said. “We’re used to treating your kids, but then, suddenly, the parent becomes our patient, like in COVID-19, or the grandparent becomes our patient. We treat you all the same; you’re part of our family. There has been no adult who has died ‘within our house’ that has died alone. There has either been a staff member at their bedside, or when possible, a family member. We are witnessing life until the last breath here.”
 

‘They have no loved ones with them’

One day, members of CHAM’s medical team contacted Dr. Norris about a patient with COVID-19 who’d been cared for by Montefiore clinicians all of his young life. The boy’s mother, who did not speak English, was at his bedside in the ICU, and the clinicians asked Dr. Norris to speak with her by cell phone while they prepared him for intubation.

“We were looking at each other through a glass window wall in our ICU,” Dr. Norris recalled. “I talked to her the entire time the team worked to put him on the breathing machine, through an interpreter. I asked her to tell me about her son and about her family, and she did. We developed a warm relationship. After that, every day I would see her son through the glass window wall. Every couple of days, I would have the privilege of talking to his mother by phone. At one point, she asked me, ‘Dr. Norris, do you think his lungs will heal?’ I had to tell her no. Almost selfishly, I was relieved we were on the phone, because she cried, and so did I. When he died, she was able to be by his side.”

Frederick J. Kaskel, MD, PhD, joined QUILT as a supportive caller after being asked to go home during his on-call shift on St. Patrick’s Day at CHAM, where he serves as chief emeritus of nephrology. “I was told that I was deemed to be at high risk because of my age,” the 75-year-old said. “The next day, a junior person took over for me, and 2 days later she got sick with COVID-19. She’s fine but she was home for 3 weeks sick as a dog. It was scary.”

In his role as a supportive caller, Dr. Kaskel found himself engaged in his share of detective work, trying to find phone numbers of next of kin for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. “When they come into the ER, they may not have been with a loved one or a family member; they may have been brought in by an EMT,” he said. “Some of them speak little English and others have little documentation with them. It takes a lot of work to get phone numbers.”

Once Dr. Kaskel reaches a loved one by phone, he introduces himself as a member of the QUILT team. “I tell them I’m not calling to update the medical status but just to talk to them about their loved one,” he said. “Then I usually ask, ‘So, how are you doing with this? The stress is enormous, the uncertainties.’ Then they open up and express their fears. I’ve had a lot of people say, ‘we have no money, and I don’t know how we’re going to pay rent for the apartment. We have to line up for food.’ I also ask what they do to alleviate stress. One guy said, ‘I drink a lot, but I’m careful.’ ”

Dr. Kaskel, who is also a past president of the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology, applies that same personable approach in daily conversations with adult patients hospitalized at CHAM with COVID-19, the majority of whom are African Americans in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. “Invariably, they ask, ‘Has my loved one been updated as to my status?’ ” he said. “The second thing they often say is, ‘I’m worried about infecting other people, but I also worry if I’m going to get through this. I’m really afraid I’m going to die.’ I say, ‘You have a wonderful team keeping track of you. They’re seeing you all the time and making changes to your medicines.’ ”

When patients express their fear of dying from the virus, Dr. Kaskel asks them how they’re coping with that fear. Most tell him that they pray.

“If they don’t answer, I ask if they have any hobbies, like ‘Are you watching TV? Are you reading? Do you have your cell phone?’ ” he said. “Then they open up and say things like, ‘I’m listening to music on the cell phone,’ or ‘I’m FaceTiming with my loved ones.’ The use of FaceTime is crucial, because they are in a hospital, critically ill, potentially dying alone with strangers. This really hit me on the first day [of this work]. They have no loved ones with them. They have strangers: the CHAM nurses, the medical residents, the social workers, and the doctors.”
 

No hospital cheeseburgers

QUILT began its work on April 6, and at one time provided palliative care services for a peak of 92 mostly adult patients with COVID-19. The supportive callers made 249 individual connections with patients and family members by phone from April 6-13, 162 connections from April 13-19, and 130 connections from April 20-26, according to Dr. Norris. As of April 28, the CHAM inpatient census of patients aged 18 years and over with COVID-19 was 42, “and we’re making 130 connections by phone to patients and family members each day,” she said.

QUILT bereavement callers are following 30 families, providing 3 weeks of acute grief counseling from the date of death. “A sad truth is that, here in New York, our entire funeral, burial, cremation system is overwhelmed in volume,” Dr. Norris said. “Only half of the patients we’re following 3 weeks out have been able to have their family member buried or cremated; many are still waiting. What strikes me here is that pediatricians are often partners in care. With time, we’re partners in care in heartbreak, and in the occasional victory. We mourn patients who have died. We’ve had colleagues who died from COVID-19 right here at our hospital. But we stand together like a family.”

Courtesy Dr. Sarah E. Norris

Dr. Norris recalled an older woman who came into CHAM’s ICU on a ventilator, critically ill from COVID-19. She called her husband at home every day with updates. “I got to know her husband, and I got to know her through him,” Dr. Norris said. “We talked every single day and she was able to graduate off of the breathing tube and out of the ICU, which was amazing.” The woman was moved to a floor in the adult hospital, but Dr. Norris continues to visit her and to provide her husband with updates, “because I’m devoted to them,” she said.

Recently, physicians in the adult hospital consulted with Dr. Norris about the woman. “They were trying to figure out what to do with her next,” she said. “Could she go home, or did she need rehab? They said, ‘We called you, Dr. Norris, because her husband thinks he can take her home.’ We know that COVID-19 really weakens people, so I went over to see her myself. I thought, ‘No single person could take care of an adult so weak at home.’ So, I called her husband and said, ‘I’m here with your wife, and I have to tell you; if she were my mother, I couldn’t take her home today. I need you to trust me.’ He said, ‘OK. We trust you and know that you have her best interest at heart.’ ”

Dr. Kaskel relayed the story of an older patient who was slowly recovering from COVID-19. During a phone call, he asked the man if there was anything he wanted at that moment.

“He said, ‘I’d love to see my wife and my children and my grandkids. I know I’m going to see them again, but right now, doc, if you could get me a cheeseburger with lettuce and tomato and ketchup and French fries from outside of the hospital, I’d be the happiest man in the world.’

I said, ‘What’s the matter with the cheeseburger made at the hospital?’

He said, ‘No! They can’t make the cheeseburger I want.’

I promised him I’d relay that message to the social worker responsible for the patient. I told her please, if you buy this for him, I’ll pay you back.”
 

Self-care and the next chapter

Twice each week, QUILT members gather in front of their computer monitors for mandatory Zoom meetings facilitated by two psychologists to share challenges, best practices, and to discuss the difficult work they’re doing. “We meet, because you cannot help someone if you cannot help yourself,” Dr. Norris said. “We have been encouraged each and every meeting to practice self-compassion, and to recognize that things happen during a pandemic – some will be the best you can do.”

She described organizing and serving on QUILT as a grounding experience with important lessons for the delivery of health care after the pandemic subsides and the team members return to their respective practices. “I think we’ve all gained a greater sense of humility, and we understand that the badge I wear every day does not protect me from becoming a patient, or from having my own family fall ill,” she said. “Here, we think about it very simply: ‘I’m going to treat you like you’re part of my own family.’ ”

Dr. Kaskel said that serving on QUILT as a supportive caller is an experience he won’t soon forget.

“The human bond is so accessible if you accept it,” he said. “If someone is an introvert that might not be able to draw out a stranger on the phone, then [he or she] shouldn’t do this [work]. But the fact that you can make a bond with someone that you’re not even seeing in person and know that both sides of this phone call are getting good vibes, that’s a remarkable feeling that I never really knew before, because I’ve never really had to do that before. It brings up feelings like I had after 9/11 – a unified approach to surviving this as people, as a community, the idea that ‘we will get through this,’ even though it’s totally different than anything before. The idea that there’s still hope. Those are things you can’t put a price on.”

An article about how CHAM transformed to provide care to adult COVID-19 patients was published online May 4, 2020, in the Journal of Pediatrics: doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.04.060.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

A new analysis of the large, randomized TRUST trial shows that L-thyroxine does not improve pronounced symptoms in older people with subclinical hypothyroidism.

The original trial established that the synthetic hormone did not improve symptoms in the overall trial population, a finding that called into question the routine prescribing of thyroid medication for this patient group.

But questions lingered as to whether patients with a higher burden of symptoms might still benefit from treatment with L-thyroxine.

For their research, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Maria de Montmollin, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland), looked at results for 638 subjects randomized to L-thyroxine treatment (50 mcg daily for most patients) or placebo and followed for at least 1 year in the Thyroid Hormone Therapy for Older Adults With Subclinical Hypothyroidism (TRUST) trial (N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2534-2544). All were 65 years or older and met the criteria for subclinical hypothyroidism, defined as persistent elevated TSH levels (4.60-19.99 mIU/L) in combination with a normal free-thyroxine level.

Dr. de Montmollin and her colleagues identified 132 participants with high hypothyroid symptom burden at baseline and 133 patients with high scores for tiredness, using the Thyroid-Related Quality-of-Life Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire. Cutoffs were a baseline symptoms score of higher than 30 (on a 1-100 scale), or a tiredness score of over 40.

At 1 year, researchers saw no statistically significant improvements in either measure for the L-thyroxine treated patients, compared with placebo.

Among the patients with high symptom burden, those on L-thyroxine saw a score improvement of –12.3 points, compared with –10.4 for those on placebo, for an adjusted between-group difference of –2.0 (95% confidence interval, –5.5 to 1.5; P = 0.27). Tiredness scores also improved similarly, dropping 8.9 points for L-thyroxine–treated patients, compared with –10.9 for those receiving placebo, for an adjusted between-group difference of 0.0 (95% CI, –4.1 to 4.0; P = 0.99).

Dr. de Montmollin and colleagues also noted no significant between-group differences in two secondary measures they looked at in the study: patient self-reported quality of life and handgrip strength, an objective measure of weakness.

The results “do not support the hypothesis that the subgroup of adults with SCH [subclinical hypothyroidism] and high symptom burden before treatment benefit from L-thyroxine therapy,” the investigators wrote in their analysis. “This may be because of regression to the mean, the natural history of SCH, or the placebo effect and may explain why many persons with symptomatic SCH and their treating physicians are convinced that L-thyroxine is beneficial,” they added.

In an interview, Dr. de Montmollin commented that treating physicians “should reconsider prescribing or offering L-thyroxine to older adults with SCH, even those with consistent symptoms, because there is no clear evidence for its benefit in treating SCH to date and a risk of harm related to overtreatment is still possible. In addition, it is associated with unnecessary costs for the patient and for the health system.”

The investigators mentioned several limitations to their study, including its post hoc design and a small sample size. Additionally, they wrote, the findings “cannot exclude the possibility that a rare subgroup with greater symptom burden would benefit from L-thyroxine therapy” or that more aggressive treatment leading to lower TSH levels would confer benefit.

The study was sponsored by the National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board, while the TRUST trial was sponsored by the European Union and with medication donated by Merck. Dr. de Montmollin and her coauthors disclosed no financial ties to industry.

SOURCE: De Montmollin et al. Ann Intern Med 2020 May 5. doi: 10.7326/M19-3193.

A new analysis of the large, randomized TRUST trial shows that L-thyroxine does not improve pronounced symptoms in older people with subclinical hypothyroidism.

The original trial established that the synthetic hormone did not improve symptoms in the overall trial population, a finding that called into question the routine prescribing of thyroid medication for this patient group.

But questions lingered as to whether patients with a higher burden of symptoms might still benefit from treatment with L-thyroxine.

For their research, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Maria de Montmollin, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland), looked at results for 638 subjects randomized to L-thyroxine treatment (50 mcg daily for most patients) or placebo and followed for at least 1 year in the Thyroid Hormone Therapy for Older Adults With Subclinical Hypothyroidism (TRUST) trial (N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2534-2544). All were 65 years or older and met the criteria for subclinical hypothyroidism, defined as persistent elevated TSH levels (4.60-19.99 mIU/L) in combination with a normal free-thyroxine level.

Dr. de Montmollin and her colleagues identified 132 participants with high hypothyroid symptom burden at baseline and 133 patients with high scores for tiredness, using the Thyroid-Related Quality-of-Life Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire. Cutoffs were a baseline symptoms score of higher than 30 (on a 1-100 scale), or a tiredness score of over 40.

At 1 year, researchers saw no statistically significant improvements in either measure for the L-thyroxine treated patients, compared with placebo.

Among the patients with high symptom burden, those on L-thyroxine saw a score improvement of –12.3 points, compared with –10.4 for those on placebo, for an adjusted between-group difference of –2.0 (95% confidence interval, –5.5 to 1.5; P = 0.27). Tiredness scores also improved similarly, dropping 8.9 points for L-thyroxine–treated patients, compared with –10.9 for those receiving placebo, for an adjusted between-group difference of 0.0 (95% CI, –4.1 to 4.0; P = 0.99).

Dr. de Montmollin and colleagues also noted no significant between-group differences in two secondary measures they looked at in the study: patient self-reported quality of life and handgrip strength, an objective measure of weakness.

The results “do not support the hypothesis that the subgroup of adults with SCH [subclinical hypothyroidism] and high symptom burden before treatment benefit from L-thyroxine therapy,” the investigators wrote in their analysis. “This may be because of regression to the mean, the natural history of SCH, or the placebo effect and may explain why many persons with symptomatic SCH and their treating physicians are convinced that L-thyroxine is beneficial,” they added.

In an interview, Dr. de Montmollin commented that treating physicians “should reconsider prescribing or offering L-thyroxine to older adults with SCH, even those with consistent symptoms, because there is no clear evidence for its benefit in treating SCH to date and a risk of harm related to overtreatment is still possible. In addition, it is associated with unnecessary costs for the patient and for the health system.”

The investigators mentioned several limitations to their study, including its post hoc design and a small sample size. Additionally, they wrote, the findings “cannot exclude the possibility that a rare subgroup with greater symptom burden would benefit from L-thyroxine therapy” or that more aggressive treatment leading to lower TSH levels would confer benefit.

The study was sponsored by the National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board, while the TRUST trial was sponsored by the European Union and with medication donated by Merck. Dr. de Montmollin and her coauthors disclosed no financial ties to industry.

SOURCE: De Montmollin et al. Ann Intern Med 2020 May 5. doi: 10.7326/M19-3193.

A new analysis of the large, randomized TRUST trial shows that L-thyroxine does not improve pronounced symptoms in older people with subclinical hypothyroidism.

The original trial established that the synthetic hormone did not improve symptoms in the overall trial population, a finding that called into question the routine prescribing of thyroid medication for this patient group.

But questions lingered as to whether patients with a higher burden of symptoms might still benefit from treatment with L-thyroxine.

For their research, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Maria de Montmollin, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland), looked at results for 638 subjects randomized to L-thyroxine treatment (50 mcg daily for most patients) or placebo and followed for at least 1 year in the Thyroid Hormone Therapy for Older Adults With Subclinical Hypothyroidism (TRUST) trial (N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2534-2544). All were 65 years or older and met the criteria for subclinical hypothyroidism, defined as persistent elevated TSH levels (4.60-19.99 mIU/L) in combination with a normal free-thyroxine level.

Dr. de Montmollin and her colleagues identified 132 participants with high hypothyroid symptom burden at baseline and 133 patients with high scores for tiredness, using the Thyroid-Related Quality-of-Life Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire. Cutoffs were a baseline symptoms score of higher than 30 (on a 1-100 scale), or a tiredness score of over 40.

At 1 year, researchers saw no statistically significant improvements in either measure for the L-thyroxine treated patients, compared with placebo.

Among the patients with high symptom burden, those on L-thyroxine saw a score improvement of –12.3 points, compared with –10.4 for those on placebo, for an adjusted between-group difference of –2.0 (95% confidence interval, –5.5 to 1.5; P = 0.27). Tiredness scores also improved similarly, dropping 8.9 points for L-thyroxine–treated patients, compared with –10.9 for those receiving placebo, for an adjusted between-group difference of 0.0 (95% CI, –4.1 to 4.0; P = 0.99).

Dr. de Montmollin and colleagues also noted no significant between-group differences in two secondary measures they looked at in the study: patient self-reported quality of life and handgrip strength, an objective measure of weakness.

The results “do not support the hypothesis that the subgroup of adults with SCH [subclinical hypothyroidism] and high symptom burden before treatment benefit from L-thyroxine therapy,” the investigators wrote in their analysis. “This may be because of regression to the mean, the natural history of SCH, or the placebo effect and may explain why many persons with symptomatic SCH and their treating physicians are convinced that L-thyroxine is beneficial,” they added.

In an interview, Dr. de Montmollin commented that treating physicians “should reconsider prescribing or offering L-thyroxine to older adults with SCH, even those with consistent symptoms, because there is no clear evidence for its benefit in treating SCH to date and a risk of harm related to overtreatment is still possible. In addition, it is associated with unnecessary costs for the patient and for the health system.”

The investigators mentioned several limitations to their study, including its post hoc design and a small sample size. Additionally, they wrote, the findings “cannot exclude the possibility that a rare subgroup with greater symptom burden would benefit from L-thyroxine therapy” or that more aggressive treatment leading to lower TSH levels would confer benefit.

The study was sponsored by the National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board, while the TRUST trial was sponsored by the European Union and with medication donated by Merck. Dr. de Montmollin and her coauthors disclosed no financial ties to industry.

SOURCE: De Montmollin et al. Ann Intern Med 2020 May 5. doi: 10.7326/M19-3193.

Use of systemic anticoagulation may improve the chance of survival in patients hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, a large study from the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak suggests.

Among nearly 3,000 patients with COVID-19 admitted to New York City’s Mount Sinai Health System beginning in mid-March, median survival increased from 14 days to 21 days with the addition of anticoagulation.

The results were particularly striking among sicker patients who required mechanical ventilation, in whom in-hospital mortality fell from 62.7% to 29.1% and median survival jumped from 9 days to 21 days.

Interestingly, the association with anticoagulation and improved survival remained even after adjusting for mechanical ventilation, the authors reported May 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s important for the community to know, first of all, how this should be approached and, second, it’s really opening a door to a new reality,” senior corresponding author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai’s Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and JACC editor-in-chief.

“I can tell you any family of mine who will have this disease absolutely will be on antithrombotic therapy and, actually, so are all of the patients at Mount Sinai now,” he said in an interview. COVID-19 is thought to promote thrombosis but the exact role of anticoagulation in the management of COVID-19 and optimal regimen are unknown.

In late March, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommended that all hospitalized COVID-19 patients, even those not in the ICU, should receive prophylactic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), unless they have contraindications.

Last month, international consensus-based recommendations were published for the diagnosis and management of thrombotic disease in patients with COVID-19.

In early March, however, data were scare and only a minimal number of patients were receiving anticoagulants at Mount Sinai.

“But after a few weeks, we reached an intuitive feeling that anticoagulation was of benefit and, at the same time, the literature was beginning to say clots were important in this disease,” Dr. Fuster said. “So we took a very straightforward approach and set up a policy in our institution that all COVID-19 patients should be on antithrombotic therapy. It was a decision made without data, but it was a feeling.”

For the present study, the researchers examined mortality and bleeding among 2,773 patients hospitalized at Mount Sinai with confirmed COVID-19 between March 14 and April 11.

Of these, 786 (28%) received systemic anticoagulation including subcutaneous heparin, LMWH, fractionated heparin, and the novel oral anticoagulants apixaban and dabigatran, for a median of 3 days (range, 2-7 days). Tissue plasminogen activator was also used in some ICU cases.

Major bleeding was defined as hemoglobin less than 7 g/dL and any red blood cell transfusion; at least two units of red blood cell transfusion within 48 hours; or a diagnosis code for major bleeding, notably including intracranial hemorrhage.

Patients treated with anticoagulation were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (29.8% vs. 8.1%) and to have significantly increased prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, C-reactive protein, and d-dimer values. In-hospital mortality was 22.5% with anticoagulation and 22.8% without anticoagulation (median survival, 14 days vs. 21 days).

In multivariate analysis, longer anticoagulation duration was associated with a 14% lower adjusted risk of in-hospital death (hazard ratio, 0.86 per day; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.89; P < .001).

The model adjusted for several potential confounders such as age, ethnicity, body mass index, and prehospital anticoagulation use. To adjust for differential length of stay and anticoagulation initiation, anticoagulation duration was used as a covariate and intubation was treated as a time-dependent variable.

Bleeding events were similar in patients treated with and without anticoagulation (3% vs. 1.9%; P = .2) but were more common among the 375 intubated patients than among nonintubated patients (7.5% vs. 1.35%; P value not given). “The most important thing was there was no increase in bleeding,” said Dr. Fuster.

Additional support for a possible survival benefit was published April 27 and included 449 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with heparin (mostly LMWH) for at least 7 days in Hunan, China. Overall, 28-day mortality was similar between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%) but was significantly lower among heparin users who had a Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy score of at least 4 (40% vs. 64.2%; P = .02) or d-dimer greater than sixfold the upper limit of normal (32.8% vs. 52.4%; P = .01).

In multivariate analysis, d-dimer, prothrombin time, and age were positively correlated with 28-day mortality, and platelet count was negatively correlated with 28-day mortality.

Victor F. Tapson, MD, who directs the pulmonary embolism response team at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and was not involved with the study, said, “The Chinese data were not enough for me to anticoagulate patients therapeutically” but the Mount Sinai data strengthen the case.

“They’re wise to call this a ‘suggestion of improved outcomes,’ but it’s pretty compelling that those patients who were on anticoagulation had improved survival after adjusting for mechanical ventilation,” he said in an interview. “These are sicker patients and sicker patients may get anticoagulated more, but they may bleed more. The bleed risks were a little different but they didn’t seem too concerning.”

“I think this helps move us forward some that we should consider anticoagulating with therapeutic anticoagulation certain patients that meet certain criteria,” Dr. Tapson said. “An easy example is a patient who comes to the hospital, has active cancer and is on a DOAC [direct oral anticoagulant], and comes up with COVID.”

At the same time, some clinicians want to increase prophylactic anticoagulation “using enoxaparin 40 mg once a day and maybe go to twice a day – not quite therapeutic doses but increased prophylaxis,” he observed. Anticoagulation was given at “relatively low doses” in the Mount Sinai study but that is evolving in light of the reassuring bleeding data, Dr. Fuster said. They now have three enoxaparin regimens and, for example, give patients who don’t require intensive care enoxaparin 30 mg twice a day, up from 40 mg a day initially.

Patients are also stratified by factors such as renal failure and obesity, creating an intermediate group between those not initially needing intensive care and ICU cases.

In the coming weeks, the researchers will evaluate anticoagulation regimens and a broader array of outcomes among 5,000 patients, two-thirds of whom received anticoagulation after Mount Sinai enacted its anticoagulation policy. “We’re now going to look at the difference between all these [regimens],” Dr. Fuster said. “My personal feeling and, for feasibility issues, I hope the winner is subcutaneous heparin.”

Three randomized trials are also planned. “Three questions we really want to ask are: what to give in the hospital, what to give those who go home after the hospital, and what to give those who are not hospitalized,” he said.

The work was supported by U54 TR001433-05, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fuster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tapson reported consulting and clinical trial work for BMS, Janssen, Daiichi Medical, ECOS/BTG, Inari, and Penumbra.

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

Use of systemic anticoagulation may improve the chance of survival in patients hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, a large study from the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak suggests.

Among nearly 3,000 patients with COVID-19 admitted to New York City’s Mount Sinai Health System beginning in mid-March, median survival increased from 14 days to 21 days with the addition of anticoagulation.

The results were particularly striking among sicker patients who required mechanical ventilation, in whom in-hospital mortality fell from 62.7% to 29.1% and median survival jumped from 9 days to 21 days.

Interestingly, the association with anticoagulation and improved survival remained even after adjusting for mechanical ventilation, the authors reported May 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s important for the community to know, first of all, how this should be approached and, second, it’s really opening a door to a new reality,” senior corresponding author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai’s Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and JACC editor-in-chief.

“I can tell you any family of mine who will have this disease absolutely will be on antithrombotic therapy and, actually, so are all of the patients at Mount Sinai now,” he said in an interview. COVID-19 is thought to promote thrombosis but the exact role of anticoagulation in the management of COVID-19 and optimal regimen are unknown.

In late March, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommended that all hospitalized COVID-19 patients, even those not in the ICU, should receive prophylactic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), unless they have contraindications.

Last month, international consensus-based recommendations were published for the diagnosis and management of thrombotic disease in patients with COVID-19.

In early March, however, data were scare and only a minimal number of patients were receiving anticoagulants at Mount Sinai.

“But after a few weeks, we reached an intuitive feeling that anticoagulation was of benefit and, at the same time, the literature was beginning to say clots were important in this disease,” Dr. Fuster said. “So we took a very straightforward approach and set up a policy in our institution that all COVID-19 patients should be on antithrombotic therapy. It was a decision made without data, but it was a feeling.”

For the present study, the researchers examined mortality and bleeding among 2,773 patients hospitalized at Mount Sinai with confirmed COVID-19 between March 14 and April 11.

Of these, 786 (28%) received systemic anticoagulation including subcutaneous heparin, LMWH, fractionated heparin, and the novel oral anticoagulants apixaban and dabigatran, for a median of 3 days (range, 2-7 days). Tissue plasminogen activator was also used in some ICU cases.

Major bleeding was defined as hemoglobin less than 7 g/dL and any red blood cell transfusion; at least two units of red blood cell transfusion within 48 hours; or a diagnosis code for major bleeding, notably including intracranial hemorrhage.

Patients treated with anticoagulation were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (29.8% vs. 8.1%) and to have significantly increased prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, C-reactive protein, and d-dimer values. In-hospital mortality was 22.5% with anticoagulation and 22.8% without anticoagulation (median survival, 14 days vs. 21 days).

In multivariate analysis, longer anticoagulation duration was associated with a 14% lower adjusted risk of in-hospital death (hazard ratio, 0.86 per day; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.89; P < .001).

The model adjusted for several potential confounders such as age, ethnicity, body mass index, and prehospital anticoagulation use. To adjust for differential length of stay and anticoagulation initiation, anticoagulation duration was used as a covariate and intubation was treated as a time-dependent variable.

Bleeding events were similar in patients treated with and without anticoagulation (3% vs. 1.9%; P = .2) but were more common among the 375 intubated patients than among nonintubated patients (7.5% vs. 1.35%; P value not given). “The most important thing was there was no increase in bleeding,” said Dr. Fuster.

Additional support for a possible survival benefit was published April 27 and included 449 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with heparin (mostly LMWH) for at least 7 days in Hunan, China. Overall, 28-day mortality was similar between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%) but was significantly lower among heparin users who had a Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy score of at least 4 (40% vs. 64.2%; P = .02) or d-dimer greater than sixfold the upper limit of normal (32.8% vs. 52.4%; P = .01).

In multivariate analysis, d-dimer, prothrombin time, and age were positively correlated with 28-day mortality, and platelet count was negatively correlated with 28-day mortality.

Victor F. Tapson, MD, who directs the pulmonary embolism response team at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and was not involved with the study, said, “The Chinese data were not enough for me to anticoagulate patients therapeutically” but the Mount Sinai data strengthen the case.

“They’re wise to call this a ‘suggestion of improved outcomes,’ but it’s pretty compelling that those patients who were on anticoagulation had improved survival after adjusting for mechanical ventilation,” he said in an interview. “These are sicker patients and sicker patients may get anticoagulated more, but they may bleed more. The bleed risks were a little different but they didn’t seem too concerning.”

“I think this helps move us forward some that we should consider anticoagulating with therapeutic anticoagulation certain patients that meet certain criteria,” Dr. Tapson said. “An easy example is a patient who comes to the hospital, has active cancer and is on a DOAC [direct oral anticoagulant], and comes up with COVID.”

At the same time, some clinicians want to increase prophylactic anticoagulation “using enoxaparin 40 mg once a day and maybe go to twice a day – not quite therapeutic doses but increased prophylaxis,” he observed. Anticoagulation was given at “relatively low doses” in the Mount Sinai study but that is evolving in light of the reassuring bleeding data, Dr. Fuster said. They now have three enoxaparin regimens and, for example, give patients who don’t require intensive care enoxaparin 30 mg twice a day, up from 40 mg a day initially.

Patients are also stratified by factors such as renal failure and obesity, creating an intermediate group between those not initially needing intensive care and ICU cases.

In the coming weeks, the researchers will evaluate anticoagulation regimens and a broader array of outcomes among 5,000 patients, two-thirds of whom received anticoagulation after Mount Sinai enacted its anticoagulation policy. “We’re now going to look at the difference between all these [regimens],” Dr. Fuster said. “My personal feeling and, for feasibility issues, I hope the winner is subcutaneous heparin.”

Three randomized trials are also planned. “Three questions we really want to ask are: what to give in the hospital, what to give those who go home after the hospital, and what to give those who are not hospitalized,” he said.

The work was supported by U54 TR001433-05, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fuster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tapson reported consulting and clinical trial work for BMS, Janssen, Daiichi Medical, ECOS/BTG, Inari, and Penumbra.

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

Use of systemic anticoagulation may improve the chance of survival in patients hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, a large study from the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak suggests.

Among nearly 3,000 patients with COVID-19 admitted to New York City’s Mount Sinai Health System beginning in mid-March, median survival increased from 14 days to 21 days with the addition of anticoagulation.

The results were particularly striking among sicker patients who required mechanical ventilation, in whom in-hospital mortality fell from 62.7% to 29.1% and median survival jumped from 9 days to 21 days.

Interestingly, the association with anticoagulation and improved survival remained even after adjusting for mechanical ventilation, the authors reported May 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s important for the community to know, first of all, how this should be approached and, second, it’s really opening a door to a new reality,” senior corresponding author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai’s Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and JACC editor-in-chief.

“I can tell you any family of mine who will have this disease absolutely will be on antithrombotic therapy and, actually, so are all of the patients at Mount Sinai now,” he said in an interview. COVID-19 is thought to promote thrombosis but the exact role of anticoagulation in the management of COVID-19 and optimal regimen are unknown.

In late March, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommended that all hospitalized COVID-19 patients, even those not in the ICU, should receive prophylactic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), unless they have contraindications.

Last month, international consensus-based recommendations were published for the diagnosis and management of thrombotic disease in patients with COVID-19.

In early March, however, data were scare and only a minimal number of patients were receiving anticoagulants at Mount Sinai.

“But after a few weeks, we reached an intuitive feeling that anticoagulation was of benefit and, at the same time, the literature was beginning to say clots were important in this disease,” Dr. Fuster said. “So we took a very straightforward approach and set up a policy in our institution that all COVID-19 patients should be on antithrombotic therapy. It was a decision made without data, but it was a feeling.”

For the present study, the researchers examined mortality and bleeding among 2,773 patients hospitalized at Mount Sinai with confirmed COVID-19 between March 14 and April 11.

Of these, 786 (28%) received systemic anticoagulation including subcutaneous heparin, LMWH, fractionated heparin, and the novel oral anticoagulants apixaban and dabigatran, for a median of 3 days (range, 2-7 days). Tissue plasminogen activator was also used in some ICU cases.

Major bleeding was defined as hemoglobin less than 7 g/dL and any red blood cell transfusion; at least two units of red blood cell transfusion within 48 hours; or a diagnosis code for major bleeding, notably including intracranial hemorrhage.

Patients treated with anticoagulation were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (29.8% vs. 8.1%) and to have significantly increased prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, C-reactive protein, and d-dimer values. In-hospital mortality was 22.5% with anticoagulation and 22.8% without anticoagulation (median survival, 14 days vs. 21 days).

In multivariate analysis, longer anticoagulation duration was associated with a 14% lower adjusted risk of in-hospital death (hazard ratio, 0.86 per day; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.89; P < .001).

The model adjusted for several potential confounders such as age, ethnicity, body mass index, and prehospital anticoagulation use. To adjust for differential length of stay and anticoagulation initiation, anticoagulation duration was used as a covariate and intubation was treated as a time-dependent variable.

Bleeding events were similar in patients treated with and without anticoagulation (3% vs. 1.9%; P = .2) but were more common among the 375 intubated patients than among nonintubated patients (7.5% vs. 1.35%; P value not given). “The most important thing was there was no increase in bleeding,” said Dr. Fuster.

Additional support for a possible survival benefit was published April 27 and included 449 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with heparin (mostly LMWH) for at least 7 days in Hunan, China. Overall, 28-day mortality was similar between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%) but was significantly lower among heparin users who had a Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy score of at least 4 (40% vs. 64.2%; P = .02) or d-dimer greater than sixfold the upper limit of normal (32.8% vs. 52.4%; P = .01).

In multivariate analysis, d-dimer, prothrombin time, and age were positively correlated with 28-day mortality, and platelet count was negatively correlated with 28-day mortality.

Victor F. Tapson, MD, who directs the pulmonary embolism response team at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and was not involved with the study, said, “The Chinese data were not enough for me to anticoagulate patients therapeutically” but the Mount Sinai data strengthen the case.

“They’re wise to call this a ‘suggestion of improved outcomes,’ but it’s pretty compelling that those patients who were on anticoagulation had improved survival after adjusting for mechanical ventilation,” he said in an interview. “These are sicker patients and sicker patients may get anticoagulated more, but they may bleed more. The bleed risks were a little different but they didn’t seem too concerning.”

“I think this helps move us forward some that we should consider anticoagulating with therapeutic anticoagulation certain patients that meet certain criteria,” Dr. Tapson said. “An easy example is a patient who comes to the hospital, has active cancer and is on a DOAC [direct oral anticoagulant], and comes up with COVID.”

At the same time, some clinicians want to increase prophylactic anticoagulation “using enoxaparin 40 mg once a day and maybe go to twice a day – not quite therapeutic doses but increased prophylaxis,” he observed. Anticoagulation was given at “relatively low doses” in the Mount Sinai study but that is evolving in light of the reassuring bleeding data, Dr. Fuster said. They now have three enoxaparin regimens and, for example, give patients who don’t require intensive care enoxaparin 30 mg twice a day, up from 40 mg a day initially.

Patients are also stratified by factors such as renal failure and obesity, creating an intermediate group between those not initially needing intensive care and ICU cases.

In the coming weeks, the researchers will evaluate anticoagulation regimens and a broader array of outcomes among 5,000 patients, two-thirds of whom received anticoagulation after Mount Sinai enacted its anticoagulation policy. “We’re now going to look at the difference between all these [regimens],” Dr. Fuster said. “My personal feeling and, for feasibility issues, I hope the winner is subcutaneous heparin.”

Three randomized trials are also planned. “Three questions we really want to ask are: what to give in the hospital, what to give those who go home after the hospital, and what to give those who are not hospitalized,” he said.

The work was supported by U54 TR001433-05, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fuster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tapson reported consulting and clinical trial work for BMS, Janssen, Daiichi Medical, ECOS/BTG, Inari, and Penumbra.

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

No form of human misery can be allowed to go unexploited, and the pandemic, it seems, is no exception.

As part of Operation Quack Hack, the Food and Drug Administration has stepped up its investigation and enforcement efforts against companies and individuals that are “taking advantage of widespread fear among consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic” by selling fake products and treatments for coronavirus.

As of May 7, 2020, the agency had issued 42 warning letters to companies that were “selling unapproved products that fraudulently claim to mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose or cure COVID-19,” the FDA announced in a written statement. Of those 42 products, 29 are no longer being sold with any sort of COVID-19 claim.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, Operation Quack Hack has uncovered hundreds of such products – drugs, testing kits, and personal protective equipment – being sold online, and complaints were sent to domain-name registrars and Internet marketplaces that have, in most cases, removed the postings, the FDA said.

“We will continue to monitor the online ecosystem for fraudulent products peddled by bad actors seeking to profit from this global pandemic. We encourage anyone aware of suspected fraudulent medical products for COVID-19 to report them to the FDA,” the statement said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

No form of human misery can be allowed to go unexploited, and the pandemic, it seems, is no exception.

As part of Operation Quack Hack, the Food and Drug Administration has stepped up its investigation and enforcement efforts against companies and individuals that are “taking advantage of widespread fear among consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic” by selling fake products and treatments for coronavirus.

As of May 7, 2020, the agency had issued 42 warning letters to companies that were “selling unapproved products that fraudulently claim to mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose or cure COVID-19,” the FDA announced in a written statement. Of those 42 products, 29 are no longer being sold with any sort of COVID-19 claim.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, Operation Quack Hack has uncovered hundreds of such products – drugs, testing kits, and personal protective equipment – being sold online, and complaints were sent to domain-name registrars and Internet marketplaces that have, in most cases, removed the postings, the FDA said.

“We will continue to monitor the online ecosystem for fraudulent products peddled by bad actors seeking to profit from this global pandemic. We encourage anyone aware of suspected fraudulent medical products for COVID-19 to report them to the FDA,” the statement said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

No form of human misery can be allowed to go unexploited, and the pandemic, it seems, is no exception.

As part of Operation Quack Hack, the Food and Drug Administration has stepped up its investigation and enforcement efforts against companies and individuals that are “taking advantage of widespread fear among consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic” by selling fake products and treatments for coronavirus.

As of May 7, 2020, the agency had issued 42 warning letters to companies that were “selling unapproved products that fraudulently claim to mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose or cure COVID-19,” the FDA announced in a written statement. Of those 42 products, 29 are no longer being sold with any sort of COVID-19 claim.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, Operation Quack Hack has uncovered hundreds of such products – drugs, testing kits, and personal protective equipment – being sold online, and complaints were sent to domain-name registrars and Internet marketplaces that have, in most cases, removed the postings, the FDA said.

“We will continue to monitor the online ecosystem for fraudulent products peddled by bad actors seeking to profit from this global pandemic. We encourage anyone aware of suspected fraudulent medical products for COVID-19 to report them to the FDA,” the statement said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

On Thursday, April 23, 2020, MDedge Psychiatry hosted a Twitter conversation at #MDedgeChats on COVID-19 and mental health.

Two psychiatrists affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, Dinah Miller, MD (@shrinkrapdinah), and Elizabeth Ryznar, MD (@RyznarMD), hosted the conversation. Throughout the conversation several themes emerged. One is that COVID-19 illustrates the connections between housing and health, and another is that stigma tied to being COVID positive is leading to suicidality, particularly in Haiti. The discussants also talked about the importance of self-care.

Questions asked during the Twitter chat:

1. How are your pre-pandemic patients doing during this crisis?
2. How has COVID-19 affected inpatient and outpatient care for you?
3. How are our most vulnerable populations being affected by COVID-19?
4. How are you doing personally and professionally as medical professionals during the pandemic?
5. What psychiatric manifestations are you seeing in your patients who have had COVID-19?

The following is an edited version of the discussion. For the full experience, visit our Twitter archive, you can still join the conversation.

Some experts are predicting that the magnitude of the mental health fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will be profound. They also have concerns that physical distancing and increased unemployment forced by the pandemic will lead to a rise in suicide risk, particularly for at-risk populations.¹

For psychiatric patients, COVID-19 is expected to leave behind higher levels of anxiety, depression, and insomnia.² 

And for health care workers on the front lines, the mental health toll could lead to stress, burnout, and worse.

Clinicians are also dealing with shortages of PPE and medical equipment, worrying about their safety and that of their families, while trying to save lives amid great uncertainty about SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

Most recently an emergency department physician in New York who was recovering from COVID-19 herself reportedly recently ended her own life, according to her father, who is a physician.

As Dr. Sarah Candler said in a previous twitter chat with MDedge Internal Medicine, “Good doctors take care of themselves, too.” Be kind to yourself during this global crisis.

The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is always available at 1-800-273-TALK (8255).

Resources

• Mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic
• Brief examines the COVID-19 crisis’ implications for Americans’ mental health
• COVID-19: Helping health care workers on the front lines
• Overcoming COVID-related stress
• Confessions of an outpatient psychiatrist during the pandemic
• Psychiatric patients may be among the hardest hit
• Experts hasten to head off mental health crisis
• Podcast: Physician Suicide

¹Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 21. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20):30171-1.

²Brain, Behav Immun. 2020 Apr 27. doi: 10.10116/j.bbi.2020.04.069).

Kclark@mdedge.com
ghenderson@mdedge.com

On Thursday, April 23, 2020, MDedge Psychiatry hosted a Twitter conversation at #MDedgeChats on COVID-19 and mental health.

Two psychiatrists affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, Dinah Miller, MD (@shrinkrapdinah), and Elizabeth Ryznar, MD (@RyznarMD), hosted the conversation. Throughout the conversation several themes emerged. One is that COVID-19 illustrates the connections between housing and health, and another is that stigma tied to being COVID positive is leading to suicidality, particularly in Haiti. The discussants also talked about the importance of self-care.

Questions asked during the Twitter chat:

1. How are your pre-pandemic patients doing during this crisis?
2. How has COVID-19 affected inpatient and outpatient care for you?
3. How are our most vulnerable populations being affected by COVID-19?
4. How are you doing personally and professionally as medical professionals during the pandemic?
5. What psychiatric manifestations are you seeing in your patients who have had COVID-19?

The following is an edited version of the discussion. For the full experience, visit our Twitter archive, you can still join the conversation.

Some experts are predicting that the magnitude of the mental health fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will be profound. They also have concerns that physical distancing and increased unemployment forced by the pandemic will lead to a rise in suicide risk, particularly for at-risk populations.¹

For psychiatric patients, COVID-19 is expected to leave behind higher levels of anxiety, depression, and insomnia.² 

And for health care workers on the front lines, the mental health toll could lead to stress, burnout, and worse.

Clinicians are also dealing with shortages of PPE and medical equipment, worrying about their safety and that of their families, while trying to save lives amid great uncertainty about SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

Most recently an emergency department physician in New York who was recovering from COVID-19 herself reportedly recently ended her own life, according to her father, who is a physician.

As Dr. Sarah Candler said in a previous twitter chat with MDedge Internal Medicine, “Good doctors take care of themselves, too.” Be kind to yourself during this global crisis.

The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is always available at 1-800-273-TALK (8255).

Resources

• Mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic
• Brief examines the COVID-19 crisis’ implications for Americans’ mental health
• COVID-19: Helping health care workers on the front lines
• Overcoming COVID-related stress
• Confessions of an outpatient psychiatrist during the pandemic
• Psychiatric patients may be among the hardest hit
• Experts hasten to head off mental health crisis
• Podcast: Physician Suicide

¹Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 21. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20):30171-1.

²Brain, Behav Immun. 2020 Apr 27. doi: 10.10116/j.bbi.2020.04.069).

Kclark@mdedge.com
ghenderson@mdedge.com

On Thursday, April 23, 2020, MDedge Psychiatry hosted a Twitter conversation at #MDedgeChats on COVID-19 and mental health.

Two psychiatrists affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, Dinah Miller, MD (@shrinkrapdinah), and Elizabeth Ryznar, MD (@RyznarMD), hosted the conversation. Throughout the conversation several themes emerged. One is that COVID-19 illustrates the connections between housing and health, and another is that stigma tied to being COVID positive is leading to suicidality, particularly in Haiti. The discussants also talked about the importance of self-care.

Questions asked during the Twitter chat:

1. How are your pre-pandemic patients doing during this crisis?
2. How has COVID-19 affected inpatient and outpatient care for you?
3. How are our most vulnerable populations being affected by COVID-19?
4. How are you doing personally and professionally as medical professionals during the pandemic?
5. What psychiatric manifestations are you seeing in your patients who have had COVID-19?

The following is an edited version of the discussion. For the full experience, visit our Twitter archive, you can still join the conversation.

Some experts are predicting that the magnitude of the mental health fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will be profound. They also have concerns that physical distancing and increased unemployment forced by the pandemic will lead to a rise in suicide risk, particularly for at-risk populations.¹

For psychiatric patients, COVID-19 is expected to leave behind higher levels of anxiety, depression, and insomnia.² 

And for health care workers on the front lines, the mental health toll could lead to stress, burnout, and worse.

Clinicians are also dealing with shortages of PPE and medical equipment, worrying about their safety and that of their families, while trying to save lives amid great uncertainty about SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

Most recently an emergency department physician in New York who was recovering from COVID-19 herself reportedly recently ended her own life, according to her father, who is a physician.

As Dr. Sarah Candler said in a previous twitter chat with MDedge Internal Medicine, “Good doctors take care of themselves, too.” Be kind to yourself during this global crisis.

The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is always available at 1-800-273-TALK (8255).

Resources

• Mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic
• Brief examines the COVID-19 crisis’ implications for Americans’ mental health
• COVID-19: Helping health care workers on the front lines
• Overcoming COVID-related stress
• Confessions of an outpatient psychiatrist during the pandemic
• Psychiatric patients may be among the hardest hit
• Experts hasten to head off mental health crisis
• Podcast: Physician Suicide

¹Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 21. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(20):30171-1.

²Brain, Behav Immun. 2020 Apr 27. doi: 10.10116/j.bbi.2020.04.069).

Kclark@mdedge.com
ghenderson@mdedge.com

In patients with stable chest pain, the burden of low-attenuation noncalcified plaque on coronary CT angiography is a better predictor of future myocardial infarction risk than a cardiovascular risk score, an Agatson coronary artery calcium score, or angiographic severity of coronary stenoses, Michelle C. Williams, MBChB, PhD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

These findings from a post hoc analysis of the large multicenter SCOT-HEART trial challenge current concepts regarding the supposed superiority of the classic tools for MI risk prediction, noted Dr. Williams, a senior clinical research fellow at the University of Edinburgh.

Indeed, it’s likely that the current established predictors of risk – that is, coronary artery calcium, severity of stenosis, and cardiovascular risk score – are associated with clinical events only indirectly through their correlation with low-attenuated calcified plaque burden, which is the real driver of future MI, she continued.

Histologically, low-attenuated noncalcified plaque on coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is defined by a thin fibrous cap, a large, inflamed, lipid-rich necrotic core, and microcalcification. Previously, Dr. Williams and her coinvestigators demonstrated that visual identification of this unstable plaque subtype is of benefit in predicting future risk of MI (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jan 29;73[3]:291-301).

But visual identification of plaque subtypes is a crude and laborious process. In her current study, she and her coworkers have taken things a giant step further, using commercially available CCTA software to semiautomatically quantify the burden of this highest-risk plaque subtype as well as all the other subtypes.

This post hoc analysis of the previously reported main SCOT-HEART trial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 6;379[10]:924-933) included 1,769 patients with stable chest pain randomized to standard care with or without CCTA guidance and followed for a median of 4.7 years, during which 41 patients had a fatal or nonfatal MI. At enrollment, 37% of participants had normal coronary arteries, 38% had nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), and the remainder had obstructive CAD.

In a multivariate analysis, low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden was the strongest predictor of future MI, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.6 per doubling. This metric was strongly correlated with coronary artery calcium score, underscoring the limited value of doing noncontrast CT in order to determine a coronary artery calcium score when CCTA is performed.

Low-attenuation plaque burden correlated very strongly with angiographic severity of stenosis, and only weakly with cardiovascular risk score, perhaps explaining the poor prognostic performance of cardiovascular risk scores in SCOT-HEART and other studies, according to Dr. Williams.

Patients with a low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden greater than 4% in their coronary tree were 4.7 times more likely to have a subsequent MI than were those with a lesser burden. The predictive power was even greater in patients with nonobstructive CAD, where a low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden in excess of 4% conferred a 6.6-fold greater likelihood of fatal or nonfatal MI, she observed.

Two things need to happen before measurement of low-attenuation noncalcified plaque via CCTA to predict MI risk is ready to be adopted in routine clinical practice, according to Dr. Williams. These SCOT-HEART results need to be validated in other cohorts, a process now underway in the SCOT-HEART 2 trial and other studies. Also, improved software incorporating machine learning is needed in order to speed up the semiautomated analysis of plaque subtypes, which now takes 20-30 minutes.

Dr. Williams reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, funded by the National Health Service.

In conjunction with her virtual presentation at ACC 2020, the SCOT-HEART study results were published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044720. [Epub ahead of print]).

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Williams MC et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 909-06.

In patients with stable chest pain, the burden of low-attenuation noncalcified plaque on coronary CT angiography is a better predictor of future myocardial infarction risk than a cardiovascular risk score, an Agatson coronary artery calcium score, or angiographic severity of coronary stenoses, Michelle C. Williams, MBChB, PhD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

These findings from a post hoc analysis of the large multicenter SCOT-HEART trial challenge current concepts regarding the supposed superiority of the classic tools for MI risk prediction, noted Dr. Williams, a senior clinical research fellow at the University of Edinburgh.

Indeed, it’s likely that the current established predictors of risk – that is, coronary artery calcium, severity of stenosis, and cardiovascular risk score – are associated with clinical events only indirectly through their correlation with low-attenuated calcified plaque burden, which is the real driver of future MI, she continued.

Histologically, low-attenuated noncalcified plaque on coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is defined by a thin fibrous cap, a large, inflamed, lipid-rich necrotic core, and microcalcification. Previously, Dr. Williams and her coinvestigators demonstrated that visual identification of this unstable plaque subtype is of benefit in predicting future risk of MI (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jan 29;73[3]:291-301).

But visual identification of plaque subtypes is a crude and laborious process. In her current study, she and her coworkers have taken things a giant step further, using commercially available CCTA software to semiautomatically quantify the burden of this highest-risk plaque subtype as well as all the other subtypes.

This post hoc analysis of the previously reported main SCOT-HEART trial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 6;379[10]:924-933) included 1,769 patients with stable chest pain randomized to standard care with or without CCTA guidance and followed for a median of 4.7 years, during which 41 patients had a fatal or nonfatal MI. At enrollment, 37% of participants had normal coronary arteries, 38% had nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), and the remainder had obstructive CAD.

In a multivariate analysis, low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden was the strongest predictor of future MI, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.6 per doubling. This metric was strongly correlated with coronary artery calcium score, underscoring the limited value of doing noncontrast CT in order to determine a coronary artery calcium score when CCTA is performed.

Low-attenuation plaque burden correlated very strongly with angiographic severity of stenosis, and only weakly with cardiovascular risk score, perhaps explaining the poor prognostic performance of cardiovascular risk scores in SCOT-HEART and other studies, according to Dr. Williams.

Patients with a low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden greater than 4% in their coronary tree were 4.7 times more likely to have a subsequent MI than were those with a lesser burden. The predictive power was even greater in patients with nonobstructive CAD, where a low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden in excess of 4% conferred a 6.6-fold greater likelihood of fatal or nonfatal MI, she observed.

Two things need to happen before measurement of low-attenuation noncalcified plaque via CCTA to predict MI risk is ready to be adopted in routine clinical practice, according to Dr. Williams. These SCOT-HEART results need to be validated in other cohorts, a process now underway in the SCOT-HEART 2 trial and other studies. Also, improved software incorporating machine learning is needed in order to speed up the semiautomated analysis of plaque subtypes, which now takes 20-30 minutes.

Dr. Williams reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, funded by the National Health Service.

In conjunction with her virtual presentation at ACC 2020, the SCOT-HEART study results were published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044720. [Epub ahead of print]).

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Williams MC et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 909-06.

In patients with stable chest pain, the burden of low-attenuation noncalcified plaque on coronary CT angiography is a better predictor of future myocardial infarction risk than a cardiovascular risk score, an Agatson coronary artery calcium score, or angiographic severity of coronary stenoses, Michelle C. Williams, MBChB, PhD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

These findings from a post hoc analysis of the large multicenter SCOT-HEART trial challenge current concepts regarding the supposed superiority of the classic tools for MI risk prediction, noted Dr. Williams, a senior clinical research fellow at the University of Edinburgh.

Indeed, it’s likely that the current established predictors of risk – that is, coronary artery calcium, severity of stenosis, and cardiovascular risk score – are associated with clinical events only indirectly through their correlation with low-attenuated calcified plaque burden, which is the real driver of future MI, she continued.

Histologically, low-attenuated noncalcified plaque on coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is defined by a thin fibrous cap, a large, inflamed, lipid-rich necrotic core, and microcalcification. Previously, Dr. Williams and her coinvestigators demonstrated that visual identification of this unstable plaque subtype is of benefit in predicting future risk of MI (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jan 29;73[3]:291-301).

But visual identification of plaque subtypes is a crude and laborious process. In her current study, she and her coworkers have taken things a giant step further, using commercially available CCTA software to semiautomatically quantify the burden of this highest-risk plaque subtype as well as all the other subtypes.

This post hoc analysis of the previously reported main SCOT-HEART trial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 6;379[10]:924-933) included 1,769 patients with stable chest pain randomized to standard care with or without CCTA guidance and followed for a median of 4.7 years, during which 41 patients had a fatal or nonfatal MI. At enrollment, 37% of participants had normal coronary arteries, 38% had nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), and the remainder had obstructive CAD.

In a multivariate analysis, low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden was the strongest predictor of future MI, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.6 per doubling. This metric was strongly correlated with coronary artery calcium score, underscoring the limited value of doing noncontrast CT in order to determine a coronary artery calcium score when CCTA is performed.

Low-attenuation plaque burden correlated very strongly with angiographic severity of stenosis, and only weakly with cardiovascular risk score, perhaps explaining the poor prognostic performance of cardiovascular risk scores in SCOT-HEART and other studies, according to Dr. Williams.

Patients with a low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden greater than 4% in their coronary tree were 4.7 times more likely to have a subsequent MI than were those with a lesser burden. The predictive power was even greater in patients with nonobstructive CAD, where a low-attenuation noncalcified plaque burden in excess of 4% conferred a 6.6-fold greater likelihood of fatal or nonfatal MI, she observed.

Two things need to happen before measurement of low-attenuation noncalcified plaque via CCTA to predict MI risk is ready to be adopted in routine clinical practice, according to Dr. Williams. These SCOT-HEART results need to be validated in other cohorts, a process now underway in the SCOT-HEART 2 trial and other studies. Also, improved software incorporating machine learning is needed in order to speed up the semiautomated analysis of plaque subtypes, which now takes 20-30 minutes.

Dr. Williams reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, funded by the National Health Service.

In conjunction with her virtual presentation at ACC 2020, the SCOT-HEART study results were published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044720. [Epub ahead of print]).

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Williams MC et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 909-06.

An additional 75,000 Americans could die by suicide, drugs, or alcohol abuse because of the COVID-19 pandemic, projections from a new national report released today suggest.

The number of “deaths of despair” could be even higher if the country fails to take bold action to address the mental health toll of unemployment, isolation, and uncertainty, according to the report from the Well Being Trust (WBT) and the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care.

“If nothing happens and nothing improves – ie, the worst-case scenario – we could be looking at an additional 150,000 people who died who didn’t have to,” Benjamin Miller, PsyD, WBT chief strategy officer, told Medscape Medical News.

“We can prevent these deaths. We know how and have a bevy of evidence-based solutions. We lack the resources to really stand this up in a way that can most positively impact communities,” Miller added.

Slow recovery, quick recovery scenarios

For the analysis, Miller and colleagues combined information on the number of deaths from suicide, alcohol, and drugs from 2018 as a baseline (n = 181,686). They projected levels of unemployment from 2020 to 2029 and then used economic modeling to estimate the additional annual number of deaths.

Across nine different scenarios, the number of additional deaths of despair range from 27,644 (quick recovery, smallest impact of unemployment on suicide, alcohol-, and drug-related deaths) to 154,037 (slow recovery, greatest impact of unemployment on these deaths), with 75,000 being the most likely.

The report offers several policy solutions to prevent a surge in “avoidable” deaths. They include finding ways to ameliorate the effects of unemployment and provide meaningful work to those who are out of work. Making access to care easier and fully integrating mental health and addiction care into primary and clinical care as well as community settings are also essential.

These solutions should also serve to prevent drug and alcohol misuse and suicide in normal times, the researchers say.

Miller believes it’s time for the federal government to fully support a framework of excellence in mental health and well-being and to invest in mental health now.

“In the short term, we need at least $48 billion to keep the lights on in the current system,” he said.

“This is because 92.6% of mental health organizations have had to reduce their operations in some capacity, 61.8% have had to completely close at least one program, and 31.0% have had to turn away patients. This scenario is not optimal for people who will need a system to help them right now during a crisis,” he added.

In the long term, $150 billion is needed for a “massive structural redesign” of the US mental health system, Miller said.

“This means bringing mental health fully into all facets of our healthcare system, of our community. It will take robust investment in creating new mechanisms for care ― those that are team-based, create a new type of workforce to deliver that care, and one that is seamless across clinical and community settings,” said Miller.

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

An additional 75,000 Americans could die by suicide, drugs, or alcohol abuse because of the COVID-19 pandemic, projections from a new national report released today suggest.

The number of “deaths of despair” could be even higher if the country fails to take bold action to address the mental health toll of unemployment, isolation, and uncertainty, according to the report from the Well Being Trust (WBT) and the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care.

“If nothing happens and nothing improves – ie, the worst-case scenario – we could be looking at an additional 150,000 people who died who didn’t have to,” Benjamin Miller, PsyD, WBT chief strategy officer, told Medscape Medical News.

“We can prevent these deaths. We know how and have a bevy of evidence-based solutions. We lack the resources to really stand this up in a way that can most positively impact communities,” Miller added.

Slow recovery, quick recovery scenarios

For the analysis, Miller and colleagues combined information on the number of deaths from suicide, alcohol, and drugs from 2018 as a baseline (n = 181,686). They projected levels of unemployment from 2020 to 2029 and then used economic modeling to estimate the additional annual number of deaths.

Across nine different scenarios, the number of additional deaths of despair range from 27,644 (quick recovery, smallest impact of unemployment on suicide, alcohol-, and drug-related deaths) to 154,037 (slow recovery, greatest impact of unemployment on these deaths), with 75,000 being the most likely.

The report offers several policy solutions to prevent a surge in “avoidable” deaths. They include finding ways to ameliorate the effects of unemployment and provide meaningful work to those who are out of work. Making access to care easier and fully integrating mental health and addiction care into primary and clinical care as well as community settings are also essential.

These solutions should also serve to prevent drug and alcohol misuse and suicide in normal times, the researchers say.

Miller believes it’s time for the federal government to fully support a framework of excellence in mental health and well-being and to invest in mental health now.

“In the short term, we need at least $48 billion to keep the lights on in the current system,” he said.

“This is because 92.6% of mental health organizations have had to reduce their operations in some capacity, 61.8% have had to completely close at least one program, and 31.0% have had to turn away patients. This scenario is not optimal for people who will need a system to help them right now during a crisis,” he added.

In the long term, $150 billion is needed for a “massive structural redesign” of the US mental health system, Miller said.

“This means bringing mental health fully into all facets of our healthcare system, of our community. It will take robust investment in creating new mechanisms for care ― those that are team-based, create a new type of workforce to deliver that care, and one that is seamless across clinical and community settings,” said Miller.

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

An additional 75,000 Americans could die by suicide, drugs, or alcohol abuse because of the COVID-19 pandemic, projections from a new national report released today suggest.

The number of “deaths of despair” could be even higher if the country fails to take bold action to address the mental health toll of unemployment, isolation, and uncertainty, according to the report from the Well Being Trust (WBT) and the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care.

“If nothing happens and nothing improves – ie, the worst-case scenario – we could be looking at an additional 150,000 people who died who didn’t have to,” Benjamin Miller, PsyD, WBT chief strategy officer, told Medscape Medical News.

“We can prevent these deaths. We know how and have a bevy of evidence-based solutions. We lack the resources to really stand this up in a way that can most positively impact communities,” Miller added.

Slow recovery, quick recovery scenarios

For the analysis, Miller and colleagues combined information on the number of deaths from suicide, alcohol, and drugs from 2018 as a baseline (n = 181,686). They projected levels of unemployment from 2020 to 2029 and then used economic modeling to estimate the additional annual number of deaths.

Across nine different scenarios, the number of additional deaths of despair range from 27,644 (quick recovery, smallest impact of unemployment on suicide, alcohol-, and drug-related deaths) to 154,037 (slow recovery, greatest impact of unemployment on these deaths), with 75,000 being the most likely.

The report offers several policy solutions to prevent a surge in “avoidable” deaths. They include finding ways to ameliorate the effects of unemployment and provide meaningful work to those who are out of work. Making access to care easier and fully integrating mental health and addiction care into primary and clinical care as well as community settings are also essential.

These solutions should also serve to prevent drug and alcohol misuse and suicide in normal times, the researchers say.

Miller believes it’s time for the federal government to fully support a framework of excellence in mental health and well-being and to invest in mental health now.

“In the short term, we need at least $48 billion to keep the lights on in the current system,” he said.

“This is because 92.6% of mental health organizations have had to reduce their operations in some capacity, 61.8% have had to completely close at least one program, and 31.0% have had to turn away patients. This scenario is not optimal for people who will need a system to help them right now during a crisis,” he added.

In the long term, $150 billion is needed for a “massive structural redesign” of the US mental health system, Miller said.

“This means bringing mental health fully into all facets of our healthcare system, of our community. It will take robust investment in creating new mechanisms for care ― those that are team-based, create a new type of workforce to deliver that care, and one that is seamless across clinical and community settings,” said Miller.

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