Cardiology News

The prolonged and unique stresses imparted by the COVID-19 pandemic has many predicting a significant rise in mental health issues in the weeks, months, and years ahead.

To understand how health care workers can best get ahead of this emerging crisis within a crisis, Medscape Psychiatry editorial director Bret Stetka, MD, spoke with Sheila Rauch, PhD, who’s with the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Emory University, Atlanta. The director of Mental Health Research and Program Evaluation at the Atlanta VA Medical Center, Dr. Rauch has studied the effects of and best treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety disorders over the past 20 years.
 

Are we going to see a PTSD or anxiety epidemic as a result of the pandemic?

First, I think it’s really important that we prepare for the worst but hope for the best. But I would expect that, given the high levels of stress, the impact on resources, and other factors, we are going to see a pretty significant mental health impact over time. This could be the new normal for a while. Some of that will be PTSD, but there will also be other things. I would suspect that the resulting increase in rates of depression, traumatic grief, and loss is probably going to be a significant issue for years to come.

What will the anxiety we see as a result of COVID-19 look like compared with that seen in past disasters, like 9/11?

Most disasters in recent history, like 9/11, are single incidents. Something horrible happened, it impacted people at different levels, and we were able to start putting the pieces back together right away. The prolonged nature of this pandemic makes it even more variable given that the impact is going to be extended over time.

We’re also going to see a lot more people with compound impact – people who’ve lost their jobs, loved ones, maybe even their homes. All of those financial and resource losses put people in a higher risk category for negative mental health outcomes.
 

Is this analogous to the prolonged trauma that can occur with military service during war?

There is some similarity there. Combat is kind of an overarching context in which people experience trauma and, much like this pandemic, may or may not have traumatic exposures during it.

We’re asking health care workers to actually be in a role similar to what we ask of our military: going into danger, sometimes even without proper protective equipment, in order to save the lives of others. That’s also something we need to be factoring in as we plan to support those people and their families.
 

This is an ongoing incident, but is there a time window we need to be particularly worried about for seeing spikes in anxiety and PTSD?

I think we’re going to see variability on that. PTSD is a disorder that’s related to a specific incident or a couple of incidents that are similar. It’s a memory that’s haunting you.

For instance, typically if you have a combat veteran who has PTSD, they’ve been exposed to the overarching context of combat but then they have specific memories that are stuck. If they don’t have PTSD about 3-6 months after those incidents happen, then we would expect that they will not develop it, or it’s much less common that they would.

Depression has a very different course. It’s more prolonged and tends to grow with time.
 

Are you already seeing increased symptoms in your patients?

We’re seeing more anxiety, a lot of frustration, and a lot of very strong feelings about the leadership decisions that are being made. This is pretty similar to what we see in combat veterans. They’ll often be unhappy with the leadership decisions that were made as they were being deployed.

We’re also seeing lots more anger, sadness, and isolation now. Especially over the past couple of weeks, we’ve seen a rise in things like people reaching out for help in our intakes because we’re still open and doing phone assessments and telehealth with veterans and the veterans program.
 

In terms of interventions for this, what should psychiatrists, psychologists, and other clinicians be thinking about?

Right now, the best thing that we can do as mental health providers for people affected by the trauma is provide crisis intervention for those saying they are a danger to themselves and others. That means providing coping strategies and support. It also means making sure people are taking breaks and taking care of themselves, taking that little bit of time off so that they can go back, fully recharged, to their jobs and really stay there.

As we move forward, it will be clearer whether people are going to naturally recover, which most people will. For those who are going to have ongoing problems with time, we need to be getting ready as a system and as a country for those long-term mental health issues that are going to be coming up. And when I say long-term, it means the next 1-3 months. We want to be providing preventive interventions, versions of prolonged exposure, and other things that have shown some help in preventing PTSD. Psychological first aid is helpful.

There’s also an app called COVID Coach that the National Center for PTSD has created. That features a lot of positive coping resources together in one source.

Then when we get to the middle of that point and beyond it, we need to be ready to provide those evidence-based interventions for PTSD, depression, panic disorder, and other issues that are going to come out of this current situation.

But we were already short-staffed as far as mental health resources in general across the country, and especially in rural areas. So that means finding ways to efficiently use what we have through potentially briefer versions of interventions, through primary care, mental health, and other staff.
 

In what ways can primary care providers help?

There are versions of prolonged exposure therapy for primary care. That’s one of my big areas of research – increasing access. That would be something that we need to be building, by training and embedding mental health providers in primary care settings so that they can help to accommodate the increased need for access that’s going to be showing up for the next, I would suspect, several years with the pandemic.

Is there evidence that a prior episode of PTSD or traumatic experience like combat influences a subsequent reaction to a trauma like this?

It depends on how they manage. Research suggests that veterans or other people who have experienced trauma and naturally recovered, or who have gotten good treatment and remitted from that issue, are probably at no higher risk. But people who have subsyndromal PTSD or depression, or who are still experiencing symptoms from a history of trauma exposure, are maybe at a higher risk of having problems over time.

Do you have any guidance for healthcare providers on how to approach the pandemic with their patients, and also on how they can look after their own mental health?

In talking to patients, make sure that they have what they need. Ask if they’ve thought through how they’re going to cope if things get harder for them.

For people who have preexisting mental health issues, I’m talking with them about whether things have gotten worse. If they’re at high risk for suicide, I’m checking in to make sure that they’ve got new plans and ways to connect with people to reduce isolation, keeping in mind the social distancing that we’re asked to engage in so that they can do that safely.

It’s important to check and see if they have had any losses, whether it’s a financial loss or a personal loss of people that they care about. Also have them think through ways to stay entertained, which tends to help manage their own anxiety.

Every coping strategy we outline for patients also applies to mental health professionals. However, you would add to it the real need to take time to recharge, to take breaks, time off. It can feel overwhelming and like you need to just keep going. But the more that you get stuck in that mode of overdoing it, the less effective you’re going to be in helping people and also the more likely that you’ll be at risk of perhaps being one of the people that needs help.

It’s also important to make sure you’re staying connected with family and friends virtually, in whatever ways you can safely do that with social distancing.
 

So take a break to watch some Netflix now and then?

Yes!
 

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

The prolonged and unique stresses imparted by the COVID-19 pandemic has many predicting a significant rise in mental health issues in the weeks, months, and years ahead.

To understand how health care workers can best get ahead of this emerging crisis within a crisis, Medscape Psychiatry editorial director Bret Stetka, MD, spoke with Sheila Rauch, PhD, who’s with the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Emory University, Atlanta. The director of Mental Health Research and Program Evaluation at the Atlanta VA Medical Center, Dr. Rauch has studied the effects of and best treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety disorders over the past 20 years.
 

Are we going to see a PTSD or anxiety epidemic as a result of the pandemic?

First, I think it’s really important that we prepare for the worst but hope for the best. But I would expect that, given the high levels of stress, the impact on resources, and other factors, we are going to see a pretty significant mental health impact over time. This could be the new normal for a while. Some of that will be PTSD, but there will also be other things. I would suspect that the resulting increase in rates of depression, traumatic grief, and loss is probably going to be a significant issue for years to come.

What will the anxiety we see as a result of COVID-19 look like compared with that seen in past disasters, like 9/11?

Most disasters in recent history, like 9/11, are single incidents. Something horrible happened, it impacted people at different levels, and we were able to start putting the pieces back together right away. The prolonged nature of this pandemic makes it even more variable given that the impact is going to be extended over time.

We’re also going to see a lot more people with compound impact – people who’ve lost their jobs, loved ones, maybe even their homes. All of those financial and resource losses put people in a higher risk category for negative mental health outcomes.
 

Is this analogous to the prolonged trauma that can occur with military service during war?

There is some similarity there. Combat is kind of an overarching context in which people experience trauma and, much like this pandemic, may or may not have traumatic exposures during it.

We’re asking health care workers to actually be in a role similar to what we ask of our military: going into danger, sometimes even without proper protective equipment, in order to save the lives of others. That’s also something we need to be factoring in as we plan to support those people and their families.
 

This is an ongoing incident, but is there a time window we need to be particularly worried about for seeing spikes in anxiety and PTSD?

I think we’re going to see variability on that. PTSD is a disorder that’s related to a specific incident or a couple of incidents that are similar. It’s a memory that’s haunting you.

For instance, typically if you have a combat veteran who has PTSD, they’ve been exposed to the overarching context of combat but then they have specific memories that are stuck. If they don’t have PTSD about 3-6 months after those incidents happen, then we would expect that they will not develop it, or it’s much less common that they would.

Depression has a very different course. It’s more prolonged and tends to grow with time.
 

Are you already seeing increased symptoms in your patients?

We’re seeing more anxiety, a lot of frustration, and a lot of very strong feelings about the leadership decisions that are being made. This is pretty similar to what we see in combat veterans. They’ll often be unhappy with the leadership decisions that were made as they were being deployed.

We’re also seeing lots more anger, sadness, and isolation now. Especially over the past couple of weeks, we’ve seen a rise in things like people reaching out for help in our intakes because we’re still open and doing phone assessments and telehealth with veterans and the veterans program.
 

In terms of interventions for this, what should psychiatrists, psychologists, and other clinicians be thinking about?

Right now, the best thing that we can do as mental health providers for people affected by the trauma is provide crisis intervention for those saying they are a danger to themselves and others. That means providing coping strategies and support. It also means making sure people are taking breaks and taking care of themselves, taking that little bit of time off so that they can go back, fully recharged, to their jobs and really stay there.

As we move forward, it will be clearer whether people are going to naturally recover, which most people will. For those who are going to have ongoing problems with time, we need to be getting ready as a system and as a country for those long-term mental health issues that are going to be coming up. And when I say long-term, it means the next 1-3 months. We want to be providing preventive interventions, versions of prolonged exposure, and other things that have shown some help in preventing PTSD. Psychological first aid is helpful.

There’s also an app called COVID Coach that the National Center for PTSD has created. That features a lot of positive coping resources together in one source.

Then when we get to the middle of that point and beyond it, we need to be ready to provide those evidence-based interventions for PTSD, depression, panic disorder, and other issues that are going to come out of this current situation.

But we were already short-staffed as far as mental health resources in general across the country, and especially in rural areas. So that means finding ways to efficiently use what we have through potentially briefer versions of interventions, through primary care, mental health, and other staff.
 

In what ways can primary care providers help?

There are versions of prolonged exposure therapy for primary care. That’s one of my big areas of research – increasing access. That would be something that we need to be building, by training and embedding mental health providers in primary care settings so that they can help to accommodate the increased need for access that’s going to be showing up for the next, I would suspect, several years with the pandemic.

Is there evidence that a prior episode of PTSD or traumatic experience like combat influences a subsequent reaction to a trauma like this?

It depends on how they manage. Research suggests that veterans or other people who have experienced trauma and naturally recovered, or who have gotten good treatment and remitted from that issue, are probably at no higher risk. But people who have subsyndromal PTSD or depression, or who are still experiencing symptoms from a history of trauma exposure, are maybe at a higher risk of having problems over time.

Do you have any guidance for healthcare providers on how to approach the pandemic with their patients, and also on how they can look after their own mental health?

In talking to patients, make sure that they have what they need. Ask if they’ve thought through how they’re going to cope if things get harder for them.

For people who have preexisting mental health issues, I’m talking with them about whether things have gotten worse. If they’re at high risk for suicide, I’m checking in to make sure that they’ve got new plans and ways to connect with people to reduce isolation, keeping in mind the social distancing that we’re asked to engage in so that they can do that safely.

It’s important to check and see if they have had any losses, whether it’s a financial loss or a personal loss of people that they care about. Also have them think through ways to stay entertained, which tends to help manage their own anxiety.

Every coping strategy we outline for patients also applies to mental health professionals. However, you would add to it the real need to take time to recharge, to take breaks, time off. It can feel overwhelming and like you need to just keep going. But the more that you get stuck in that mode of overdoing it, the less effective you’re going to be in helping people and also the more likely that you’ll be at risk of perhaps being one of the people that needs help.

It’s also important to make sure you’re staying connected with family and friends virtually, in whatever ways you can safely do that with social distancing.
 

So take a break to watch some Netflix now and then?

Yes!
 

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

The prolonged and unique stresses imparted by the COVID-19 pandemic has many predicting a significant rise in mental health issues in the weeks, months, and years ahead.

To understand how health care workers can best get ahead of this emerging crisis within a crisis, Medscape Psychiatry editorial director Bret Stetka, MD, spoke with Sheila Rauch, PhD, who’s with the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Emory University, Atlanta. The director of Mental Health Research and Program Evaluation at the Atlanta VA Medical Center, Dr. Rauch has studied the effects of and best treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety disorders over the past 20 years.
 

Are we going to see a PTSD or anxiety epidemic as a result of the pandemic?

First, I think it’s really important that we prepare for the worst but hope for the best. But I would expect that, given the high levels of stress, the impact on resources, and other factors, we are going to see a pretty significant mental health impact over time. This could be the new normal for a while. Some of that will be PTSD, but there will also be other things. I would suspect that the resulting increase in rates of depression, traumatic grief, and loss is probably going to be a significant issue for years to come.

What will the anxiety we see as a result of COVID-19 look like compared with that seen in past disasters, like 9/11?

Most disasters in recent history, like 9/11, are single incidents. Something horrible happened, it impacted people at different levels, and we were able to start putting the pieces back together right away. The prolonged nature of this pandemic makes it even more variable given that the impact is going to be extended over time.

We’re also going to see a lot more people with compound impact – people who’ve lost their jobs, loved ones, maybe even their homes. All of those financial and resource losses put people in a higher risk category for negative mental health outcomes.
 

Is this analogous to the prolonged trauma that can occur with military service during war?

There is some similarity there. Combat is kind of an overarching context in which people experience trauma and, much like this pandemic, may or may not have traumatic exposures during it.

We’re asking health care workers to actually be in a role similar to what we ask of our military: going into danger, sometimes even without proper protective equipment, in order to save the lives of others. That’s also something we need to be factoring in as we plan to support those people and their families.
 

This is an ongoing incident, but is there a time window we need to be particularly worried about for seeing spikes in anxiety and PTSD?

I think we’re going to see variability on that. PTSD is a disorder that’s related to a specific incident or a couple of incidents that are similar. It’s a memory that’s haunting you.

For instance, typically if you have a combat veteran who has PTSD, they’ve been exposed to the overarching context of combat but then they have specific memories that are stuck. If they don’t have PTSD about 3-6 months after those incidents happen, then we would expect that they will not develop it, or it’s much less common that they would.

Depression has a very different course. It’s more prolonged and tends to grow with time.
 

Are you already seeing increased symptoms in your patients?

We’re seeing more anxiety, a lot of frustration, and a lot of very strong feelings about the leadership decisions that are being made. This is pretty similar to what we see in combat veterans. They’ll often be unhappy with the leadership decisions that were made as they were being deployed.

We’re also seeing lots more anger, sadness, and isolation now. Especially over the past couple of weeks, we’ve seen a rise in things like people reaching out for help in our intakes because we’re still open and doing phone assessments and telehealth with veterans and the veterans program.
 

In terms of interventions for this, what should psychiatrists, psychologists, and other clinicians be thinking about?

Right now, the best thing that we can do as mental health providers for people affected by the trauma is provide crisis intervention for those saying they are a danger to themselves and others. That means providing coping strategies and support. It also means making sure people are taking breaks and taking care of themselves, taking that little bit of time off so that they can go back, fully recharged, to their jobs and really stay there.

As we move forward, it will be clearer whether people are going to naturally recover, which most people will. For those who are going to have ongoing problems with time, we need to be getting ready as a system and as a country for those long-term mental health issues that are going to be coming up. And when I say long-term, it means the next 1-3 months. We want to be providing preventive interventions, versions of prolonged exposure, and other things that have shown some help in preventing PTSD. Psychological first aid is helpful.

There’s also an app called COVID Coach that the National Center for PTSD has created. That features a lot of positive coping resources together in one source.

Then when we get to the middle of that point and beyond it, we need to be ready to provide those evidence-based interventions for PTSD, depression, panic disorder, and other issues that are going to come out of this current situation.

But we were already short-staffed as far as mental health resources in general across the country, and especially in rural areas. So that means finding ways to efficiently use what we have through potentially briefer versions of interventions, through primary care, mental health, and other staff.
 

In what ways can primary care providers help?

There are versions of prolonged exposure therapy for primary care. That’s one of my big areas of research – increasing access. That would be something that we need to be building, by training and embedding mental health providers in primary care settings so that they can help to accommodate the increased need for access that’s going to be showing up for the next, I would suspect, several years with the pandemic.

Is there evidence that a prior episode of PTSD or traumatic experience like combat influences a subsequent reaction to a trauma like this?

It depends on how they manage. Research suggests that veterans or other people who have experienced trauma and naturally recovered, or who have gotten good treatment and remitted from that issue, are probably at no higher risk. But people who have subsyndromal PTSD or depression, or who are still experiencing symptoms from a history of trauma exposure, are maybe at a higher risk of having problems over time.

Do you have any guidance for healthcare providers on how to approach the pandemic with their patients, and also on how they can look after their own mental health?

In talking to patients, make sure that they have what they need. Ask if they’ve thought through how they’re going to cope if things get harder for them.

For people who have preexisting mental health issues, I’m talking with them about whether things have gotten worse. If they’re at high risk for suicide, I’m checking in to make sure that they’ve got new plans and ways to connect with people to reduce isolation, keeping in mind the social distancing that we’re asked to engage in so that they can do that safely.

It’s important to check and see if they have had any losses, whether it’s a financial loss or a personal loss of people that they care about. Also have them think through ways to stay entertained, which tends to help manage their own anxiety.

Every coping strategy we outline for patients also applies to mental health professionals. However, you would add to it the real need to take time to recharge, to take breaks, time off. It can feel overwhelming and like you need to just keep going. But the more that you get stuck in that mode of overdoing it, the less effective you’re going to be in helping people and also the more likely that you’ll be at risk of perhaps being one of the people that needs help.

It’s also important to make sure you’re staying connected with family and friends virtually, in whatever ways you can safely do that with social distancing.
 

So take a break to watch some Netflix now and then?

Yes!
 

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

COVID-19 patients treated in intensive care units are at increased risk for delirium, and a bedside risk management strategy based on modifiable risk factors can help prevent lingering effects on cognition, according to an article published in Critical Care.

Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

Several factors can contribute to an increased risk of ICU delirium in COVID-19 patients, wrote Katarzyna Kotfis, MD, of Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland, and colleagues.

“In patients with COVID-19, delirium may be a manifestation of direct central nervous system invasion, induction of CNS inflammatory mediators, a secondary effect of other organ system failure, an effect of sedative strategies, prolonged mechanical ventilation time, or environmental factors, including social isolation,” they said.

Delirium in the context of COVID-19 can mean an early sign of infection, so patients should be screened using dedicated psychometric tools, the researchers wrote. Also, COVID-19 has been shown to cause pneumonia in elderly patients, who are at high risk for severe pulmonary disease related to COVID-19 and for ICU delirium generally, they said.

In addition, don’t underestimate the impact of social isolation created by quarantines, the researchers said.

“What is needed now, is not only high-quality ICU care, concentrated on providing adequate respiratory support to critically ill patients, but an identification of the source and degree of mental and spiritual suffering of patients as well as their families to provide the most ethical and person-centered care during this humanitarian crisis,” they emphasized. However, they acknowledged that nonpharmacologic interventions such as mobility outside the ICU room and interactions with family members are limited by the COVID-19 situation.

The researchers noted several mechanisms by which the COVID-19 virus may cause brain damage, including through the dysfunction of the renin-angiotensin system.

“Inflammatory response of the CNS to viral infection seems to be another important reason for poor neurological outcome and occurrence of delirium,” in COVID-19 patients, they said.

As for risk-reduction strategies, the researchers noted that “delirium in mechanically ventilated patients can be reduced dramatically to 50% using a culture of lighter sedation and mobilization via the implementation of the safety bundle called the ABCDEFs promoted by the Society of Critical Care Medicine in their ICU Liberation Collaborative,” although COVID-19 isolation is a barrier, they said.

The ABCDEF bundle consists of Assessment of pain, Both spontaneous awakening trials and spontaneous breathing trials, Choice of sedation, Delirium (hyperactive or hypoactive), Early mobility, and Family presence; all of which are challenging in the COVID-19 environment, the researchers said.

They advised implementing easy screening methods for delirium to reduce the burden on medical staff, and emphasized the importance of regular patient orientation, despite social separation from family and caregivers.

“No drugs can be recommended for the prevention or treatment of ICU delirium other than avoidance of overuse of potent psychoactive agents like sedatives and neuromuscular blockers (NMB) unless patients absolutely require such management,” they added.

“Delirium is so common and so hard to manage in the COVID-19 population,” Mangala Narasimhan, DO, of Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., said in an interview. Delirium is impacted by many sources including a viral encephalopathy, the amount and duration of sedation medications, and prolonged intubation and hypoxemia, she said. “Managing the delirium allows you to wake the patient up successfully and without a lot of discoordination. This will help with weaning,” she noted. Barriers to delirium management for COVID-19 patients include the length of time on a ventilator, as well as amount of sedatives and paralytics, and the added issues of renal insufficiency, she noted. “How they can be addressed is thoughtful plans on the addition of long-term sedation for withdrawal symptoms, and anxiolytics for the profound anxiety associated with arousal from this type of sedation on ventilators, she said. The take-home message for clinicians is the need to perform weaning trials to manage delirium in the ICU. “We have to combat this delirium in order to be successful in taking these patients off of ventilators,” she said. Dr. Narasimhan added that more research is needed on areas including drug-to-drug interactions, duration of efficacy of various drugs, and how the virus affects the brain.

“Adherence to the ABCDEF bundle can reduce the incidence of delirium, from approximately 75% of mechanically ventilated patients to 50% or less,” David L. Bowton, MD, of Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

“Importantly, in most studies, bundle adherence reduces mortality and ICU length of stay and lowers the total cost of care. However, isolation of patients and protection of staff, visitor restrictions, and potentially stressed staffing will likely alter how most institutions approach bundle compliance,” he said. “Gathering input from infection control clinicians and bedside providers from multiple disciplines that consider these factors to critically examine current bundle procedures and workflow will be essential to the creation and/or revision of bundle processes of care that maintain the integrity of the ABCDEF bundle yet preserve staff, patient, and family safety,” he said.

“We did not have strong evidence to suggest an optimal approach to treating delirium before the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, so I do not believe we know what the best approach is in the current environment,” Dr. Bowton added. “Further, vigilance will be necessary to ensure that altered consciousness or cognition is ICU delirium and not attributable to another cause such as drug withdrawal, drug adverse effect, or primary central nervous system infection or immune response that mandates specific therapy,” he emphasized.

For clinicians, “this study reminds us of the importance of the ABCDEF bundle to improve outcomes of critical illness,” said Dr. Bowton. “It highlights the difficulties of providing frequent reassessment of pain, comfort, reassurance, and reorientation to critically ill patients. To me, it underscores the importance of each institution critically examining staffing needs and staffing roles to mitigate these difficulties and to explore novel methods of maintaining staff-patient and family-patient interactions to enhance compliance with all elements of the ABCDEF bundle while maintaining the safety of staff and families.”

Dr. Bowton added, “When necessary, explicit modifications to existing ABCDEF bundles should be developed and disseminated to provide realistic, readily understood guidance to achieve the best possible compliance with each bundle element. One potentially underrecognized issue will be the large, hopefully temporary, number of people requiring post–critical illness rehabilitation and mental health services,” he said. “In many regions these services are already underfunded and ill-equipped to handle an increased demand for these services,” he noted.

Additional research is needed in many areas, said Dr. Bowton. “While compliance with the ABCDEF bundle decreases the incidence and duration of delirium, decreases ICU length of stay, decreases duration of mechanical ventilation, and improves mortality, many questions remain. Individual elements of the bundle have been inconsistently associated with improved outcomes,” he said. “What is the relative importance of specific elements and what are the mechanisms by which they improve outcomes?” he asked. “We still do not know how to best achieve physical/functional recovery following critical illness, which, in light of these authors’ studies relating persisting physical debility to depression (Lancet Respir Med. 2014; 2[5]:369-79), may be a key component to improving long-term outcomes,” he said.

The study received no specific funding, although several coauthors disclosed grants from agencies including the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and National Institute on Aging. Dr. Narasimhan and Dr. Bowton had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Kotfis K et al. Critical Care. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02882-x.

COVID-19 patients treated in intensive care units are at increased risk for delirium, and a bedside risk management strategy based on modifiable risk factors can help prevent lingering effects on cognition, according to an article published in Critical Care.

Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

Several factors can contribute to an increased risk of ICU delirium in COVID-19 patients, wrote Katarzyna Kotfis, MD, of Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland, and colleagues.

“In patients with COVID-19, delirium may be a manifestation of direct central nervous system invasion, induction of CNS inflammatory mediators, a secondary effect of other organ system failure, an effect of sedative strategies, prolonged mechanical ventilation time, or environmental factors, including social isolation,” they said.

Delirium in the context of COVID-19 can mean an early sign of infection, so patients should be screened using dedicated psychometric tools, the researchers wrote. Also, COVID-19 has been shown to cause pneumonia in elderly patients, who are at high risk for severe pulmonary disease related to COVID-19 and for ICU delirium generally, they said.

In addition, don’t underestimate the impact of social isolation created by quarantines, the researchers said.

“What is needed now, is not only high-quality ICU care, concentrated on providing adequate respiratory support to critically ill patients, but an identification of the source and degree of mental and spiritual suffering of patients as well as their families to provide the most ethical and person-centered care during this humanitarian crisis,” they emphasized. However, they acknowledged that nonpharmacologic interventions such as mobility outside the ICU room and interactions with family members are limited by the COVID-19 situation.

The researchers noted several mechanisms by which the COVID-19 virus may cause brain damage, including through the dysfunction of the renin-angiotensin system.

“Inflammatory response of the CNS to viral infection seems to be another important reason for poor neurological outcome and occurrence of delirium,” in COVID-19 patients, they said.

As for risk-reduction strategies, the researchers noted that “delirium in mechanically ventilated patients can be reduced dramatically to 50% using a culture of lighter sedation and mobilization via the implementation of the safety bundle called the ABCDEFs promoted by the Society of Critical Care Medicine in their ICU Liberation Collaborative,” although COVID-19 isolation is a barrier, they said.

The ABCDEF bundle consists of Assessment of pain, Both spontaneous awakening trials and spontaneous breathing trials, Choice of sedation, Delirium (hyperactive or hypoactive), Early mobility, and Family presence; all of which are challenging in the COVID-19 environment, the researchers said.

They advised implementing easy screening methods for delirium to reduce the burden on medical staff, and emphasized the importance of regular patient orientation, despite social separation from family and caregivers.

“No drugs can be recommended for the prevention or treatment of ICU delirium other than avoidance of overuse of potent psychoactive agents like sedatives and neuromuscular blockers (NMB) unless patients absolutely require such management,” they added.

“Delirium is so common and so hard to manage in the COVID-19 population,” Mangala Narasimhan, DO, of Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., said in an interview. Delirium is impacted by many sources including a viral encephalopathy, the amount and duration of sedation medications, and prolonged intubation and hypoxemia, she said. “Managing the delirium allows you to wake the patient up successfully and without a lot of discoordination. This will help with weaning,” she noted. Barriers to delirium management for COVID-19 patients include the length of time on a ventilator, as well as amount of sedatives and paralytics, and the added issues of renal insufficiency, she noted. “How they can be addressed is thoughtful plans on the addition of long-term sedation for withdrawal symptoms, and anxiolytics for the profound anxiety associated with arousal from this type of sedation on ventilators, she said. The take-home message for clinicians is the need to perform weaning trials to manage delirium in the ICU. “We have to combat this delirium in order to be successful in taking these patients off of ventilators,” she said. Dr. Narasimhan added that more research is needed on areas including drug-to-drug interactions, duration of efficacy of various drugs, and how the virus affects the brain.

“Adherence to the ABCDEF bundle can reduce the incidence of delirium, from approximately 75% of mechanically ventilated patients to 50% or less,” David L. Bowton, MD, of Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

“Importantly, in most studies, bundle adherence reduces mortality and ICU length of stay and lowers the total cost of care. However, isolation of patients and protection of staff, visitor restrictions, and potentially stressed staffing will likely alter how most institutions approach bundle compliance,” he said. “Gathering input from infection control clinicians and bedside providers from multiple disciplines that consider these factors to critically examine current bundle procedures and workflow will be essential to the creation and/or revision of bundle processes of care that maintain the integrity of the ABCDEF bundle yet preserve staff, patient, and family safety,” he said.

“We did not have strong evidence to suggest an optimal approach to treating delirium before the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, so I do not believe we know what the best approach is in the current environment,” Dr. Bowton added. “Further, vigilance will be necessary to ensure that altered consciousness or cognition is ICU delirium and not attributable to another cause such as drug withdrawal, drug adverse effect, or primary central nervous system infection or immune response that mandates specific therapy,” he emphasized.

For clinicians, “this study reminds us of the importance of the ABCDEF bundle to improve outcomes of critical illness,” said Dr. Bowton. “It highlights the difficulties of providing frequent reassessment of pain, comfort, reassurance, and reorientation to critically ill patients. To me, it underscores the importance of each institution critically examining staffing needs and staffing roles to mitigate these difficulties and to explore novel methods of maintaining staff-patient and family-patient interactions to enhance compliance with all elements of the ABCDEF bundle while maintaining the safety of staff and families.”

Dr. Bowton added, “When necessary, explicit modifications to existing ABCDEF bundles should be developed and disseminated to provide realistic, readily understood guidance to achieve the best possible compliance with each bundle element. One potentially underrecognized issue will be the large, hopefully temporary, number of people requiring post–critical illness rehabilitation and mental health services,” he said. “In many regions these services are already underfunded and ill-equipped to handle an increased demand for these services,” he noted.

Additional research is needed in many areas, said Dr. Bowton. “While compliance with the ABCDEF bundle decreases the incidence and duration of delirium, decreases ICU length of stay, decreases duration of mechanical ventilation, and improves mortality, many questions remain. Individual elements of the bundle have been inconsistently associated with improved outcomes,” he said. “What is the relative importance of specific elements and what are the mechanisms by which they improve outcomes?” he asked. “We still do not know how to best achieve physical/functional recovery following critical illness, which, in light of these authors’ studies relating persisting physical debility to depression (Lancet Respir Med. 2014; 2[5]:369-79), may be a key component to improving long-term outcomes,” he said.

The study received no specific funding, although several coauthors disclosed grants from agencies including the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and National Institute on Aging. Dr. Narasimhan and Dr. Bowton had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Kotfis K et al. Critical Care. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02882-x.

COVID-19 patients treated in intensive care units are at increased risk for delirium, and a bedside risk management strategy based on modifiable risk factors can help prevent lingering effects on cognition, according to an article published in Critical Care.

Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

Several factors can contribute to an increased risk of ICU delirium in COVID-19 patients, wrote Katarzyna Kotfis, MD, of Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland, and colleagues.

“In patients with COVID-19, delirium may be a manifestation of direct central nervous system invasion, induction of CNS inflammatory mediators, a secondary effect of other organ system failure, an effect of sedative strategies, prolonged mechanical ventilation time, or environmental factors, including social isolation,” they said.

Delirium in the context of COVID-19 can mean an early sign of infection, so patients should be screened using dedicated psychometric tools, the researchers wrote. Also, COVID-19 has been shown to cause pneumonia in elderly patients, who are at high risk for severe pulmonary disease related to COVID-19 and for ICU delirium generally, they said.

In addition, don’t underestimate the impact of social isolation created by quarantines, the researchers said.

“What is needed now, is not only high-quality ICU care, concentrated on providing adequate respiratory support to critically ill patients, but an identification of the source and degree of mental and spiritual suffering of patients as well as their families to provide the most ethical and person-centered care during this humanitarian crisis,” they emphasized. However, they acknowledged that nonpharmacologic interventions such as mobility outside the ICU room and interactions with family members are limited by the COVID-19 situation.

The researchers noted several mechanisms by which the COVID-19 virus may cause brain damage, including through the dysfunction of the renin-angiotensin system.

“Inflammatory response of the CNS to viral infection seems to be another important reason for poor neurological outcome and occurrence of delirium,” in COVID-19 patients, they said.

As for risk-reduction strategies, the researchers noted that “delirium in mechanically ventilated patients can be reduced dramatically to 50% using a culture of lighter sedation and mobilization via the implementation of the safety bundle called the ABCDEFs promoted by the Society of Critical Care Medicine in their ICU Liberation Collaborative,” although COVID-19 isolation is a barrier, they said.

The ABCDEF bundle consists of Assessment of pain, Both spontaneous awakening trials and spontaneous breathing trials, Choice of sedation, Delirium (hyperactive or hypoactive), Early mobility, and Family presence; all of which are challenging in the COVID-19 environment, the researchers said.

They advised implementing easy screening methods for delirium to reduce the burden on medical staff, and emphasized the importance of regular patient orientation, despite social separation from family and caregivers.

“No drugs can be recommended for the prevention or treatment of ICU delirium other than avoidance of overuse of potent psychoactive agents like sedatives and neuromuscular blockers (NMB) unless patients absolutely require such management,” they added.

“Delirium is so common and so hard to manage in the COVID-19 population,” Mangala Narasimhan, DO, of Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., said in an interview. Delirium is impacted by many sources including a viral encephalopathy, the amount and duration of sedation medications, and prolonged intubation and hypoxemia, she said. “Managing the delirium allows you to wake the patient up successfully and without a lot of discoordination. This will help with weaning,” she noted. Barriers to delirium management for COVID-19 patients include the length of time on a ventilator, as well as amount of sedatives and paralytics, and the added issues of renal insufficiency, she noted. “How they can be addressed is thoughtful plans on the addition of long-term sedation for withdrawal symptoms, and anxiolytics for the profound anxiety associated with arousal from this type of sedation on ventilators, she said. The take-home message for clinicians is the need to perform weaning trials to manage delirium in the ICU. “We have to combat this delirium in order to be successful in taking these patients off of ventilators,” she said. Dr. Narasimhan added that more research is needed on areas including drug-to-drug interactions, duration of efficacy of various drugs, and how the virus affects the brain.

“Adherence to the ABCDEF bundle can reduce the incidence of delirium, from approximately 75% of mechanically ventilated patients to 50% or less,” David L. Bowton, MD, of Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

“Importantly, in most studies, bundle adherence reduces mortality and ICU length of stay and lowers the total cost of care. However, isolation of patients and protection of staff, visitor restrictions, and potentially stressed staffing will likely alter how most institutions approach bundle compliance,” he said. “Gathering input from infection control clinicians and bedside providers from multiple disciplines that consider these factors to critically examine current bundle procedures and workflow will be essential to the creation and/or revision of bundle processes of care that maintain the integrity of the ABCDEF bundle yet preserve staff, patient, and family safety,” he said.

“We did not have strong evidence to suggest an optimal approach to treating delirium before the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, so I do not believe we know what the best approach is in the current environment,” Dr. Bowton added. “Further, vigilance will be necessary to ensure that altered consciousness or cognition is ICU delirium and not attributable to another cause such as drug withdrawal, drug adverse effect, or primary central nervous system infection or immune response that mandates specific therapy,” he emphasized.

For clinicians, “this study reminds us of the importance of the ABCDEF bundle to improve outcomes of critical illness,” said Dr. Bowton. “It highlights the difficulties of providing frequent reassessment of pain, comfort, reassurance, and reorientation to critically ill patients. To me, it underscores the importance of each institution critically examining staffing needs and staffing roles to mitigate these difficulties and to explore novel methods of maintaining staff-patient and family-patient interactions to enhance compliance with all elements of the ABCDEF bundle while maintaining the safety of staff and families.”

Dr. Bowton added, “When necessary, explicit modifications to existing ABCDEF bundles should be developed and disseminated to provide realistic, readily understood guidance to achieve the best possible compliance with each bundle element. One potentially underrecognized issue will be the large, hopefully temporary, number of people requiring post–critical illness rehabilitation and mental health services,” he said. “In many regions these services are already underfunded and ill-equipped to handle an increased demand for these services,” he noted.

Additional research is needed in many areas, said Dr. Bowton. “While compliance with the ABCDEF bundle decreases the incidence and duration of delirium, decreases ICU length of stay, decreases duration of mechanical ventilation, and improves mortality, many questions remain. Individual elements of the bundle have been inconsistently associated with improved outcomes,” he said. “What is the relative importance of specific elements and what are the mechanisms by which they improve outcomes?” he asked. “We still do not know how to best achieve physical/functional recovery following critical illness, which, in light of these authors’ studies relating persisting physical debility to depression (Lancet Respir Med. 2014; 2[5]:369-79), may be a key component to improving long-term outcomes,” he said.

The study received no specific funding, although several coauthors disclosed grants from agencies including the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and National Institute on Aging. Dr. Narasimhan and Dr. Bowton had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Kotfis K et al. Critical Care. 2020 Apr 28. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02882-x.

Manufacturers will begin producing COVID-19 vaccine doses in anticipation of approval so that if a product gets the okay for usage, distribution can begin quickly, according to Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Steve Mann/Thinkstock

“We will be producing vaccine at risk, which means we’ll be [investing] considerable resources in developing doses even before we know any given candidate or candidates work,” he testified during a May 12, 2020, hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

During the hearing, Dr. Fauci did not elaborate on how the production at risk would be undertaken, what criteria would be in place for selecting which candidates would be in the pipeline, or how much would be spent on the advanced production of these vaccines.

And while Dr. Fauci, a member of the White House coronavirus task force, remained optimistic that one or more vaccine candidates would ultimately be viable, he cautioned that there remain many unknowns that could slow the development of a vaccine for COVID-19.

“I must warn that there’s also the possibility of negative consequences that certain vaccines can actually enhance the negative effect of the infection,” he said. “The big unknown is efficacy. Will it be present or absent and how durable will it be?”

It’s unlikely that either a vaccine or an effective treatment will be available in the next 3 months, Dr. Fauci told the committee.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the committee chairman, asked Dr. Fauci what he would say to college, primary, and secondary school administrators about how the availability of treatments and vaccines could influence the ability to reopen campuses to students. Dr. Fauci replied that the idea of having treatments or a vaccine available to facilitate the reentry of students in the fall term would be “a bit of a bridge too far.”

The emphasis in the coming months should be on testing, contact tracing, and isolation of those infected with the virus, Dr. Fauci said.

[email protected]

Manufacturers will begin producing COVID-19 vaccine doses in anticipation of approval so that if a product gets the okay for usage, distribution can begin quickly, according to Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Steve Mann/Thinkstock

“We will be producing vaccine at risk, which means we’ll be [investing] considerable resources in developing doses even before we know any given candidate or candidates work,” he testified during a May 12, 2020, hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

During the hearing, Dr. Fauci did not elaborate on how the production at risk would be undertaken, what criteria would be in place for selecting which candidates would be in the pipeline, or how much would be spent on the advanced production of these vaccines.

And while Dr. Fauci, a member of the White House coronavirus task force, remained optimistic that one or more vaccine candidates would ultimately be viable, he cautioned that there remain many unknowns that could slow the development of a vaccine for COVID-19.

“I must warn that there’s also the possibility of negative consequences that certain vaccines can actually enhance the negative effect of the infection,” he said. “The big unknown is efficacy. Will it be present or absent and how durable will it be?”

It’s unlikely that either a vaccine or an effective treatment will be available in the next 3 months, Dr. Fauci told the committee.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the committee chairman, asked Dr. Fauci what he would say to college, primary, and secondary school administrators about how the availability of treatments and vaccines could influence the ability to reopen campuses to students. Dr. Fauci replied that the idea of having treatments or a vaccine available to facilitate the reentry of students in the fall term would be “a bit of a bridge too far.”

The emphasis in the coming months should be on testing, contact tracing, and isolation of those infected with the virus, Dr. Fauci said.

[email protected]

Manufacturers will begin producing COVID-19 vaccine doses in anticipation of approval so that if a product gets the okay for usage, distribution can begin quickly, according to Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Steve Mann/Thinkstock

“We will be producing vaccine at risk, which means we’ll be [investing] considerable resources in developing doses even before we know any given candidate or candidates work,” he testified during a May 12, 2020, hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

During the hearing, Dr. Fauci did not elaborate on how the production at risk would be undertaken, what criteria would be in place for selecting which candidates would be in the pipeline, or how much would be spent on the advanced production of these vaccines.

And while Dr. Fauci, a member of the White House coronavirus task force, remained optimistic that one or more vaccine candidates would ultimately be viable, he cautioned that there remain many unknowns that could slow the development of a vaccine for COVID-19.

“I must warn that there’s also the possibility of negative consequences that certain vaccines can actually enhance the negative effect of the infection,” he said. “The big unknown is efficacy. Will it be present or absent and how durable will it be?”

It’s unlikely that either a vaccine or an effective treatment will be available in the next 3 months, Dr. Fauci told the committee.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the committee chairman, asked Dr. Fauci what he would say to college, primary, and secondary school administrators about how the availability of treatments and vaccines could influence the ability to reopen campuses to students. Dr. Fauci replied that the idea of having treatments or a vaccine available to facilitate the reentry of students in the fall term would be “a bit of a bridge too far.”

The emphasis in the coming months should be on testing, contact tracing, and isolation of those infected with the virus, Dr. Fauci said.

[email protected]

West Virginia’s large elderly population and high rates of chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and COPD make it the most vulnerable state to the coronavirus, according to a new analysis.

Vulnerability to the virus “isn’t just health related, though, as many people are harmed by the economic effects of the pandemic,” personal finance website WalletHub said May 12.

“It’s important for the U.S. to dedicate a large portion of its resources to providing medical support during the coronavirus pandemic, but we should also support people who don’t have adequate housing or enough money to survive the pandemic,” said WalletHub analyst Jill Gonzalez.

WalletHub graded each state on 28 measures – including share of obese adults, share of homes lacking access to basic hygienic facilities, and biggest increases in unemployment because of COVID-19 – grouped into three dimensions of vulnerability: medical (60% of the total score), housing (15%), and financial (25%).

Using those measures, Louisiana is the most vulnerable state after West Virginia, followed by Mississippi, Arkansas, and Alabama. All 5 states finished in the top 6 for medical vulnerability, and 4 were in the top 10 for financial vulnerability, but only 1 (Arkansas) was in the top 10 for housing vulnerability, WalletHub said.

Among the three vulnerability dimensions, West Virginia was first in medical, Hawaii (33rd overall) was first in housing, and Louisiana was first in financial. Utah is the least vulnerable state, overall, and the least vulnerable states in each dimension are, respectively, Colorado (50th overall), the District of Columbia (29th overall), and Iowa (45th overall), the report showed.

A look at the individual metrics WalletHub used shows some serious disparities:

• New Jersey’s unemployment recipiency rate of 57.2%, the highest in the country, is 6.1 times higher than North Carolina’s 9.3%.
• The highest uninsured rate, 17.4% in Texas, is 6.2 times higher than in Massachusetts, which is the lowest at 2.8%.
• In California, the share of the homeless population that is unsheltered (71.7%) is more than 33 times higher than in North Dakota (2.2%).

“The financial damage caused by COVID-19 is leaving many Americans without the means to pay their bills and purchase necessities. … The U.S. must continue to support its financially vulnerable populations even after the virus has subsided,” Ms. Gonzalez said.

[email protected]

West Virginia’s large elderly population and high rates of chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and COPD make it the most vulnerable state to the coronavirus, according to a new analysis.

Vulnerability to the virus “isn’t just health related, though, as many people are harmed by the economic effects of the pandemic,” personal finance website WalletHub said May 12.

“It’s important for the U.S. to dedicate a large portion of its resources to providing medical support during the coronavirus pandemic, but we should also support people who don’t have adequate housing or enough money to survive the pandemic,” said WalletHub analyst Jill Gonzalez.

WalletHub graded each state on 28 measures – including share of obese adults, share of homes lacking access to basic hygienic facilities, and biggest increases in unemployment because of COVID-19 – grouped into three dimensions of vulnerability: medical (60% of the total score), housing (15%), and financial (25%).

Using those measures, Louisiana is the most vulnerable state after West Virginia, followed by Mississippi, Arkansas, and Alabama. All 5 states finished in the top 6 for medical vulnerability, and 4 were in the top 10 for financial vulnerability, but only 1 (Arkansas) was in the top 10 for housing vulnerability, WalletHub said.

Among the three vulnerability dimensions, West Virginia was first in medical, Hawaii (33rd overall) was first in housing, and Louisiana was first in financial. Utah is the least vulnerable state, overall, and the least vulnerable states in each dimension are, respectively, Colorado (50th overall), the District of Columbia (29th overall), and Iowa (45th overall), the report showed.

A look at the individual metrics WalletHub used shows some serious disparities:

• New Jersey’s unemployment recipiency rate of 57.2%, the highest in the country, is 6.1 times higher than North Carolina’s 9.3%.
• The highest uninsured rate, 17.4% in Texas, is 6.2 times higher than in Massachusetts, which is the lowest at 2.8%.
• In California, the share of the homeless population that is unsheltered (71.7%) is more than 33 times higher than in North Dakota (2.2%).

“The financial damage caused by COVID-19 is leaving many Americans without the means to pay their bills and purchase necessities. … The U.S. must continue to support its financially vulnerable populations even after the virus has subsided,” Ms. Gonzalez said.

[email protected]

West Virginia’s large elderly population and high rates of chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and COPD make it the most vulnerable state to the coronavirus, according to a new analysis.

Vulnerability to the virus “isn’t just health related, though, as many people are harmed by the economic effects of the pandemic,” personal finance website WalletHub said May 12.

“It’s important for the U.S. to dedicate a large portion of its resources to providing medical support during the coronavirus pandemic, but we should also support people who don’t have adequate housing or enough money to survive the pandemic,” said WalletHub analyst Jill Gonzalez.

WalletHub graded each state on 28 measures – including share of obese adults, share of homes lacking access to basic hygienic facilities, and biggest increases in unemployment because of COVID-19 – grouped into three dimensions of vulnerability: medical (60% of the total score), housing (15%), and financial (25%).

Using those measures, Louisiana is the most vulnerable state after West Virginia, followed by Mississippi, Arkansas, and Alabama. All 5 states finished in the top 6 for medical vulnerability, and 4 were in the top 10 for financial vulnerability, but only 1 (Arkansas) was in the top 10 for housing vulnerability, WalletHub said.

Among the three vulnerability dimensions, West Virginia was first in medical, Hawaii (33rd overall) was first in housing, and Louisiana was first in financial. Utah is the least vulnerable state, overall, and the least vulnerable states in each dimension are, respectively, Colorado (50th overall), the District of Columbia (29th overall), and Iowa (45th overall), the report showed.

A look at the individual metrics WalletHub used shows some serious disparities:

• New Jersey’s unemployment recipiency rate of 57.2%, the highest in the country, is 6.1 times higher than North Carolina’s 9.3%.
• The highest uninsured rate, 17.4% in Texas, is 6.2 times higher than in Massachusetts, which is the lowest at 2.8%.
• In California, the share of the homeless population that is unsheltered (71.7%) is more than 33 times higher than in North Dakota (2.2%).

“The financial damage caused by COVID-19 is leaving many Americans without the means to pay their bills and purchase necessities. … The U.S. must continue to support its financially vulnerable populations even after the virus has subsided,” Ms. Gonzalez said.

[email protected]

When COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed in a patient with a rheumatic disease, treatment with hydroxychloroquine may be continued, but other treatments may need to be stopped or held temporarily, according to new guidance issued by the American College of Rheumatology.

That includes disease-modifying treatment with antirheumatic drugs such as sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as immunosuppressants and non-interleukin (IL)-6 biologics, and this is regardless of how severe the COVID-19 illness is. NSAIDs should also be stopped if there are respiratory symptoms.

The advice is slightly less drastic if someone with stable rheumatic disease has probably been exposed to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or are asymptomatic. In those patients, DMARDs may be continued, although there is uncertainty over whether there is a need to temporarily stop methotrexate or leflunomide. Interruption of immunosuppressive, non–IL-6, and JAK inhibitor treatment is advised pending a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result, assuming the patient’s rheumatic disease is stable.
 

Impetus for ACR COVID-19 guidance

“One of the earliest challenges for rheumatologists during the COVID-19 pandemic was determining how to advise our patients who were taking immunosuppressive medications and were concerned as to whether or not to discontinue their therapy,” ACR President Ellen Gravallese, MD, said in an interview about the ACR Clinical Guidance Document, which is published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“A second challenge was keeping our patients safe from exposure to the virus, while still seeing those patients in person who required office visits,” added Dr. Gravallese, who is chief of the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

She continued: “The ACR Clinical Guidance Document was prepared in order to assist rheumatologists with decisions as to how to handle current medications during different phases of a patient’s exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

But with very little evidence available on how to manage COVID-19 patients generally, let alone specifically in those with rheumatic diseases, “it became evident that any recommendations made would need to be done in a thoughtful and organized manner, evaluating the evidence that was available and obtaining the advice of experts in infectious disease, epidemiology, and in the use of biologic and nonbiologic agents for rheumatic disease,” she said.

As such, the ACR convened a task force of 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America to look at how best to manage patients with rheumatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Our charge was to develop a guidance document for the care of adult rheumatic disease patients in the context of COVID-19 and not per se to provide guidance for the treatment of COVID-19,” explained task force member and the corresponding author for the guidance, Ted R. Mikuls, MD, MSPH, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

Dr. Mikuls, who was speaking at a virtual town hall meeting hosted by the ACR on May 6, noted that the guidance was obviously based on the best consensus of the available data and as such represented a “living document” that “would change and be added to” as necessary.
 

General recommendations for adult rheumatic disease management

In terms of general recommendations for the management of adult rheumatic disease patients, Dr. Mikuls said that six statements had been made “specific to risk assessment, prevention of infection, and best practices related to glucocorticoid use and the use of ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] during the pandemic.”

For example, general advice is to counsel patients to keep up general preventive measures such as social distancing and regular hand washing, reducing the number of in-person health care visits, and undertaking other means to try to prevent potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure. As for general treatment advice, glucocorticoids should be used at their lowest doses possible and should not be abruptly stopped, and antihypertensive treatment should be used as indicated.

Additional guidance statements include those that address the treatment of patients with stable rheumatic disease in the absence of infection or known exposure to SARS-CoV-2, with guidance specific to the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and those with newly diagnosed or active rheumatic disease.
 

SLE and inflammatory arthritis recommendations

“There are several sections within the guidance document that address the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus during this pandemic,” Dr. Gravallese pointed out. “In general, it is recommended that lupus patients who are currently taking hydroxychloroquine can remain on the therapy prior to and during infection and that newly diagnosed patients with lupus can be placed on this medication at full dose. It is recommended that pregnant patients with lupus remain on therapy with this drug.”

She also observed that, for the treatment of active inflammatory arthritis, “the recommendations were written to address specific medications that could be used in this setting. In general, the task force recommendations were guided by the importance of controlling inflammation prior to exposure to the virus, even during this pandemic.
 

Guidance raises questions

During the ACR’s town hall meeting, the task force answered several questions raised by the guidance, such as the reasoning behind recommending that the use of traditional DMARDs be discontinued in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Dr. Mikuls observed: “Maybe if you just read the guidance statements it isn’t terribly intuitive.” There was a lot of discussion about whether or not conventional DMARDs were immunosuppressive, and even though they may not have such effects, it was decided to err on the side of caution.

“I think the task force felt that, with a COVID-19–positive patient, there is a concern of potentially confusing adverse effects related to medicines or conflate those with problems from the infection,” he said. Although rare, examples of those issues could be drug-induced hypersensitivity, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal side effects of hepatitis, all of which have been described in COVID-19. “Not only could it cause confusion, but it could maybe worsen those sequalae of COVID-19,” he said.

“I think the other part of this answer was that the panel really felt that the risk in terms of the flaring of the underlying rheumatic disease was likely to be pretty low given the finite time frame you’d be taking about – usually a time frame of 2-3 weeks you’d be holding the agent – so I think that is really why the task force ended up with that recommendation.”

Similarly, for the JAK inhibitors, the decision was to err on the side of caution when COVID-19 was suspected or confirmed. “Not so much because of the risk of thromboembolic disease, but concerns over immunosuppression that these drugs carry with them and also the fact the JAK inhibitors are probably inhibitors of type 1 interferons, which play a significant role in viral immunity and could potentially have a negative impact,” said Stanley Cohen, MD, who practices rheumatology in the Dallas area.

“On the flipside, there is interest in some of the JAK inhibitors as a potential treatment for COVID-19,” Dr. Cohen said, referring to anecdotal evidence for baricitinib (Olumiant).

Michael Weinblatt, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, addressed the recent concern over the use of NSAIDs by the public.

“There’s been a lot in the lay press that NSAIDs – because of the effects on receptors in the lung – could lead to deleterious outcomes in patients with COVID and there’s very little data to support this.

“We did recommend that NSAIDs be held in the hospitalized patient and that wasn’t because of the COVID-19 issue, it really was just medical practice, and we didn’t want to confound the care of these really sick patients with potential toxicities from NSAIDs. But as far as routine rheumatological care in your outpatients, we did not recommend that nonsteroidals be stopped if they were tolerated.”

One part of the guidance that might already need revision is the recommendation on the continued use of hydroxychloroquine in patients who develop COVID-19.

“Our guidance document says it’s OK; we were all in very strong agreement to continue hydroxychloroquine in our patients with COVID-19 because at that point, just a couple of weeks ago, we thought it was part of the potential treatment,” Karen Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said during the town hall meeting.

“Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and we’re worried about maybe we shouldn’t be continuing it because COVID-19 patients will be getting many other medications,” Dr. Costenbader said, and these may affect the QT-interval. “They will not be getting azithromycin because the pendulum swung the other way on that one too, but definitely on many other medications when they are sick.”

Potentially, she added, “if the rheumatic disease is under good control the inpatient physicians could decide whether they should continue [hydroxychloroquine] or not. If the COVID-19 is a mild disease, I would say we probably could continue in accordance with what we put in the document, but we will have to revisit this as well.”
 

Guidance is a ‘living document’

“We will be providing updates to the Clinical Guidance Document as the need arises,” Dr. Gravallese emphasized. While the general recommendations are unlikely to change very much, “the task force will be interested in seeing the results of all new data, but the results of randomized, clinical trials will be particularly important as they become available,” she said. In particular, randomized, controlled trials of glucocorticoids and IL-6 receptor blockade for use in COVID-19 will be of great importance.

“In this initial document, we could not take on all of the medical scenarios our members will face. For example, we could not take on recommendations for the pediatric population as this group of patients has a very different response than adults to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Dr. Gravallese acknowledged. The plan is to provide guidance for that group of patients soon.

In addition, the ACR Executive Committee has appointed a Practice and Advocacy Task Force that will “address issues rheumatologists face on the practice side, including advice regarding how to effectively use telemedicine, address the frequency and safety of infusions, determine urgent versus nonurgent issues that would or would not require face-to-face visits, and help with financial challenges.”

The American College of Rheumatology supported the guidance-development process. Dr. Mikuls, Dr. Weinblatt, Dr. Cohen, and Dr. Costenbader each disclosed research support or consultancies with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Gravallese had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Mikuls TR et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1002/art.41301.

When COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed in a patient with a rheumatic disease, treatment with hydroxychloroquine may be continued, but other treatments may need to be stopped or held temporarily, according to new guidance issued by the American College of Rheumatology.

That includes disease-modifying treatment with antirheumatic drugs such as sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as immunosuppressants and non-interleukin (IL)-6 biologics, and this is regardless of how severe the COVID-19 illness is. NSAIDs should also be stopped if there are respiratory symptoms.

The advice is slightly less drastic if someone with stable rheumatic disease has probably been exposed to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or are asymptomatic. In those patients, DMARDs may be continued, although there is uncertainty over whether there is a need to temporarily stop methotrexate or leflunomide. Interruption of immunosuppressive, non–IL-6, and JAK inhibitor treatment is advised pending a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result, assuming the patient’s rheumatic disease is stable.
 

Impetus for ACR COVID-19 guidance

“One of the earliest challenges for rheumatologists during the COVID-19 pandemic was determining how to advise our patients who were taking immunosuppressive medications and were concerned as to whether or not to discontinue their therapy,” ACR President Ellen Gravallese, MD, said in an interview about the ACR Clinical Guidance Document, which is published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“A second challenge was keeping our patients safe from exposure to the virus, while still seeing those patients in person who required office visits,” added Dr. Gravallese, who is chief of the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

She continued: “The ACR Clinical Guidance Document was prepared in order to assist rheumatologists with decisions as to how to handle current medications during different phases of a patient’s exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

But with very little evidence available on how to manage COVID-19 patients generally, let alone specifically in those with rheumatic diseases, “it became evident that any recommendations made would need to be done in a thoughtful and organized manner, evaluating the evidence that was available and obtaining the advice of experts in infectious disease, epidemiology, and in the use of biologic and nonbiologic agents for rheumatic disease,” she said.

As such, the ACR convened a task force of 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America to look at how best to manage patients with rheumatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Our charge was to develop a guidance document for the care of adult rheumatic disease patients in the context of COVID-19 and not per se to provide guidance for the treatment of COVID-19,” explained task force member and the corresponding author for the guidance, Ted R. Mikuls, MD, MSPH, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

Dr. Mikuls, who was speaking at a virtual town hall meeting hosted by the ACR on May 6, noted that the guidance was obviously based on the best consensus of the available data and as such represented a “living document” that “would change and be added to” as necessary.
 

General recommendations for adult rheumatic disease management

In terms of general recommendations for the management of adult rheumatic disease patients, Dr. Mikuls said that six statements had been made “specific to risk assessment, prevention of infection, and best practices related to glucocorticoid use and the use of ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] during the pandemic.”

For example, general advice is to counsel patients to keep up general preventive measures such as social distancing and regular hand washing, reducing the number of in-person health care visits, and undertaking other means to try to prevent potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure. As for general treatment advice, glucocorticoids should be used at their lowest doses possible and should not be abruptly stopped, and antihypertensive treatment should be used as indicated.

Additional guidance statements include those that address the treatment of patients with stable rheumatic disease in the absence of infection or known exposure to SARS-CoV-2, with guidance specific to the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and those with newly diagnosed or active rheumatic disease.
 

SLE and inflammatory arthritis recommendations

“There are several sections within the guidance document that address the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus during this pandemic,” Dr. Gravallese pointed out. “In general, it is recommended that lupus patients who are currently taking hydroxychloroquine can remain on the therapy prior to and during infection and that newly diagnosed patients with lupus can be placed on this medication at full dose. It is recommended that pregnant patients with lupus remain on therapy with this drug.”

She also observed that, for the treatment of active inflammatory arthritis, “the recommendations were written to address specific medications that could be used in this setting. In general, the task force recommendations were guided by the importance of controlling inflammation prior to exposure to the virus, even during this pandemic.
 

Guidance raises questions

During the ACR’s town hall meeting, the task force answered several questions raised by the guidance, such as the reasoning behind recommending that the use of traditional DMARDs be discontinued in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Dr. Mikuls observed: “Maybe if you just read the guidance statements it isn’t terribly intuitive.” There was a lot of discussion about whether or not conventional DMARDs were immunosuppressive, and even though they may not have such effects, it was decided to err on the side of caution.

“I think the task force felt that, with a COVID-19–positive patient, there is a concern of potentially confusing adverse effects related to medicines or conflate those with problems from the infection,” he said. Although rare, examples of those issues could be drug-induced hypersensitivity, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal side effects of hepatitis, all of which have been described in COVID-19. “Not only could it cause confusion, but it could maybe worsen those sequalae of COVID-19,” he said.

“I think the other part of this answer was that the panel really felt that the risk in terms of the flaring of the underlying rheumatic disease was likely to be pretty low given the finite time frame you’d be taking about – usually a time frame of 2-3 weeks you’d be holding the agent – so I think that is really why the task force ended up with that recommendation.”

Similarly, for the JAK inhibitors, the decision was to err on the side of caution when COVID-19 was suspected or confirmed. “Not so much because of the risk of thromboembolic disease, but concerns over immunosuppression that these drugs carry with them and also the fact the JAK inhibitors are probably inhibitors of type 1 interferons, which play a significant role in viral immunity and could potentially have a negative impact,” said Stanley Cohen, MD, who practices rheumatology in the Dallas area.

“On the flipside, there is interest in some of the JAK inhibitors as a potential treatment for COVID-19,” Dr. Cohen said, referring to anecdotal evidence for baricitinib (Olumiant).

Michael Weinblatt, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, addressed the recent concern over the use of NSAIDs by the public.

“There’s been a lot in the lay press that NSAIDs – because of the effects on receptors in the lung – could lead to deleterious outcomes in patients with COVID and there’s very little data to support this.

“We did recommend that NSAIDs be held in the hospitalized patient and that wasn’t because of the COVID-19 issue, it really was just medical practice, and we didn’t want to confound the care of these really sick patients with potential toxicities from NSAIDs. But as far as routine rheumatological care in your outpatients, we did not recommend that nonsteroidals be stopped if they were tolerated.”

One part of the guidance that might already need revision is the recommendation on the continued use of hydroxychloroquine in patients who develop COVID-19.

“Our guidance document says it’s OK; we were all in very strong agreement to continue hydroxychloroquine in our patients with COVID-19 because at that point, just a couple of weeks ago, we thought it was part of the potential treatment,” Karen Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said during the town hall meeting.

“Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and we’re worried about maybe we shouldn’t be continuing it because COVID-19 patients will be getting many other medications,” Dr. Costenbader said, and these may affect the QT-interval. “They will not be getting azithromycin because the pendulum swung the other way on that one too, but definitely on many other medications when they are sick.”

Potentially, she added, “if the rheumatic disease is under good control the inpatient physicians could decide whether they should continue [hydroxychloroquine] or not. If the COVID-19 is a mild disease, I would say we probably could continue in accordance with what we put in the document, but we will have to revisit this as well.”
 

Guidance is a ‘living document’

“We will be providing updates to the Clinical Guidance Document as the need arises,” Dr. Gravallese emphasized. While the general recommendations are unlikely to change very much, “the task force will be interested in seeing the results of all new data, but the results of randomized, clinical trials will be particularly important as they become available,” she said. In particular, randomized, controlled trials of glucocorticoids and IL-6 receptor blockade for use in COVID-19 will be of great importance.

“In this initial document, we could not take on all of the medical scenarios our members will face. For example, we could not take on recommendations for the pediatric population as this group of patients has a very different response than adults to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Dr. Gravallese acknowledged. The plan is to provide guidance for that group of patients soon.

In addition, the ACR Executive Committee has appointed a Practice and Advocacy Task Force that will “address issues rheumatologists face on the practice side, including advice regarding how to effectively use telemedicine, address the frequency and safety of infusions, determine urgent versus nonurgent issues that would or would not require face-to-face visits, and help with financial challenges.”

The American College of Rheumatology supported the guidance-development process. Dr. Mikuls, Dr. Weinblatt, Dr. Cohen, and Dr. Costenbader each disclosed research support or consultancies with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Gravallese had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Mikuls TR et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1002/art.41301.

When COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed in a patient with a rheumatic disease, treatment with hydroxychloroquine may be continued, but other treatments may need to be stopped or held temporarily, according to new guidance issued by the American College of Rheumatology.

That includes disease-modifying treatment with antirheumatic drugs such as sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as immunosuppressants and non-interleukin (IL)-6 biologics, and this is regardless of how severe the COVID-19 illness is. NSAIDs should also be stopped if there are respiratory symptoms.

The advice is slightly less drastic if someone with stable rheumatic disease has probably been exposed to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or are asymptomatic. In those patients, DMARDs may be continued, although there is uncertainty over whether there is a need to temporarily stop methotrexate or leflunomide. Interruption of immunosuppressive, non–IL-6, and JAK inhibitor treatment is advised pending a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result, assuming the patient’s rheumatic disease is stable.
 

Impetus for ACR COVID-19 guidance

“One of the earliest challenges for rheumatologists during the COVID-19 pandemic was determining how to advise our patients who were taking immunosuppressive medications and were concerned as to whether or not to discontinue their therapy,” ACR President Ellen Gravallese, MD, said in an interview about the ACR Clinical Guidance Document, which is published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“A second challenge was keeping our patients safe from exposure to the virus, while still seeing those patients in person who required office visits,” added Dr. Gravallese, who is chief of the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

She continued: “The ACR Clinical Guidance Document was prepared in order to assist rheumatologists with decisions as to how to handle current medications during different phases of a patient’s exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

But with very little evidence available on how to manage COVID-19 patients generally, let alone specifically in those with rheumatic diseases, “it became evident that any recommendations made would need to be done in a thoughtful and organized manner, evaluating the evidence that was available and obtaining the advice of experts in infectious disease, epidemiology, and in the use of biologic and nonbiologic agents for rheumatic disease,” she said.

As such, the ACR convened a task force of 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America to look at how best to manage patients with rheumatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Our charge was to develop a guidance document for the care of adult rheumatic disease patients in the context of COVID-19 and not per se to provide guidance for the treatment of COVID-19,” explained task force member and the corresponding author for the guidance, Ted R. Mikuls, MD, MSPH, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

Dr. Mikuls, who was speaking at a virtual town hall meeting hosted by the ACR on May 6, noted that the guidance was obviously based on the best consensus of the available data and as such represented a “living document” that “would change and be added to” as necessary.
 

General recommendations for adult rheumatic disease management

In terms of general recommendations for the management of adult rheumatic disease patients, Dr. Mikuls said that six statements had been made “specific to risk assessment, prevention of infection, and best practices related to glucocorticoid use and the use of ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] during the pandemic.”

For example, general advice is to counsel patients to keep up general preventive measures such as social distancing and regular hand washing, reducing the number of in-person health care visits, and undertaking other means to try to prevent potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure. As for general treatment advice, glucocorticoids should be used at their lowest doses possible and should not be abruptly stopped, and antihypertensive treatment should be used as indicated.

Additional guidance statements include those that address the treatment of patients with stable rheumatic disease in the absence of infection or known exposure to SARS-CoV-2, with guidance specific to the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and those with newly diagnosed or active rheumatic disease.
 

SLE and inflammatory arthritis recommendations

“There are several sections within the guidance document that address the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus during this pandemic,” Dr. Gravallese pointed out. “In general, it is recommended that lupus patients who are currently taking hydroxychloroquine can remain on the therapy prior to and during infection and that newly diagnosed patients with lupus can be placed on this medication at full dose. It is recommended that pregnant patients with lupus remain on therapy with this drug.”

She also observed that, for the treatment of active inflammatory arthritis, “the recommendations were written to address specific medications that could be used in this setting. In general, the task force recommendations were guided by the importance of controlling inflammation prior to exposure to the virus, even during this pandemic.
 

Guidance raises questions

During the ACR’s town hall meeting, the task force answered several questions raised by the guidance, such as the reasoning behind recommending that the use of traditional DMARDs be discontinued in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Dr. Mikuls observed: “Maybe if you just read the guidance statements it isn’t terribly intuitive.” There was a lot of discussion about whether or not conventional DMARDs were immunosuppressive, and even though they may not have such effects, it was decided to err on the side of caution.

“I think the task force felt that, with a COVID-19–positive patient, there is a concern of potentially confusing adverse effects related to medicines or conflate those with problems from the infection,” he said. Although rare, examples of those issues could be drug-induced hypersensitivity, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal side effects of hepatitis, all of which have been described in COVID-19. “Not only could it cause confusion, but it could maybe worsen those sequalae of COVID-19,” he said.

“I think the other part of this answer was that the panel really felt that the risk in terms of the flaring of the underlying rheumatic disease was likely to be pretty low given the finite time frame you’d be taking about – usually a time frame of 2-3 weeks you’d be holding the agent – so I think that is really why the task force ended up with that recommendation.”

Similarly, for the JAK inhibitors, the decision was to err on the side of caution when COVID-19 was suspected or confirmed. “Not so much because of the risk of thromboembolic disease, but concerns over immunosuppression that these drugs carry with them and also the fact the JAK inhibitors are probably inhibitors of type 1 interferons, which play a significant role in viral immunity and could potentially have a negative impact,” said Stanley Cohen, MD, who practices rheumatology in the Dallas area.

“On the flipside, there is interest in some of the JAK inhibitors as a potential treatment for COVID-19,” Dr. Cohen said, referring to anecdotal evidence for baricitinib (Olumiant).

Michael Weinblatt, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, addressed the recent concern over the use of NSAIDs by the public.

“There’s been a lot in the lay press that NSAIDs – because of the effects on receptors in the lung – could lead to deleterious outcomes in patients with COVID and there’s very little data to support this.

“We did recommend that NSAIDs be held in the hospitalized patient and that wasn’t because of the COVID-19 issue, it really was just medical practice, and we didn’t want to confound the care of these really sick patients with potential toxicities from NSAIDs. But as far as routine rheumatological care in your outpatients, we did not recommend that nonsteroidals be stopped if they were tolerated.”

One part of the guidance that might already need revision is the recommendation on the continued use of hydroxychloroquine in patients who develop COVID-19.

“Our guidance document says it’s OK; we were all in very strong agreement to continue hydroxychloroquine in our patients with COVID-19 because at that point, just a couple of weeks ago, we thought it was part of the potential treatment,” Karen Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said during the town hall meeting.

“Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and we’re worried about maybe we shouldn’t be continuing it because COVID-19 patients will be getting many other medications,” Dr. Costenbader said, and these may affect the QT-interval. “They will not be getting azithromycin because the pendulum swung the other way on that one too, but definitely on many other medications when they are sick.”

Potentially, she added, “if the rheumatic disease is under good control the inpatient physicians could decide whether they should continue [hydroxychloroquine] or not. If the COVID-19 is a mild disease, I would say we probably could continue in accordance with what we put in the document, but we will have to revisit this as well.”
 

Guidance is a ‘living document’

“We will be providing updates to the Clinical Guidance Document as the need arises,” Dr. Gravallese emphasized. While the general recommendations are unlikely to change very much, “the task force will be interested in seeing the results of all new data, but the results of randomized, clinical trials will be particularly important as they become available,” she said. In particular, randomized, controlled trials of glucocorticoids and IL-6 receptor blockade for use in COVID-19 will be of great importance.

“In this initial document, we could not take on all of the medical scenarios our members will face. For example, we could not take on recommendations for the pediatric population as this group of patients has a very different response than adults to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Dr. Gravallese acknowledged. The plan is to provide guidance for that group of patients soon.

In addition, the ACR Executive Committee has appointed a Practice and Advocacy Task Force that will “address issues rheumatologists face on the practice side, including advice regarding how to effectively use telemedicine, address the frequency and safety of infusions, determine urgent versus nonurgent issues that would or would not require face-to-face visits, and help with financial challenges.”

The American College of Rheumatology supported the guidance-development process. Dr. Mikuls, Dr. Weinblatt, Dr. Cohen, and Dr. Costenbader each disclosed research support or consultancies with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Gravallese had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Mikuls TR et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1002/art.41301.

With little evidence available on the role of bronchoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic, an expert panel has published a guideline recommending its spare use in COVID-19 patients and those with suspected COVID-19 infection.

The panel stated that in the context of the COVID-19 crisis, bronchoscopy and other aerosol-generating procedures put health care workers (HCWs) at particularly high risk of exposure and infection. They recommended deferring bronchoscopy in nonurgent cases, and advised practitioners to wear personal protective equipment when performing bronchoscopy, even on asymptomatic patients.

The guideline and expert panel report have been published online in the journal Chest. CHEST and the American Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology participated in selecting the 14 panelists. “The recommendation and suggestions outlined in this document were specifically created to address what were felt to be clinically common and urgent questions that frontline clinicians are likely to face,” wrote lead author and panel cochair Momen M. Wahidi, MD, MBA, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.

Only one of the six recommendations is based on graded evidence; the remainder are ungraded consensus-based statements. The guideline consists of the following recommendations for performing or using bronchoscopy:

• HCWs in the procedure or recovery rooms should wear either an N-95 respirator or powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) when performing bronchoscopy on patients suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19. They should wear personal protective equipment (PPE) that includes a face shield, gown, and gloves, and they should discard N-95 respirators after performing bronchoscopy.
• A nasopharyngeal specimen in COVID-19 suspects should be obtained before performing bronchoscopy. If the patient has severe or progressive disease that requires intubation but an additional specimen is needed to confirm COVID-19 or another diagnosis that could change the treatment course, an option would be lower-respiratory specimen from the endotracheal aspirate or bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage.
• HCWs should wear an N-95 or PAPR when doing bronchoscopy on asymptomatic patients in an area with community spread of COVID-19 – again, with the PPE designated in the first recommendation.
• Test for COVID-19 before doing bronchoscopy on asymptomatic patients. Defer nonurgent bronchoscopy if the test is positive. If it’s negative, follow the recommendations regarding respirators and PPE when doing bronchoscopy.
• Perform timely bronchoscopy when indicated even in an area with known community spread of COVID-19. This is the only graded recommendation among the six (Grade 2C) and may be the most nuanced. Local teams should develop strategies for using bronchoscopy in their setting, taking into account local resources and availability of PPE, and they should send noninfected cancer patients from resource-depleted hospitals to other centers.
• Base the timing of bronchoscopy in patients recovering after COVID-19 on the indication for the procedure, disease severity, and time duration since symptoms resolved. The recommendation noted that the exact timing is still unknown, but that a wait of at least 30 days after symptoms recede is “reasonable.”

The expert panel added a noteworthy caveat to the recommendations. “We would like to stress that these protective strategies can be rendered completely ineffective if proper training on donning and doffing is not provided to HCW,” Dr. Wahidi and colleagues wrote. “Proper personnel instruction and practice for wearing PPE should receive as much attention by health facilities as the chosen strategy for protection.”

Dr. Wahidi and colleagues have no financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Wahidi MM et al. CHEST. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.036.

With little evidence available on the role of bronchoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic, an expert panel has published a guideline recommending its spare use in COVID-19 patients and those with suspected COVID-19 infection.

The panel stated that in the context of the COVID-19 crisis, bronchoscopy and other aerosol-generating procedures put health care workers (HCWs) at particularly high risk of exposure and infection. They recommended deferring bronchoscopy in nonurgent cases, and advised practitioners to wear personal protective equipment when performing bronchoscopy, even on asymptomatic patients.

The guideline and expert panel report have been published online in the journal Chest. CHEST and the American Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology participated in selecting the 14 panelists. “The recommendation and suggestions outlined in this document were specifically created to address what were felt to be clinically common and urgent questions that frontline clinicians are likely to face,” wrote lead author and panel cochair Momen M. Wahidi, MD, MBA, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.

Only one of the six recommendations is based on graded evidence; the remainder are ungraded consensus-based statements. The guideline consists of the following recommendations for performing or using bronchoscopy:

• HCWs in the procedure or recovery rooms should wear either an N-95 respirator or powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) when performing bronchoscopy on patients suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19. They should wear personal protective equipment (PPE) that includes a face shield, gown, and gloves, and they should discard N-95 respirators after performing bronchoscopy.
• A nasopharyngeal specimen in COVID-19 suspects should be obtained before performing bronchoscopy. If the patient has severe or progressive disease that requires intubation but an additional specimen is needed to confirm COVID-19 or another diagnosis that could change the treatment course, an option would be lower-respiratory specimen from the endotracheal aspirate or bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage.
• HCWs should wear an N-95 or PAPR when doing bronchoscopy on asymptomatic patients in an area with community spread of COVID-19 – again, with the PPE designated in the first recommendation.
• Test for COVID-19 before doing bronchoscopy on asymptomatic patients. Defer nonurgent bronchoscopy if the test is positive. If it’s negative, follow the recommendations regarding respirators and PPE when doing bronchoscopy.
• Perform timely bronchoscopy when indicated even in an area with known community spread of COVID-19. This is the only graded recommendation among the six (Grade 2C) and may be the most nuanced. Local teams should develop strategies for using bronchoscopy in their setting, taking into account local resources and availability of PPE, and they should send noninfected cancer patients from resource-depleted hospitals to other centers.
• Base the timing of bronchoscopy in patients recovering after COVID-19 on the indication for the procedure, disease severity, and time duration since symptoms resolved. The recommendation noted that the exact timing is still unknown, but that a wait of at least 30 days after symptoms recede is “reasonable.”

The expert panel added a noteworthy caveat to the recommendations. “We would like to stress that these protective strategies can be rendered completely ineffective if proper training on donning and doffing is not provided to HCW,” Dr. Wahidi and colleagues wrote. “Proper personnel instruction and practice for wearing PPE should receive as much attention by health facilities as the chosen strategy for protection.”

Dr. Wahidi and colleagues have no financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Wahidi MM et al. CHEST. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.036.

With little evidence available on the role of bronchoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic, an expert panel has published a guideline recommending its spare use in COVID-19 patients and those with suspected COVID-19 infection.

The panel stated that in the context of the COVID-19 crisis, bronchoscopy and other aerosol-generating procedures put health care workers (HCWs) at particularly high risk of exposure and infection. They recommended deferring bronchoscopy in nonurgent cases, and advised practitioners to wear personal protective equipment when performing bronchoscopy, even on asymptomatic patients.

The guideline and expert panel report have been published online in the journal Chest. CHEST and the American Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology participated in selecting the 14 panelists. “The recommendation and suggestions outlined in this document were specifically created to address what were felt to be clinically common and urgent questions that frontline clinicians are likely to face,” wrote lead author and panel cochair Momen M. Wahidi, MD, MBA, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.

Only one of the six recommendations is based on graded evidence; the remainder are ungraded consensus-based statements. The guideline consists of the following recommendations for performing or using bronchoscopy:

• HCWs in the procedure or recovery rooms should wear either an N-95 respirator or powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) when performing bronchoscopy on patients suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19. They should wear personal protective equipment (PPE) that includes a face shield, gown, and gloves, and they should discard N-95 respirators after performing bronchoscopy.
• A nasopharyngeal specimen in COVID-19 suspects should be obtained before performing bronchoscopy. If the patient has severe or progressive disease that requires intubation but an additional specimen is needed to confirm COVID-19 or another diagnosis that could change the treatment course, an option would be lower-respiratory specimen from the endotracheal aspirate or bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage.
• HCWs should wear an N-95 or PAPR when doing bronchoscopy on asymptomatic patients in an area with community spread of COVID-19 – again, with the PPE designated in the first recommendation.
• Test for COVID-19 before doing bronchoscopy on asymptomatic patients. Defer nonurgent bronchoscopy if the test is positive. If it’s negative, follow the recommendations regarding respirators and PPE when doing bronchoscopy.
• Perform timely bronchoscopy when indicated even in an area with known community spread of COVID-19. This is the only graded recommendation among the six (Grade 2C) and may be the most nuanced. Local teams should develop strategies for using bronchoscopy in their setting, taking into account local resources and availability of PPE, and they should send noninfected cancer patients from resource-depleted hospitals to other centers.
• Base the timing of bronchoscopy in patients recovering after COVID-19 on the indication for the procedure, disease severity, and time duration since symptoms resolved. The recommendation noted that the exact timing is still unknown, but that a wait of at least 30 days after symptoms recede is “reasonable.”

The expert panel added a noteworthy caveat to the recommendations. “We would like to stress that these protective strategies can be rendered completely ineffective if proper training on donning and doffing is not provided to HCW,” Dr. Wahidi and colleagues wrote. “Proper personnel instruction and practice for wearing PPE should receive as much attention by health facilities as the chosen strategy for protection.”

Dr. Wahidi and colleagues have no financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Wahidi MM et al. CHEST. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.036.

A practice advisory from the American Academy of Neurology provides guidance about when doctors may recommend closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke. Patients with an embolic-appearing infarct who are younger than 60 years, have undergone a thorough evaluation to rule out other stroke mechanisms, and have discussed with doctors the potential risks and benefits may be candidates for the procedure.

“For patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO, percutaneous PFO closure probably reduces the risk of stroke recurrence with [a hazard ratio] of 0.41 and an absolute risk reduction of 3.4% at 5 years; probably is associated with a periprocedural complication rate of 3.9%; and probably is associated with the development of serious nonperiprocedural atrial fibrillation, with a relative risk of 2.72,” according to the advisory authors’ meta-analysis.

Most procedural complications and instances of atrial fibrillation were “self-limited and are of uncertain long-term clinical consequence, given the lower rate of stroke in patients whose PFOs were closed,” the authors said. “Subgroup analysis suggests that the overall benefit seen across trials may not extend to those patients with small shunts and small, deep infarcts.” The authors estimated that the number of patients who need to be treated to prevent one stroke at 5 years is 29.

The advisory updates 2016 guidance that said clinicians should not routinely offer PFO closure outside of a research setting. Since then, three trials published in 2017 the New England Journal of Medicine (RESPECT, CLOSE, and REDUCE) and one trial published in 2018 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (DEFENSE-PFO) found that PFO closure reduces the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with a PFO who have had a cryptogenic stroke, compared with medical therapy alone. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration approved the Amplatzer PFO Occluder and Gore Cardioform Septal Occluder. These developments necessitated the practice advisory, the authors said. The advisory was published online April 29 in Neurology. It is endorsed by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the European Academy of Neurology.
 

Systematic review

For the update, Steven R. Messé, MD, of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and a panel of neurologists, internists, and cardiologists with expertise in stroke and PFO systematically reviewed relevant randomized studies published through August 2019 and conducted meta-analyses to make their recommendations. The literature search identified eight articles that met inclusion criteria, including one article that provided follow-up from a trial that had been included in the previous practice advisory.

“The risk of a second stroke in people with PFO and no other possible causes of stroke is very low, approximately 1% per year while being treated with just medication alone,” Dr. Messé said in a news release. “Also, it is difficult to determine with absolute certainty that the PFO is the cause of a person’s stroke. So it is important that people with PFO are educated about the benefits and risks of PFO closure.” For patients who opt to take medication only, doctors may consider prescribing antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs, according to the advisory. “All patients with previous stroke should be treated with an antithrombotic medication indefinitely if there is no bleeding contraindication, regardless of whether a PFO is present or if it is closed,” Dr. Messé and colleagues wrote. “However, specific antithrombotic management for patients with stroke thought to be caused by PFO remains uncertain.”
 

Calls for thorough work-up

“If an alternative plausible higher-risk mechanism of stroke is identified, it is likely that the PFO was an innocent bystander,” the authors said. “Secondary stroke prevention is optimized by targeting the most likely etiology of the preceding event. ... The randomized PFO closure trials all mandated thorough evaluations for participants before enrollment ... to rule out other stroke mechanisms; moreover, all studies required TEE [transesophageal echocardiography] to characterize the PFO and ensure that it was the most likely etiology for the initial event.”

In patients being considered for PFO closure, clinicians should obtain brain imaging to confirm stroke size and distribution (level B); obtain vascular imaging of the cervical and intracranial vessels to look for dissection, vasculopathy, and atherosclerosis (level B); and perform hypercoagulable studies (level B), according to the advisory. Clinicians must perform a baseline ECG to look for atrial fibrillation (level A), and patients thought to be at risk of atrial fibrillation should receive prolonged cardiac monitoring for at least 28 days (level B).

Before PFO closure, a clinician with expertise in stroke should assess the patient to ensure that the PFO is the most plausible mechanism of stroke (level B). “If a higher-risk alternative mechanism of stroke is identified, clinicians should not routinely recommend PFO closure (level B),” the authors said. Patients also should be assessed by a clinician with expertise in assessing the anatomic features of a PFO and performing PFO closure (level B).

The randomized trials focused on patients whose PFOs were closed within 6 months of a stroke, and registry studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes, noted Dr. Messé and colleagues. “It remains unclear whether closure provides a similar benefit in these patients who otherwise still fit the studies’ inclusion criteria,” the authors said. “Long-term and large-scale safety registries for patients who have received PFO closure are needed to assess the risk of device erosion, fracture, embolization, and thrombotic and endocarditis risks, and the effect of residual shunts and incidence of atrial fibrillation.”

About 25% of the general adult population has a PFO. “It’s important to note that having a PFO is common, and that most people with PFO will never know they have it because it usually does not cause any problems,” Dr. Messé said. “However, while there is generally a very low risk of stroke in patients with PFO, in younger people who have had a stroke without any other possible causes identified, closing the PFO may reduce the risk of having another stroke better than medication alone.”

The practice advisory was developed with financial support from the AAN. Dr. Messé and most of the authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Several authors disclosed ties to medical device and pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Messé SR et al. Neurology. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009443.

A practice advisory from the American Academy of Neurology provides guidance about when doctors may recommend closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke. Patients with an embolic-appearing infarct who are younger than 60 years, have undergone a thorough evaluation to rule out other stroke mechanisms, and have discussed with doctors the potential risks and benefits may be candidates for the procedure.

“For patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO, percutaneous PFO closure probably reduces the risk of stroke recurrence with [a hazard ratio] of 0.41 and an absolute risk reduction of 3.4% at 5 years; probably is associated with a periprocedural complication rate of 3.9%; and probably is associated with the development of serious nonperiprocedural atrial fibrillation, with a relative risk of 2.72,” according to the advisory authors’ meta-analysis.

Most procedural complications and instances of atrial fibrillation were “self-limited and are of uncertain long-term clinical consequence, given the lower rate of stroke in patients whose PFOs were closed,” the authors said. “Subgroup analysis suggests that the overall benefit seen across trials may not extend to those patients with small shunts and small, deep infarcts.” The authors estimated that the number of patients who need to be treated to prevent one stroke at 5 years is 29.

The advisory updates 2016 guidance that said clinicians should not routinely offer PFO closure outside of a research setting. Since then, three trials published in 2017 the New England Journal of Medicine (RESPECT, CLOSE, and REDUCE) and one trial published in 2018 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (DEFENSE-PFO) found that PFO closure reduces the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with a PFO who have had a cryptogenic stroke, compared with medical therapy alone. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration approved the Amplatzer PFO Occluder and Gore Cardioform Septal Occluder. These developments necessitated the practice advisory, the authors said. The advisory was published online April 29 in Neurology. It is endorsed by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the European Academy of Neurology.
 

Systematic review

For the update, Steven R. Messé, MD, of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and a panel of neurologists, internists, and cardiologists with expertise in stroke and PFO systematically reviewed relevant randomized studies published through August 2019 and conducted meta-analyses to make their recommendations. The literature search identified eight articles that met inclusion criteria, including one article that provided follow-up from a trial that had been included in the previous practice advisory.

“The risk of a second stroke in people with PFO and no other possible causes of stroke is very low, approximately 1% per year while being treated with just medication alone,” Dr. Messé said in a news release. “Also, it is difficult to determine with absolute certainty that the PFO is the cause of a person’s stroke. So it is important that people with PFO are educated about the benefits and risks of PFO closure.” For patients who opt to take medication only, doctors may consider prescribing antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs, according to the advisory. “All patients with previous stroke should be treated with an antithrombotic medication indefinitely if there is no bleeding contraindication, regardless of whether a PFO is present or if it is closed,” Dr. Messé and colleagues wrote. “However, specific antithrombotic management for patients with stroke thought to be caused by PFO remains uncertain.”
 

Calls for thorough work-up

“If an alternative plausible higher-risk mechanism of stroke is identified, it is likely that the PFO was an innocent bystander,” the authors said. “Secondary stroke prevention is optimized by targeting the most likely etiology of the preceding event. ... The randomized PFO closure trials all mandated thorough evaluations for participants before enrollment ... to rule out other stroke mechanisms; moreover, all studies required TEE [transesophageal echocardiography] to characterize the PFO and ensure that it was the most likely etiology for the initial event.”

In patients being considered for PFO closure, clinicians should obtain brain imaging to confirm stroke size and distribution (level B); obtain vascular imaging of the cervical and intracranial vessels to look for dissection, vasculopathy, and atherosclerosis (level B); and perform hypercoagulable studies (level B), according to the advisory. Clinicians must perform a baseline ECG to look for atrial fibrillation (level A), and patients thought to be at risk of atrial fibrillation should receive prolonged cardiac monitoring for at least 28 days (level B).

Before PFO closure, a clinician with expertise in stroke should assess the patient to ensure that the PFO is the most plausible mechanism of stroke (level B). “If a higher-risk alternative mechanism of stroke is identified, clinicians should not routinely recommend PFO closure (level B),” the authors said. Patients also should be assessed by a clinician with expertise in assessing the anatomic features of a PFO and performing PFO closure (level B).

The randomized trials focused on patients whose PFOs were closed within 6 months of a stroke, and registry studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes, noted Dr. Messé and colleagues. “It remains unclear whether closure provides a similar benefit in these patients who otherwise still fit the studies’ inclusion criteria,” the authors said. “Long-term and large-scale safety registries for patients who have received PFO closure are needed to assess the risk of device erosion, fracture, embolization, and thrombotic and endocarditis risks, and the effect of residual shunts and incidence of atrial fibrillation.”

About 25% of the general adult population has a PFO. “It’s important to note that having a PFO is common, and that most people with PFO will never know they have it because it usually does not cause any problems,” Dr. Messé said. “However, while there is generally a very low risk of stroke in patients with PFO, in younger people who have had a stroke without any other possible causes identified, closing the PFO may reduce the risk of having another stroke better than medication alone.”

The practice advisory was developed with financial support from the AAN. Dr. Messé and most of the authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Several authors disclosed ties to medical device and pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Messé SR et al. Neurology. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009443.

A practice advisory from the American Academy of Neurology provides guidance about when doctors may recommend closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke. Patients with an embolic-appearing infarct who are younger than 60 years, have undergone a thorough evaluation to rule out other stroke mechanisms, and have discussed with doctors the potential risks and benefits may be candidates for the procedure.

“For patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO, percutaneous PFO closure probably reduces the risk of stroke recurrence with [a hazard ratio] of 0.41 and an absolute risk reduction of 3.4% at 5 years; probably is associated with a periprocedural complication rate of 3.9%; and probably is associated with the development of serious nonperiprocedural atrial fibrillation, with a relative risk of 2.72,” according to the advisory authors’ meta-analysis.

Most procedural complications and instances of atrial fibrillation were “self-limited and are of uncertain long-term clinical consequence, given the lower rate of stroke in patients whose PFOs were closed,” the authors said. “Subgroup analysis suggests that the overall benefit seen across trials may not extend to those patients with small shunts and small, deep infarcts.” The authors estimated that the number of patients who need to be treated to prevent one stroke at 5 years is 29.

The advisory updates 2016 guidance that said clinicians should not routinely offer PFO closure outside of a research setting. Since then, three trials published in 2017 the New England Journal of Medicine (RESPECT, CLOSE, and REDUCE) and one trial published in 2018 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (DEFENSE-PFO) found that PFO closure reduces the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with a PFO who have had a cryptogenic stroke, compared with medical therapy alone. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration approved the Amplatzer PFO Occluder and Gore Cardioform Septal Occluder. These developments necessitated the practice advisory, the authors said. The advisory was published online April 29 in Neurology. It is endorsed by the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the European Academy of Neurology.
 

Systematic review

For the update, Steven R. Messé, MD, of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and a panel of neurologists, internists, and cardiologists with expertise in stroke and PFO systematically reviewed relevant randomized studies published through August 2019 and conducted meta-analyses to make their recommendations. The literature search identified eight articles that met inclusion criteria, including one article that provided follow-up from a trial that had been included in the previous practice advisory.

“The risk of a second stroke in people with PFO and no other possible causes of stroke is very low, approximately 1% per year while being treated with just medication alone,” Dr. Messé said in a news release. “Also, it is difficult to determine with absolute certainty that the PFO is the cause of a person’s stroke. So it is important that people with PFO are educated about the benefits and risks of PFO closure.” For patients who opt to take medication only, doctors may consider prescribing antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs, according to the advisory. “All patients with previous stroke should be treated with an antithrombotic medication indefinitely if there is no bleeding contraindication, regardless of whether a PFO is present or if it is closed,” Dr. Messé and colleagues wrote. “However, specific antithrombotic management for patients with stroke thought to be caused by PFO remains uncertain.”
 

Calls for thorough work-up

“If an alternative plausible higher-risk mechanism of stroke is identified, it is likely that the PFO was an innocent bystander,” the authors said. “Secondary stroke prevention is optimized by targeting the most likely etiology of the preceding event. ... The randomized PFO closure trials all mandated thorough evaluations for participants before enrollment ... to rule out other stroke mechanisms; moreover, all studies required TEE [transesophageal echocardiography] to characterize the PFO and ensure that it was the most likely etiology for the initial event.”

In patients being considered for PFO closure, clinicians should obtain brain imaging to confirm stroke size and distribution (level B); obtain vascular imaging of the cervical and intracranial vessels to look for dissection, vasculopathy, and atherosclerosis (level B); and perform hypercoagulable studies (level B), according to the advisory. Clinicians must perform a baseline ECG to look for atrial fibrillation (level A), and patients thought to be at risk of atrial fibrillation should receive prolonged cardiac monitoring for at least 28 days (level B).

Before PFO closure, a clinician with expertise in stroke should assess the patient to ensure that the PFO is the most plausible mechanism of stroke (level B). “If a higher-risk alternative mechanism of stroke is identified, clinicians should not routinely recommend PFO closure (level B),” the authors said. Patients also should be assessed by a clinician with expertise in assessing the anatomic features of a PFO and performing PFO closure (level B).

The randomized trials focused on patients whose PFOs were closed within 6 months of a stroke, and registry studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes, noted Dr. Messé and colleagues. “It remains unclear whether closure provides a similar benefit in these patients who otherwise still fit the studies’ inclusion criteria,” the authors said. “Long-term and large-scale safety registries for patients who have received PFO closure are needed to assess the risk of device erosion, fracture, embolization, and thrombotic and endocarditis risks, and the effect of residual shunts and incidence of atrial fibrillation.”

About 25% of the general adult population has a PFO. “It’s important to note that having a PFO is common, and that most people with PFO will never know they have it because it usually does not cause any problems,” Dr. Messé said. “However, while there is generally a very low risk of stroke in patients with PFO, in younger people who have had a stroke without any other possible causes identified, closing the PFO may reduce the risk of having another stroke better than medication alone.”

The practice advisory was developed with financial support from the AAN. Dr. Messé and most of the authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Several authors disclosed ties to medical device and pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Messé SR et al. Neurology. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009443.

Many planned randomized trials to test the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or related drugs for preventing COVID-19 infection have, as of the end of April 2020, failed to include ECG assessment to either exclude people at the highest risk for possibly developing a life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia or to flag people who achieve a dangerous QTc interval on treatment, according to an analysis of the posted designs of several dozen studies.

“It is not only inexplicable, but also inexcusable that clinical investigators would dare to include healthy individuals in a clinical trial involving QT-prolonging medications without bothering to screen their electrocardiogram,” commented Sami Viskin, MD, an electrophysiologist at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. “The fact that we needed Dr. Gollob to ring this alarm is, itself, shocking,” he said in an interview.

“ECG screening is a good option to minimize the risk. You don’t eliminate the risk, but you can minimize it,” commented Arthur Wilde, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam. Both Dr. Viskin and Dr. Wilde agreed with the QTc interval thresholds Dr. Gollob recommended using for excluding or discontinuing study participants.

In his commentary, Dr. Gollob estimated that if 85,000 otherwise healthy adults were randomized to received a drug that can increase the QTc interval, as many as about 3,400 people (4%) in the group could statistically be expected to have an especially high vulnerability to QT prolongation because of genetic variants they might carry that collectively have roughly this prevalence. In some people of African heritage, the prevalence of genetic risk for excessive QTc lengthening can be even higher, approaching about 10%, noted Dr. Wilde.

Dr. Gollob hoped the concerns he raised will prompt the organizers of many of these studies to revise their design, and he said he already knew of one study based in Toronto that recently added an ECG-monitoring strategy in response to the concerns he raised. He expressed optimism that more studies will follow.

“It’s a real issue to have these trials designed without ECG exclusions or monitoring. I’m glad that Dr. Gollob sent this warning, because he is right. ECG monitoring during treatment is important so you can stop the treatment in time,” Dr. Wilde said. Dr. Wilde also noted that many, if not most, of the studies listed on clinicaltrials.gov may not actually launch.

In April, representatives from several cardiology societies coauthored a document of considerations when using hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or azithromycin to treat patients with a diagnosed COVID-19 infection, and highlighted a QTc interval of 500 msec or greater as flagging patients who should no longer receive these drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.016). For patients who do not yet have COVID-19 disease and the goal from treatment is prevention the potential efficacy of these drugs is reasonable to explore, but “does not exclude the need to minimize risk to research participants, especially when enrolling healthy subjects,” Dr. Gollob said.

Dr. Gollob, Dr. Viskin, and Dr. Wilde had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Many planned randomized trials to test the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or related drugs for preventing COVID-19 infection have, as of the end of April 2020, failed to include ECG assessment to either exclude people at the highest risk for possibly developing a life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia or to flag people who achieve a dangerous QTc interval on treatment, according to an analysis of the posted designs of several dozen studies.

“It is not only inexplicable, but also inexcusable that clinical investigators would dare to include healthy individuals in a clinical trial involving QT-prolonging medications without bothering to screen their electrocardiogram,” commented Sami Viskin, MD, an electrophysiologist at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. “The fact that we needed Dr. Gollob to ring this alarm is, itself, shocking,” he said in an interview.

“ECG screening is a good option to minimize the risk. You don’t eliminate the risk, but you can minimize it,” commented Arthur Wilde, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam. Both Dr. Viskin and Dr. Wilde agreed with the QTc interval thresholds Dr. Gollob recommended using for excluding or discontinuing study participants.

In his commentary, Dr. Gollob estimated that if 85,000 otherwise healthy adults were randomized to received a drug that can increase the QTc interval, as many as about 3,400 people (4%) in the group could statistically be expected to have an especially high vulnerability to QT prolongation because of genetic variants they might carry that collectively have roughly this prevalence. In some people of African heritage, the prevalence of genetic risk for excessive QTc lengthening can be even higher, approaching about 10%, noted Dr. Wilde.

Dr. Gollob hoped the concerns he raised will prompt the organizers of many of these studies to revise their design, and he said he already knew of one study based in Toronto that recently added an ECG-monitoring strategy in response to the concerns he raised. He expressed optimism that more studies will follow.

“It’s a real issue to have these trials designed without ECG exclusions or monitoring. I’m glad that Dr. Gollob sent this warning, because he is right. ECG monitoring during treatment is important so you can stop the treatment in time,” Dr. Wilde said. Dr. Wilde also noted that many, if not most, of the studies listed on clinicaltrials.gov may not actually launch.

In April, representatives from several cardiology societies coauthored a document of considerations when using hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or azithromycin to treat patients with a diagnosed COVID-19 infection, and highlighted a QTc interval of 500 msec or greater as flagging patients who should no longer receive these drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.016). For patients who do not yet have COVID-19 disease and the goal from treatment is prevention the potential efficacy of these drugs is reasonable to explore, but “does not exclude the need to minimize risk to research participants, especially when enrolling healthy subjects,” Dr. Gollob said.

Dr. Gollob, Dr. Viskin, and Dr. Wilde had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Many planned randomized trials to test the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or related drugs for preventing COVID-19 infection have, as of the end of April 2020, failed to include ECG assessment to either exclude people at the highest risk for possibly developing a life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia or to flag people who achieve a dangerous QTc interval on treatment, according to an analysis of the posted designs of several dozen studies.

“It is not only inexplicable, but also inexcusable that clinical investigators would dare to include healthy individuals in a clinical trial involving QT-prolonging medications without bothering to screen their electrocardiogram,” commented Sami Viskin, MD, an electrophysiologist at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. “The fact that we needed Dr. Gollob to ring this alarm is, itself, shocking,” he said in an interview.

“ECG screening is a good option to minimize the risk. You don’t eliminate the risk, but you can minimize it,” commented Arthur Wilde, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam. Both Dr. Viskin and Dr. Wilde agreed with the QTc interval thresholds Dr. Gollob recommended using for excluding or discontinuing study participants.

In his commentary, Dr. Gollob estimated that if 85,000 otherwise healthy adults were randomized to received a drug that can increase the QTc interval, as many as about 3,400 people (4%) in the group could statistically be expected to have an especially high vulnerability to QT prolongation because of genetic variants they might carry that collectively have roughly this prevalence. In some people of African heritage, the prevalence of genetic risk for excessive QTc lengthening can be even higher, approaching about 10%, noted Dr. Wilde.

Dr. Gollob hoped the concerns he raised will prompt the organizers of many of these studies to revise their design, and he said he already knew of one study based in Toronto that recently added an ECG-monitoring strategy in response to the concerns he raised. He expressed optimism that more studies will follow.

“It’s a real issue to have these trials designed without ECG exclusions or monitoring. I’m glad that Dr. Gollob sent this warning, because he is right. ECG monitoring during treatment is important so you can stop the treatment in time,” Dr. Wilde said. Dr. Wilde also noted that many, if not most, of the studies listed on clinicaltrials.gov may not actually launch.

In April, representatives from several cardiology societies coauthored a document of considerations when using hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, or azithromycin to treat patients with a diagnosed COVID-19 infection, and highlighted a QTc interval of 500 msec or greater as flagging patients who should no longer receive these drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.016). For patients who do not yet have COVID-19 disease and the goal from treatment is prevention the potential efficacy of these drugs is reasonable to explore, but “does not exclude the need to minimize risk to research participants, especially when enrolling healthy subjects,” Dr. Gollob said.

Dr. Gollob, Dr. Viskin, and Dr. Wilde had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Jan. 20, 2020, the first confirmed case of the 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States was admitted to Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett, Wash. Less than 3 months later, the COVID-19 pandemic has put enormous stress on the U.S. health care system, which is confronting acute resource shortage because of the surge of acute and critically ill patients, health care provider safety and burnout, and an ongoing need for managing vulnerable populations while minimizing the infection spread.

With the onset of these unprecedented challenges, telehealth has emerged as a powerful new resource for health care providers, hospitals, and health care systems across the country. This article offers a summary of government regulations that enabled telehealth expansion, and provides an overview of how two health care organizations, Providence St. Joseph Health and Sound Physicians, are employing telehealth services to combat the COVID-19 health care crisis.

The government response: Telehealth expansion

In response to the pandemic, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have significantly increased access to telehealth services for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. CMS swiftly put measures in place such as:

• Expanding telehealth beyond rural areas.
• Adding 80 services that can be provided in all settings, including patient homes
• Allowing providers to bill for telehealth visits at the same rate as in-person visits.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also aided this effort by:

• Waiving requirements that physicians or other health care professionals must have licenses in the state in which they provide services, if they have an equivalent license from another state.
• Waving penalties for HIPAA violations against health care providers that serve patients in good faith through everyday communications technologies, such as FaceTime or Skype

Without prior regulatory and reimbursement restrictions, telehealth rapidly became a powerful tool in helping to solve some of the problems brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Providence Telehealth for COVID-19

Providence St. Joseph Health is a not-for-profit health care system operating 51 hospitals and 1,085 clinics across Alaska, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. Providence has developed an enterprise telemedicine network with more than 100 virtual programs. Several of these services – including Telestroke, Telepsychiatry, TeleICU, and Telehospitalist – have been scaled across several states as a clinical cloud. More than 400 telemedicine endpoints are deployed, such as robotic carts and fixed InTouch TVs. In fact, the first U.S. COVID-19 patient was treated at Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett, Wash., using the telemedical robot Vici from InTouch Health.

According to Todd Czartoski, MD, chief medical technology officer at Providence, “while telehealth has been around for many years, COVID-19 opened a lot of people’s eyes to the value of virtual care delivery.”

Providence’s telehealth response to COVID-19 has encompassed five main areas: COVID-19 home care, COVID-19 acute care, ambulatory virtual visits, behavioral health concierge (BHC) expansion, and additional support for outside partnerships.

COVID-19 Home Care

Providence rapidly deployed home monitoring for nearly 2,000 positive or presumptive COVID-19 patients. Those symptomatic, clinically stable patients are given a thermometer and a pulse oximeter, and are monitored from home by a central team of nurses and physicians using the Xealth and Twistle programs.

Providence is evaluating expansion of home monitoring to other diagnoses, including higher acuity conditions.

COVID-19 Acute Care

TeleTriage expedites the triage of suspected COVID-19 patients and reduces the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) by 50% per patient per day. To date, TeleTriage has resulted in the conservation of more than 90,000 PPE units.

TeleHospitalist services expanded from traditional night coverage to caring for patients in COVID-19 units around the clock. Currently, there are 25 telehospitalists who practice both in-person and virtual medicine.

TeleICU offers remote management of more than 180 ICU beds across 17 hospitals from two central command centers in Washington state and Alaska. The services include night-time intensivist and ICU nurse coverage, including medication and ventilator management, and family conferences. COVID-19 increased the demand for TeleICU, with anticipated expansion to more than 300 beds.

Core TeleSpecialty services include TeleStroke and TelePsychiatry across 135 remote sites.

Ambulatory Virtual Visits

Providence launched the COVID-19 hub microsite to help educate patients by providing accurate and timely information. A chatbot named Grace helps screen patients who are worried about COVID-19. Grace also suggests next steps, such as a video visit with a patient’s primary care provider or a visit using Express Care/Virtual team, a direct-to-consumer service available to patients within and outside of the health care system.

In less than 2 weeks, Providence enabled virtual visits for more than 7,000 outpatient providers, with more than 14,000 alternative visits now occurring daily. This has allowed primary and specialty providers to continue to manage their patient panels remotely. The number of Express Care/Virtual visits increased from 60 to more than 1,000 per day.

BHC Expansion

In the effort to improve care for its caregivers, Providence launched a behavioral health concierge (BHC) service that offers employees and their dependents virtual access to licensed mental health professionals. Over the last half of 2019, BHC provided more than 1,000 phone and virtual visits, depending on the individual preference of patients. Notably, 21% percent of users were physicians; 65% of users were seen the same day and 100% of users were seen within 48 hours.

COVID-19 increased demand for services that initially started in Seattle and rapidly expanded to Montana, Oregon, and California.

Outside Partnerships

Providence has established partnerships with outside facilities by providing services to 135 sites across eight states. COVID-19 accelerated the employment of new services, including TeleICU.
 

Telemedicine at Sound Physicians

Sound Physicians is a national physician-founded and -led organization that provides emergency medicine, critical care, hospital medicine, population health, and physician advisory services. Five years ago, Sound launched a telemedicine service line. I spoke with Brian Carpenter, MD, national medical director for TeleHospitalist Services at Sound, to learn about his experience implementing Telehospitalist programs across 22 hospitals and 22 skilled nursing facilities.

Prior to COVID-19, Sound offered a spectrum of telemedicine services including night-time telephonic cross coverage, as well as video-assisted admissions, transfers, and rapid responses. In 2019, Sound Telehospitalists received 88,000 connect requests, including 6,400 video-assisted new admissions and 82 rapid responses. Typically, one physician covers four to eight hospitals with back-up available for surges. The team uses a predictive model for staffing and developed an acuity-based algorithm to ensure that patients in distress are evaluated immediately, new stable admissions on average are seen within 12 minutes, and order clarifications are provided within 30 minutes.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an urgent demand for providers to support an overwhelmed health care system. Without the traditional barriers to implementation – such as lack of acceptance by medical staff, nurses and patients, strict state licensing and technology requirements, lack of reimbursement, and delays in hospital credentialing – Sound was able to develop a rapid implementation model for telemedicine services. Currently, four new hospitals are in the active implementation phase, with 40 more hospitals in the pipeline.

Implementing a telemedicine program at your hospital

In order to successfully launch a telemedicine program, Dr. Carpenter outlined the following critical implementation steps:

• In collaboration with local leadership, define the problem you are trying to solve, which helps inform the scope of the telemedicine practice and technology requirements (for example, night-time cross-coverage vs. full telemedicine service).
• Complete a discovery process (for example, existing workflow for patient admission and transfer) with the end-goal of developing a workflow and rules of engagement.
• Obtain hospital credentialing/privileges and EMR access.
• Train end-users, including physicians and nurse telepresenters.

Dr. Carpenter offered this advice to those considering a telemedicine program: “Telemedicine is not just about technology; a true telemedicine program encompasses change management, workflow development, end-user training, compliance, and mechanisms for continuous process improvement. We want to make things better for the physicians, nurses, and patients.”

Telehealth is offering support to health care providers on the front lines, patients in need of care, and health care systems managing the unprecedented surges in volume.
 

Dr. Farah is a hospitalist, physician adviser, and Lean Six Sigma Black Belt. She is a performance improvement consultant based in Corvallis, Ore., and a member of The Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board.

On Jan. 20, 2020, the first confirmed case of the 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States was admitted to Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett, Wash. Less than 3 months later, the COVID-19 pandemic has put enormous stress on the U.S. health care system, which is confronting acute resource shortage because of the surge of acute and critically ill patients, health care provider safety and burnout, and an ongoing need for managing vulnerable populations while minimizing the infection spread.

With the onset of these unprecedented challenges, telehealth has emerged as a powerful new resource for health care providers, hospitals, and health care systems across the country. This article offers a summary of government regulations that enabled telehealth expansion, and provides an overview of how two health care organizations, Providence St. Joseph Health and Sound Physicians, are employing telehealth services to combat the COVID-19 health care crisis.

The government response: Telehealth expansion

In response to the pandemic, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have significantly increased access to telehealth services for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. CMS swiftly put measures in place such as:

• Expanding telehealth beyond rural areas.
• Adding 80 services that can be provided in all settings, including patient homes
• Allowing providers to bill for telehealth visits at the same rate as in-person visits.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also aided this effort by:

• Waiving requirements that physicians or other health care professionals must have licenses in the state in which they provide services, if they have an equivalent license from another state.
• Waving penalties for HIPAA violations against health care providers that serve patients in good faith through everyday communications technologies, such as FaceTime or Skype

Without prior regulatory and reimbursement restrictions, telehealth rapidly became a powerful tool in helping to solve some of the problems brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Providence Telehealth for COVID-19

Providence St. Joseph Health is a not-for-profit health care system operating 51 hospitals and 1,085 clinics across Alaska, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. Providence has developed an enterprise telemedicine network with more than 100 virtual programs. Several of these services – including Telestroke, Telepsychiatry, TeleICU, and Telehospitalist – have been scaled across several states as a clinical cloud. More than 400 telemedicine endpoints are deployed, such as robotic carts and fixed InTouch TVs. In fact, the first U.S. COVID-19 patient was treated at Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett, Wash., using the telemedical robot Vici from InTouch Health.

According to Todd Czartoski, MD, chief medical technology officer at Providence, “while telehealth has been around for many years, COVID-19 opened a lot of people’s eyes to the value of virtual care delivery.”

Providence’s telehealth response to COVID-19 has encompassed five main areas: COVID-19 home care, COVID-19 acute care, ambulatory virtual visits, behavioral health concierge (BHC) expansion, and additional support for outside partnerships.

COVID-19 Home Care

Providence rapidly deployed home monitoring for nearly 2,000 positive or presumptive COVID-19 patients. Those symptomatic, clinically stable patients are given a thermometer and a pulse oximeter, and are monitored from home by a central team of nurses and physicians using the Xealth and Twistle programs.

Providence is evaluating expansion of home monitoring to other diagnoses, including higher acuity conditions.

COVID-19 Acute Care

TeleTriage expedites the triage of suspected COVID-19 patients and reduces the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) by 50% per patient per day. To date, TeleTriage has resulted in the conservation of more than 90,000 PPE units.

TeleHospitalist services expanded from traditional night coverage to caring for patients in COVID-19 units around the clock. Currently, there are 25 telehospitalists who practice both in-person and virtual medicine.

TeleICU offers remote management of more than 180 ICU beds across 17 hospitals from two central command centers in Washington state and Alaska. The services include night-time intensivist and ICU nurse coverage, including medication and ventilator management, and family conferences. COVID-19 increased the demand for TeleICU, with anticipated expansion to more than 300 beds.

Core TeleSpecialty services include TeleStroke and TelePsychiatry across 135 remote sites.

Ambulatory Virtual Visits

Providence launched the COVID-19 hub microsite to help educate patients by providing accurate and timely information. A chatbot named Grace helps screen patients who are worried about COVID-19. Grace also suggests next steps, such as a video visit with a patient’s primary care provider or a visit using Express Care/Virtual team, a direct-to-consumer service available to patients within and outside of the health care system.

In less than 2 weeks, Providence enabled virtual visits for more than 7,000 outpatient providers, with more than 14,000 alternative visits now occurring daily. This has allowed primary and specialty providers to continue to manage their patient panels remotely. The number of Express Care/Virtual visits increased from 60 to more than 1,000 per day.

BHC Expansion

In the effort to improve care for its caregivers, Providence launched a behavioral health concierge (BHC) service that offers employees and their dependents virtual access to licensed mental health professionals. Over the last half of 2019, BHC provided more than 1,000 phone and virtual visits, depending on the individual preference of patients. Notably, 21% percent of users were physicians; 65% of users were seen the same day and 100% of users were seen within 48 hours.

COVID-19 increased demand for services that initially started in Seattle and rapidly expanded to Montana, Oregon, and California.

Outside Partnerships

Providence has established partnerships with outside facilities by providing services to 135 sites across eight states. COVID-19 accelerated the employment of new services, including TeleICU.
 

Telemedicine at Sound Physicians

Sound Physicians is a national physician-founded and -led organization that provides emergency medicine, critical care, hospital medicine, population health, and physician advisory services. Five years ago, Sound launched a telemedicine service line. I spoke with Brian Carpenter, MD, national medical director for TeleHospitalist Services at Sound, to learn about his experience implementing Telehospitalist programs across 22 hospitals and 22 skilled nursing facilities.

Prior to COVID-19, Sound offered a spectrum of telemedicine services including night-time telephonic cross coverage, as well as video-assisted admissions, transfers, and rapid responses. In 2019, Sound Telehospitalists received 88,000 connect requests, including 6,400 video-assisted new admissions and 82 rapid responses. Typically, one physician covers four to eight hospitals with back-up available for surges. The team uses a predictive model for staffing and developed an acuity-based algorithm to ensure that patients in distress are evaluated immediately, new stable admissions on average are seen within 12 minutes, and order clarifications are provided within 30 minutes.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an urgent demand for providers to support an overwhelmed health care system. Without the traditional barriers to implementation – such as lack of acceptance by medical staff, nurses and patients, strict state licensing and technology requirements, lack of reimbursement, and delays in hospital credentialing – Sound was able to develop a rapid implementation model for telemedicine services. Currently, four new hospitals are in the active implementation phase, with 40 more hospitals in the pipeline.

Implementing a telemedicine program at your hospital

In order to successfully launch a telemedicine program, Dr. Carpenter outlined the following critical implementation steps:

• In collaboration with local leadership, define the problem you are trying to solve, which helps inform the scope of the telemedicine practice and technology requirements (for example, night-time cross-coverage vs. full telemedicine service).
• Complete a discovery process (for example, existing workflow for patient admission and transfer) with the end-goal of developing a workflow and rules of engagement.
• Obtain hospital credentialing/privileges and EMR access.
• Train end-users, including physicians and nurse telepresenters.

Dr. Carpenter offered this advice to those considering a telemedicine program: “Telemedicine is not just about technology; a true telemedicine program encompasses change management, workflow development, end-user training, compliance, and mechanisms for continuous process improvement. We want to make things better for the physicians, nurses, and patients.”

Telehealth is offering support to health care providers on the front lines, patients in need of care, and health care systems managing the unprecedented surges in volume.
 

Dr. Farah is a hospitalist, physician adviser, and Lean Six Sigma Black Belt. She is a performance improvement consultant based in Corvallis, Ore., and a member of The Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board.

On Jan. 20, 2020, the first confirmed case of the 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States was admitted to Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett, Wash. Less than 3 months later, the COVID-19 pandemic has put enormous stress on the U.S. health care system, which is confronting acute resource shortage because of the surge of acute and critically ill patients, health care provider safety and burnout, and an ongoing need for managing vulnerable populations while minimizing the infection spread.

With the onset of these unprecedented challenges, telehealth has emerged as a powerful new resource for health care providers, hospitals, and health care systems across the country. This article offers a summary of government regulations that enabled telehealth expansion, and provides an overview of how two health care organizations, Providence St. Joseph Health and Sound Physicians, are employing telehealth services to combat the COVID-19 health care crisis.

The government response: Telehealth expansion

In response to the pandemic, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have significantly increased access to telehealth services for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. CMS swiftly put measures in place such as:

• Expanding telehealth beyond rural areas.
• Adding 80 services that can be provided in all settings, including patient homes
• Allowing providers to bill for telehealth visits at the same rate as in-person visits.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also aided this effort by:

• Waiving requirements that physicians or other health care professionals must have licenses in the state in which they provide services, if they have an equivalent license from another state.
• Waving penalties for HIPAA violations against health care providers that serve patients in good faith through everyday communications technologies, such as FaceTime or Skype

Without prior regulatory and reimbursement restrictions, telehealth rapidly became a powerful tool in helping to solve some of the problems brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Providence Telehealth for COVID-19

Providence St. Joseph Health is a not-for-profit health care system operating 51 hospitals and 1,085 clinics across Alaska, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. Providence has developed an enterprise telemedicine network with more than 100 virtual programs. Several of these services – including Telestroke, Telepsychiatry, TeleICU, and Telehospitalist – have been scaled across several states as a clinical cloud. More than 400 telemedicine endpoints are deployed, such as robotic carts and fixed InTouch TVs. In fact, the first U.S. COVID-19 patient was treated at Providence Regional Medical Center in Everett, Wash., using the telemedical robot Vici from InTouch Health.

According to Todd Czartoski, MD, chief medical technology officer at Providence, “while telehealth has been around for many years, COVID-19 opened a lot of people’s eyes to the value of virtual care delivery.”

Providence’s telehealth response to COVID-19 has encompassed five main areas: COVID-19 home care, COVID-19 acute care, ambulatory virtual visits, behavioral health concierge (BHC) expansion, and additional support for outside partnerships.

COVID-19 Home Care

Providence rapidly deployed home monitoring for nearly 2,000 positive or presumptive COVID-19 patients. Those symptomatic, clinically stable patients are given a thermometer and a pulse oximeter, and are monitored from home by a central team of nurses and physicians using the Xealth and Twistle programs.

Providence is evaluating expansion of home monitoring to other diagnoses, including higher acuity conditions.

COVID-19 Acute Care

TeleTriage expedites the triage of suspected COVID-19 patients and reduces the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) by 50% per patient per day. To date, TeleTriage has resulted in the conservation of more than 90,000 PPE units.

TeleHospitalist services expanded from traditional night coverage to caring for patients in COVID-19 units around the clock. Currently, there are 25 telehospitalists who practice both in-person and virtual medicine.

TeleICU offers remote management of more than 180 ICU beds across 17 hospitals from two central command centers in Washington state and Alaska. The services include night-time intensivist and ICU nurse coverage, including medication and ventilator management, and family conferences. COVID-19 increased the demand for TeleICU, with anticipated expansion to more than 300 beds.

Core TeleSpecialty services include TeleStroke and TelePsychiatry across 135 remote sites.

Ambulatory Virtual Visits

Providence launched the COVID-19 hub microsite to help educate patients by providing accurate and timely information. A chatbot named Grace helps screen patients who are worried about COVID-19. Grace also suggests next steps, such as a video visit with a patient’s primary care provider or a visit using Express Care/Virtual team, a direct-to-consumer service available to patients within and outside of the health care system.

In less than 2 weeks, Providence enabled virtual visits for more than 7,000 outpatient providers, with more than 14,000 alternative visits now occurring daily. This has allowed primary and specialty providers to continue to manage their patient panels remotely. The number of Express Care/Virtual visits increased from 60 to more than 1,000 per day.

BHC Expansion

In the effort to improve care for its caregivers, Providence launched a behavioral health concierge (BHC) service that offers employees and their dependents virtual access to licensed mental health professionals. Over the last half of 2019, BHC provided more than 1,000 phone and virtual visits, depending on the individual preference of patients. Notably, 21% percent of users were physicians; 65% of users were seen the same day and 100% of users were seen within 48 hours.

COVID-19 increased demand for services that initially started in Seattle and rapidly expanded to Montana, Oregon, and California.

Outside Partnerships

Providence has established partnerships with outside facilities by providing services to 135 sites across eight states. COVID-19 accelerated the employment of new services, including TeleICU.
 

Telemedicine at Sound Physicians

Sound Physicians is a national physician-founded and -led organization that provides emergency medicine, critical care, hospital medicine, population health, and physician advisory services. Five years ago, Sound launched a telemedicine service line. I spoke with Brian Carpenter, MD, national medical director for TeleHospitalist Services at Sound, to learn about his experience implementing Telehospitalist programs across 22 hospitals and 22 skilled nursing facilities.

Prior to COVID-19, Sound offered a spectrum of telemedicine services including night-time telephonic cross coverage, as well as video-assisted admissions, transfers, and rapid responses. In 2019, Sound Telehospitalists received 88,000 connect requests, including 6,400 video-assisted new admissions and 82 rapid responses. Typically, one physician covers four to eight hospitals with back-up available for surges. The team uses a predictive model for staffing and developed an acuity-based algorithm to ensure that patients in distress are evaluated immediately, new stable admissions on average are seen within 12 minutes, and order clarifications are provided within 30 minutes.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an urgent demand for providers to support an overwhelmed health care system. Without the traditional barriers to implementation – such as lack of acceptance by medical staff, nurses and patients, strict state licensing and technology requirements, lack of reimbursement, and delays in hospital credentialing – Sound was able to develop a rapid implementation model for telemedicine services. Currently, four new hospitals are in the active implementation phase, with 40 more hospitals in the pipeline.

Implementing a telemedicine program at your hospital

In order to successfully launch a telemedicine program, Dr. Carpenter outlined the following critical implementation steps:

• In collaboration with local leadership, define the problem you are trying to solve, which helps inform the scope of the telemedicine practice and technology requirements (for example, night-time cross-coverage vs. full telemedicine service).
• Complete a discovery process (for example, existing workflow for patient admission and transfer) with the end-goal of developing a workflow and rules of engagement.
• Obtain hospital credentialing/privileges and EMR access.
• Train end-users, including physicians and nurse telepresenters.

Dr. Carpenter offered this advice to those considering a telemedicine program: “Telemedicine is not just about technology; a true telemedicine program encompasses change management, workflow development, end-user training, compliance, and mechanisms for continuous process improvement. We want to make things better for the physicians, nurses, and patients.”

Telehealth is offering support to health care providers on the front lines, patients in need of care, and health care systems managing the unprecedented surges in volume.
 

Dr. Farah is a hospitalist, physician adviser, and Lean Six Sigma Black Belt. She is a performance improvement consultant based in Corvallis, Ore., and a member of The Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board.

The first installment of my new column was obsolete on arrival. It referred to walking abroad at midday, with no mention of masks and social distancing. The whole thing was so February 2020.

My last day in the office was in mid-March. Friday the 13th.

For a few weeks, I’ve been seeing patients remotely. I pitched telemedicine to an HMO about 30 years ago. I was hardly an innovator. Researchers had already shown the practical use of remote dermatology by then, using stored and forwarded images.

What I had in mind was visits by patients in nursing homes or too sick at home to come in. It always bothered me to see very aged and infirm patients brought to the office at great inconvenience and expense for what often turned out to be problems like xerosis or eczema that could have been managed quite well remotely.

The HMO never got back to me, though. There were too many hurdles, mostly bureaucratic rather than medical. Would insurance pay? What about consent? Malpractice? It has been interesting to watch the current crisis sweep away the inertia of such obstacles, including licensure considerations (seeing patients across state lines for cutaneous purposes). People get around to fixing the roof when it pours. Perhaps next time there will be tests, masks, respirators. Perhaps.

Seeing patients remotely has acquainted me with all the technical headaches everyone stuck at home talks and jokes about: Balky transmission (What did you say after, “and then the blood ...”?); patients who can’t figure out how to log on, or start the video, or unmute themselves, and on and on. Picture resolution is not great, as anyone knows from watching TV newscasters interview talking heads stuck in their homes.

I was never all that image-conscious, but my beard has grown fuller and my hair unkempter. Even though I sit at my desk, I do take care to keep my trousers on. Not taking any chances.

Everyone agonizes over what the “new normal” may be. Will people come back to doctors’ offices? Will practices survive economically if many patients don’t return to the office? Stay tuned. For a long time.

Mostly, though, remote visits seem to work. Helped if needed by additional, better-resolution emailed photos, it’s possible to make useful decisions, including which lesions can wait for in-person evaluation, until ...

... Until what? In an effort to keep this column up-to-the-nanosecond, I am writing it as many countries tentatively “open up.” Careful analysis of the knowledge behind this world-wide project shows ... not much. It seems to come down to some educated guesswork about what might work and what the risks might be, which leads to advice that differs widely from state to state and country to country. It’s as if people everywhere just decided that locking everyone down is a real drag, is financially ruinous, has a duration both uncertain and longer than most people and governments think they can handle, so let’s get out there and “be careful,” whatever that is said to mean.

And the risks? Well, more people will get sick and some will die. How many “extra” deaths are ethically acceptable? Thoughtful people are working on that. They’ll get back sometime to those who are still around.

I don’t blame anyone for our staggering ignorance about this terrifying new reality. But absorbing the ignorance in real time is not reassuring.

I have nothing but sympathy for those who are not emeritus, who have practices to sustain and families to feed. I didn’t ask to be born 73 years ago, and take no credit for having done so. So much of what happens to us depends on when and where we were born – two factors for which we deserve absolutely no credit – that it’s a wonder we take such pride in praising ourselves for what we think we accomplish. Having no better choice, we do the best we can.

Meantime, I am in a “high-risk” category. If I were obese, I could try to lose weight. But my risk factor is age, which tends not to decline. Risk-wise, there is just one way to exit my group.

So I don’t expect to get back to the office anytime soon. To paraphrase a comedian who shall remain nameless: I don’t want to live on in the hearts of men. I want to live on in my house.

Dr. Rockoff, who wrote the Dermatology News column “Under My Skin,” is now semiretired, after 40 years of practice in Brookline, Mass. He served on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. His second book, “Act Like a Doctor, Think Like a Patient,” is available online. Write to him at [email protected].

The first installment of my new column was obsolete on arrival. It referred to walking abroad at midday, with no mention of masks and social distancing. The whole thing was so February 2020.

My last day in the office was in mid-March. Friday the 13th.

For a few weeks, I’ve been seeing patients remotely. I pitched telemedicine to an HMO about 30 years ago. I was hardly an innovator. Researchers had already shown the practical use of remote dermatology by then, using stored and forwarded images.

What I had in mind was visits by patients in nursing homes or too sick at home to come in. It always bothered me to see very aged and infirm patients brought to the office at great inconvenience and expense for what often turned out to be problems like xerosis or eczema that could have been managed quite well remotely.

The HMO never got back to me, though. There were too many hurdles, mostly bureaucratic rather than medical. Would insurance pay? What about consent? Malpractice? It has been interesting to watch the current crisis sweep away the inertia of such obstacles, including licensure considerations (seeing patients across state lines for cutaneous purposes). People get around to fixing the roof when it pours. Perhaps next time there will be tests, masks, respirators. Perhaps.

Seeing patients remotely has acquainted me with all the technical headaches everyone stuck at home talks and jokes about: Balky transmission (What did you say after, “and then the blood ...”?); patients who can’t figure out how to log on, or start the video, or unmute themselves, and on and on. Picture resolution is not great, as anyone knows from watching TV newscasters interview talking heads stuck in their homes.

I was never all that image-conscious, but my beard has grown fuller and my hair unkempter. Even though I sit at my desk, I do take care to keep my trousers on. Not taking any chances.

Everyone agonizes over what the “new normal” may be. Will people come back to doctors’ offices? Will practices survive economically if many patients don’t return to the office? Stay tuned. For a long time.

Mostly, though, remote visits seem to work. Helped if needed by additional, better-resolution emailed photos, it’s possible to make useful decisions, including which lesions can wait for in-person evaluation, until ...

... Until what? In an effort to keep this column up-to-the-nanosecond, I am writing it as many countries tentatively “open up.” Careful analysis of the knowledge behind this world-wide project shows ... not much. It seems to come down to some educated guesswork about what might work and what the risks might be, which leads to advice that differs widely from state to state and country to country. It’s as if people everywhere just decided that locking everyone down is a real drag, is financially ruinous, has a duration both uncertain and longer than most people and governments think they can handle, so let’s get out there and “be careful,” whatever that is said to mean.

And the risks? Well, more people will get sick and some will die. How many “extra” deaths are ethically acceptable? Thoughtful people are working on that. They’ll get back sometime to those who are still around.

I don’t blame anyone for our staggering ignorance about this terrifying new reality. But absorbing the ignorance in real time is not reassuring.

I have nothing but sympathy for those who are not emeritus, who have practices to sustain and families to feed. I didn’t ask to be born 73 years ago, and take no credit for having done so. So much of what happens to us depends on when and where we were born – two factors for which we deserve absolutely no credit – that it’s a wonder we take such pride in praising ourselves for what we think we accomplish. Having no better choice, we do the best we can.

Meantime, I am in a “high-risk” category. If I were obese, I could try to lose weight. But my risk factor is age, which tends not to decline. Risk-wise, there is just one way to exit my group.

So I don’t expect to get back to the office anytime soon. To paraphrase a comedian who shall remain nameless: I don’t want to live on in the hearts of men. I want to live on in my house.

Dr. Rockoff, who wrote the Dermatology News column “Under My Skin,” is now semiretired, after 40 years of practice in Brookline, Mass. He served on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. His second book, “Act Like a Doctor, Think Like a Patient,” is available online. Write to him at [email protected].

The first installment of my new column was obsolete on arrival. It referred to walking abroad at midday, with no mention of masks and social distancing. The whole thing was so February 2020.

My last day in the office was in mid-March. Friday the 13th.

For a few weeks, I’ve been seeing patients remotely. I pitched telemedicine to an HMO about 30 years ago. I was hardly an innovator. Researchers had already shown the practical use of remote dermatology by then, using stored and forwarded images.

What I had in mind was visits by patients in nursing homes or too sick at home to come in. It always bothered me to see very aged and infirm patients brought to the office at great inconvenience and expense for what often turned out to be problems like xerosis or eczema that could have been managed quite well remotely.

The HMO never got back to me, though. There were too many hurdles, mostly bureaucratic rather than medical. Would insurance pay? What about consent? Malpractice? It has been interesting to watch the current crisis sweep away the inertia of such obstacles, including licensure considerations (seeing patients across state lines for cutaneous purposes). People get around to fixing the roof when it pours. Perhaps next time there will be tests, masks, respirators. Perhaps.

Seeing patients remotely has acquainted me with all the technical headaches everyone stuck at home talks and jokes about: Balky transmission (What did you say after, “and then the blood ...”?); patients who can’t figure out how to log on, or start the video, or unmute themselves, and on and on. Picture resolution is not great, as anyone knows from watching TV newscasters interview talking heads stuck in their homes.

I was never all that image-conscious, but my beard has grown fuller and my hair unkempter. Even though I sit at my desk, I do take care to keep my trousers on. Not taking any chances.

Everyone agonizes over what the “new normal” may be. Will people come back to doctors’ offices? Will practices survive economically if many patients don’t return to the office? Stay tuned. For a long time.

Mostly, though, remote visits seem to work. Helped if needed by additional, better-resolution emailed photos, it’s possible to make useful decisions, including which lesions can wait for in-person evaluation, until ...

... Until what? In an effort to keep this column up-to-the-nanosecond, I am writing it as many countries tentatively “open up.” Careful analysis of the knowledge behind this world-wide project shows ... not much. It seems to come down to some educated guesswork about what might work and what the risks might be, which leads to advice that differs widely from state to state and country to country. It’s as if people everywhere just decided that locking everyone down is a real drag, is financially ruinous, has a duration both uncertain and longer than most people and governments think they can handle, so let’s get out there and “be careful,” whatever that is said to mean.

And the risks? Well, more people will get sick and some will die. How many “extra” deaths are ethically acceptable? Thoughtful people are working on that. They’ll get back sometime to those who are still around.

I don’t blame anyone for our staggering ignorance about this terrifying new reality. But absorbing the ignorance in real time is not reassuring.

I have nothing but sympathy for those who are not emeritus, who have practices to sustain and families to feed. I didn’t ask to be born 73 years ago, and take no credit for having done so. So much of what happens to us depends on when and where we were born – two factors for which we deserve absolutely no credit – that it’s a wonder we take such pride in praising ourselves for what we think we accomplish. Having no better choice, we do the best we can.

Meantime, I am in a “high-risk” category. If I were obese, I could try to lose weight. But my risk factor is age, which tends not to decline. Risk-wise, there is just one way to exit my group.

So I don’t expect to get back to the office anytime soon. To paraphrase a comedian who shall remain nameless: I don’t want to live on in the hearts of men. I want to live on in my house.

Dr. Rockoff, who wrote the Dermatology News column “Under My Skin,” is now semiretired, after 40 years of practice in Brookline, Mass. He served on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. His second book, “Act Like a Doctor, Think Like a Patient,” is available online. Write to him at [email protected].