It’s high time to say farewell to the traditional categorization of psoriasis severity into mild, moderate, or severe disease, according to the International Psoriasis Council.

The mild/moderate/severe categorization is vague and defined differently by different organizations and in different countries. It often underestimates disease severity because it ignores psoriasis involvement in particularly tough-to-treat special areas, including the scalp, palms, soles, face, nails, and genitalia, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, asserted at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year. He chaired an IPC project in which prominent psoriasis experts in 32 countries employed a Delphi consensus approach aimed at achieving agreement on a more practical recategorization of psoriasis severity for use in both daily clinical practice and enrolling appropriate participants in clinical trials. What emerged was a simplified dichotomous categorization system.

“What we came up with is a very sensible approach to defining whether patients should get either topical or systemic therapy. In fact, there are only two groups of patients in psoriasis: those who should get topicals alone, and those who should get systemic therapy. It’s topicals or systemics,” explained Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who also works in private practice in Cromwell, Conn.

Under the IPC classification, psoriasis patients are candidates for systemic therapy if they meet at least one of three criteria: body surface area of involvement greater than 10%, disease involving the previously mentioned special areas, or failure of topical therapy.

“This approach is about practically treating patients who are in need,” Dr. Strober said. “If patients meet just one of these three criteria they can move on to our current toolbox of systemic therapies, be they older systemic treatments, apremilast, phototherapy, or 1 of the 11 biologics currently approved for the treatment of psoriasis. The key point is that for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis – or should I say, systemic therapy–appropriate psoriasis – treatment should be based on individual patient characteristics. We don’t work on a stepwise approach. If a patient walks in with more than 10% body surface area involved, don’t make them fail topicals; you can go right to systemics.”

European dermatologists often use the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score to characterize disease severity and monitor response to therapy. In contrast, American dermatologists generally find PASI too complex and time-consuming for use in clinical practice, relying instead on the amount of body surface area involved with psoriasis. Neither of these measures incorporates disease involvement in special areas, which when present ought to automatically place a patient in the systemic therapy–appropriate category, according to Dr. Strober.

“I find this [IPC recategorization] a very practical approach. I hope you write this down and use this in your own practice,” Dr. Strober said.

The full IPC report was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The IPC psoriasis severity reclassification project was unfunded. Dr. Strober reported receiving institutional research funding from and serving as a paid consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

It’s high time to say farewell to the traditional categorization of psoriasis severity into mild, moderate, or severe disease, according to the International Psoriasis Council.

The mild/moderate/severe categorization is vague and defined differently by different organizations and in different countries. It often underestimates disease severity because it ignores psoriasis involvement in particularly tough-to-treat special areas, including the scalp, palms, soles, face, nails, and genitalia, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, asserted at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year. He chaired an IPC project in which prominent psoriasis experts in 32 countries employed a Delphi consensus approach aimed at achieving agreement on a more practical recategorization of psoriasis severity for use in both daily clinical practice and enrolling appropriate participants in clinical trials. What emerged was a simplified dichotomous categorization system.

“What we came up with is a very sensible approach to defining whether patients should get either topical or systemic therapy. In fact, there are only two groups of patients in psoriasis: those who should get topicals alone, and those who should get systemic therapy. It’s topicals or systemics,” explained Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who also works in private practice in Cromwell, Conn.

Under the IPC classification, psoriasis patients are candidates for systemic therapy if they meet at least one of three criteria: body surface area of involvement greater than 10%, disease involving the previously mentioned special areas, or failure of topical therapy.

“This approach is about practically treating patients who are in need,” Dr. Strober said. “If patients meet just one of these three criteria they can move on to our current toolbox of systemic therapies, be they older systemic treatments, apremilast, phototherapy, or 1 of the 11 biologics currently approved for the treatment of psoriasis. The key point is that for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis – or should I say, systemic therapy–appropriate psoriasis – treatment should be based on individual patient characteristics. We don’t work on a stepwise approach. If a patient walks in with more than 10% body surface area involved, don’t make them fail topicals; you can go right to systemics.”

European dermatologists often use the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score to characterize disease severity and monitor response to therapy. In contrast, American dermatologists generally find PASI too complex and time-consuming for use in clinical practice, relying instead on the amount of body surface area involved with psoriasis. Neither of these measures incorporates disease involvement in special areas, which when present ought to automatically place a patient in the systemic therapy–appropriate category, according to Dr. Strober.

“I find this [IPC recategorization] a very practical approach. I hope you write this down and use this in your own practice,” Dr. Strober said.

The full IPC report was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The IPC psoriasis severity reclassification project was unfunded. Dr. Strober reported receiving institutional research funding from and serving as a paid consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

It’s high time to say farewell to the traditional categorization of psoriasis severity into mild, moderate, or severe disease, according to the International Psoriasis Council.

The mild/moderate/severe categorization is vague and defined differently by different organizations and in different countries. It often underestimates disease severity because it ignores psoriasis involvement in particularly tough-to-treat special areas, including the scalp, palms, soles, face, nails, and genitalia, Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, asserted at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year. He chaired an IPC project in which prominent psoriasis experts in 32 countries employed a Delphi consensus approach aimed at achieving agreement on a more practical recategorization of psoriasis severity for use in both daily clinical practice and enrolling appropriate participants in clinical trials. What emerged was a simplified dichotomous categorization system.

“What we came up with is a very sensible approach to defining whether patients should get either topical or systemic therapy. In fact, there are only two groups of patients in psoriasis: those who should get topicals alone, and those who should get systemic therapy. It’s topicals or systemics,” explained Dr. Strober, a dermatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who also works in private practice in Cromwell, Conn.

Under the IPC classification, psoriasis patients are candidates for systemic therapy if they meet at least one of three criteria: body surface area of involvement greater than 10%, disease involving the previously mentioned special areas, or failure of topical therapy.

“This approach is about practically treating patients who are in need,” Dr. Strober said. “If patients meet just one of these three criteria they can move on to our current toolbox of systemic therapies, be they older systemic treatments, apremilast, phototherapy, or 1 of the 11 biologics currently approved for the treatment of psoriasis. The key point is that for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis – or should I say, systemic therapy–appropriate psoriasis – treatment should be based on individual patient characteristics. We don’t work on a stepwise approach. If a patient walks in with more than 10% body surface area involved, don’t make them fail topicals; you can go right to systemics.”

European dermatologists often use the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score to characterize disease severity and monitor response to therapy. In contrast, American dermatologists generally find PASI too complex and time-consuming for use in clinical practice, relying instead on the amount of body surface area involved with psoriasis. Neither of these measures incorporates disease involvement in special areas, which when present ought to automatically place a patient in the systemic therapy–appropriate category, according to Dr. Strober.

“I find this [IPC recategorization] a very practical approach. I hope you write this down and use this in your own practice,” Dr. Strober said.

The full IPC report was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The IPC psoriasis severity reclassification project was unfunded. Dr. Strober reported receiving institutional research funding from and serving as a paid consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Relapse in ulcerative colitis patients with endoscopic remission was unaffected by histologic remission status, based on data from a retrospective study of 269 adults.

Data from previous studies suggest that histologic remission may be the strongest predictor of prognosis of disease course, wrote Neeraj Narula, MD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues.

“However, it is unclear if UC patients who have achieved endoscopic healing have additional benefit in clinical outcomes if they have achieved histologic remission as well compared to those with ongoing histology activity,” they said.

In a study published in Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, the researchers identified 269 adults with ulcerative colitis who had endoscopic remission. Of these, 53 had normal histology, 138 had histologically inactive colitis, and 78 had histologically active colitis.

Overall, clinical relapse occurred in 64 patients, including 12 with normal histology (22.6%), 32 with inactive colitis (23.2%), and 29 with active colitis (25.6%).

No significant difference occurred in the time to relapse in patients with inactive vs. active colitis (adjusted hazard ratio 1.17, P = .67) or in patients with normal histology vs. inactive histology (AHR 0.67, P = .39). The median time to relapse was 2.92 years, 3.0 years, and 4.0 years in the normal, inactive, and active groups, respectively. Factors associated with a shorter time to relapse included older age at colonoscopy, use of 5-aminosalicylic acid, and disease extent in cases of pancolitis and left-sided colitis.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possibility of bias in histologic scoring, lack of objective measures of disease activity, and the lack of uniformity is histologic assessment, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large size compared with previous studies and by the adjustments for known confounding factors, they said.

“While clinical and endoscopic remission [is the target] of therapy for patients with UC, our study does not support targeting histologic remission in patients who have already achieved endoscopic remission,” they concluded.
 

More research may support clinical applications

“I was rather surprised by the findings, as a majority of studies have shown that histologic healing more accurately predicts clinical relapse than endoscopic remission in UC,” Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, of the University of Chicago, said in an interview.

“Although of a good sample size, this was a retrospective study, so no firm conclusion can be made,” said Dr. Sakuraba. “Using histologic healing as a therapeutic goal is still an evolving field, and it is too early to draw a conclusion as to whether (or not) to introduce histologic healing in clinical decision making,” he emphasized. 

Going forward, prospective studies are needed that match for confounders such as postendoscopy medication use, age, and disease extent, Dr. Sakuraba said.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Narula disclosed honoraria from Janssen, AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, Merck, and Ferring. Dr. Sakuraba had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Narula N et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Nov 1. doi: 10.1111/apt.16147.

Relapse in ulcerative colitis patients with endoscopic remission was unaffected by histologic remission status, based on data from a retrospective study of 269 adults.

Data from previous studies suggest that histologic remission may be the strongest predictor of prognosis of disease course, wrote Neeraj Narula, MD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues.

“However, it is unclear if UC patients who have achieved endoscopic healing have additional benefit in clinical outcomes if they have achieved histologic remission as well compared to those with ongoing histology activity,” they said.

In a study published in Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, the researchers identified 269 adults with ulcerative colitis who had endoscopic remission. Of these, 53 had normal histology, 138 had histologically inactive colitis, and 78 had histologically active colitis.

Overall, clinical relapse occurred in 64 patients, including 12 with normal histology (22.6%), 32 with inactive colitis (23.2%), and 29 with active colitis (25.6%).

No significant difference occurred in the time to relapse in patients with inactive vs. active colitis (adjusted hazard ratio 1.17, P = .67) or in patients with normal histology vs. inactive histology (AHR 0.67, P = .39). The median time to relapse was 2.92 years, 3.0 years, and 4.0 years in the normal, inactive, and active groups, respectively. Factors associated with a shorter time to relapse included older age at colonoscopy, use of 5-aminosalicylic acid, and disease extent in cases of pancolitis and left-sided colitis.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possibility of bias in histologic scoring, lack of objective measures of disease activity, and the lack of uniformity is histologic assessment, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large size compared with previous studies and by the adjustments for known confounding factors, they said.

“While clinical and endoscopic remission [is the target] of therapy for patients with UC, our study does not support targeting histologic remission in patients who have already achieved endoscopic remission,” they concluded.
 

More research may support clinical applications

“I was rather surprised by the findings, as a majority of studies have shown that histologic healing more accurately predicts clinical relapse than endoscopic remission in UC,” Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, of the University of Chicago, said in an interview.

“Although of a good sample size, this was a retrospective study, so no firm conclusion can be made,” said Dr. Sakuraba. “Using histologic healing as a therapeutic goal is still an evolving field, and it is too early to draw a conclusion as to whether (or not) to introduce histologic healing in clinical decision making,” he emphasized. 

Going forward, prospective studies are needed that match for confounders such as postendoscopy medication use, age, and disease extent, Dr. Sakuraba said.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Narula disclosed honoraria from Janssen, AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, Merck, and Ferring. Dr. Sakuraba had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Narula N et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Nov 1. doi: 10.1111/apt.16147.

Relapse in ulcerative colitis patients with endoscopic remission was unaffected by histologic remission status, based on data from a retrospective study of 269 adults.

Data from previous studies suggest that histologic remission may be the strongest predictor of prognosis of disease course, wrote Neeraj Narula, MD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues.

“However, it is unclear if UC patients who have achieved endoscopic healing have additional benefit in clinical outcomes if they have achieved histologic remission as well compared to those with ongoing histology activity,” they said.

In a study published in Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, the researchers identified 269 adults with ulcerative colitis who had endoscopic remission. Of these, 53 had normal histology, 138 had histologically inactive colitis, and 78 had histologically active colitis.

Overall, clinical relapse occurred in 64 patients, including 12 with normal histology (22.6%), 32 with inactive colitis (23.2%), and 29 with active colitis (25.6%).

No significant difference occurred in the time to relapse in patients with inactive vs. active colitis (adjusted hazard ratio 1.17, P = .67) or in patients with normal histology vs. inactive histology (AHR 0.67, P = .39). The median time to relapse was 2.92 years, 3.0 years, and 4.0 years in the normal, inactive, and active groups, respectively. Factors associated with a shorter time to relapse included older age at colonoscopy, use of 5-aminosalicylic acid, and disease extent in cases of pancolitis and left-sided colitis.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possibility of bias in histologic scoring, lack of objective measures of disease activity, and the lack of uniformity is histologic assessment, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large size compared with previous studies and by the adjustments for known confounding factors, they said.

“While clinical and endoscopic remission [is the target] of therapy for patients with UC, our study does not support targeting histologic remission in patients who have already achieved endoscopic remission,” they concluded.
 

More research may support clinical applications

“I was rather surprised by the findings, as a majority of studies have shown that histologic healing more accurately predicts clinical relapse than endoscopic remission in UC,” Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, of the University of Chicago, said in an interview.

“Although of a good sample size, this was a retrospective study, so no firm conclusion can be made,” said Dr. Sakuraba. “Using histologic healing as a therapeutic goal is still an evolving field, and it is too early to draw a conclusion as to whether (or not) to introduce histologic healing in clinical decision making,” he emphasized. 

Going forward, prospective studies are needed that match for confounders such as postendoscopy medication use, age, and disease extent, Dr. Sakuraba said.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Narula disclosed honoraria from Janssen, AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, Merck, and Ferring. Dr. Sakuraba had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Narula N et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Nov 1. doi: 10.1111/apt.16147.

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

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

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

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

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

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

For mid-career oncologist Tanya Wildes, MD, the pandemic was the last straw. In late September, she tweeted: “I have done the academically unfathomable: I am resigning my faculty position without another job lined up.”

She wasn’t burned out, she insisted. She loved her patients and her research. But she was also “100% confident” in her decision and “also 100% sad. This did not have to happen,” she lamented, asking not to disclose her workplace for fear of retribution.

Being a woman in medicine “is a hard life to start with,” Dr. Wildes said in an interview. “We all have that tenuous balance going on and the pandemic made everything just a little bit harder.”

She describes her prepandemic work-life balance as a “Jenga tower, with everything only just in place.” But she realized that the balance had tipped, when after a difficult clinic she felt emotionally wrung out. Her 11-year-old son had asked her to help him fly his model airplane. “I told him, ‘Honey, I can’t do it because if it crashes or gets stuck in a tree ... you’re going to be devastated and I have nothing left for you.’ “

This was a eureka moment, as “I realized, this is not who I want to be,” she said, holding back tears. “Seventy years from now my son is going to tell his grandchildren about the pandemic and I don’t want his memory of his mom to be that she couldn’t be there for him because she was too spent.”

When Dr. Wildes shared her story on Twitter, other female oncologists and physicians responded that they too have felt they’re under increased pressure this year, with the extra stress of the pandemic leading others to quit as well.

The trend of doctors leaving medicine has been noticeable. A July survey from the Physicians Foundation found that roughly 16,000 medical practices had already closed during the pandemic, with another 8,000 predicted to close within the next year.

“Similar patterns” were evident in another analysis by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative, as reported in The New York Times. In that survey, nearly one-fifth of primary care clinicians said “someone in their practice plans to retire early or has already retired because of COVID-19,” and 15% say “someone has left or plans to leave the practice.” About half said their mental exhaustion was at an all-time high, the survey found.

“COVID-19 is a burden, and that added burden has tipped people over the edge of many things,” said Monica Bertagnolli, MD, chief of the division of surgical oncology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and former president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“It has illustrated that we do have a lot of people who are working kind of on the edge of not being able to handle everything,” she said.

While many in medicine are struggling, the pandemic seems to be pushing more women to leave, highlighting longtime gender disparities and increased caregiving burdens. And their absence may be felt for years to come.

Firm numbers are hard to come by, said Julie Silver, MD, associate professor, associate chair, and director of cancer rehabilitation in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an expert in gender equity in medicine. But she sees some troubling trends.

“There are many indications that women are leaving medicine in disproportionately high numbers,” Dr. Silver said in an interview. “A lack of fair pay and promotion opportunities that were present before COVID-19 are now combined with a host of pandemic-related challenges.”

A survey of 1,809 women conducted in mid-April with the Physician Moms Facebook Group and accepted for online publication by the American Journal of Psychiatry found that 41% scored over the cutoff points for moderate or severe anxiety, with 46% meeting these criteria among front-line workers.

“It’s really important for society to recognize the extraordinary impact this pandemic is having on physician mothers, as there will be profound ripple effects on the ability of this key segment of the health care workforce to serve others if we do not address this problem urgently,” co-senior author Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, a radiation oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Women weighed in on Twitter, in response to Dr. Silver’s tweet to #WomenInMedicine: “If you are thinking of leaving #medicine & need a reason to stay: we value you & need you.”

In reply, Emmy Betz, MD, MPH, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said via Twitter, “I’ve had lots of conversations with women considering leaving medicine.”

“I have thought about leaving many times. I love what I do, but medicine can be an unkind world at times,” responded Valerie Fitzhugh MD, associate professor and pathologist at New Jersey Medical School, Newark.

“Too late. Left at the end of July and it was the best decision ever,” wrote Michelle Gordon, DO, who was previously a board-certified general surgeon at Northern Westchester Surgical Associates in Putnam Valley, N.Y.


 

Prepandemic disparities accentuated

The pandemic “has merely accentuated – or made more apparent – some of the longstanding issues and struggles of women in oncology, women in medicine, women in academia,” said Sarah Holstein, MD, PhD, another mid-career oncologist and associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

“There are disparities in first-author/last-author publications, disparities in being asked to give speaking engagements, disparities in leadership,” Dr. Holstein said in an interview. “And then ... put on top of that the various surges with the pandemic where you are being asked to do clinical responsibilities you don’t normally do, perhaps some things you haven’t done since your training 10 or 20 years ago.”

This is backed up with data: There is already a “robust” body of prepandemic literature demonstrating pay gaps for female physicians and scientists, noted Dr. Silver, who founded the Her Time Is Now campaign for gender equity in medicine and runs a women’s leadership course at Harvard.

In addition, female physicians are more likely to be involved in “nonpromotable” work, group projects and educator roles that are often underappreciated and undercompensated, she said.

Writing recently in a blog post for the BMJ, Dr. Silver and colleagues predict that as a result of the pandemic, female physicians will “face disadvantages from unconscious bias in decisions about whose pay should be cut, whose operating schedules should take priority when resources are limited, and whose contributions merit retention ... The ground that women lose now will likely have a profound effect for many years to come, perhaps putting them at a disadvantage for the rest of their careers.”

There is already evidence of reduced publishing by female scientists during the pandemic, something that “could undermine the careers of an entire generation of women scholars,” noted Caitlyn Collins, PhD, assistant professor of sociology at Washington University in St. Louis.

“Science needs to address the culture of overwork,” Dr. Collins said in an interview. “Parents and other caregivers deserve support. The stress and ‘overwhelm’ they feel is not inevitable. A more fair, just, and humane approach to combining work and family is possible – what we need is the political will to pass better policies and a massive shift in our cultural understandings about how work should fit into family life, not the other way around.”

Lack of support for “vulnerable scientists,” particularly “junior scientists who are parents, women, or minorities” could lead to “severe attrition in cancer research in the coming years,” Cullen Taniguchi, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist and associate professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues, warned in a recent letter to the journal Cancer Cell.

“The biggest worries of attrition will come from young faculty who started just before or after the pandemic,” Dr. Taniguchi said in an interview. “The first year in an academic setting is incredibly challenging but also important for establishing research efforts and building networks of colleagues to collaborate with. While completely necessary, the restrictions put in place during the pandemic made doing these things even more difficult.”
 

Another stressor: Caregiving at home

Another reason female physicians may be marginalized during the pandemic is that they are more often the primary caregivers at home.

“Anyone who is a caregiver, be it to kids, parents, or spouses, can relate to the challenges brought [on] by the pandemic,” said Ishwaria Subbiah, MD, a palliative care physician and medical oncologist at MD Anderson.

“Most of us work toward meeting our responsibilities by engaging a network of support, whether it’s home care workers, center-based or at-home child care, schools, or activities outside of school. The pandemic led to a level of disruption that brought most (if not all) of those responsibilities onto the caregivers themselves,” she said in an interview.

As the mother of an adult son with severe epilepsy, Dr. Bertagnolli has certainly experienced the challenges of parenting during the pandemic. “Our son is now 24 but he is handicapped, and lives with us. The care issues we have to deal with as professionals have been enormously magnified by COVID,” she said.

But she cautions against making gender distinctions when it comes to caregiving. “Has it fallen on the women? Well, this kind of stuff generally falls on the women, but I am certain it has fallen on an awful lot of men as well, because I think the world is changing that way, so it’s fallen on all of us.”

There is no question that female oncologists are bearing the brunt, both at work and at home, contended Dr. Taniguchi. “Absolutely. I have seen this first-hand,” he said.

“If it was difficult for women, underrepresented minorities, and junior faculty to find a voice in the room prepandemic, I think it can be harder in the times of virtual meetings when it is difficult to engage audiences,” he said. 

Dr. Holstein said she is lucky to be well-supported at her institution, with both a female chief of hematology/oncology and a female chair of internal medicine, but still, she worries about the long-term consequences of the pandemic on the gender landscape of medicine.

“If you’re having to put aside research projects because you have extra responsibilities – again because women just tend to have a lot of other things going on – that might not be a big deal for 3 months, 6 months, but this is going to be a year or 2 years before ‘normal’ comes back,” she says. “One to two years of underpublishing or not getting the grants could be career killers for women in academic oncology.”
 

Cancer COVID-19 combo

As Dr. Wildes completed her final weeks of seeing cancer patients, she received an outpouring of support, which she says convinced her of the shared experience of all doctors, and especially female doctors, during the pandemic. But even more specifically, she feels that she has tapped into the unique burden shouldered by oncologists during this time.

“It’s intimidating being an oncologist; we are literally giving people poison for a living. Then throw into it a pandemic where early in March we had so little data. I was helping my patients make decisions about their cancer care based on a case series of four patients in China. The burden of those conversations is something I never want to have to live through again,” she said.

“Oncology is a particularly intense subspecialty within medicine,” agreed Dr. Subbiah. “The people we care for have received a life-altering and potentially life-limiting diagnosis. Coupled with that, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought an unprecedented cloud of uncertainty ... Whether the patients can see it overtly or not, oncologists carry the weight of this worry with them for not just one but all of their patients.”

Dr. Wildes said she plans to return to academic medicine and clinical care “in time,” but for now, the gap that she and others like her leave is troubling to those who have stayed on.

“We need these women in medicine,” said Dr. Holstein. “We have data suggesting that women take more time with their patients than men, that patient outcomes are better if they have a female physician. But also for the generations coming up, we need the mid-career and senior women to be in place to mentor and guide and make sure we continue to increase women in leadership.”

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

For mid-career oncologist Tanya Wildes, MD, the pandemic was the last straw. In late September, she tweeted: “I have done the academically unfathomable: I am resigning my faculty position without another job lined up.”

She wasn’t burned out, she insisted. She loved her patients and her research. But she was also “100% confident” in her decision and “also 100% sad. This did not have to happen,” she lamented, asking not to disclose her workplace for fear of retribution.

Being a woman in medicine “is a hard life to start with,” Dr. Wildes said in an interview. “We all have that tenuous balance going on and the pandemic made everything just a little bit harder.”

She describes her prepandemic work-life balance as a “Jenga tower, with everything only just in place.” But she realized that the balance had tipped, when after a difficult clinic she felt emotionally wrung out. Her 11-year-old son had asked her to help him fly his model airplane. “I told him, ‘Honey, I can’t do it because if it crashes or gets stuck in a tree ... you’re going to be devastated and I have nothing left for you.’ “

This was a eureka moment, as “I realized, this is not who I want to be,” she said, holding back tears. “Seventy years from now my son is going to tell his grandchildren about the pandemic and I don’t want his memory of his mom to be that she couldn’t be there for him because she was too spent.”

When Dr. Wildes shared her story on Twitter, other female oncologists and physicians responded that they too have felt they’re under increased pressure this year, with the extra stress of the pandemic leading others to quit as well.

The trend of doctors leaving medicine has been noticeable. A July survey from the Physicians Foundation found that roughly 16,000 medical practices had already closed during the pandemic, with another 8,000 predicted to close within the next year.

“Similar patterns” were evident in another analysis by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative, as reported in The New York Times. In that survey, nearly one-fifth of primary care clinicians said “someone in their practice plans to retire early or has already retired because of COVID-19,” and 15% say “someone has left or plans to leave the practice.” About half said their mental exhaustion was at an all-time high, the survey found.

“COVID-19 is a burden, and that added burden has tipped people over the edge of many things,” said Monica Bertagnolli, MD, chief of the division of surgical oncology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and former president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“It has illustrated that we do have a lot of people who are working kind of on the edge of not being able to handle everything,” she said.

While many in medicine are struggling, the pandemic seems to be pushing more women to leave, highlighting longtime gender disparities and increased caregiving burdens. And their absence may be felt for years to come.

Firm numbers are hard to come by, said Julie Silver, MD, associate professor, associate chair, and director of cancer rehabilitation in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an expert in gender equity in medicine. But she sees some troubling trends.

“There are many indications that women are leaving medicine in disproportionately high numbers,” Dr. Silver said in an interview. “A lack of fair pay and promotion opportunities that were present before COVID-19 are now combined with a host of pandemic-related challenges.”

A survey of 1,809 women conducted in mid-April with the Physician Moms Facebook Group and accepted for online publication by the American Journal of Psychiatry found that 41% scored over the cutoff points for moderate or severe anxiety, with 46% meeting these criteria among front-line workers.

“It’s really important for society to recognize the extraordinary impact this pandemic is having on physician mothers, as there will be profound ripple effects on the ability of this key segment of the health care workforce to serve others if we do not address this problem urgently,” co-senior author Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, a radiation oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Women weighed in on Twitter, in response to Dr. Silver’s tweet to #WomenInMedicine: “If you are thinking of leaving #medicine & need a reason to stay: we value you & need you.”

In reply, Emmy Betz, MD, MPH, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said via Twitter, “I’ve had lots of conversations with women considering leaving medicine.”

“I have thought about leaving many times. I love what I do, but medicine can be an unkind world at times,” responded Valerie Fitzhugh MD, associate professor and pathologist at New Jersey Medical School, Newark.

“Too late. Left at the end of July and it was the best decision ever,” wrote Michelle Gordon, DO, who was previously a board-certified general surgeon at Northern Westchester Surgical Associates in Putnam Valley, N.Y.


 

Prepandemic disparities accentuated

The pandemic “has merely accentuated – or made more apparent – some of the longstanding issues and struggles of women in oncology, women in medicine, women in academia,” said Sarah Holstein, MD, PhD, another mid-career oncologist and associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

“There are disparities in first-author/last-author publications, disparities in being asked to give speaking engagements, disparities in leadership,” Dr. Holstein said in an interview. “And then ... put on top of that the various surges with the pandemic where you are being asked to do clinical responsibilities you don’t normally do, perhaps some things you haven’t done since your training 10 or 20 years ago.”

This is backed up with data: There is already a “robust” body of prepandemic literature demonstrating pay gaps for female physicians and scientists, noted Dr. Silver, who founded the Her Time Is Now campaign for gender equity in medicine and runs a women’s leadership course at Harvard.

In addition, female physicians are more likely to be involved in “nonpromotable” work, group projects and educator roles that are often underappreciated and undercompensated, she said.

Writing recently in a blog post for the BMJ, Dr. Silver and colleagues predict that as a result of the pandemic, female physicians will “face disadvantages from unconscious bias in decisions about whose pay should be cut, whose operating schedules should take priority when resources are limited, and whose contributions merit retention ... The ground that women lose now will likely have a profound effect for many years to come, perhaps putting them at a disadvantage for the rest of their careers.”

There is already evidence of reduced publishing by female scientists during the pandemic, something that “could undermine the careers of an entire generation of women scholars,” noted Caitlyn Collins, PhD, assistant professor of sociology at Washington University in St. Louis.

“Science needs to address the culture of overwork,” Dr. Collins said in an interview. “Parents and other caregivers deserve support. The stress and ‘overwhelm’ they feel is not inevitable. A more fair, just, and humane approach to combining work and family is possible – what we need is the political will to pass better policies and a massive shift in our cultural understandings about how work should fit into family life, not the other way around.”

Lack of support for “vulnerable scientists,” particularly “junior scientists who are parents, women, or minorities” could lead to “severe attrition in cancer research in the coming years,” Cullen Taniguchi, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist and associate professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues, warned in a recent letter to the journal Cancer Cell.

“The biggest worries of attrition will come from young faculty who started just before or after the pandemic,” Dr. Taniguchi said in an interview. “The first year in an academic setting is incredibly challenging but also important for establishing research efforts and building networks of colleagues to collaborate with. While completely necessary, the restrictions put in place during the pandemic made doing these things even more difficult.”
 

Another stressor: Caregiving at home

Another reason female physicians may be marginalized during the pandemic is that they are more often the primary caregivers at home.

“Anyone who is a caregiver, be it to kids, parents, or spouses, can relate to the challenges brought [on] by the pandemic,” said Ishwaria Subbiah, MD, a palliative care physician and medical oncologist at MD Anderson.

“Most of us work toward meeting our responsibilities by engaging a network of support, whether it’s home care workers, center-based or at-home child care, schools, or activities outside of school. The pandemic led to a level of disruption that brought most (if not all) of those responsibilities onto the caregivers themselves,” she said in an interview.

As the mother of an adult son with severe epilepsy, Dr. Bertagnolli has certainly experienced the challenges of parenting during the pandemic. “Our son is now 24 but he is handicapped, and lives with us. The care issues we have to deal with as professionals have been enormously magnified by COVID,” she said.

But she cautions against making gender distinctions when it comes to caregiving. “Has it fallen on the women? Well, this kind of stuff generally falls on the women, but I am certain it has fallen on an awful lot of men as well, because I think the world is changing that way, so it’s fallen on all of us.”

There is no question that female oncologists are bearing the brunt, both at work and at home, contended Dr. Taniguchi. “Absolutely. I have seen this first-hand,” he said.

“If it was difficult for women, underrepresented minorities, and junior faculty to find a voice in the room prepandemic, I think it can be harder in the times of virtual meetings when it is difficult to engage audiences,” he said. 

Dr. Holstein said she is lucky to be well-supported at her institution, with both a female chief of hematology/oncology and a female chair of internal medicine, but still, she worries about the long-term consequences of the pandemic on the gender landscape of medicine.

“If you’re having to put aside research projects because you have extra responsibilities – again because women just tend to have a lot of other things going on – that might not be a big deal for 3 months, 6 months, but this is going to be a year or 2 years before ‘normal’ comes back,” she says. “One to two years of underpublishing or not getting the grants could be career killers for women in academic oncology.”
 

Cancer COVID-19 combo

As Dr. Wildes completed her final weeks of seeing cancer patients, she received an outpouring of support, which she says convinced her of the shared experience of all doctors, and especially female doctors, during the pandemic. But even more specifically, she feels that she has tapped into the unique burden shouldered by oncologists during this time.

“It’s intimidating being an oncologist; we are literally giving people poison for a living. Then throw into it a pandemic where early in March we had so little data. I was helping my patients make decisions about their cancer care based on a case series of four patients in China. The burden of those conversations is something I never want to have to live through again,” she said.

“Oncology is a particularly intense subspecialty within medicine,” agreed Dr. Subbiah. “The people we care for have received a life-altering and potentially life-limiting diagnosis. Coupled with that, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought an unprecedented cloud of uncertainty ... Whether the patients can see it overtly or not, oncologists carry the weight of this worry with them for not just one but all of their patients.”

Dr. Wildes said she plans to return to academic medicine and clinical care “in time,” but for now, the gap that she and others like her leave is troubling to those who have stayed on.

“We need these women in medicine,” said Dr. Holstein. “We have data suggesting that women take more time with their patients than men, that patient outcomes are better if they have a female physician. But also for the generations coming up, we need the mid-career and senior women to be in place to mentor and guide and make sure we continue to increase women in leadership.”

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

For mid-career oncologist Tanya Wildes, MD, the pandemic was the last straw. In late September, she tweeted: “I have done the academically unfathomable: I am resigning my faculty position without another job lined up.”

She wasn’t burned out, she insisted. She loved her patients and her research. But she was also “100% confident” in her decision and “also 100% sad. This did not have to happen,” she lamented, asking not to disclose her workplace for fear of retribution.

Being a woman in medicine “is a hard life to start with,” Dr. Wildes said in an interview. “We all have that tenuous balance going on and the pandemic made everything just a little bit harder.”

She describes her prepandemic work-life balance as a “Jenga tower, with everything only just in place.” But she realized that the balance had tipped, when after a difficult clinic she felt emotionally wrung out. Her 11-year-old son had asked her to help him fly his model airplane. “I told him, ‘Honey, I can’t do it because if it crashes or gets stuck in a tree ... you’re going to be devastated and I have nothing left for you.’ “

This was a eureka moment, as “I realized, this is not who I want to be,” she said, holding back tears. “Seventy years from now my son is going to tell his grandchildren about the pandemic and I don’t want his memory of his mom to be that she couldn’t be there for him because she was too spent.”

When Dr. Wildes shared her story on Twitter, other female oncologists and physicians responded that they too have felt they’re under increased pressure this year, with the extra stress of the pandemic leading others to quit as well.

The trend of doctors leaving medicine has been noticeable. A July survey from the Physicians Foundation found that roughly 16,000 medical practices had already closed during the pandemic, with another 8,000 predicted to close within the next year.

“Similar patterns” were evident in another analysis by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative, as reported in The New York Times. In that survey, nearly one-fifth of primary care clinicians said “someone in their practice plans to retire early or has already retired because of COVID-19,” and 15% say “someone has left or plans to leave the practice.” About half said their mental exhaustion was at an all-time high, the survey found.

“COVID-19 is a burden, and that added burden has tipped people over the edge of many things,” said Monica Bertagnolli, MD, chief of the division of surgical oncology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and former president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“It has illustrated that we do have a lot of people who are working kind of on the edge of not being able to handle everything,” she said.

While many in medicine are struggling, the pandemic seems to be pushing more women to leave, highlighting longtime gender disparities and increased caregiving burdens. And their absence may be felt for years to come.

Firm numbers are hard to come by, said Julie Silver, MD, associate professor, associate chair, and director of cancer rehabilitation in the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and an expert in gender equity in medicine. But she sees some troubling trends.

“There are many indications that women are leaving medicine in disproportionately high numbers,” Dr. Silver said in an interview. “A lack of fair pay and promotion opportunities that were present before COVID-19 are now combined with a host of pandemic-related challenges.”

A survey of 1,809 women conducted in mid-April with the Physician Moms Facebook Group and accepted for online publication by the American Journal of Psychiatry found that 41% scored over the cutoff points for moderate or severe anxiety, with 46% meeting these criteria among front-line workers.

“It’s really important for society to recognize the extraordinary impact this pandemic is having on physician mothers, as there will be profound ripple effects on the ability of this key segment of the health care workforce to serve others if we do not address this problem urgently,” co-senior author Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, a radiation oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Women weighed in on Twitter, in response to Dr. Silver’s tweet to #WomenInMedicine: “If you are thinking of leaving #medicine & need a reason to stay: we value you & need you.”

In reply, Emmy Betz, MD, MPH, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said via Twitter, “I’ve had lots of conversations with women considering leaving medicine.”

“I have thought about leaving many times. I love what I do, but medicine can be an unkind world at times,” responded Valerie Fitzhugh MD, associate professor and pathologist at New Jersey Medical School, Newark.

“Too late. Left at the end of July and it was the best decision ever,” wrote Michelle Gordon, DO, who was previously a board-certified general surgeon at Northern Westchester Surgical Associates in Putnam Valley, N.Y.


 

Prepandemic disparities accentuated

The pandemic “has merely accentuated – or made more apparent – some of the longstanding issues and struggles of women in oncology, women in medicine, women in academia,” said Sarah Holstein, MD, PhD, another mid-career oncologist and associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

“There are disparities in first-author/last-author publications, disparities in being asked to give speaking engagements, disparities in leadership,” Dr. Holstein said in an interview. “And then ... put on top of that the various surges with the pandemic where you are being asked to do clinical responsibilities you don’t normally do, perhaps some things you haven’t done since your training 10 or 20 years ago.”

This is backed up with data: There is already a “robust” body of prepandemic literature demonstrating pay gaps for female physicians and scientists, noted Dr. Silver, who founded the Her Time Is Now campaign for gender equity in medicine and runs a women’s leadership course at Harvard.

In addition, female physicians are more likely to be involved in “nonpromotable” work, group projects and educator roles that are often underappreciated and undercompensated, she said.

Writing recently in a blog post for the BMJ, Dr. Silver and colleagues predict that as a result of the pandemic, female physicians will “face disadvantages from unconscious bias in decisions about whose pay should be cut, whose operating schedules should take priority when resources are limited, and whose contributions merit retention ... The ground that women lose now will likely have a profound effect for many years to come, perhaps putting them at a disadvantage for the rest of their careers.”

There is already evidence of reduced publishing by female scientists during the pandemic, something that “could undermine the careers of an entire generation of women scholars,” noted Caitlyn Collins, PhD, assistant professor of sociology at Washington University in St. Louis.

“Science needs to address the culture of overwork,” Dr. Collins said in an interview. “Parents and other caregivers deserve support. The stress and ‘overwhelm’ they feel is not inevitable. A more fair, just, and humane approach to combining work and family is possible – what we need is the political will to pass better policies and a massive shift in our cultural understandings about how work should fit into family life, not the other way around.”

Lack of support for “vulnerable scientists,” particularly “junior scientists who are parents, women, or minorities” could lead to “severe attrition in cancer research in the coming years,” Cullen Taniguchi, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist and associate professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues, warned in a recent letter to the journal Cancer Cell.

“The biggest worries of attrition will come from young faculty who started just before or after the pandemic,” Dr. Taniguchi said in an interview. “The first year in an academic setting is incredibly challenging but also important for establishing research efforts and building networks of colleagues to collaborate with. While completely necessary, the restrictions put in place during the pandemic made doing these things even more difficult.”
 

Another stressor: Caregiving at home

Another reason female physicians may be marginalized during the pandemic is that they are more often the primary caregivers at home.

“Anyone who is a caregiver, be it to kids, parents, or spouses, can relate to the challenges brought [on] by the pandemic,” said Ishwaria Subbiah, MD, a palliative care physician and medical oncologist at MD Anderson.

“Most of us work toward meeting our responsibilities by engaging a network of support, whether it’s home care workers, center-based or at-home child care, schools, or activities outside of school. The pandemic led to a level of disruption that brought most (if not all) of those responsibilities onto the caregivers themselves,” she said in an interview.

As the mother of an adult son with severe epilepsy, Dr. Bertagnolli has certainly experienced the challenges of parenting during the pandemic. “Our son is now 24 but he is handicapped, and lives with us. The care issues we have to deal with as professionals have been enormously magnified by COVID,” she said.

But she cautions against making gender distinctions when it comes to caregiving. “Has it fallen on the women? Well, this kind of stuff generally falls on the women, but I am certain it has fallen on an awful lot of men as well, because I think the world is changing that way, so it’s fallen on all of us.”

There is no question that female oncologists are bearing the brunt, both at work and at home, contended Dr. Taniguchi. “Absolutely. I have seen this first-hand,” he said.

“If it was difficult for women, underrepresented minorities, and junior faculty to find a voice in the room prepandemic, I think it can be harder in the times of virtual meetings when it is difficult to engage audiences,” he said. 

Dr. Holstein said she is lucky to be well-supported at her institution, with both a female chief of hematology/oncology and a female chair of internal medicine, but still, she worries about the long-term consequences of the pandemic on the gender landscape of medicine.

“If you’re having to put aside research projects because you have extra responsibilities – again because women just tend to have a lot of other things going on – that might not be a big deal for 3 months, 6 months, but this is going to be a year or 2 years before ‘normal’ comes back,” she says. “One to two years of underpublishing or not getting the grants could be career killers for women in academic oncology.”
 

Cancer COVID-19 combo

As Dr. Wildes completed her final weeks of seeing cancer patients, she received an outpouring of support, which she says convinced her of the shared experience of all doctors, and especially female doctors, during the pandemic. But even more specifically, she feels that she has tapped into the unique burden shouldered by oncologists during this time.

“It’s intimidating being an oncologist; we are literally giving people poison for a living. Then throw into it a pandemic where early in March we had so little data. I was helping my patients make decisions about their cancer care based on a case series of four patients in China. The burden of those conversations is something I never want to have to live through again,” she said.

“Oncology is a particularly intense subspecialty within medicine,” agreed Dr. Subbiah. “The people we care for have received a life-altering and potentially life-limiting diagnosis. Coupled with that, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought an unprecedented cloud of uncertainty ... Whether the patients can see it overtly or not, oncologists carry the weight of this worry with them for not just one but all of their patients.”

Dr. Wildes said she plans to return to academic medicine and clinical care “in time,” but for now, the gap that she and others like her leave is troubling to those who have stayed on.

“We need these women in medicine,” said Dr. Holstein. “We have data suggesting that women take more time with their patients than men, that patient outcomes are better if they have a female physician. But also for the generations coming up, we need the mid-career and senior women to be in place to mentor and guide and make sure we continue to increase women in leadership.”

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

Punch biopsies from the right axilla (Figure) and right abdomen as well as a tangential biopsy from the left volar wrist papule showed an interstitial histiocytic infiltrate with focal palisading of histiocytes around central regions with collagen alteration and increased mucin. Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stain and acid-fast bacilli smear both were negative for organisms; these findings were consistent with a diagnosis of granuloma annulare (GA).

Granuloma annulare is a noninfectious granulomatous disease of unknown etiology. It most commonly appears as asymptomatic, flesh-colored, pink or violaceous annular patches or thin plaques favoring the trunk and extremities. Granuloma annulare has many documented presentations including generalized, patch, subcutaneous, and perforating forms. It can present as macules, papules, nodules, patches, or plaques. Reported associations include diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, solid organ tumors, systemic infection, and thyroid disease.¹ Granuloma annulare can occur in any age group but is most common between the ages of 20 and 40 years.²

Diagnosis most often is made clinically and can be confirmed by histopathology. Histologic examination most commonly shows histiocytes within the dermis that palisade around a central area of mucin deposition between degenerating collagen fibers. The histiocytes of GA stain positive with vimentin, lysozyme, and CD68. The increased mucin stains with colloidal iron and Alcian blue. Multinucleated giant cells and perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate also are commonly seen.³

Cutaneous B-cell lymphoma has a wide range of presentations but usually occurs as hyperpigmented plaques and patches with dermal atrophy. Psoriasis can present in an inverse distribution but will show epidermal changes including scale. Sarcoidosis presents as multiple erythematous plaques and papules and also can be accompanied by erythema nodosum. Tinea corporis likely would have resolved with antifungal treatment.

Many different treatments have been described as effective, including cryosurgery, topical and intralesional corticosteroids, antibiotics, immune modulators, phototherapy, and oral corticosteroids.¹ We started our patient on triple-antibiotic therapy with rifampin 600 mg, minocycline 100 mg, and ofloxacin 400 mg all once monthly for 6 months, which has been shown to be efficacious in treating GA.⁴ The patient returned for follow-up 1 year after the initial presentation. At that time, she had faint pink patches on the waist and medial upper thighs, and the axillary lesions had cleared. In the interim, she developed more classic GA lesions—pink to violaceous smooth papules with no overlying epidermal changes—on the volar wrists and dorsal feet. These lesions were asymptomatic, and she currently is not undergoing any further treatment.

Punch biopsies from the right axilla (Figure) and right abdomen as well as a tangential biopsy from the left volar wrist papule showed an interstitial histiocytic infiltrate with focal palisading of histiocytes around central regions with collagen alteration and increased mucin. Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stain and acid-fast bacilli smear both were negative for organisms; these findings were consistent with a diagnosis of granuloma annulare (GA).

Granuloma annulare is a noninfectious granulomatous disease of unknown etiology. It most commonly appears as asymptomatic, flesh-colored, pink or violaceous annular patches or thin plaques favoring the trunk and extremities. Granuloma annulare has many documented presentations including generalized, patch, subcutaneous, and perforating forms. It can present as macules, papules, nodules, patches, or plaques. Reported associations include diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, solid organ tumors, systemic infection, and thyroid disease.¹ Granuloma annulare can occur in any age group but is most common between the ages of 20 and 40 years.²

Diagnosis most often is made clinically and can be confirmed by histopathology. Histologic examination most commonly shows histiocytes within the dermis that palisade around a central area of mucin deposition between degenerating collagen fibers. The histiocytes of GA stain positive with vimentin, lysozyme, and CD68. The increased mucin stains with colloidal iron and Alcian blue. Multinucleated giant cells and perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate also are commonly seen.³

Cutaneous B-cell lymphoma has a wide range of presentations but usually occurs as hyperpigmented plaques and patches with dermal atrophy. Psoriasis can present in an inverse distribution but will show epidermal changes including scale. Sarcoidosis presents as multiple erythematous plaques and papules and also can be accompanied by erythema nodosum. Tinea corporis likely would have resolved with antifungal treatment.

Many different treatments have been described as effective, including cryosurgery, topical and intralesional corticosteroids, antibiotics, immune modulators, phototherapy, and oral corticosteroids.¹ We started our patient on triple-antibiotic therapy with rifampin 600 mg, minocycline 100 mg, and ofloxacin 400 mg all once monthly for 6 months, which has been shown to be efficacious in treating GA.⁴ The patient returned for follow-up 1 year after the initial presentation. At that time, she had faint pink patches on the waist and medial upper thighs, and the axillary lesions had cleared. In the interim, she developed more classic GA lesions—pink to violaceous smooth papules with no overlying epidermal changes—on the volar wrists and dorsal feet. These lesions were asymptomatic, and she currently is not undergoing any further treatment.

Punch biopsies from the right axilla (Figure) and right abdomen as well as a tangential biopsy from the left volar wrist papule showed an interstitial histiocytic infiltrate with focal palisading of histiocytes around central regions with collagen alteration and increased mucin. Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stain and acid-fast bacilli smear both were negative for organisms; these findings were consistent with a diagnosis of granuloma annulare (GA).

Granuloma annulare is a noninfectious granulomatous disease of unknown etiology. It most commonly appears as asymptomatic, flesh-colored, pink or violaceous annular patches or thin plaques favoring the trunk and extremities. Granuloma annulare has many documented presentations including generalized, patch, subcutaneous, and perforating forms. It can present as macules, papules, nodules, patches, or plaques. Reported associations include diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, solid organ tumors, systemic infection, and thyroid disease.¹ Granuloma annulare can occur in any age group but is most common between the ages of 20 and 40 years.²

Diagnosis most often is made clinically and can be confirmed by histopathology. Histologic examination most commonly shows histiocytes within the dermis that palisade around a central area of mucin deposition between degenerating collagen fibers. The histiocytes of GA stain positive with vimentin, lysozyme, and CD68. The increased mucin stains with colloidal iron and Alcian blue. Multinucleated giant cells and perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate also are commonly seen.³

Cutaneous B-cell lymphoma has a wide range of presentations but usually occurs as hyperpigmented plaques and patches with dermal atrophy. Psoriasis can present in an inverse distribution but will show epidermal changes including scale. Sarcoidosis presents as multiple erythematous plaques and papules and also can be accompanied by erythema nodosum. Tinea corporis likely would have resolved with antifungal treatment.

Many different treatments have been described as effective, including cryosurgery, topical and intralesional corticosteroids, antibiotics, immune modulators, phototherapy, and oral corticosteroids.¹ We started our patient on triple-antibiotic therapy with rifampin 600 mg, minocycline 100 mg, and ofloxacin 400 mg all once monthly for 6 months, which has been shown to be efficacious in treating GA.⁴ The patient returned for follow-up 1 year after the initial presentation. At that time, she had faint pink patches on the waist and medial upper thighs, and the axillary lesions had cleared. In the interim, she developed more classic GA lesions—pink to violaceous smooth papules with no overlying epidermal changes—on the volar wrists and dorsal feet. These lesions were asymptomatic, and she currently is not undergoing any further treatment.

Dr Stanley Cohen, of the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School in Dallas, reviews key abstracts on the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that were presented at this year's American College of Rheumatology (ACR) annual meeting, held virtually because of COVID-19.

Dr Cohen highlights the updated ACR pharmacologic recommendations for the treatment of RA, including the need to maximize methotrexate therapy as well as the avoidance of glucocorticoids and their associated long-term toxicity.

Dr Cohen discusses two abstracts addressing the use of the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) in patients with RA, including research from Sweden comparing immunologic response in patients taking JAK inhibitors with that of patients not on disease-modifying therapy. He also reports on a safety study from the Cleveland Clinic which followed patients after they received RZV and measured their rate of flares over 3 months.

Additionally, he discusses recent trial data on the incidence of and risk for venous thromboembolism events in patients with RA enrolled in the upadacitinib phase 3 clinical trial program.

--

Stanley B. Cohen, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Rheumatic Diseases Division, UT Southwestern Medical School; Director, Division of Rheumatology, Texas Health Resources, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas, Dallas, Texas.

Stanley B. Cohen, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received research grant from: Amgen; AbbVie; Genentech; Gilead; Pfizer; Roche.
 

Dr Stanley Cohen, of the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School in Dallas, reviews key abstracts on the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that were presented at this year's American College of Rheumatology (ACR) annual meeting, held virtually because of COVID-19.

Dr Cohen highlights the updated ACR pharmacologic recommendations for the treatment of RA, including the need to maximize methotrexate therapy as well as the avoidance of glucocorticoids and their associated long-term toxicity.

Dr Cohen discusses two abstracts addressing the use of the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) in patients with RA, including research from Sweden comparing immunologic response in patients taking JAK inhibitors with that of patients not on disease-modifying therapy. He also reports on a safety study from the Cleveland Clinic which followed patients after they received RZV and measured their rate of flares over 3 months.

Additionally, he discusses recent trial data on the incidence of and risk for venous thromboembolism events in patients with RA enrolled in the upadacitinib phase 3 clinical trial program.

--

Stanley B. Cohen, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Rheumatic Diseases Division, UT Southwestern Medical School; Director, Division of Rheumatology, Texas Health Resources, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas, Dallas, Texas.

Stanley B. Cohen, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received research grant from: Amgen; AbbVie; Genentech; Gilead; Pfizer; Roche.
 

Dr Stanley Cohen, of the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School in Dallas, reviews key abstracts on the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that were presented at this year's American College of Rheumatology (ACR) annual meeting, held virtually because of COVID-19.

Dr Cohen highlights the updated ACR pharmacologic recommendations for the treatment of RA, including the need to maximize methotrexate therapy as well as the avoidance of glucocorticoids and their associated long-term toxicity.

Dr Cohen discusses two abstracts addressing the use of the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) in patients with RA, including research from Sweden comparing immunologic response in patients taking JAK inhibitors with that of patients not on disease-modifying therapy. He also reports on a safety study from the Cleveland Clinic which followed patients after they received RZV and measured their rate of flares over 3 months.

Additionally, he discusses recent trial data on the incidence of and risk for venous thromboembolism events in patients with RA enrolled in the upadacitinib phase 3 clinical trial program.

--

Stanley B. Cohen, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Rheumatic Diseases Division, UT Southwestern Medical School; Director, Division of Rheumatology, Texas Health Resources, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas, Dallas, Texas.

Stanley B. Cohen, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received research grant from: Amgen; AbbVie; Genentech; Gilead; Pfizer; Roche.
 

Background: Heart failure is a known risk factor for postoperative mortality and complications. Many of the studies used to establish this association, however, have focused on major high-risk surgeries and not on outpatient surgeries. Improved medical care has increased the survival rate of patients with heart failure and an increasing number of these patients are undergoing elective surgical procedures. This has led to an increasing need to better understand the degree to which heart failure affects preoperative risk in the outpatient setting.

Study design: A retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Multiple Veteran’s Affairs Hospitals using data from the VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) and the VA Corporate Data Warehouse.

Synopsis: A total of 355,121 patients who underwent outpatient surgeries were analyzed. 19,353 patients had heart failure and 334,768 did not. Patients with heart failure had a higher risk of 90-day mortality with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.95 (95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.44), and this risk progressively increased as the ejection fraction decreased. The risk of 30-day complication also increased in patients with heart failure with an adjusted OR of 1.10 (95% CI, 1.02-1.19).

Limitations of this study include the patient population, which were all veterans and mostly male. The nature of the inclusion criteria was limiting as well, in that all the patients in this study were deemed fit for surgery. There were no data available for patients who had been considered but ultimately did not undergo surgery or for patients who were considered for ambulatory surgery but ultimately underwent inpatient surgery. These limitations may have resulted in a selection bias, which limited the generalizability of the study’s findings when assessing patients for ambulatory surgery.

Bottom line: Patients with heart failure had a higher risk of 90-day postoperative mortality and 30-day postoperative complication in ambulatory noncardiac surgery. The risk of postoperative mortality increased as systolic function decreased.

Citation: Lerman BJ et al. Association between heart failure and postoperative mortality among patients undergoing ambulatory noncardiac surgery. JAMA Surg. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.2110.

Dr. Cheatham is a hospitalist and clinical educator at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Heart failure is a known risk factor for postoperative mortality and complications. Many of the studies used to establish this association, however, have focused on major high-risk surgeries and not on outpatient surgeries. Improved medical care has increased the survival rate of patients with heart failure and an increasing number of these patients are undergoing elective surgical procedures. This has led to an increasing need to better understand the degree to which heart failure affects preoperative risk in the outpatient setting.

Study design: A retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Multiple Veteran’s Affairs Hospitals using data from the VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) and the VA Corporate Data Warehouse.

Synopsis: A total of 355,121 patients who underwent outpatient surgeries were analyzed. 19,353 patients had heart failure and 334,768 did not. Patients with heart failure had a higher risk of 90-day mortality with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.95 (95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.44), and this risk progressively increased as the ejection fraction decreased. The risk of 30-day complication also increased in patients with heart failure with an adjusted OR of 1.10 (95% CI, 1.02-1.19).

Limitations of this study include the patient population, which were all veterans and mostly male. The nature of the inclusion criteria was limiting as well, in that all the patients in this study were deemed fit for surgery. There were no data available for patients who had been considered but ultimately did not undergo surgery or for patients who were considered for ambulatory surgery but ultimately underwent inpatient surgery. These limitations may have resulted in a selection bias, which limited the generalizability of the study’s findings when assessing patients for ambulatory surgery.

Bottom line: Patients with heart failure had a higher risk of 90-day postoperative mortality and 30-day postoperative complication in ambulatory noncardiac surgery. The risk of postoperative mortality increased as systolic function decreased.

Citation: Lerman BJ et al. Association between heart failure and postoperative mortality among patients undergoing ambulatory noncardiac surgery. JAMA Surg. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.2110.

Dr. Cheatham is a hospitalist and clinical educator at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Heart failure is a known risk factor for postoperative mortality and complications. Many of the studies used to establish this association, however, have focused on major high-risk surgeries and not on outpatient surgeries. Improved medical care has increased the survival rate of patients with heart failure and an increasing number of these patients are undergoing elective surgical procedures. This has led to an increasing need to better understand the degree to which heart failure affects preoperative risk in the outpatient setting.

Study design: A retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Multiple Veteran’s Affairs Hospitals using data from the VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) and the VA Corporate Data Warehouse.

Synopsis: A total of 355,121 patients who underwent outpatient surgeries were analyzed. 19,353 patients had heart failure and 334,768 did not. Patients with heart failure had a higher risk of 90-day mortality with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.95 (95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.44), and this risk progressively increased as the ejection fraction decreased. The risk of 30-day complication also increased in patients with heart failure with an adjusted OR of 1.10 (95% CI, 1.02-1.19).

Limitations of this study include the patient population, which were all veterans and mostly male. The nature of the inclusion criteria was limiting as well, in that all the patients in this study were deemed fit for surgery. There were no data available for patients who had been considered but ultimately did not undergo surgery or for patients who were considered for ambulatory surgery but ultimately underwent inpatient surgery. These limitations may have resulted in a selection bias, which limited the generalizability of the study’s findings when assessing patients for ambulatory surgery.

Bottom line: Patients with heart failure had a higher risk of 90-day postoperative mortality and 30-day postoperative complication in ambulatory noncardiac surgery. The risk of postoperative mortality increased as systolic function decreased.

Citation: Lerman BJ et al. Association between heart failure and postoperative mortality among patients undergoing ambulatory noncardiac surgery. JAMA Surg. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.2110.

Dr. Cheatham is a hospitalist and clinical educator at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Click here to read this article

CME CREDITS: 1 CREDIT
To receive CME credit, please read the articles and go to www.omniaeducation.com/NIPT to access the post-test and evaluation.

Click here to read this article

CME CREDITS: 1 CREDIT
To receive CME credit, please read the articles and go to www.omniaeducation.com/NIPT to access the post-test and evaluation.

Click here to read this article

CME CREDITS: 1 CREDIT
To receive CME credit, please read the articles and go to www.omniaeducation.com/NIPT to access the post-test and evaluation.

The patient’s history of a rash that worsened with sweating and clinical findings of erythematous papulosquamous lesions was consistent with Grover disease, also known as transient acantholytic dermatosis. Typically, this is a short-lived condition; however, when symptoms have manifested for years, it is deemed persistent acantholytic dermatosis. The gold standard for diagnostic confirmation is a skin biopsy, although it can also be diagnosed clinically. Since the patient had previously received this diagnosis from another clinician, and his clinical presentation was consistent, a confirmatory biopsy was not performed.

The specific pathophysiology of acantholytic dermatosis is unclear. A study to assess for an autoimmune component found that all participants had autoantibodies that are reactive to proteins involved in cell development, activation, growth, death, adhesion, and motility. Another hypothesis involves occlusion of eccrine sweat glands.

Typical triggers are sweating, heat, sunlight, and mechanical irritation, although it can also be triggered by end-stage renal disease and solid organ transplantation. It has also been linked to certain drugs (eg, ribavirin, anastrozole), other skin diseases (eg, atopic dermatitis, xerosis cutis), bacterial/viral infections, and malignancies.

As heat and perspiration are common triggers, avoidance of activities that expose patients to these conditions is recommended. Otherwise, topical corticosteroids and emollients are the recommended first-line therapy, along with antihistamines to control itching. Other therapies include systemic corticosteroids, topical vitamin D analogs (eg, calcipotriene), systemic retinoids (acitretin or isotretinoin), phototherapy and photochemotherapy (PUVA), red-light 5-aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy (ALA-PDT), and etanercept.

Although the patient could not remember the name of the previously prescribed medication, his description suggested that a systemic retinoid had already been tried, with no improvement. Treatment with emollients and oral antihistamines was also unsuccessful, as was topical antiperspirants to control perspiration on his affected skin. The patient agreed to try topical calcipotriene twice daily. He also agreed to switch to a topical emollient containing ceramides.

‌

Image courtesy of Esther Walker, MD, and text courtesy of Esther Walker, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

The patient’s history of a rash that worsened with sweating and clinical findings of erythematous papulosquamous lesions was consistent with Grover disease, also known as transient acantholytic dermatosis. Typically, this is a short-lived condition; however, when symptoms have manifested for years, it is deemed persistent acantholytic dermatosis. The gold standard for diagnostic confirmation is a skin biopsy, although it can also be diagnosed clinically. Since the patient had previously received this diagnosis from another clinician, and his clinical presentation was consistent, a confirmatory biopsy was not performed.

The specific pathophysiology of acantholytic dermatosis is unclear. A study to assess for an autoimmune component found that all participants had autoantibodies that are reactive to proteins involved in cell development, activation, growth, death, adhesion, and motility. Another hypothesis involves occlusion of eccrine sweat glands.

Typical triggers are sweating, heat, sunlight, and mechanical irritation, although it can also be triggered by end-stage renal disease and solid organ transplantation. It has also been linked to certain drugs (eg, ribavirin, anastrozole), other skin diseases (eg, atopic dermatitis, xerosis cutis), bacterial/viral infections, and malignancies.

As heat and perspiration are common triggers, avoidance of activities that expose patients to these conditions is recommended. Otherwise, topical corticosteroids and emollients are the recommended first-line therapy, along with antihistamines to control itching. Other therapies include systemic corticosteroids, topical vitamin D analogs (eg, calcipotriene), systemic retinoids (acitretin or isotretinoin), phototherapy and photochemotherapy (PUVA), red-light 5-aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy (ALA-PDT), and etanercept.

Although the patient could not remember the name of the previously prescribed medication, his description suggested that a systemic retinoid had already been tried, with no improvement. Treatment with emollients and oral antihistamines was also unsuccessful, as was topical antiperspirants to control perspiration on his affected skin. The patient agreed to try topical calcipotriene twice daily. He also agreed to switch to a topical emollient containing ceramides.

‌

Image courtesy of Esther Walker, MD, and text courtesy of Esther Walker, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

The patient’s history of a rash that worsened with sweating and clinical findings of erythematous papulosquamous lesions was consistent with Grover disease, also known as transient acantholytic dermatosis. Typically, this is a short-lived condition; however, when symptoms have manifested for years, it is deemed persistent acantholytic dermatosis. The gold standard for diagnostic confirmation is a skin biopsy, although it can also be diagnosed clinically. Since the patient had previously received this diagnosis from another clinician, and his clinical presentation was consistent, a confirmatory biopsy was not performed.

The specific pathophysiology of acantholytic dermatosis is unclear. A study to assess for an autoimmune component found that all participants had autoantibodies that are reactive to proteins involved in cell development, activation, growth, death, adhesion, and motility. Another hypothesis involves occlusion of eccrine sweat glands.

Typical triggers are sweating, heat, sunlight, and mechanical irritation, although it can also be triggered by end-stage renal disease and solid organ transplantation. It has also been linked to certain drugs (eg, ribavirin, anastrozole), other skin diseases (eg, atopic dermatitis, xerosis cutis), bacterial/viral infections, and malignancies.

As heat and perspiration are common triggers, avoidance of activities that expose patients to these conditions is recommended. Otherwise, topical corticosteroids and emollients are the recommended first-line therapy, along with antihistamines to control itching. Other therapies include systemic corticosteroids, topical vitamin D analogs (eg, calcipotriene), systemic retinoids (acitretin or isotretinoin), phototherapy and photochemotherapy (PUVA), red-light 5-aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy (ALA-PDT), and etanercept.

Although the patient could not remember the name of the previously prescribed medication, his description suggested that a systemic retinoid had already been tried, with no improvement. Treatment with emollients and oral antihistamines was also unsuccessful, as was topical antiperspirants to control perspiration on his affected skin. The patient agreed to try topical calcipotriene twice daily. He also agreed to switch to a topical emollient containing ceramides.

‌

Image courtesy of Esther Walker, MD, and text courtesy of Esther Walker, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

The numbers tell the story:

110,066 veterans diagnosed with COVID-19 as of November 30;

879,457 veterans and employees tested for COVID-19 as of November 6;

14,168 veterans admitted to a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center for COVID-19 care;

1,525% increase in telehealth visits;

59,095 new staff hired to meet surge in demand for COVID-19 care;

75 completed Fourth Mission assignments; and

> 2,000 VA employees helping to support nonveteran patients and non-VA health care systems.

But those numbers are just some of the data in the COVID-19 Response Report, which the VA recently released. The report offers “an extensive look at VA’s complex COVID-19 response,” including how it prepared for the pandemic, the initial response, and key COVID-19 policies and directives.

The report was compiled from more than 90 interviews with health care leaders and stakeholders, along with documents and data pertaining to the Veterans Integrated Service Networks. The interviews were designed to “keep discussion at a strategic level.”

Meeting the crisis mandated that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) act “with unity of effort and agility,” the authors note, across 18 networks with 170 medical centers. Not only is the VA called on to serve veterans, but its “Fourth Mission” explicitly calls on the VA to “improve the Nation’s preparedness for response to war, terrorism, national emergencies, and natural disasters.” But the VHA possessed some major assets, they add, including a nationwide capacity for inpatient health care, “considerable experience” generating and managing response to regional and local public health emergencies, and strong clinical processes focused on evidence-based guidelines. However, “[w]ithout national analytics of data from outbreaks in other nations, and without a national plan addressing the VHA role, forecasting demand for VHA inpatient services under the Fourth Mission required assumptions with a high degree of uncertainty.”

VHA planners adapted the existing High Consequence Infections Base Plan to COVID-19 and then developed the COVID-19 Response Plan as an annex to that. They released their plan to the public in the interest of a coordinated national response—although not all states were aware of VHA’s important safety-net capabilities. Despite that, the report says, during the pandemic, the mission assignments under the VA’s Fourth Mission have grown to the greatest scale and scope in the VA’s history.

“[H]ealth care in the United States will never be the same,” said Richard Stone, MD, VHA Executive in Charge, in his foreword to the report. Much of what we now consider routine, he said, such as parking lot screenings, digital questionnaires and rapid testing “were revolutionary and challenging to implement” when the pandemic began. “While we are certainly not perfect, we are a learning organization and seek to always find ways to improve.”

Identifying root causes for complex process problems is essential to improvement, the report authors say, and require “new knowledge.” To that end, the VA also has played a critical role in COVID-19–related research, participating in more than 90 and leading 28 multiple-site COVID-19 research studies, including research on 3D-printed respirator masks and convalescent plasma treatment.

The VA’s pandemic response has been “robust and far-reaching,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. The report, he adds, “reflects VA’s agility throughout the pandemic to adapt based on lessons learned.”

The numbers tell the story:

110,066 veterans diagnosed with COVID-19 as of November 30;

879,457 veterans and employees tested for COVID-19 as of November 6;

14,168 veterans admitted to a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center for COVID-19 care;

1,525% increase in telehealth visits;

59,095 new staff hired to meet surge in demand for COVID-19 care;

75 completed Fourth Mission assignments; and

> 2,000 VA employees helping to support nonveteran patients and non-VA health care systems.

But those numbers are just some of the data in the COVID-19 Response Report, which the VA recently released. The report offers “an extensive look at VA’s complex COVID-19 response,” including how it prepared for the pandemic, the initial response, and key COVID-19 policies and directives.

The report was compiled from more than 90 interviews with health care leaders and stakeholders, along with documents and data pertaining to the Veterans Integrated Service Networks. The interviews were designed to “keep discussion at a strategic level.”

Meeting the crisis mandated that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) act “with unity of effort and agility,” the authors note, across 18 networks with 170 medical centers. Not only is the VA called on to serve veterans, but its “Fourth Mission” explicitly calls on the VA to “improve the Nation’s preparedness for response to war, terrorism, national emergencies, and natural disasters.” But the VHA possessed some major assets, they add, including a nationwide capacity for inpatient health care, “considerable experience” generating and managing response to regional and local public health emergencies, and strong clinical processes focused on evidence-based guidelines. However, “[w]ithout national analytics of data from outbreaks in other nations, and without a national plan addressing the VHA role, forecasting demand for VHA inpatient services under the Fourth Mission required assumptions with a high degree of uncertainty.”

VHA planners adapted the existing High Consequence Infections Base Plan to COVID-19 and then developed the COVID-19 Response Plan as an annex to that. They released their plan to the public in the interest of a coordinated national response—although not all states were aware of VHA’s important safety-net capabilities. Despite that, the report says, during the pandemic, the mission assignments under the VA’s Fourth Mission have grown to the greatest scale and scope in the VA’s history.

“[H]ealth care in the United States will never be the same,” said Richard Stone, MD, VHA Executive in Charge, in his foreword to the report. Much of what we now consider routine, he said, such as parking lot screenings, digital questionnaires and rapid testing “were revolutionary and challenging to implement” when the pandemic began. “While we are certainly not perfect, we are a learning organization and seek to always find ways to improve.”

Identifying root causes for complex process problems is essential to improvement, the report authors say, and require “new knowledge.” To that end, the VA also has played a critical role in COVID-19–related research, participating in more than 90 and leading 28 multiple-site COVID-19 research studies, including research on 3D-printed respirator masks and convalescent plasma treatment.

The VA’s pandemic response has been “robust and far-reaching,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. The report, he adds, “reflects VA’s agility throughout the pandemic to adapt based on lessons learned.”

The numbers tell the story:

110,066 veterans diagnosed with COVID-19 as of November 30;

879,457 veterans and employees tested for COVID-19 as of November 6;

14,168 veterans admitted to a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center for COVID-19 care;

1,525% increase in telehealth visits;

59,095 new staff hired to meet surge in demand for COVID-19 care;

75 completed Fourth Mission assignments; and

> 2,000 VA employees helping to support nonveteran patients and non-VA health care systems.

But those numbers are just some of the data in the COVID-19 Response Report, which the VA recently released. The report offers “an extensive look at VA’s complex COVID-19 response,” including how it prepared for the pandemic, the initial response, and key COVID-19 policies and directives.

The report was compiled from more than 90 interviews with health care leaders and stakeholders, along with documents and data pertaining to the Veterans Integrated Service Networks. The interviews were designed to “keep discussion at a strategic level.”

Meeting the crisis mandated that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) act “with unity of effort and agility,” the authors note, across 18 networks with 170 medical centers. Not only is the VA called on to serve veterans, but its “Fourth Mission” explicitly calls on the VA to “improve the Nation’s preparedness for response to war, terrorism, national emergencies, and natural disasters.” But the VHA possessed some major assets, they add, including a nationwide capacity for inpatient health care, “considerable experience” generating and managing response to regional and local public health emergencies, and strong clinical processes focused on evidence-based guidelines. However, “[w]ithout national analytics of data from outbreaks in other nations, and without a national plan addressing the VHA role, forecasting demand for VHA inpatient services under the Fourth Mission required assumptions with a high degree of uncertainty.”

VHA planners adapted the existing High Consequence Infections Base Plan to COVID-19 and then developed the COVID-19 Response Plan as an annex to that. They released their plan to the public in the interest of a coordinated national response—although not all states were aware of VHA’s important safety-net capabilities. Despite that, the report says, during the pandemic, the mission assignments under the VA’s Fourth Mission have grown to the greatest scale and scope in the VA’s history.

“[H]ealth care in the United States will never be the same,” said Richard Stone, MD, VHA Executive in Charge, in his foreword to the report. Much of what we now consider routine, he said, such as parking lot screenings, digital questionnaires and rapid testing “were revolutionary and challenging to implement” when the pandemic began. “While we are certainly not perfect, we are a learning organization and seek to always find ways to improve.”

Identifying root causes for complex process problems is essential to improvement, the report authors say, and require “new knowledge.” To that end, the VA also has played a critical role in COVID-19–related research, participating in more than 90 and leading 28 multiple-site COVID-19 research studies, including research on 3D-printed respirator masks and convalescent plasma treatment.

The VA’s pandemic response has been “robust and far-reaching,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. The report, he adds, “reflects VA’s agility throughout the pandemic to adapt based on lessons learned.”