All Content

The U.S. health care system is famously resistant to government-imposed change. It took decades to create Medicare and Medicaid, mostly because of opposition from the medical-industrial complex. Then it was nearly another half-century before the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

But the COVID-19 pandemic has done what no president or social movement or venture capitalist could have dreamed of: It forced sudden major changes to the nation’s health care system that are unlikely to be reversed.

“Health care is never going back to the way it was before,” said Gail Wilensky, a health economist who ran the Medicare and Medicaid programs for President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.

Ms. Wilensky is far from the only longtime observer of the American health care system to marvel at the speed of some long-sought changes. But experts warn that the breakthroughs may not all make the health system work better or make it less expensive.

That said, here are three trends that seem likely to continue.
 

Telehealth for all

Telehealth is not new; medical professionals have used it to reach patients in rural or remote settings since the late 1980s.

But even while technology has made video visits easier, it has failed to reach critical mass, largely because of political fights. Licensing has been one main obstacle – determining how a doctor in one state can legally treat a patient in a state where the doctor is not licensed.

The other obstacle, not surprisingly, is payment. Should a video visit be reimbursed at the same rate as an in-person visit? Will making it easier for doctors and other medical professionals to use telehealth encourage unnecessary care, thus driving up the nation’s $3.6 trillion health tab even more? Or could it replace care once provided free by phone?

Still, the pandemic has pushed aside those sticking points. Almost overnight, by necessity, every health care provider who can is delivering telemedicine. A new survey from Gallup found the number of patients reporting “virtual” medical visits more than doubled, from 12% to 27%, from late March to mid-May. That is attributable, at least in part, to Medicare having made it easier for doctors to bill for virtual visits.

It’s easy to see why many patients like video visits – there’s no parking to find and pay for, and it takes far less time out of a workday than going to an office.

Doctors and other practitioners seem more ambivalent. On one hand, it can be harder to examine a patient over video and some services just can’t be done via a digital connection. On the other hand, they can see more patients in the same amount of time and may need less support staff and possibly smaller offices if more visits are conducted virtually.

Of course, telemedicine doesn’t work for everyone. Many areas and patients don’t have reliable or robust broadband connections that make video visits work. And some patients, particularly the oldest seniors, lack the technological skills needed to connect.
 

Primary care doctors in peril

Another trend that has suddenly accelerated is worry over the nation’s dwindling supply of primary care doctors. The exodus of practitioners performing primary care has been a concern over the past several years, as baby boomer doctors retire and others have grown weary of more and more bureaucracy from government and private payers. Having faced a difficult financial crisis during the pandemic, more family physicians may move into retirement or seek other professional options.

At the same time, fewer current medical students are choosing specialties in primary care.

“I’ve been trying to raise the alarm about the kind of perilous future of primary care,” said Farzad Mostashari, MD, a top Department of Health & Human Services official in the Obama administration. Dr. Mostashari runs Aledade, a company that helps primary care doctors make the transition from fee-for-service medicine to new payment models.

The American Academy of Family Physicians reports that 70% of primary care physicians are reporting declines in patient volume of 50% or more since March, and 40% have laid off or furloughed staff. The AAFP has joined other primary care and insurance groups in asking HHS for an infusion of cash.

“This is absolutely essential to effectively treat patients today and to maintain their ongoing operations until we overcome this public health emergency,” the groups wrote.

One easy way to help keep primary care doctors afloat would be to pay them not according to what they do, but in a lump sum to keep patients healthy. This move from fee-for-service to what’s known as capitation or value-based care has unfolded gradually and was championed in the Affordable Care Act.

But some experts argue it needs to happen more quickly and they predict that the coronavirus pandemic could finally mark the beginning of the end for doctors who still charge for each service individually. Dr. Mostashari, who spends his time helping doctors make the transition, said in times like these, it would make more sense for primary care doctors to have “a steady monthly revenue stream, and [the doctor] can decide the best way to deliver that care: unlimited texts, phone calls, video calls. The goal is to give you satisfactory outcomes and a great patient experience.”

Still, many physicians, particularly those in solo or small practices, worry about the potential financial risk – especially the possibility of getting paid less if they don’t meet certain benchmarks that the doctors may not be able to directly control.

But with many practices now ground to a halt, or just starting to reopen, those physicians who get paid per patient rather than per service are in a much better position to stay afloat. That model may gain traction as doctors ponder the next pandemic, or the next wave of this one.
 

Hospitals on the decline?

The pandemic also might lead to less emphasis on hospital-based care. While hospitals in many parts of the country have obviously been full of very sick COVID patients, they have closed down other nonemergency services to preserve supplies and resources to fight the pandemic. People with other ailments have stayed away in droves even when services were available, for fear of catching something worse than what they already have.

Many experts predict that care won’t just snap back when the current emergency wanes. Mark Smith, MD, former president of the California Health Care Foundation, said among consumers, a switch has been flipped. “Overnight it seems we’ve gone from high-touch to no-touch.”

Which is not great for hospitals that have spent millions trying to attract patients to their labor-and-delivery units, orthopedic centers, and other parts of the facility that once generated lots of income.

Even more concerning is that hospitals’ ability to weather the current financial shock varies widely. Those most in danger of closing are in rural and underserved areas, where patients could wind up with even less access to care that is scarce already.

All of which underscores the point that not all these changes will necessarily be good for the health system or society. Financial pressures could end up driving more consolidation, which could push up prices as large groups of hospitals and doctors gain more bargaining clout.

But the changes are definitely happening at a pace few have ever seen, said Ms. Wilensky, “When you’re forced to find different ways of doing things, and you find out they are easier and more efficient, it’s going to be hard to go back to the old way.”
 

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

The U.S. health care system is famously resistant to government-imposed change. It took decades to create Medicare and Medicaid, mostly because of opposition from the medical-industrial complex. Then it was nearly another half-century before the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

But the COVID-19 pandemic has done what no president or social movement or venture capitalist could have dreamed of: It forced sudden major changes to the nation’s health care system that are unlikely to be reversed.

“Health care is never going back to the way it was before,” said Gail Wilensky, a health economist who ran the Medicare and Medicaid programs for President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.

Ms. Wilensky is far from the only longtime observer of the American health care system to marvel at the speed of some long-sought changes. But experts warn that the breakthroughs may not all make the health system work better or make it less expensive.

That said, here are three trends that seem likely to continue.
 

Telehealth for all

Telehealth is not new; medical professionals have used it to reach patients in rural or remote settings since the late 1980s.

But even while technology has made video visits easier, it has failed to reach critical mass, largely because of political fights. Licensing has been one main obstacle – determining how a doctor in one state can legally treat a patient in a state where the doctor is not licensed.

The other obstacle, not surprisingly, is payment. Should a video visit be reimbursed at the same rate as an in-person visit? Will making it easier for doctors and other medical professionals to use telehealth encourage unnecessary care, thus driving up the nation’s $3.6 trillion health tab even more? Or could it replace care once provided free by phone?

Still, the pandemic has pushed aside those sticking points. Almost overnight, by necessity, every health care provider who can is delivering telemedicine. A new survey from Gallup found the number of patients reporting “virtual” medical visits more than doubled, from 12% to 27%, from late March to mid-May. That is attributable, at least in part, to Medicare having made it easier for doctors to bill for virtual visits.

It’s easy to see why many patients like video visits – there’s no parking to find and pay for, and it takes far less time out of a workday than going to an office.

Doctors and other practitioners seem more ambivalent. On one hand, it can be harder to examine a patient over video and some services just can’t be done via a digital connection. On the other hand, they can see more patients in the same amount of time and may need less support staff and possibly smaller offices if more visits are conducted virtually.

Of course, telemedicine doesn’t work for everyone. Many areas and patients don’t have reliable or robust broadband connections that make video visits work. And some patients, particularly the oldest seniors, lack the technological skills needed to connect.
 

Primary care doctors in peril

Another trend that has suddenly accelerated is worry over the nation’s dwindling supply of primary care doctors. The exodus of practitioners performing primary care has been a concern over the past several years, as baby boomer doctors retire and others have grown weary of more and more bureaucracy from government and private payers. Having faced a difficult financial crisis during the pandemic, more family physicians may move into retirement or seek other professional options.

At the same time, fewer current medical students are choosing specialties in primary care.

“I’ve been trying to raise the alarm about the kind of perilous future of primary care,” said Farzad Mostashari, MD, a top Department of Health & Human Services official in the Obama administration. Dr. Mostashari runs Aledade, a company that helps primary care doctors make the transition from fee-for-service medicine to new payment models.

The American Academy of Family Physicians reports that 70% of primary care physicians are reporting declines in patient volume of 50% or more since March, and 40% have laid off or furloughed staff. The AAFP has joined other primary care and insurance groups in asking HHS for an infusion of cash.

“This is absolutely essential to effectively treat patients today and to maintain their ongoing operations until we overcome this public health emergency,” the groups wrote.

One easy way to help keep primary care doctors afloat would be to pay them not according to what they do, but in a lump sum to keep patients healthy. This move from fee-for-service to what’s known as capitation or value-based care has unfolded gradually and was championed in the Affordable Care Act.

But some experts argue it needs to happen more quickly and they predict that the coronavirus pandemic could finally mark the beginning of the end for doctors who still charge for each service individually. Dr. Mostashari, who spends his time helping doctors make the transition, said in times like these, it would make more sense for primary care doctors to have “a steady monthly revenue stream, and [the doctor] can decide the best way to deliver that care: unlimited texts, phone calls, video calls. The goal is to give you satisfactory outcomes and a great patient experience.”

Still, many physicians, particularly those in solo or small practices, worry about the potential financial risk – especially the possibility of getting paid less if they don’t meet certain benchmarks that the doctors may not be able to directly control.

But with many practices now ground to a halt, or just starting to reopen, those physicians who get paid per patient rather than per service are in a much better position to stay afloat. That model may gain traction as doctors ponder the next pandemic, or the next wave of this one.
 

Hospitals on the decline?

The pandemic also might lead to less emphasis on hospital-based care. While hospitals in many parts of the country have obviously been full of very sick COVID patients, they have closed down other nonemergency services to preserve supplies and resources to fight the pandemic. People with other ailments have stayed away in droves even when services were available, for fear of catching something worse than what they already have.

Many experts predict that care won’t just snap back when the current emergency wanes. Mark Smith, MD, former president of the California Health Care Foundation, said among consumers, a switch has been flipped. “Overnight it seems we’ve gone from high-touch to no-touch.”

Which is not great for hospitals that have spent millions trying to attract patients to their labor-and-delivery units, orthopedic centers, and other parts of the facility that once generated lots of income.

Even more concerning is that hospitals’ ability to weather the current financial shock varies widely. Those most in danger of closing are in rural and underserved areas, where patients could wind up with even less access to care that is scarce already.

All of which underscores the point that not all these changes will necessarily be good for the health system or society. Financial pressures could end up driving more consolidation, which could push up prices as large groups of hospitals and doctors gain more bargaining clout.

But the changes are definitely happening at a pace few have ever seen, said Ms. Wilensky, “When you’re forced to find different ways of doing things, and you find out they are easier and more efficient, it’s going to be hard to go back to the old way.”
 

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

The U.S. health care system is famously resistant to government-imposed change. It took decades to create Medicare and Medicaid, mostly because of opposition from the medical-industrial complex. Then it was nearly another half-century before the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

But the COVID-19 pandemic has done what no president or social movement or venture capitalist could have dreamed of: It forced sudden major changes to the nation’s health care system that are unlikely to be reversed.

“Health care is never going back to the way it was before,” said Gail Wilensky, a health economist who ran the Medicare and Medicaid programs for President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.

Ms. Wilensky is far from the only longtime observer of the American health care system to marvel at the speed of some long-sought changes. But experts warn that the breakthroughs may not all make the health system work better or make it less expensive.

That said, here are three trends that seem likely to continue.
 

Telehealth for all

Telehealth is not new; medical professionals have used it to reach patients in rural or remote settings since the late 1980s.

But even while technology has made video visits easier, it has failed to reach critical mass, largely because of political fights. Licensing has been one main obstacle – determining how a doctor in one state can legally treat a patient in a state where the doctor is not licensed.

The other obstacle, not surprisingly, is payment. Should a video visit be reimbursed at the same rate as an in-person visit? Will making it easier for doctors and other medical professionals to use telehealth encourage unnecessary care, thus driving up the nation’s $3.6 trillion health tab even more? Or could it replace care once provided free by phone?

Still, the pandemic has pushed aside those sticking points. Almost overnight, by necessity, every health care provider who can is delivering telemedicine. A new survey from Gallup found the number of patients reporting “virtual” medical visits more than doubled, from 12% to 27%, from late March to mid-May. That is attributable, at least in part, to Medicare having made it easier for doctors to bill for virtual visits.

It’s easy to see why many patients like video visits – there’s no parking to find and pay for, and it takes far less time out of a workday than going to an office.

Doctors and other practitioners seem more ambivalent. On one hand, it can be harder to examine a patient over video and some services just can’t be done via a digital connection. On the other hand, they can see more patients in the same amount of time and may need less support staff and possibly smaller offices if more visits are conducted virtually.

Of course, telemedicine doesn’t work for everyone. Many areas and patients don’t have reliable or robust broadband connections that make video visits work. And some patients, particularly the oldest seniors, lack the technological skills needed to connect.
 

Primary care doctors in peril

Another trend that has suddenly accelerated is worry over the nation’s dwindling supply of primary care doctors. The exodus of practitioners performing primary care has been a concern over the past several years, as baby boomer doctors retire and others have grown weary of more and more bureaucracy from government and private payers. Having faced a difficult financial crisis during the pandemic, more family physicians may move into retirement or seek other professional options.

At the same time, fewer current medical students are choosing specialties in primary care.

“I’ve been trying to raise the alarm about the kind of perilous future of primary care,” said Farzad Mostashari, MD, a top Department of Health & Human Services official in the Obama administration. Dr. Mostashari runs Aledade, a company that helps primary care doctors make the transition from fee-for-service medicine to new payment models.

The American Academy of Family Physicians reports that 70% of primary care physicians are reporting declines in patient volume of 50% or more since March, and 40% have laid off or furloughed staff. The AAFP has joined other primary care and insurance groups in asking HHS for an infusion of cash.

“This is absolutely essential to effectively treat patients today and to maintain their ongoing operations until we overcome this public health emergency,” the groups wrote.

One easy way to help keep primary care doctors afloat would be to pay them not according to what they do, but in a lump sum to keep patients healthy. This move from fee-for-service to what’s known as capitation or value-based care has unfolded gradually and was championed in the Affordable Care Act.

But some experts argue it needs to happen more quickly and they predict that the coronavirus pandemic could finally mark the beginning of the end for doctors who still charge for each service individually. Dr. Mostashari, who spends his time helping doctors make the transition, said in times like these, it would make more sense for primary care doctors to have “a steady monthly revenue stream, and [the doctor] can decide the best way to deliver that care: unlimited texts, phone calls, video calls. The goal is to give you satisfactory outcomes and a great patient experience.”

Still, many physicians, particularly those in solo or small practices, worry about the potential financial risk – especially the possibility of getting paid less if they don’t meet certain benchmarks that the doctors may not be able to directly control.

But with many practices now ground to a halt, or just starting to reopen, those physicians who get paid per patient rather than per service are in a much better position to stay afloat. That model may gain traction as doctors ponder the next pandemic, or the next wave of this one.
 

Hospitals on the decline?

The pandemic also might lead to less emphasis on hospital-based care. While hospitals in many parts of the country have obviously been full of very sick COVID patients, they have closed down other nonemergency services to preserve supplies and resources to fight the pandemic. People with other ailments have stayed away in droves even when services were available, for fear of catching something worse than what they already have.

Many experts predict that care won’t just snap back when the current emergency wanes. Mark Smith, MD, former president of the California Health Care Foundation, said among consumers, a switch has been flipped. “Overnight it seems we’ve gone from high-touch to no-touch.”

Which is not great for hospitals that have spent millions trying to attract patients to their labor-and-delivery units, orthopedic centers, and other parts of the facility that once generated lots of income.

Even more concerning is that hospitals’ ability to weather the current financial shock varies widely. Those most in danger of closing are in rural and underserved areas, where patients could wind up with even less access to care that is scarce already.

All of which underscores the point that not all these changes will necessarily be good for the health system or society. Financial pressures could end up driving more consolidation, which could push up prices as large groups of hospitals and doctors gain more bargaining clout.

But the changes are definitely happening at a pace few have ever seen, said Ms. Wilensky, “When you’re forced to find different ways of doing things, and you find out they are easier and more efficient, it’s going to be hard to go back to the old way.”
 

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

The presence of pulmonary arterial hypertension, whether preexisting or occurring in conjunction with a COVID-19 infection, will likely increase the risk for morbidity and mortality in these patients, according to a research article published in Pulmonary Circulation.

“The impetus for this manuscript was a recent discussion within the Pulmonary Hypertension Association (PHA) and [its] Scientific Leadership Council who expressed a need for guidelines from experts in the field,” wrote John J. Ryan, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

The authors highlight some of the unique challenges in caring for patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), particularly pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Telemedicine and temporary visit schedules for new and returning PAH patients can help reduce risk of virus transmission, if patient accessibility to telemedicine is feasible. Protocols to reduce the risk of virus exposure or transmission in the office setting included less frequent echocardiography and 6-Minute Walk Tests (6MWTs) for patients in stable condition. In stable patients, “avoid pulmonary function of V/Q tests when possible,” the authors wrote.

New patients who have been referred for PAH present a challenge in conducting a thorough evaluation that would normally include measurement of invasive hemodynamics in keeping with current diagnostic guidelines. Clinicians will need to balance the potential risks of COVID-19 exposure during elective procedures against the benefits of full evaluations to plan PAH treatment, the authors noted.

For established patients who are clinically stable, remote visits may be an option, with a risk/benefit assessment of the need for in-person diagnostic tests at the current time, they said. However, telemedicine’s limitations include not only patient accessibility and understanding of audio and video technology, but also inability to accurately measure vital signs, they said.

As for routine testing such as echocardiograms, 6MWTs, and other laboratory testing, “it is important to consider the additive value of these sometimes comprehensive tests in the context of the risks associated with visiting the hospital or clinic to obtain them,” the authors said.

Patients who are unstable and experience worsening right heart failure (RHF) at home may have contracted a COVID-19 infection, but the differential diagnosis includes sepsis, ischemia, and PAH disease progression. “During the current pandemic, fever at home in a PAH patient should be assumed to represent a COVID-19 infection,” and patients with worsening respiratory symptoms that require hospitalization should be tested for COVID-19, the authors emphasized.

Use of ECMO or other intensive interventions should be considered in the context of risk assessment, the authors said. “As a general recommendation, practitioners should consider utilizing an established PAH-specific risk assessment tool to help identify patients who are more likely to survive heroic interventions during the COVID-19 outbreak,” they wrote.

Training and education of PH providers will continue to be limited by the pandemic, and many clinical trials and research programs have been suspended and will need to be restructured to minimize risk of transmission of the COVID-19 virus, the authors said. However, health care providers must continue to provide PAH patients and families with advice and updates in best practices, while “acknowledging that the situation changes rapidly,” they concluded.

Dr. Ryan disclosed participating on the speakers bureau, and provides consulting services for, Actelion and Bayer, as well as research support from the Reagan Corporation, the Gordon Family, and the Cushman Family.

SOURCE: Ryan JJ et al. Pulm Circ. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1177/2045894020920153.

The presence of pulmonary arterial hypertension, whether preexisting or occurring in conjunction with a COVID-19 infection, will likely increase the risk for morbidity and mortality in these patients, according to a research article published in Pulmonary Circulation.

“The impetus for this manuscript was a recent discussion within the Pulmonary Hypertension Association (PHA) and [its] Scientific Leadership Council who expressed a need for guidelines from experts in the field,” wrote John J. Ryan, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

The authors highlight some of the unique challenges in caring for patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), particularly pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Telemedicine and temporary visit schedules for new and returning PAH patients can help reduce risk of virus transmission, if patient accessibility to telemedicine is feasible. Protocols to reduce the risk of virus exposure or transmission in the office setting included less frequent echocardiography and 6-Minute Walk Tests (6MWTs) for patients in stable condition. In stable patients, “avoid pulmonary function of V/Q tests when possible,” the authors wrote.

New patients who have been referred for PAH present a challenge in conducting a thorough evaluation that would normally include measurement of invasive hemodynamics in keeping with current diagnostic guidelines. Clinicians will need to balance the potential risks of COVID-19 exposure during elective procedures against the benefits of full evaluations to plan PAH treatment, the authors noted.

For established patients who are clinically stable, remote visits may be an option, with a risk/benefit assessment of the need for in-person diagnostic tests at the current time, they said. However, telemedicine’s limitations include not only patient accessibility and understanding of audio and video technology, but also inability to accurately measure vital signs, they said.

As for routine testing such as echocardiograms, 6MWTs, and other laboratory testing, “it is important to consider the additive value of these sometimes comprehensive tests in the context of the risks associated with visiting the hospital or clinic to obtain them,” the authors said.

Patients who are unstable and experience worsening right heart failure (RHF) at home may have contracted a COVID-19 infection, but the differential diagnosis includes sepsis, ischemia, and PAH disease progression. “During the current pandemic, fever at home in a PAH patient should be assumed to represent a COVID-19 infection,” and patients with worsening respiratory symptoms that require hospitalization should be tested for COVID-19, the authors emphasized.

Use of ECMO or other intensive interventions should be considered in the context of risk assessment, the authors said. “As a general recommendation, practitioners should consider utilizing an established PAH-specific risk assessment tool to help identify patients who are more likely to survive heroic interventions during the COVID-19 outbreak,” they wrote.

Training and education of PH providers will continue to be limited by the pandemic, and many clinical trials and research programs have been suspended and will need to be restructured to minimize risk of transmission of the COVID-19 virus, the authors said. However, health care providers must continue to provide PAH patients and families with advice and updates in best practices, while “acknowledging that the situation changes rapidly,” they concluded.

Dr. Ryan disclosed participating on the speakers bureau, and provides consulting services for, Actelion and Bayer, as well as research support from the Reagan Corporation, the Gordon Family, and the Cushman Family.

SOURCE: Ryan JJ et al. Pulm Circ. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1177/2045894020920153.

The presence of pulmonary arterial hypertension, whether preexisting or occurring in conjunction with a COVID-19 infection, will likely increase the risk for morbidity and mortality in these patients, according to a research article published in Pulmonary Circulation.

“The impetus for this manuscript was a recent discussion within the Pulmonary Hypertension Association (PHA) and [its] Scientific Leadership Council who expressed a need for guidelines from experts in the field,” wrote John J. Ryan, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

The authors highlight some of the unique challenges in caring for patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), particularly pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Telemedicine and temporary visit schedules for new and returning PAH patients can help reduce risk of virus transmission, if patient accessibility to telemedicine is feasible. Protocols to reduce the risk of virus exposure or transmission in the office setting included less frequent echocardiography and 6-Minute Walk Tests (6MWTs) for patients in stable condition. In stable patients, “avoid pulmonary function of V/Q tests when possible,” the authors wrote.

New patients who have been referred for PAH present a challenge in conducting a thorough evaluation that would normally include measurement of invasive hemodynamics in keeping with current diagnostic guidelines. Clinicians will need to balance the potential risks of COVID-19 exposure during elective procedures against the benefits of full evaluations to plan PAH treatment, the authors noted.

For established patients who are clinically stable, remote visits may be an option, with a risk/benefit assessment of the need for in-person diagnostic tests at the current time, they said. However, telemedicine’s limitations include not only patient accessibility and understanding of audio and video technology, but also inability to accurately measure vital signs, they said.

As for routine testing such as echocardiograms, 6MWTs, and other laboratory testing, “it is important to consider the additive value of these sometimes comprehensive tests in the context of the risks associated with visiting the hospital or clinic to obtain them,” the authors said.

Patients who are unstable and experience worsening right heart failure (RHF) at home may have contracted a COVID-19 infection, but the differential diagnosis includes sepsis, ischemia, and PAH disease progression. “During the current pandemic, fever at home in a PAH patient should be assumed to represent a COVID-19 infection,” and patients with worsening respiratory symptoms that require hospitalization should be tested for COVID-19, the authors emphasized.

Use of ECMO or other intensive interventions should be considered in the context of risk assessment, the authors said. “As a general recommendation, practitioners should consider utilizing an established PAH-specific risk assessment tool to help identify patients who are more likely to survive heroic interventions during the COVID-19 outbreak,” they wrote.

Training and education of PH providers will continue to be limited by the pandemic, and many clinical trials and research programs have been suspended and will need to be restructured to minimize risk of transmission of the COVID-19 virus, the authors said. However, health care providers must continue to provide PAH patients and families with advice and updates in best practices, while “acknowledging that the situation changes rapidly,” they concluded.

Dr. Ryan disclosed participating on the speakers bureau, and provides consulting services for, Actelion and Bayer, as well as research support from the Reagan Corporation, the Gordon Family, and the Cushman Family.

SOURCE: Ryan JJ et al. Pulm Circ. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1177/2045894020920153.

Background: Current guidelines recommend against using aspirin in combination with warfarin for patients with AFib, unless the patient has another indication for aspirin such as recent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or a mechanical heart valve. These recommendations are based on limited clinical trial data that showed an increased risk of adverse events with combination therapy without clinical benefit. Despite these recommendations, recent studies have shown that aspirin use without a clinical indication remains common in patients taking warfarin for AFib. The prevalence of aspirin use without a clinical indication in patients taking warfarin for VTE is less well studied.

Dr. Wachter is an associate medical director at Duke Regional Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.

Background: Current guidelines recommend against using aspirin in combination with warfarin for patients with AFib, unless the patient has another indication for aspirin such as recent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or a mechanical heart valve. These recommendations are based on limited clinical trial data that showed an increased risk of adverse events with combination therapy without clinical benefit. Despite these recommendations, recent studies have shown that aspirin use without a clinical indication remains common in patients taking warfarin for AFib. The prevalence of aspirin use without a clinical indication in patients taking warfarin for VTE is less well studied.

Dr. Wachter is an associate medical director at Duke Regional Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.

Background: Current guidelines recommend against using aspirin in combination with warfarin for patients with AFib, unless the patient has another indication for aspirin such as recent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or a mechanical heart valve. These recommendations are based on limited clinical trial data that showed an increased risk of adverse events with combination therapy without clinical benefit. Despite these recommendations, recent studies have shown that aspirin use without a clinical indication remains common in patients taking warfarin for AFib. The prevalence of aspirin use without a clinical indication in patients taking warfarin for VTE is less well studied.

Dr. Wachter is an associate medical director at Duke Regional Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.

High-dose oral famotidine might improve cardinal symptoms of COVID-19 infection, according to the findings of a small outpatient case series and a subsequent retrospective study.

After developing COVID-19 symptoms, the 10 patients in the case series began self-medicating with 60-240 mg famotidine daily over a median of 11 days. “All patients reported marked improvements of disease-related symptoms after starting famotidine,” first author Tobias Janowitz, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, N.Y., and associates wrote in Gut.

Improvements began within 24-48 hours of starting on the histamine-2 receptor antagonist. By 14 days after treatment initiation, all patients reported near-normalization of both respiratory and systemic symptoms, the researchers reported.

The patients were 23-71 years old. Seven tested positive for COVID-19, two had antibodies to COVID-19, and one had a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 without laboratory confirmation. Over a median of 11 days (range, 5-21 days), six patients self-administered 80 mg famotidine three times daily and four self-administered lower amounts – from 60 to 150 mg of famotidine daily, divided into two or three doses. Patients started on famotidine between 2 and 26 days after symptom onset.

Through phone interviews and questionnaires, the researchers ascertained changes in cough, dyspnea, fatigue, headache, anosmia, and general unwellness by using a modified four-point Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scale. Improvements were seen across all symptom categories, and respiratory symptoms improved faster than systemic symptoms. Apart from two cases of persistent anosmia, symptoms resolved completely within 14 days of starting famotidine.

Seven patients reported no side effects of famotidine; one reported grade 1 dizziness and infrequent perceptions of tachycardia; one reported grade 1 dizziness, dry skin, and insomnia; and one reported grade 1 gastrointestinal symptoms and temporary forgetfulness. “Other than forgetfulness, all of these side effects are listed in the prescription information for famotidine, and all side effects resolved on discontinuation of famotidine,” the investigators wrote.

While the findings are intriguing, Dr. Janowitz and associates cautioned against overinterpretation of them. Another expert agreed: “This is a preliminary study based on a hypothesized antiviral effect. It’s important to know that it doesn’t really prove it works,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, Baltimore, and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, during an interview with MDedge.

These patients might have improved anyway, without self-administering famotidine, said Dr. Adalja, who was not involved in the study.

Furthermore, the mechanism by which famotidine might act on COVID-19 remains unclear. The drug “could have a viral target, for example, one of the viral proteases, or a host target, resulting, for example, in modulation of the immunological response to the virus,” Dr. Janowitz and associates wrote.

Dr. Adalja noted that many compounds show effects against COVID-19 that are not well understood. He called for randomized trials to evaluate the biological plausibility of famotidine use, and its potential efficacy.

“This is a cheap, over-the-counter drug, but no drug is without side effects,” he added. “We need to know whether it works.”

Based on the case series findings, researchers conducted another retrospective study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection. Those who were incidentally taking famotidine before or at hospitalization had a significantly reduced risk of intubation or death, with a hazard ratio of 0.43 (Gastroenterology. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.053)

The National Institutes of Health provided partial support. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Janowitz T et al. Gut. 2020 Jun 4. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321852.

High-dose oral famotidine might improve cardinal symptoms of COVID-19 infection, according to the findings of a small outpatient case series and a subsequent retrospective study.

After developing COVID-19 symptoms, the 10 patients in the case series began self-medicating with 60-240 mg famotidine daily over a median of 11 days. “All patients reported marked improvements of disease-related symptoms after starting famotidine,” first author Tobias Janowitz, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, N.Y., and associates wrote in Gut.

Improvements began within 24-48 hours of starting on the histamine-2 receptor antagonist. By 14 days after treatment initiation, all patients reported near-normalization of both respiratory and systemic symptoms, the researchers reported.

The patients were 23-71 years old. Seven tested positive for COVID-19, two had antibodies to COVID-19, and one had a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 without laboratory confirmation. Over a median of 11 days (range, 5-21 days), six patients self-administered 80 mg famotidine three times daily and four self-administered lower amounts – from 60 to 150 mg of famotidine daily, divided into two or three doses. Patients started on famotidine between 2 and 26 days after symptom onset.

Through phone interviews and questionnaires, the researchers ascertained changes in cough, dyspnea, fatigue, headache, anosmia, and general unwellness by using a modified four-point Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scale. Improvements were seen across all symptom categories, and respiratory symptoms improved faster than systemic symptoms. Apart from two cases of persistent anosmia, symptoms resolved completely within 14 days of starting famotidine.

Seven patients reported no side effects of famotidine; one reported grade 1 dizziness and infrequent perceptions of tachycardia; one reported grade 1 dizziness, dry skin, and insomnia; and one reported grade 1 gastrointestinal symptoms and temporary forgetfulness. “Other than forgetfulness, all of these side effects are listed in the prescription information for famotidine, and all side effects resolved on discontinuation of famotidine,” the investigators wrote.

While the findings are intriguing, Dr. Janowitz and associates cautioned against overinterpretation of them. Another expert agreed: “This is a preliminary study based on a hypothesized antiviral effect. It’s important to know that it doesn’t really prove it works,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, Baltimore, and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, during an interview with MDedge.

These patients might have improved anyway, without self-administering famotidine, said Dr. Adalja, who was not involved in the study.

Furthermore, the mechanism by which famotidine might act on COVID-19 remains unclear. The drug “could have a viral target, for example, one of the viral proteases, or a host target, resulting, for example, in modulation of the immunological response to the virus,” Dr. Janowitz and associates wrote.

Dr. Adalja noted that many compounds show effects against COVID-19 that are not well understood. He called for randomized trials to evaluate the biological plausibility of famotidine use, and its potential efficacy.

“This is a cheap, over-the-counter drug, but no drug is without side effects,” he added. “We need to know whether it works.”

Based on the case series findings, researchers conducted another retrospective study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection. Those who were incidentally taking famotidine before or at hospitalization had a significantly reduced risk of intubation or death, with a hazard ratio of 0.43 (Gastroenterology. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.053)

The National Institutes of Health provided partial support. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Janowitz T et al. Gut. 2020 Jun 4. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321852.

High-dose oral famotidine might improve cardinal symptoms of COVID-19 infection, according to the findings of a small outpatient case series and a subsequent retrospective study.

After developing COVID-19 symptoms, the 10 patients in the case series began self-medicating with 60-240 mg famotidine daily over a median of 11 days. “All patients reported marked improvements of disease-related symptoms after starting famotidine,” first author Tobias Janowitz, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, N.Y., and associates wrote in Gut.

Improvements began within 24-48 hours of starting on the histamine-2 receptor antagonist. By 14 days after treatment initiation, all patients reported near-normalization of both respiratory and systemic symptoms, the researchers reported.

The patients were 23-71 years old. Seven tested positive for COVID-19, two had antibodies to COVID-19, and one had a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 without laboratory confirmation. Over a median of 11 days (range, 5-21 days), six patients self-administered 80 mg famotidine three times daily and four self-administered lower amounts – from 60 to 150 mg of famotidine daily, divided into two or three doses. Patients started on famotidine between 2 and 26 days after symptom onset.

Through phone interviews and questionnaires, the researchers ascertained changes in cough, dyspnea, fatigue, headache, anosmia, and general unwellness by using a modified four-point Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scale. Improvements were seen across all symptom categories, and respiratory symptoms improved faster than systemic symptoms. Apart from two cases of persistent anosmia, symptoms resolved completely within 14 days of starting famotidine.

Seven patients reported no side effects of famotidine; one reported grade 1 dizziness and infrequent perceptions of tachycardia; one reported grade 1 dizziness, dry skin, and insomnia; and one reported grade 1 gastrointestinal symptoms and temporary forgetfulness. “Other than forgetfulness, all of these side effects are listed in the prescription information for famotidine, and all side effects resolved on discontinuation of famotidine,” the investigators wrote.

While the findings are intriguing, Dr. Janowitz and associates cautioned against overinterpretation of them. Another expert agreed: “This is a preliminary study based on a hypothesized antiviral effect. It’s important to know that it doesn’t really prove it works,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, Baltimore, and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, during an interview with MDedge.

These patients might have improved anyway, without self-administering famotidine, said Dr. Adalja, who was not involved in the study.

Furthermore, the mechanism by which famotidine might act on COVID-19 remains unclear. The drug “could have a viral target, for example, one of the viral proteases, or a host target, resulting, for example, in modulation of the immunological response to the virus,” Dr. Janowitz and associates wrote.

Dr. Adalja noted that many compounds show effects against COVID-19 that are not well understood. He called for randomized trials to evaluate the biological plausibility of famotidine use, and its potential efficacy.

“This is a cheap, over-the-counter drug, but no drug is without side effects,” he added. “We need to know whether it works.”

Based on the case series findings, researchers conducted another retrospective study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection. Those who were incidentally taking famotidine before or at hospitalization had a significantly reduced risk of intubation or death, with a hazard ratio of 0.43 (Gastroenterology. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.053)

The National Institutes of Health provided partial support. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Janowitz T et al. Gut. 2020 Jun 4. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321852.

Background: Catheter ablation of AFib (primarily pulmonary vein isolation) has been shown to result in better maintenance of sinus rhythm than medications. Small studies of QOL have shown mixed results. Larger trials were needed.

Self-reported AFib dropped from 86.0% to 21.1% in the ablation group and from 83.7% to 39.8% in the medication group at 12 months. The AFEQT score (range 0-100, higher score indicating better QOL) increased from 62.9 to 86.4 in the ablation group and increased from 63.1 to 80.9 in the medication group (for a mean difference of 5.3 points [95% confidence interval, 3.7-6.9; P less than .001] favoring ablation). MAFSI symptom frequency score and symptom severity score also showed improvement in symptoms favoring ablation. Post hoc subgroup analysis showed that those with the most severe symptoms had the largest benefit from ablation.

The primary limitation is the lack of patient blinding (may bias self-reported symptoms).

While the CABANA trial efficacy study (published separately) showed that catheter ablation results in no significant difference in the combined outcome of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest, the CABANA QOL study, reviewed here, shows that ablation does result in improved QOL and reduced symptoms, compared with medical therapy.

Bottom line: Catheter ablation of AFib can be done safely and successfully at experienced centers. In patients with AFib-related symptoms, ablation reduces symptoms and improves QOL somewhat more than medications do. The most severely symptomatic patients appear to obtain the most benefit.

Citation: Packer DL et al. Effect of catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drug therapy on mortality, stroke, bleeding, and cardiac arrest among patients with atrial fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019 Mar 15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.0693.

Dr. Stafford is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.

Background: Catheter ablation of AFib (primarily pulmonary vein isolation) has been shown to result in better maintenance of sinus rhythm than medications. Small studies of QOL have shown mixed results. Larger trials were needed.

Self-reported AFib dropped from 86.0% to 21.1% in the ablation group and from 83.7% to 39.8% in the medication group at 12 months. The AFEQT score (range 0-100, higher score indicating better QOL) increased from 62.9 to 86.4 in the ablation group and increased from 63.1 to 80.9 in the medication group (for a mean difference of 5.3 points [95% confidence interval, 3.7-6.9; P less than .001] favoring ablation). MAFSI symptom frequency score and symptom severity score also showed improvement in symptoms favoring ablation. Post hoc subgroup analysis showed that those with the most severe symptoms had the largest benefit from ablation.

The primary limitation is the lack of patient blinding (may bias self-reported symptoms).

While the CABANA trial efficacy study (published separately) showed that catheter ablation results in no significant difference in the combined outcome of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest, the CABANA QOL study, reviewed here, shows that ablation does result in improved QOL and reduced symptoms, compared with medical therapy.

Bottom line: Catheter ablation of AFib can be done safely and successfully at experienced centers. In patients with AFib-related symptoms, ablation reduces symptoms and improves QOL somewhat more than medications do. The most severely symptomatic patients appear to obtain the most benefit.

Citation: Packer DL et al. Effect of catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drug therapy on mortality, stroke, bleeding, and cardiac arrest among patients with atrial fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019 Mar 15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.0693.

Dr. Stafford is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.

Background: Catheter ablation of AFib (primarily pulmonary vein isolation) has been shown to result in better maintenance of sinus rhythm than medications. Small studies of QOL have shown mixed results. Larger trials were needed.

Self-reported AFib dropped from 86.0% to 21.1% in the ablation group and from 83.7% to 39.8% in the medication group at 12 months. The AFEQT score (range 0-100, higher score indicating better QOL) increased from 62.9 to 86.4 in the ablation group and increased from 63.1 to 80.9 in the medication group (for a mean difference of 5.3 points [95% confidence interval, 3.7-6.9; P less than .001] favoring ablation). MAFSI symptom frequency score and symptom severity score also showed improvement in symptoms favoring ablation. Post hoc subgroup analysis showed that those with the most severe symptoms had the largest benefit from ablation.

The primary limitation is the lack of patient blinding (may bias self-reported symptoms).

While the CABANA trial efficacy study (published separately) showed that catheter ablation results in no significant difference in the combined outcome of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest, the CABANA QOL study, reviewed here, shows that ablation does result in improved QOL and reduced symptoms, compared with medical therapy.

Bottom line: Catheter ablation of AFib can be done safely and successfully at experienced centers. In patients with AFib-related symptoms, ablation reduces symptoms and improves QOL somewhat more than medications do. The most severely symptomatic patients appear to obtain the most benefit.

Citation: Packer DL et al. Effect of catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drug therapy on mortality, stroke, bleeding, and cardiac arrest among patients with atrial fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019 Mar 15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.0693.

Dr. Stafford is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.

A quality initiative to restrict the use of Foley catheters in middle-aged and geriatric trauma patients with hip fracture reduced the risk of urinary tract infections (UTI) and led to earlier discharge, findings from a study revealed. The results of the study were reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled because of COVID-19.

“We reduced the use of Foley catheters in our target population by more than 50%, which led to a decrease in the rate of hospital-acquired UTI and positively affected other perioperative outcomes,” reported Sanjit R. Konda, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with New York University Langone Health.

The quality initiative was introduced about 2 years ago specifically to reduce the risk of UTI in older patients admitted for femur or hip fractures. Previously at the level 1 trauma center where this quality initiative was introduced, placement of Foley catheters in these types of patients had been routine.

After the policy change, Foley catheters were only offered to these trauma patients 55 years of age or older when more than three episodes or urinary retention had been documented with a bladder scan. Urinary retention was defined as a volume of at least 600 mL.

When outcomes in 184 patients treated in the 15 months after the policy change were compared with 393 treated in the prior 38 months, Foley catheter use was substantially and significantly reduced (43.5% vs. 95.5%; P < .001), Dr. Konda said in an interview.

Although the lower rate of UTI following the policy change fell short of statistical significance (10.33% vs. 14.5%; P = .167), the policy change was associated with a decreased time to surgery (33.27 vs. 38.54 hours; P = .001), shorter length of stay (6.89 vs. 8.34 days; P < .001), and higher rate of home discharge (22.8% vs. 15.6%; P = .038).

When those who avoided a Foley catheter were compared with those who did not after the policy change, there was a significant reduction in UTI (4.81% vs. 17.4%; P = .014). In addition, patients who avoided a Foley catheter had a decreased time to surgery (P = .014), shorter length of stay (P < .001) and an almost 900% greater likelihood of home discharge (odds ratio, 9.9; P < .001).

“This quality initiative does increase the number of bladder scans required, meaning more work for nurses, but the program was developed in collaboration with our nursing staff, who were supportive of the goals,” Dr. Konda reported.

Reducing the incidence of UTI is an important initiative because the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other third-party payers employ this as a quality metric, according to Dr. Konda. This explains why hospital administrators generally embrace effective strategies to reduce UTI rates.

The improvement in outcomes, including the reduction in UTIs and length of stay, has cost implications, which will be evaluated in a future analysis, according to Dr. Konda.

Although this quality initiative was undertaken in a level 1 trauma center, Dr. Konda believes the same principles can be applied to other settings.

Jennifer A. Meddings, MD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, agreed. Active in the evaluation of strategies to reduce hospital-acquired complications, Dr. Meddings published a study of procedural appropriateness ratings to guide strategies for improving the likelihood that catheters are employed only when needed (BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28:56-66).

“In addition to avoiding UTI, reducing unnecessary placement of Foley catheters also eliminates the risk of trauma to the urinary tract,” Dr. Meddings said. This is a complication that is not well appreciated because the trauma is not always documented, according to Dr. Meddings, who believes increased risk of both UTI and urinary tract trauma should discourage use of Foley catheters when there is not a specific indication.

Although there are criteria other than excess bladder volume to determine when to consider a Foley catheter, Dr. Meddings encourages any systematic approach that increases the likelihood that catheters are not placed unnecessarily. She emphasized that a hip fracture by itself “is not a criterion for catheterization.”

Dr. Konda reported a financial relationship with Stryker.
 

A quality initiative to restrict the use of Foley catheters in middle-aged and geriatric trauma patients with hip fracture reduced the risk of urinary tract infections (UTI) and led to earlier discharge, findings from a study revealed. The results of the study were reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled because of COVID-19.

“We reduced the use of Foley catheters in our target population by more than 50%, which led to a decrease in the rate of hospital-acquired UTI and positively affected other perioperative outcomes,” reported Sanjit R. Konda, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with New York University Langone Health.

The quality initiative was introduced about 2 years ago specifically to reduce the risk of UTI in older patients admitted for femur or hip fractures. Previously at the level 1 trauma center where this quality initiative was introduced, placement of Foley catheters in these types of patients had been routine.

After the policy change, Foley catheters were only offered to these trauma patients 55 years of age or older when more than three episodes or urinary retention had been documented with a bladder scan. Urinary retention was defined as a volume of at least 600 mL.

When outcomes in 184 patients treated in the 15 months after the policy change were compared with 393 treated in the prior 38 months, Foley catheter use was substantially and significantly reduced (43.5% vs. 95.5%; P < .001), Dr. Konda said in an interview.

Although the lower rate of UTI following the policy change fell short of statistical significance (10.33% vs. 14.5%; P = .167), the policy change was associated with a decreased time to surgery (33.27 vs. 38.54 hours; P = .001), shorter length of stay (6.89 vs. 8.34 days; P < .001), and higher rate of home discharge (22.8% vs. 15.6%; P = .038).

When those who avoided a Foley catheter were compared with those who did not after the policy change, there was a significant reduction in UTI (4.81% vs. 17.4%; P = .014). In addition, patients who avoided a Foley catheter had a decreased time to surgery (P = .014), shorter length of stay (P < .001) and an almost 900% greater likelihood of home discharge (odds ratio, 9.9; P < .001).

“This quality initiative does increase the number of bladder scans required, meaning more work for nurses, but the program was developed in collaboration with our nursing staff, who were supportive of the goals,” Dr. Konda reported.

Reducing the incidence of UTI is an important initiative because the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other third-party payers employ this as a quality metric, according to Dr. Konda. This explains why hospital administrators generally embrace effective strategies to reduce UTI rates.

The improvement in outcomes, including the reduction in UTIs and length of stay, has cost implications, which will be evaluated in a future analysis, according to Dr. Konda.

Although this quality initiative was undertaken in a level 1 trauma center, Dr. Konda believes the same principles can be applied to other settings.

Jennifer A. Meddings, MD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, agreed. Active in the evaluation of strategies to reduce hospital-acquired complications, Dr. Meddings published a study of procedural appropriateness ratings to guide strategies for improving the likelihood that catheters are employed only when needed (BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28:56-66).

“In addition to avoiding UTI, reducing unnecessary placement of Foley catheters also eliminates the risk of trauma to the urinary tract,” Dr. Meddings said. This is a complication that is not well appreciated because the trauma is not always documented, according to Dr. Meddings, who believes increased risk of both UTI and urinary tract trauma should discourage use of Foley catheters when there is not a specific indication.

Although there are criteria other than excess bladder volume to determine when to consider a Foley catheter, Dr. Meddings encourages any systematic approach that increases the likelihood that catheters are not placed unnecessarily. She emphasized that a hip fracture by itself “is not a criterion for catheterization.”

Dr. Konda reported a financial relationship with Stryker.
 

A quality initiative to restrict the use of Foley catheters in middle-aged and geriatric trauma patients with hip fracture reduced the risk of urinary tract infections (UTI) and led to earlier discharge, findings from a study revealed. The results of the study were reported in an abstract scheduled for release at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. The meeting was canceled because of COVID-19.

“We reduced the use of Foley catheters in our target population by more than 50%, which led to a decrease in the rate of hospital-acquired UTI and positively affected other perioperative outcomes,” reported Sanjit R. Konda, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with New York University Langone Health.

The quality initiative was introduced about 2 years ago specifically to reduce the risk of UTI in older patients admitted for femur or hip fractures. Previously at the level 1 trauma center where this quality initiative was introduced, placement of Foley catheters in these types of patients had been routine.

After the policy change, Foley catheters were only offered to these trauma patients 55 years of age or older when more than three episodes or urinary retention had been documented with a bladder scan. Urinary retention was defined as a volume of at least 600 mL.

When outcomes in 184 patients treated in the 15 months after the policy change were compared with 393 treated in the prior 38 months, Foley catheter use was substantially and significantly reduced (43.5% vs. 95.5%; P < .001), Dr. Konda said in an interview.

Although the lower rate of UTI following the policy change fell short of statistical significance (10.33% vs. 14.5%; P = .167), the policy change was associated with a decreased time to surgery (33.27 vs. 38.54 hours; P = .001), shorter length of stay (6.89 vs. 8.34 days; P < .001), and higher rate of home discharge (22.8% vs. 15.6%; P = .038).

When those who avoided a Foley catheter were compared with those who did not after the policy change, there was a significant reduction in UTI (4.81% vs. 17.4%; P = .014). In addition, patients who avoided a Foley catheter had a decreased time to surgery (P = .014), shorter length of stay (P < .001) and an almost 900% greater likelihood of home discharge (odds ratio, 9.9; P < .001).

“This quality initiative does increase the number of bladder scans required, meaning more work for nurses, but the program was developed in collaboration with our nursing staff, who were supportive of the goals,” Dr. Konda reported.

Reducing the incidence of UTI is an important initiative because the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other third-party payers employ this as a quality metric, according to Dr. Konda. This explains why hospital administrators generally embrace effective strategies to reduce UTI rates.

The improvement in outcomes, including the reduction in UTIs and length of stay, has cost implications, which will be evaluated in a future analysis, according to Dr. Konda.

Although this quality initiative was undertaken in a level 1 trauma center, Dr. Konda believes the same principles can be applied to other settings.

Jennifer A. Meddings, MD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, agreed. Active in the evaluation of strategies to reduce hospital-acquired complications, Dr. Meddings published a study of procedural appropriateness ratings to guide strategies for improving the likelihood that catheters are employed only when needed (BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28:56-66).

“In addition to avoiding UTI, reducing unnecessary placement of Foley catheters also eliminates the risk of trauma to the urinary tract,” Dr. Meddings said. This is a complication that is not well appreciated because the trauma is not always documented, according to Dr. Meddings, who believes increased risk of both UTI and urinary tract trauma should discourage use of Foley catheters when there is not a specific indication.

Although there are criteria other than excess bladder volume to determine when to consider a Foley catheter, Dr. Meddings encourages any systematic approach that increases the likelihood that catheters are not placed unnecessarily. She emphasized that a hip fracture by itself “is not a criterion for catheterization.”

Dr. Konda reported a financial relationship with Stryker.
 

Participants in the growing #WhiteCoats4BlackLives protest against racism say it is a chance to use their status as trusted messengers, show themselves as allies of people of color, and demonstrate that they are intimately familiar with how racism has contributed to health disparities, like those on vivid display during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sporadic protests – with participants in scrubs or white coats kneeling for 8 minutes and 46 seconds in memory of George Floyd – have quickly grown into organized, ongoing, large-scale events at hospitals, medical campuses, and city centers in New York, Indianapolis, Atlanta, Austin, Houston, Boston, Miami, Portland, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Albuquerque, among others.

Sarah Mariano

Now is different

Some residents said they felt particularly moved to act now – as the country entered a second week of protests in response to George Floyd’s death and as the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the devastating toll of health disparities.

“This protest feels different to me,” said Ian Fields, MD, a urogynecology fellow at Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) School of Medicine. “The events over the last couple of weeks were just a big catalyst for this to explode,” he said.

“I was very intent, as a white male physician, just coming to acknowledge the privilege that I have, and to do something,” Dr. Fields said, adding that as an obstetrician-gynecologist, he sees the results of health disparities daily. He took part in a kneel-in and demonstration with OHSU colleagues on June 2 at Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square.

It’s okay to be sad and mourn, Dr. Fields said, but, he added, “nobody needs our tears necessarily right now. They need us to show up and to speak up about what we see going on.”

“It feels like it’s a national conversation,” said Dr. Verghese. The White Coats movement is “not an issue that’s confined to the black community – this is not an issue that’s a ‘black thing’ – this is a humanitarian thing,” she said.

Dr. Verghese, an Indian American who said that no one would mistake her for being white, said she still wants to acknowledge that she has privilege, as well as biases. All the patients in the COVID-19 unit where she works are African American, but she said she hadn’t initially noticed.

“What’s shocking is that I didn’t think about it,” she said. “I do have to recognize my own biases.”

Protesting During a Pandemic

Despite the demands of treating COVID-19 patients, healthcare professionals have made the White Coat protests a priority, they said. Most – but not all – of the White Coats protests have been on medical campuses, allowing health care professionals to quickly assemble and get back to work. Plus, all of the protests have called on attendees to march and gather safely – with masks and distancing.

“Seeing that we are working in the hospital, it’s important for us to be wearing our masks, to be social distancing,” Dr. Azu said. Organizers asked attendees to ensure that they protested in a way that kept them “from worsening the COVID epidemic,” said Dr. Azu.

Unlike many others, the first protest in Portland was in conjunction with a larger group that assembles every evening in the square, said Dr. Fields. The physician protesters were wearing masks and maintaining distance from each other, especially when they kneeled, he said.

The protests have provided an escape from the futility of not being able to do anything for COVID-19 patients except to provide support, said Dr. Verghese. “In so many ways, we find ourselves powerless,” she said.

Protesting, Dr. Verghese added, was “one tiny moment where I got to regain my sense of agency, that I could actually do something about this.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Participants in the growing #WhiteCoats4BlackLives protest against racism say it is a chance to use their status as trusted messengers, show themselves as allies of people of color, and demonstrate that they are intimately familiar with how racism has contributed to health disparities, like those on vivid display during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sporadic protests – with participants in scrubs or white coats kneeling for 8 minutes and 46 seconds in memory of George Floyd – have quickly grown into organized, ongoing, large-scale events at hospitals, medical campuses, and city centers in New York, Indianapolis, Atlanta, Austin, Houston, Boston, Miami, Portland, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Albuquerque, among others.

Sarah Mariano

Now is different

Some residents said they felt particularly moved to act now – as the country entered a second week of protests in response to George Floyd’s death and as the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the devastating toll of health disparities.

“This protest feels different to me,” said Ian Fields, MD, a urogynecology fellow at Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) School of Medicine. “The events over the last couple of weeks were just a big catalyst for this to explode,” he said.

“I was very intent, as a white male physician, just coming to acknowledge the privilege that I have, and to do something,” Dr. Fields said, adding that as an obstetrician-gynecologist, he sees the results of health disparities daily. He took part in a kneel-in and demonstration with OHSU colleagues on June 2 at Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square.

It’s okay to be sad and mourn, Dr. Fields said, but, he added, “nobody needs our tears necessarily right now. They need us to show up and to speak up about what we see going on.”

“It feels like it’s a national conversation,” said Dr. Verghese. The White Coats movement is “not an issue that’s confined to the black community – this is not an issue that’s a ‘black thing’ – this is a humanitarian thing,” she said.

Dr. Verghese, an Indian American who said that no one would mistake her for being white, said she still wants to acknowledge that she has privilege, as well as biases. All the patients in the COVID-19 unit where she works are African American, but she said she hadn’t initially noticed.

“What’s shocking is that I didn’t think about it,” she said. “I do have to recognize my own biases.”

Protesting During a Pandemic

Despite the demands of treating COVID-19 patients, healthcare professionals have made the White Coat protests a priority, they said. Most – but not all – of the White Coats protests have been on medical campuses, allowing health care professionals to quickly assemble and get back to work. Plus, all of the protests have called on attendees to march and gather safely – with masks and distancing.

“Seeing that we are working in the hospital, it’s important for us to be wearing our masks, to be social distancing,” Dr. Azu said. Organizers asked attendees to ensure that they protested in a way that kept them “from worsening the COVID epidemic,” said Dr. Azu.

Unlike many others, the first protest in Portland was in conjunction with a larger group that assembles every evening in the square, said Dr. Fields. The physician protesters were wearing masks and maintaining distance from each other, especially when they kneeled, he said.

The protests have provided an escape from the futility of not being able to do anything for COVID-19 patients except to provide support, said Dr. Verghese. “In so many ways, we find ourselves powerless,” she said.

Protesting, Dr. Verghese added, was “one tiny moment where I got to regain my sense of agency, that I could actually do something about this.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Participants in the growing #WhiteCoats4BlackLives protest against racism say it is a chance to use their status as trusted messengers, show themselves as allies of people of color, and demonstrate that they are intimately familiar with how racism has contributed to health disparities, like those on vivid display during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sporadic protests – with participants in scrubs or white coats kneeling for 8 minutes and 46 seconds in memory of George Floyd – have quickly grown into organized, ongoing, large-scale events at hospitals, medical campuses, and city centers in New York, Indianapolis, Atlanta, Austin, Houston, Boston, Miami, Portland, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Albuquerque, among others.

Sarah Mariano

Now is different

Some residents said they felt particularly moved to act now – as the country entered a second week of protests in response to George Floyd’s death and as the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the devastating toll of health disparities.

“This protest feels different to me,” said Ian Fields, MD, a urogynecology fellow at Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) School of Medicine. “The events over the last couple of weeks were just a big catalyst for this to explode,” he said.

“I was very intent, as a white male physician, just coming to acknowledge the privilege that I have, and to do something,” Dr. Fields said, adding that as an obstetrician-gynecologist, he sees the results of health disparities daily. He took part in a kneel-in and demonstration with OHSU colleagues on June 2 at Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square.

It’s okay to be sad and mourn, Dr. Fields said, but, he added, “nobody needs our tears necessarily right now. They need us to show up and to speak up about what we see going on.”

“It feels like it’s a national conversation,” said Dr. Verghese. The White Coats movement is “not an issue that’s confined to the black community – this is not an issue that’s a ‘black thing’ – this is a humanitarian thing,” she said.

Dr. Verghese, an Indian American who said that no one would mistake her for being white, said she still wants to acknowledge that she has privilege, as well as biases. All the patients in the COVID-19 unit where she works are African American, but she said she hadn’t initially noticed.

“What’s shocking is that I didn’t think about it,” she said. “I do have to recognize my own biases.”

Protesting During a Pandemic

Despite the demands of treating COVID-19 patients, healthcare professionals have made the White Coat protests a priority, they said. Most – but not all – of the White Coats protests have been on medical campuses, allowing health care professionals to quickly assemble and get back to work. Plus, all of the protests have called on attendees to march and gather safely – with masks and distancing.

“Seeing that we are working in the hospital, it’s important for us to be wearing our masks, to be social distancing,” Dr. Azu said. Organizers asked attendees to ensure that they protested in a way that kept them “from worsening the COVID epidemic,” said Dr. Azu.

Unlike many others, the first protest in Portland was in conjunction with a larger group that assembles every evening in the square, said Dr. Fields. The physician protesters were wearing masks and maintaining distance from each other, especially when they kneeled, he said.

The protests have provided an escape from the futility of not being able to do anything for COVID-19 patients except to provide support, said Dr. Verghese. “In so many ways, we find ourselves powerless,” she said.

Protesting, Dr. Verghese added, was “one tiny moment where I got to regain my sense of agency, that I could actually do something about this.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Background: Limited research suggests IV treatment of asymptomatic hypertension may be widespread and unhelpful. There is potential for unnecessary treatment to have adverse outcomes, such as hypotension.

Dr. Sharma is associate medical director for clinical education in hospital medicine at Duke Regional Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.

Background: Limited research suggests IV treatment of asymptomatic hypertension may be widespread and unhelpful. There is potential for unnecessary treatment to have adverse outcomes, such as hypotension.

Dr. Sharma is associate medical director for clinical education in hospital medicine at Duke Regional Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.

Background: Limited research suggests IV treatment of asymptomatic hypertension may be widespread and unhelpful. There is potential for unnecessary treatment to have adverse outcomes, such as hypotension.

Dr. Sharma is associate medical director for clinical education in hospital medicine at Duke Regional Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.

More evidence has linked the Kawasaki-like multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children to COVID-19 and suggests that black children have a greater risk of the condition, according to a study published in the BMJ.

A small observational study in Paris found more than half of the 21 children who were admitted for the condition at the city’s pediatric hospital for COVID-19 patients were of African ancestry.

“The observation of a higher proportion of patients of African ancestry is consistent with recent findings, suggesting an effect of either social and living conditions or genetic susceptibility,” wrote Julie Toubiana, MD, PhD, of the University of Paris and the Pasteur Institute, and colleagues.

The findings did not surprise Edward M. Behrens, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, whose institution has seen similar disparities that he attributes to social disadvantages.

“Infection rate will be higher in vulnerable populations that are less able to socially distance, have disproportionate numbers of essential workers, and have less access to health care and other resources,” Dr. Behrens said in an interview. “While there may be a role for genetics, environment – including social disparities – is almost certainly playing a role.”

Although the study’s small size is a limitation, he said, “the features described seem to mirror the experience of our center and what has been discussed more broadly amongst U.S. physicians.”

Byron Whyte, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in southeast Washington, found the differences in race interesting, but said the study was too small to draw any conclusions or generalize to the United States. But social disparities related to race are likely similar in France as they are in the United States, he said.

The prospective observational study assessed the clinical and demographic characteristics of all patients under age 18 who met the criteria for Kawasaki disease and were admitted between April 27 and May 20 to the Necker Hospital for Sick Children in Paris.

The 21 children had an average age of 8 years (ranging from 3 to 16), and 57% had at least one parent from sub-Saharan Africa or a Caribbean island; 14% had parents from Asia (two from China and one from Sri Lanka). The authors noted in their discussion that past U.S. and U.K. studies of Kawasaki disease have found a 2.5 times greater risk in Asian-American children and 1.5 times greater risk in African-American children compared with children with European ancestry.

Most of the patients (81%) needed intensive care, with 57% presenting with Kawasaki disease shock syndrome and 67% with myocarditis. Dr. Toubiana and associates also noted that “gastrointestinal symptoms were also unusually common, affecting all of our 21 patients.”

Only nine of the children reported having symptoms of a viral-like illness when they were admitted, primarily headache, cough, coryza, and fever, plus anosmia in one child. Among those children, the Kawasaki symptoms began a median 45 days after onset of the viral symptoms (range 18-79 days).

Only two children showed no positive test result for current COVID-19 infection or antibodies. Eight (38%) of the children had positive PCR tests for SARS-CoV2, and 19 (90%) had positive tests for IgG antibodies. The two patients with both negative tests did not require intensive care and did not have myocarditis.

About half the patients (52%) met all the criteria of Kawasaki disease, and the other 10 had “incomplete Kawasaki disease.” The most common Kawasaki symptoms were the polymorphous skin rash, occurring in 76% of the patients, changes to the lips and oral cavity (76%), and bilateral bulbar conjunctival injection (81%). Three patients (14%) had pleural effusion, and 10 of them (48%) had pericardial effusion, Dr. Toubiana and associates reported.

But Dr. Behrens said he disagrees with the assertion that the illness described in the paper and what he is seeing at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia is related to Kawasaki disease.

“Most experts here in the U.S. seem to agree this is not Kawasaki disease, but a distinct clinical syndrome called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, or MIS-C, that seems to have some overlap with the most nonspecific features of Kawasaki disease,” said Dr. Behrens, who is the Joseph Lee Hollander Chair in Pediatric Rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He has coauthored a study currently under review and available as a preprint soon that examines the biologic mechanisms underlying MIS-C.

Neither Dr. Behrens nor Dr. Whyte believed the findings had clinical implications that might change practice, but Dr. Whyte said he will be paying closer attention to the black children he treats – 99% of his practice – who are recovering from COVID-19.

“And, because we know that the concerns of African Americans are often overlooked in health care,” Dr. Whyte said, physicians should “pay a little more attention to symptom reporting on those kids, since there is a possibility that those kids would need hospitalization.”

All the patients in the study were treated with intravenous immunoglobulin, and corticosteroids were administered to 10 of them (48%). Their median hospital stay was 8 days (5 days in intensive care), and all were discharged without any deaths.

“Only one patient had symptoms suggestive of acute covid-19 and most had positive serum test results for IgG antibodies, suggesting that the development of Kawasaki disease in these patients is more likely to be the result of a postviral immunological reaction,” Dr. Toubiana and associates said.

The research received no external funding, and neither the authors nor other quoted physicians had any relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Toubiana J et al. BMJ. 2020 Jun 3, doi: 10.1136 bmj.m2094.

More evidence has linked the Kawasaki-like multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children to COVID-19 and suggests that black children have a greater risk of the condition, according to a study published in the BMJ.

A small observational study in Paris found more than half of the 21 children who were admitted for the condition at the city’s pediatric hospital for COVID-19 patients were of African ancestry.

“The observation of a higher proportion of patients of African ancestry is consistent with recent findings, suggesting an effect of either social and living conditions or genetic susceptibility,” wrote Julie Toubiana, MD, PhD, of the University of Paris and the Pasteur Institute, and colleagues.

The findings did not surprise Edward M. Behrens, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, whose institution has seen similar disparities that he attributes to social disadvantages.

“Infection rate will be higher in vulnerable populations that are less able to socially distance, have disproportionate numbers of essential workers, and have less access to health care and other resources,” Dr. Behrens said in an interview. “While there may be a role for genetics, environment – including social disparities – is almost certainly playing a role.”

Although the study’s small size is a limitation, he said, “the features described seem to mirror the experience of our center and what has been discussed more broadly amongst U.S. physicians.”

Byron Whyte, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in southeast Washington, found the differences in race interesting, but said the study was too small to draw any conclusions or generalize to the United States. But social disparities related to race are likely similar in France as they are in the United States, he said.

The prospective observational study assessed the clinical and demographic characteristics of all patients under age 18 who met the criteria for Kawasaki disease and were admitted between April 27 and May 20 to the Necker Hospital for Sick Children in Paris.

The 21 children had an average age of 8 years (ranging from 3 to 16), and 57% had at least one parent from sub-Saharan Africa or a Caribbean island; 14% had parents from Asia (two from China and one from Sri Lanka). The authors noted in their discussion that past U.S. and U.K. studies of Kawasaki disease have found a 2.5 times greater risk in Asian-American children and 1.5 times greater risk in African-American children compared with children with European ancestry.

Most of the patients (81%) needed intensive care, with 57% presenting with Kawasaki disease shock syndrome and 67% with myocarditis. Dr. Toubiana and associates also noted that “gastrointestinal symptoms were also unusually common, affecting all of our 21 patients.”

Only nine of the children reported having symptoms of a viral-like illness when they were admitted, primarily headache, cough, coryza, and fever, plus anosmia in one child. Among those children, the Kawasaki symptoms began a median 45 days after onset of the viral symptoms (range 18-79 days).

Only two children showed no positive test result for current COVID-19 infection or antibodies. Eight (38%) of the children had positive PCR tests for SARS-CoV2, and 19 (90%) had positive tests for IgG antibodies. The two patients with both negative tests did not require intensive care and did not have myocarditis.

About half the patients (52%) met all the criteria of Kawasaki disease, and the other 10 had “incomplete Kawasaki disease.” The most common Kawasaki symptoms were the polymorphous skin rash, occurring in 76% of the patients, changes to the lips and oral cavity (76%), and bilateral bulbar conjunctival injection (81%). Three patients (14%) had pleural effusion, and 10 of them (48%) had pericardial effusion, Dr. Toubiana and associates reported.

But Dr. Behrens said he disagrees with the assertion that the illness described in the paper and what he is seeing at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia is related to Kawasaki disease.

“Most experts here in the U.S. seem to agree this is not Kawasaki disease, but a distinct clinical syndrome called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, or MIS-C, that seems to have some overlap with the most nonspecific features of Kawasaki disease,” said Dr. Behrens, who is the Joseph Lee Hollander Chair in Pediatric Rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He has coauthored a study currently under review and available as a preprint soon that examines the biologic mechanisms underlying MIS-C.

Neither Dr. Behrens nor Dr. Whyte believed the findings had clinical implications that might change practice, but Dr. Whyte said he will be paying closer attention to the black children he treats – 99% of his practice – who are recovering from COVID-19.

“And, because we know that the concerns of African Americans are often overlooked in health care,” Dr. Whyte said, physicians should “pay a little more attention to symptom reporting on those kids, since there is a possibility that those kids would need hospitalization.”

All the patients in the study were treated with intravenous immunoglobulin, and corticosteroids were administered to 10 of them (48%). Their median hospital stay was 8 days (5 days in intensive care), and all were discharged without any deaths.

“Only one patient had symptoms suggestive of acute covid-19 and most had positive serum test results for IgG antibodies, suggesting that the development of Kawasaki disease in these patients is more likely to be the result of a postviral immunological reaction,” Dr. Toubiana and associates said.

The research received no external funding, and neither the authors nor other quoted physicians had any relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Toubiana J et al. BMJ. 2020 Jun 3, doi: 10.1136 bmj.m2094.

More evidence has linked the Kawasaki-like multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children to COVID-19 and suggests that black children have a greater risk of the condition, according to a study published in the BMJ.

A small observational study in Paris found more than half of the 21 children who were admitted for the condition at the city’s pediatric hospital for COVID-19 patients were of African ancestry.

“The observation of a higher proportion of patients of African ancestry is consistent with recent findings, suggesting an effect of either social and living conditions or genetic susceptibility,” wrote Julie Toubiana, MD, PhD, of the University of Paris and the Pasteur Institute, and colleagues.

The findings did not surprise Edward M. Behrens, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, whose institution has seen similar disparities that he attributes to social disadvantages.

“Infection rate will be higher in vulnerable populations that are less able to socially distance, have disproportionate numbers of essential workers, and have less access to health care and other resources,” Dr. Behrens said in an interview. “While there may be a role for genetics, environment – including social disparities – is almost certainly playing a role.”

Although the study’s small size is a limitation, he said, “the features described seem to mirror the experience of our center and what has been discussed more broadly amongst U.S. physicians.”

Byron Whyte, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in southeast Washington, found the differences in race interesting, but said the study was too small to draw any conclusions or generalize to the United States. But social disparities related to race are likely similar in France as they are in the United States, he said.

The prospective observational study assessed the clinical and demographic characteristics of all patients under age 18 who met the criteria for Kawasaki disease and were admitted between April 27 and May 20 to the Necker Hospital for Sick Children in Paris.

The 21 children had an average age of 8 years (ranging from 3 to 16), and 57% had at least one parent from sub-Saharan Africa or a Caribbean island; 14% had parents from Asia (two from China and one from Sri Lanka). The authors noted in their discussion that past U.S. and U.K. studies of Kawasaki disease have found a 2.5 times greater risk in Asian-American children and 1.5 times greater risk in African-American children compared with children with European ancestry.

Most of the patients (81%) needed intensive care, with 57% presenting with Kawasaki disease shock syndrome and 67% with myocarditis. Dr. Toubiana and associates also noted that “gastrointestinal symptoms were also unusually common, affecting all of our 21 patients.”

Only nine of the children reported having symptoms of a viral-like illness when they were admitted, primarily headache, cough, coryza, and fever, plus anosmia in one child. Among those children, the Kawasaki symptoms began a median 45 days after onset of the viral symptoms (range 18-79 days).

Only two children showed no positive test result for current COVID-19 infection or antibodies. Eight (38%) of the children had positive PCR tests for SARS-CoV2, and 19 (90%) had positive tests for IgG antibodies. The two patients with both negative tests did not require intensive care and did not have myocarditis.

About half the patients (52%) met all the criteria of Kawasaki disease, and the other 10 had “incomplete Kawasaki disease.” The most common Kawasaki symptoms were the polymorphous skin rash, occurring in 76% of the patients, changes to the lips and oral cavity (76%), and bilateral bulbar conjunctival injection (81%). Three patients (14%) had pleural effusion, and 10 of them (48%) had pericardial effusion, Dr. Toubiana and associates reported.

But Dr. Behrens said he disagrees with the assertion that the illness described in the paper and what he is seeing at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia is related to Kawasaki disease.

“Most experts here in the U.S. seem to agree this is not Kawasaki disease, but a distinct clinical syndrome called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, or MIS-C, that seems to have some overlap with the most nonspecific features of Kawasaki disease,” said Dr. Behrens, who is the Joseph Lee Hollander Chair in Pediatric Rheumatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He has coauthored a study currently under review and available as a preprint soon that examines the biologic mechanisms underlying MIS-C.

Neither Dr. Behrens nor Dr. Whyte believed the findings had clinical implications that might change practice, but Dr. Whyte said he will be paying closer attention to the black children he treats – 99% of his practice – who are recovering from COVID-19.

“And, because we know that the concerns of African Americans are often overlooked in health care,” Dr. Whyte said, physicians should “pay a little more attention to symptom reporting on those kids, since there is a possibility that those kids would need hospitalization.”

All the patients in the study were treated with intravenous immunoglobulin, and corticosteroids were administered to 10 of them (48%). Their median hospital stay was 8 days (5 days in intensive care), and all were discharged without any deaths.

“Only one patient had symptoms suggestive of acute covid-19 and most had positive serum test results for IgG antibodies, suggesting that the development of Kawasaki disease in these patients is more likely to be the result of a postviral immunological reaction,” Dr. Toubiana and associates said.

The research received no external funding, and neither the authors nor other quoted physicians had any relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Toubiana J et al. BMJ. 2020 Jun 3, doi: 10.1136 bmj.m2094.

Neurologic effects can be a significant part of COVID-19, but does the SARS-CoV-2 virus directly damage the central nervous system or are the neurologic symptoms attributable to secondary mechanisms? A new review article summarizes what is known so far, and what clinicians need to look out for.

“We frequently see neurological conditions in people with COVID-19, but we understand very little about these effects. Is it the virus entering the brain/nerves or are they a result of a general inflammation or immune response – a bystander effect of people being severely ill. It is probably a combination of both,” said senior author Serena Spudich, MD, Gilbert H. Glaser Professor of Neurology; division chief of neurological infections & global neurology; and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“Our message is that there are fairly frequent neurological sequelae of COVID-19 and we need to be alert to these, and to try to understand the potential long-term consequences,” she said.

The review was published online May 29 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Brain changes linked to loss of smell

In a separate article also published online in JAMA Neurology the same day, an Italian group describes a COVID-19 patient with anosmia (loss of sense of smell) who showed brain abnormalities on MRI in the areas associated with smell – the right gyrus rectus and the olfactory bulbs. These changes were resolved on later scan and the patient recovered her sense of smell.

“Based on the MRI findings, we can speculate that SARS-CoV-2 might invade the brain through the olfactory pathway,” conclude the researchers, led by first author Letterio S. Politi, MD, of the department of neuroradiology at IRCCS Istituto Clinico Humanitas and Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
 

Can coronaviruses enter the CNS?

Dr. Spudich described this case report as “compelling evidence suggesting that loss of smell is a neurologic effect.”

“Loss of smell and/or taste is a common symptom in COVID-19, so this may suggest that an awful lot of people have some neurological involvement,” Dr. Spudich commented. “While a transient loss of smell or taste is not serious, if the virus has infected brain tissue the question is could this then spread to other parts of the brain and cause other more serious neurological effects,” she added.

In their review article, Dr. Spudich and colleagues present evidence showing that coronaviruses can enter the CNS.

“We know that SARS-1 and MERS have been shown to enter the nervous system and several coronaviruses have been shown to cause direct brain effects,” she said. “There is also some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can do this too. As well as these latest MRI findings linked to loss of smell, there is a report of the virus being found in endothelial cells in the brain and a French autopsy study has also detected virus in the brain.”
 

Complications of other systemic effects?

Dr. Spudich is a neurologist specializing in neurologic consequences of infectious disease. “We don’t normally have such vast numbers of patients but in the last 3 months there has been an avalanche,” she says. From her personal experience, she believes the majority of neurologic symptoms in COVID-19 patients are most probably complications of other systemic effects, such as kidney, heart, or liver problems. But there is likely also a direct viral effect on the CNS in some patients.

“Reports from China suggested that serious neurologic effects were present in about one-third of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. I would say in our experience the figure would be less than that – maybe around 10%,” she noted.

Some COVID-19 patients are presenting with primary neurologic symptoms. For example, an elderly person may first develop confusion rather than a cough or shortness of breath; others have had severe headache as an initial COVID-19 symptom, Dr. Spudich reported. “Medical staff need to be aware of this – a severe headache in a patient who doesn’t normally get headaches could be a sign of the virus.”

Some of the neurologic symptoms could be caused by autoimmunity. Dr. Spudich explained that, in acute HIV infection a small proportion of patients can first present with autoimmune neurologic effects such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune condition of the nerves which causes a tingling sensation in the hands and feet. “This is well described in HIV, but we are also now seeing this in COVID-19 patients too,” she said. “A panoply of conditions can be caused by autoimmunity.”

On the increase in strokes that has been reported in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Spudich said, “this could be due to direct effects of the virus (e.g., causing an increase in coagulation or infecting the endothelial cells in the brain) or it could just be the final trigger for patients who were at risk of stroke anyway.”

There have been some very high-profile reports of younger patients with major strokes, she said, “but we haven’t seen that in our hospital. For the most part in my experience, strokes are happening in older COVID-19 patients with stroke risk factors such as AF [atrial fibrillation], hypertension, and diabetes. We haven’t seen a preponderance of strokes in young, otherwise healthy people.”

Even in patients who have neurologic effects as the first sign of COVID-19 infection, it is not known whether these symptoms are caused directly by the virus.

“We know that flu can cause people to have headaches, but that is because of an increase in inflammatory cytokines. On the other hand, patients with acute HIV infection often have headaches as a result of the virus getting into the brain. We don’t know where in this [cluster] COVID-19 virus falls,” Dr. Spudich said.
 

Much is still unknown

“The information we have is very sparse at this point. We need far more systematic information on this from CSF samples and imaging.” Dr. Spudich urged clinicians to try to collect such information in patients with neurologic symptoms.

Acknowledging that fewer such tests are being done at present because of concerns over infection risk, Dr. Spudich suggested that some changes in procedure may help. “In our hospital we have a portable MRI scanner which can be brought to the patient. This means the patient does not have to move across the hospital for a scan. This helps us to decide whether the patient has had a stroke, which can be missed when patients are on a ventilator.”

It is also unclear whether the neurologic effects seen during COVID-19 infection will last long term.

Dr. Spudich noted that there have been reports of COVID-19 patients discharged from intensive care having difficulty with higher cognitive function for some time thereafter. “This can happen after being in ICU but is it more pronounced in COVID-19 patients? An ongoing study is underway to look at this,” she said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Neurologic effects can be a significant part of COVID-19, but does the SARS-CoV-2 virus directly damage the central nervous system or are the neurologic symptoms attributable to secondary mechanisms? A new review article summarizes what is known so far, and what clinicians need to look out for.

“We frequently see neurological conditions in people with COVID-19, but we understand very little about these effects. Is it the virus entering the brain/nerves or are they a result of a general inflammation or immune response – a bystander effect of people being severely ill. It is probably a combination of both,” said senior author Serena Spudich, MD, Gilbert H. Glaser Professor of Neurology; division chief of neurological infections & global neurology; and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“Our message is that there are fairly frequent neurological sequelae of COVID-19 and we need to be alert to these, and to try to understand the potential long-term consequences,” she said.

The review was published online May 29 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Brain changes linked to loss of smell

In a separate article also published online in JAMA Neurology the same day, an Italian group describes a COVID-19 patient with anosmia (loss of sense of smell) who showed brain abnormalities on MRI in the areas associated with smell – the right gyrus rectus and the olfactory bulbs. These changes were resolved on later scan and the patient recovered her sense of smell.

“Based on the MRI findings, we can speculate that SARS-CoV-2 might invade the brain through the olfactory pathway,” conclude the researchers, led by first author Letterio S. Politi, MD, of the department of neuroradiology at IRCCS Istituto Clinico Humanitas and Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
 

Can coronaviruses enter the CNS?

Dr. Spudich described this case report as “compelling evidence suggesting that loss of smell is a neurologic effect.”

“Loss of smell and/or taste is a common symptom in COVID-19, so this may suggest that an awful lot of people have some neurological involvement,” Dr. Spudich commented. “While a transient loss of smell or taste is not serious, if the virus has infected brain tissue the question is could this then spread to other parts of the brain and cause other more serious neurological effects,” she added.

In their review article, Dr. Spudich and colleagues present evidence showing that coronaviruses can enter the CNS.

“We know that SARS-1 and MERS have been shown to enter the nervous system and several coronaviruses have been shown to cause direct brain effects,” she said. “There is also some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can do this too. As well as these latest MRI findings linked to loss of smell, there is a report of the virus being found in endothelial cells in the brain and a French autopsy study has also detected virus in the brain.”
 

Complications of other systemic effects?

Dr. Spudich is a neurologist specializing in neurologic consequences of infectious disease. “We don’t normally have such vast numbers of patients but in the last 3 months there has been an avalanche,” she says. From her personal experience, she believes the majority of neurologic symptoms in COVID-19 patients are most probably complications of other systemic effects, such as kidney, heart, or liver problems. But there is likely also a direct viral effect on the CNS in some patients.

“Reports from China suggested that serious neurologic effects were present in about one-third of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. I would say in our experience the figure would be less than that – maybe around 10%,” she noted.

Some COVID-19 patients are presenting with primary neurologic symptoms. For example, an elderly person may first develop confusion rather than a cough or shortness of breath; others have had severe headache as an initial COVID-19 symptom, Dr. Spudich reported. “Medical staff need to be aware of this – a severe headache in a patient who doesn’t normally get headaches could be a sign of the virus.”

Some of the neurologic symptoms could be caused by autoimmunity. Dr. Spudich explained that, in acute HIV infection a small proportion of patients can first present with autoimmune neurologic effects such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune condition of the nerves which causes a tingling sensation in the hands and feet. “This is well described in HIV, but we are also now seeing this in COVID-19 patients too,” she said. “A panoply of conditions can be caused by autoimmunity.”

On the increase in strokes that has been reported in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Spudich said, “this could be due to direct effects of the virus (e.g., causing an increase in coagulation or infecting the endothelial cells in the brain) or it could just be the final trigger for patients who were at risk of stroke anyway.”

There have been some very high-profile reports of younger patients with major strokes, she said, “but we haven’t seen that in our hospital. For the most part in my experience, strokes are happening in older COVID-19 patients with stroke risk factors such as AF [atrial fibrillation], hypertension, and diabetes. We haven’t seen a preponderance of strokes in young, otherwise healthy people.”

Even in patients who have neurologic effects as the first sign of COVID-19 infection, it is not known whether these symptoms are caused directly by the virus.

“We know that flu can cause people to have headaches, but that is because of an increase in inflammatory cytokines. On the other hand, patients with acute HIV infection often have headaches as a result of the virus getting into the brain. We don’t know where in this [cluster] COVID-19 virus falls,” Dr. Spudich said.
 

Much is still unknown

“The information we have is very sparse at this point. We need far more systematic information on this from CSF samples and imaging.” Dr. Spudich urged clinicians to try to collect such information in patients with neurologic symptoms.

Acknowledging that fewer such tests are being done at present because of concerns over infection risk, Dr. Spudich suggested that some changes in procedure may help. “In our hospital we have a portable MRI scanner which can be brought to the patient. This means the patient does not have to move across the hospital for a scan. This helps us to decide whether the patient has had a stroke, which can be missed when patients are on a ventilator.”

It is also unclear whether the neurologic effects seen during COVID-19 infection will last long term.

Dr. Spudich noted that there have been reports of COVID-19 patients discharged from intensive care having difficulty with higher cognitive function for some time thereafter. “This can happen after being in ICU but is it more pronounced in COVID-19 patients? An ongoing study is underway to look at this,” she said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Neurologic effects can be a significant part of COVID-19, but does the SARS-CoV-2 virus directly damage the central nervous system or are the neurologic symptoms attributable to secondary mechanisms? A new review article summarizes what is known so far, and what clinicians need to look out for.

“We frequently see neurological conditions in people with COVID-19, but we understand very little about these effects. Is it the virus entering the brain/nerves or are they a result of a general inflammation or immune response – a bystander effect of people being severely ill. It is probably a combination of both,” said senior author Serena Spudich, MD, Gilbert H. Glaser Professor of Neurology; division chief of neurological infections & global neurology; and codirector of the Center for Neuroepidemiology and Clinical Neurological Research at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“Our message is that there are fairly frequent neurological sequelae of COVID-19 and we need to be alert to these, and to try to understand the potential long-term consequences,” she said.

The review was published online May 29 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Brain changes linked to loss of smell

In a separate article also published online in JAMA Neurology the same day, an Italian group describes a COVID-19 patient with anosmia (loss of sense of smell) who showed brain abnormalities on MRI in the areas associated with smell – the right gyrus rectus and the olfactory bulbs. These changes were resolved on later scan and the patient recovered her sense of smell.

“Based on the MRI findings, we can speculate that SARS-CoV-2 might invade the brain through the olfactory pathway,” conclude the researchers, led by first author Letterio S. Politi, MD, of the department of neuroradiology at IRCCS Istituto Clinico Humanitas and Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
 

Can coronaviruses enter the CNS?

Dr. Spudich described this case report as “compelling evidence suggesting that loss of smell is a neurologic effect.”

“Loss of smell and/or taste is a common symptom in COVID-19, so this may suggest that an awful lot of people have some neurological involvement,” Dr. Spudich commented. “While a transient loss of smell or taste is not serious, if the virus has infected brain tissue the question is could this then spread to other parts of the brain and cause other more serious neurological effects,” she added.

In their review article, Dr. Spudich and colleagues present evidence showing that coronaviruses can enter the CNS.

“We know that SARS-1 and MERS have been shown to enter the nervous system and several coronaviruses have been shown to cause direct brain effects,” she said. “There is also some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can do this too. As well as these latest MRI findings linked to loss of smell, there is a report of the virus being found in endothelial cells in the brain and a French autopsy study has also detected virus in the brain.”
 

Complications of other systemic effects?

Dr. Spudich is a neurologist specializing in neurologic consequences of infectious disease. “We don’t normally have such vast numbers of patients but in the last 3 months there has been an avalanche,” she says. From her personal experience, she believes the majority of neurologic symptoms in COVID-19 patients are most probably complications of other systemic effects, such as kidney, heart, or liver problems. But there is likely also a direct viral effect on the CNS in some patients.

“Reports from China suggested that serious neurologic effects were present in about one-third of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. I would say in our experience the figure would be less than that – maybe around 10%,” she noted.

Some COVID-19 patients are presenting with primary neurologic symptoms. For example, an elderly person may first develop confusion rather than a cough or shortness of breath; others have had severe headache as an initial COVID-19 symptom, Dr. Spudich reported. “Medical staff need to be aware of this – a severe headache in a patient who doesn’t normally get headaches could be a sign of the virus.”

Some of the neurologic symptoms could be caused by autoimmunity. Dr. Spudich explained that, in acute HIV infection a small proportion of patients can first present with autoimmune neurologic effects such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune condition of the nerves which causes a tingling sensation in the hands and feet. “This is well described in HIV, but we are also now seeing this in COVID-19 patients too,” she said. “A panoply of conditions can be caused by autoimmunity.”

On the increase in strokes that has been reported in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Spudich said, “this could be due to direct effects of the virus (e.g., causing an increase in coagulation or infecting the endothelial cells in the brain) or it could just be the final trigger for patients who were at risk of stroke anyway.”

There have been some very high-profile reports of younger patients with major strokes, she said, “but we haven’t seen that in our hospital. For the most part in my experience, strokes are happening in older COVID-19 patients with stroke risk factors such as AF [atrial fibrillation], hypertension, and diabetes. We haven’t seen a preponderance of strokes in young, otherwise healthy people.”

Even in patients who have neurologic effects as the first sign of COVID-19 infection, it is not known whether these symptoms are caused directly by the virus.

“We know that flu can cause people to have headaches, but that is because of an increase in inflammatory cytokines. On the other hand, patients with acute HIV infection often have headaches as a result of the virus getting into the brain. We don’t know where in this [cluster] COVID-19 virus falls,” Dr. Spudich said.
 

Much is still unknown

“The information we have is very sparse at this point. We need far more systematic information on this from CSF samples and imaging.” Dr. Spudich urged clinicians to try to collect such information in patients with neurologic symptoms.

Acknowledging that fewer such tests are being done at present because of concerns over infection risk, Dr. Spudich suggested that some changes in procedure may help. “In our hospital we have a portable MRI scanner which can be brought to the patient. This means the patient does not have to move across the hospital for a scan. This helps us to decide whether the patient has had a stroke, which can be missed when patients are on a ventilator.”

It is also unclear whether the neurologic effects seen during COVID-19 infection will last long term.

Dr. Spudich noted that there have been reports of COVID-19 patients discharged from intensive care having difficulty with higher cognitive function for some time thereafter. “This can happen after being in ICU but is it more pronounced in COVID-19 patients? An ongoing study is underway to look at this,” she said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.