Federal Practitioner

New guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outline a “test and treat” strategy for health care personnel (HCP) with potential occupational exposure to hepatitis C virus (HCV).

The new guidance was developed in part as a result of an increase in the incidence of acute HCV infection in the United States, which increases the risk for occupational exposure among HCP. “[I]n certain health care settings, HCP might be exposed to source patients with early HCV infection before those patients develop serologic evidence of infection or symptoms indicative of viral hepatitis,” wrote the authors of the report, published online July 24 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The guidelines, which no longer recommend waiting for spontaneous resolution upon initial diagnosis, include recommendations and algorithms for baseline and follow-up testing, appropriate test type, and recommendations for clinical management. The recommendations were developed on the basis of a current literature review, expert opinion from subject matter experts, and recent guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
 

Baseline testing ASAP

Baseline testing of the source patient and the HCP should be performed as soon as possible, preferably within 48 hours of exposure. The source patient should be tested for HCV RNA using a nucleic acid test. Alternatively, screening anti-HCV serology can be performed in patients at low risk for HCV and a nucleic acid test performed if serology is positive.

Baseline testing for the HCP should include anti-HCV testing and, if positive, HCV RNA testing is recommended. HCPs who test positive for HCV RNA at baseline are considered to have a preexisting HCV infection and should be referred for treatment.
 

Follow-up testing

For HCPs with exposure to blood or body fluids from a patient who is anti-HCV positive but HCV RNA negative, follow-up testing is not required.

If the source patient is HCV RNA positive, or if status of the source patient is unknown, the authors recommend that exposed HCPs have HCV RNA follow-up testing at 3-6 weeks post exposure, in addition to baseline testing. A final anti-HCV test is recommended at 4-6 months post exposure as there can be potential periods of aviremia during acute HCV infection.

Exposed HCPs who develop signs of illness indicative of HCV infection at any time should be tested for HCV RNA.

HCPs with positive HCV RNA test results should be referred for care and curative antiviral therapy.
 

Postexposure prophylaxis is not recommended

Recent data have shown that the risk for HCV infection from percutaneous exposure is 0.2% and from mucocutaneous exposure is 0%. On the basis of this information, the CDC guidelines no longer recommend routine postexposure prophylaxis for HCPs with occupational exposure to HCV. Rather, curative antiviral regimens should be reserved for instances of documented HCV transmission.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outline a “test and treat” strategy for health care personnel (HCP) with potential occupational exposure to hepatitis C virus (HCV).

The new guidance was developed in part as a result of an increase in the incidence of acute HCV infection in the United States, which increases the risk for occupational exposure among HCP. “[I]n certain health care settings, HCP might be exposed to source patients with early HCV infection before those patients develop serologic evidence of infection or symptoms indicative of viral hepatitis,” wrote the authors of the report, published online July 24 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The guidelines, which no longer recommend waiting for spontaneous resolution upon initial diagnosis, include recommendations and algorithms for baseline and follow-up testing, appropriate test type, and recommendations for clinical management. The recommendations were developed on the basis of a current literature review, expert opinion from subject matter experts, and recent guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
 

Baseline testing ASAP

Baseline testing of the source patient and the HCP should be performed as soon as possible, preferably within 48 hours of exposure. The source patient should be tested for HCV RNA using a nucleic acid test. Alternatively, screening anti-HCV serology can be performed in patients at low risk for HCV and a nucleic acid test performed if serology is positive.

Baseline testing for the HCP should include anti-HCV testing and, if positive, HCV RNA testing is recommended. HCPs who test positive for HCV RNA at baseline are considered to have a preexisting HCV infection and should be referred for treatment.
 

Follow-up testing

For HCPs with exposure to blood or body fluids from a patient who is anti-HCV positive but HCV RNA negative, follow-up testing is not required.

If the source patient is HCV RNA positive, or if status of the source patient is unknown, the authors recommend that exposed HCPs have HCV RNA follow-up testing at 3-6 weeks post exposure, in addition to baseline testing. A final anti-HCV test is recommended at 4-6 months post exposure as there can be potential periods of aviremia during acute HCV infection.

Exposed HCPs who develop signs of illness indicative of HCV infection at any time should be tested for HCV RNA.

HCPs with positive HCV RNA test results should be referred for care and curative antiviral therapy.
 

Postexposure prophylaxis is not recommended

Recent data have shown that the risk for HCV infection from percutaneous exposure is 0.2% and from mucocutaneous exposure is 0%. On the basis of this information, the CDC guidelines no longer recommend routine postexposure prophylaxis for HCPs with occupational exposure to HCV. Rather, curative antiviral regimens should be reserved for instances of documented HCV transmission.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outline a “test and treat” strategy for health care personnel (HCP) with potential occupational exposure to hepatitis C virus (HCV).

The new guidance was developed in part as a result of an increase in the incidence of acute HCV infection in the United States, which increases the risk for occupational exposure among HCP. “[I]n certain health care settings, HCP might be exposed to source patients with early HCV infection before those patients develop serologic evidence of infection or symptoms indicative of viral hepatitis,” wrote the authors of the report, published online July 24 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The guidelines, which no longer recommend waiting for spontaneous resolution upon initial diagnosis, include recommendations and algorithms for baseline and follow-up testing, appropriate test type, and recommendations for clinical management. The recommendations were developed on the basis of a current literature review, expert opinion from subject matter experts, and recent guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
 

Baseline testing ASAP

Baseline testing of the source patient and the HCP should be performed as soon as possible, preferably within 48 hours of exposure. The source patient should be tested for HCV RNA using a nucleic acid test. Alternatively, screening anti-HCV serology can be performed in patients at low risk for HCV and a nucleic acid test performed if serology is positive.

Baseline testing for the HCP should include anti-HCV testing and, if positive, HCV RNA testing is recommended. HCPs who test positive for HCV RNA at baseline are considered to have a preexisting HCV infection and should be referred for treatment.
 

Follow-up testing

For HCPs with exposure to blood or body fluids from a patient who is anti-HCV positive but HCV RNA negative, follow-up testing is not required.

If the source patient is HCV RNA positive, or if status of the source patient is unknown, the authors recommend that exposed HCPs have HCV RNA follow-up testing at 3-6 weeks post exposure, in addition to baseline testing. A final anti-HCV test is recommended at 4-6 months post exposure as there can be potential periods of aviremia during acute HCV infection.

Exposed HCPs who develop signs of illness indicative of HCV infection at any time should be tested for HCV RNA.

HCPs with positive HCV RNA test results should be referred for care and curative antiviral therapy.
 

Postexposure prophylaxis is not recommended

Recent data have shown that the risk for HCV infection from percutaneous exposure is 0.2% and from mucocutaneous exposure is 0%. On the basis of this information, the CDC guidelines no longer recommend routine postexposure prophylaxis for HCPs with occupational exposure to HCV. Rather, curative antiviral regimens should be reserved for instances of documented HCV transmission.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody levels in patients with mild COVID-19, the level of disease most people have, appear to drop by half within 36 days, new research suggests. The research was conducted by F. Javier Ibarrondo, PhD, and colleagues and was published online on July 21 in a letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Ibarrondo is associate researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles. (The original letter incorrectly calculated the half-life at 73 days.)

Coauthor Otto Yang, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at UCLA, told Medscape Medical News that the rapidity in the antibody drop at 5 weeks “is striking compared to other infections.”

The phenomenon has been suspected and has been observed before but had not been quantified.

“Our paper is the first to put firm numbers on the dropping of antibodies after early infection,” he said.

The researchers evaluated 34 people (average age, 43 years) who had recovered from mild COVID-19 and had referred themselves to UCLA for observational research.
 

Previous report also found a quick fade

As Medscape Medical News reported, a previous study from China that was published in Nature Medicine also found that the antibodies fade quickly.

Interpreting the meaning of the current research comes with a few caveats, Dr. Yang said.

“One is that we don’t know for sure that antibodies are what protect people from getting infected,” he said. Although it’s a reasonable assumption, he said, that’s not always the case.

Another caveat is that even if antibodies do protect, the tests being used to measure them – including the test that was used in this study – may not measure them the right way, and it is not yet known how many antibodies are needed for protection, he explained.

The UCLA researchers used an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect anti–SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor–binding domain immunoglobulin G concentrations.
 

“No reason for anybody to be getting an antibody test medically”

The study provides further proof that “[t]here’s no reason for anybody to be getting an antibody test medically right now,” Dr. Yang said.

Additionally, “FDA-approved tests are not approved for quantitative measures, only qualitative,” he continued. He noted that the findings may have implications with respect to herd immunity.

“Herd immunity depends on a lot of people having immunity to the infection all at the same time. If infection is followed by only brief protection from infection, the natural infection is not going to reach herd immunity,” he explained.

Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics and director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program in Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that antibodies “are just part of the story.”

“When we make an immune response to any germ,” he said, “we not only make an immune response for the time being but for the future. The next time we’re exposed, we can call into action B cells and T cells who have been there and done that.”

So even though the antibodies fade over time, other arms of the immune system are being trained for future action, he said.

Herd immunity does not require that populations have a huge level of antibodies that remains forever, he explained.

“It requires that in general, we’re not going to get infected as easily, and we’re not going to have disease as easily, and we’re not going to transmit the virus for as long,” he said.

Dr. Creech said he and others researching COVID-19 find that studies that show that antibodies fade quickly provide more proof “that this coronavirus is going to be here to stay unless we can take care of it through very effective treatments to take it from potentially fatal disease to one that is nothing more than a cold” or until a vaccine is developed.

He noted there are four other coronaviruses in widespread circulation every year that “amount to about 25% of the common cold.”

This study may help narrow the window as to when convalescent plasma – plasma that is taken from people who have recovered from COVID-19 and that is used to help people who are acutely ill with the disease – will be most effective, Dr. Creech explained. He said the results suggest that it is important that plasma be collected within the first couple of months after recovery so as to capture the most antibodies.

This study is important as another snapshot “so we understand the differences between severe and mild disease, so we can study it over time, so we have all the tools we need as we start these pivotal vaccine studies to make sure we’re making the right immune response for the right duration of time so we can put an end to this pandemic,” Dr. Creech concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the James B. Pendleton Charitable Trust, and the McCarthy Family Foundation. A coauthor reports receiving grants from Gilead outside the submitted work. Dr. Creech has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody levels in patients with mild COVID-19, the level of disease most people have, appear to drop by half within 36 days, new research suggests. The research was conducted by F. Javier Ibarrondo, PhD, and colleagues and was published online on July 21 in a letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Ibarrondo is associate researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles. (The original letter incorrectly calculated the half-life at 73 days.)

Coauthor Otto Yang, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at UCLA, told Medscape Medical News that the rapidity in the antibody drop at 5 weeks “is striking compared to other infections.”

The phenomenon has been suspected and has been observed before but had not been quantified.

“Our paper is the first to put firm numbers on the dropping of antibodies after early infection,” he said.

The researchers evaluated 34 people (average age, 43 years) who had recovered from mild COVID-19 and had referred themselves to UCLA for observational research.
 

Previous report also found a quick fade

As Medscape Medical News reported, a previous study from China that was published in Nature Medicine also found that the antibodies fade quickly.

Interpreting the meaning of the current research comes with a few caveats, Dr. Yang said.

“One is that we don’t know for sure that antibodies are what protect people from getting infected,” he said. Although it’s a reasonable assumption, he said, that’s not always the case.

Another caveat is that even if antibodies do protect, the tests being used to measure them – including the test that was used in this study – may not measure them the right way, and it is not yet known how many antibodies are needed for protection, he explained.

The UCLA researchers used an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect anti–SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor–binding domain immunoglobulin G concentrations.
 

“No reason for anybody to be getting an antibody test medically”

The study provides further proof that “[t]here’s no reason for anybody to be getting an antibody test medically right now,” Dr. Yang said.

Additionally, “FDA-approved tests are not approved for quantitative measures, only qualitative,” he continued. He noted that the findings may have implications with respect to herd immunity.

“Herd immunity depends on a lot of people having immunity to the infection all at the same time. If infection is followed by only brief protection from infection, the natural infection is not going to reach herd immunity,” he explained.

Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics and director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program in Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that antibodies “are just part of the story.”

“When we make an immune response to any germ,” he said, “we not only make an immune response for the time being but for the future. The next time we’re exposed, we can call into action B cells and T cells who have been there and done that.”

So even though the antibodies fade over time, other arms of the immune system are being trained for future action, he said.

Herd immunity does not require that populations have a huge level of antibodies that remains forever, he explained.

“It requires that in general, we’re not going to get infected as easily, and we’re not going to have disease as easily, and we’re not going to transmit the virus for as long,” he said.

Dr. Creech said he and others researching COVID-19 find that studies that show that antibodies fade quickly provide more proof “that this coronavirus is going to be here to stay unless we can take care of it through very effective treatments to take it from potentially fatal disease to one that is nothing more than a cold” or until a vaccine is developed.

He noted there are four other coronaviruses in widespread circulation every year that “amount to about 25% of the common cold.”

This study may help narrow the window as to when convalescent plasma – plasma that is taken from people who have recovered from COVID-19 and that is used to help people who are acutely ill with the disease – will be most effective, Dr. Creech explained. He said the results suggest that it is important that plasma be collected within the first couple of months after recovery so as to capture the most antibodies.

This study is important as another snapshot “so we understand the differences between severe and mild disease, so we can study it over time, so we have all the tools we need as we start these pivotal vaccine studies to make sure we’re making the right immune response for the right duration of time so we can put an end to this pandemic,” Dr. Creech concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the James B. Pendleton Charitable Trust, and the McCarthy Family Foundation. A coauthor reports receiving grants from Gilead outside the submitted work. Dr. Creech has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody levels in patients with mild COVID-19, the level of disease most people have, appear to drop by half within 36 days, new research suggests. The research was conducted by F. Javier Ibarrondo, PhD, and colleagues and was published online on July 21 in a letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Ibarrondo is associate researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles. (The original letter incorrectly calculated the half-life at 73 days.)

Coauthor Otto Yang, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at UCLA, told Medscape Medical News that the rapidity in the antibody drop at 5 weeks “is striking compared to other infections.”

The phenomenon has been suspected and has been observed before but had not been quantified.

“Our paper is the first to put firm numbers on the dropping of antibodies after early infection,” he said.

The researchers evaluated 34 people (average age, 43 years) who had recovered from mild COVID-19 and had referred themselves to UCLA for observational research.
 

Previous report also found a quick fade

As Medscape Medical News reported, a previous study from China that was published in Nature Medicine also found that the antibodies fade quickly.

Interpreting the meaning of the current research comes with a few caveats, Dr. Yang said.

“One is that we don’t know for sure that antibodies are what protect people from getting infected,” he said. Although it’s a reasonable assumption, he said, that’s not always the case.

Another caveat is that even if antibodies do protect, the tests being used to measure them – including the test that was used in this study – may not measure them the right way, and it is not yet known how many antibodies are needed for protection, he explained.

The UCLA researchers used an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect anti–SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor–binding domain immunoglobulin G concentrations.
 

“No reason for anybody to be getting an antibody test medically”

The study provides further proof that “[t]here’s no reason for anybody to be getting an antibody test medically right now,” Dr. Yang said.

Additionally, “FDA-approved tests are not approved for quantitative measures, only qualitative,” he continued. He noted that the findings may have implications with respect to herd immunity.

“Herd immunity depends on a lot of people having immunity to the infection all at the same time. If infection is followed by only brief protection from infection, the natural infection is not going to reach herd immunity,” he explained.

Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics and director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program in Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that antibodies “are just part of the story.”

“When we make an immune response to any germ,” he said, “we not only make an immune response for the time being but for the future. The next time we’re exposed, we can call into action B cells and T cells who have been there and done that.”

So even though the antibodies fade over time, other arms of the immune system are being trained for future action, he said.

Herd immunity does not require that populations have a huge level of antibodies that remains forever, he explained.

“It requires that in general, we’re not going to get infected as easily, and we’re not going to have disease as easily, and we’re not going to transmit the virus for as long,” he said.

Dr. Creech said he and others researching COVID-19 find that studies that show that antibodies fade quickly provide more proof “that this coronavirus is going to be here to stay unless we can take care of it through very effective treatments to take it from potentially fatal disease to one that is nothing more than a cold” or until a vaccine is developed.

He noted there are four other coronaviruses in widespread circulation every year that “amount to about 25% of the common cold.”

This study may help narrow the window as to when convalescent plasma – plasma that is taken from people who have recovered from COVID-19 and that is used to help people who are acutely ill with the disease – will be most effective, Dr. Creech explained. He said the results suggest that it is important that plasma be collected within the first couple of months after recovery so as to capture the most antibodies.

This study is important as another snapshot “so we understand the differences between severe and mild disease, so we can study it over time, so we have all the tools we need as we start these pivotal vaccine studies to make sure we’re making the right immune response for the right duration of time so we can put an end to this pandemic,” Dr. Creech concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the James B. Pendleton Charitable Trust, and the McCarthy Family Foundation. A coauthor reports receiving grants from Gilead outside the submitted work. Dr. Creech has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A study that observed oral petechial lesions in a small number of COVID-19 patients with skin rash fortifies growing evidence that the virus has dermatologic manifestations. Larger studies should explore and confirm this association, the study’s authors and other experts suggested.

Dermatologists are already aware of the connection between enanthem and viral etiology. “As seen with other viral infections, we wondered if COVID-19 could produce enanthem in addition to skin rash exanthem,” one of the study author’s, Juan Jiménez-Cauhe, MD, a dermatologist with Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, said in an interview. He and his colleagues summarized their findings in a research letter in JAMA Dermatology.

They examined the oral cavity of 21 COVID-19 patients at a tertiary care hospital who also had a skin rash from March 30 to April 8. They classified enanthems into four categories: petechial, macular, macular with petechiae, or erythematovesicular. Six of the patients presented with oral lesions, all of them located in the palate; in one patient, the enanthem was macular, it was petechial in two patients and was macular with petechiae in three patients. The six patients ranged between the ages of 40 and 69 years; four were women.

Petechial or vesicular patterns are often associated with viral infections. In this particular study, the investigators did not observe vesicular lesions.

On average, mucocutaneous lesions appeared about 12 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. “Interestingly, this latency was shorter in patients with petechial enanthem, compared with those with a macular lesion with petechiae appearance,” the authors wrote.

This shorter time might suggest an association for SARS-CoV-2, said Dr. Jiménez-Cauhe. Strong cough may have also caused petechial lesions on the palate, but it’s unlikely, as they appeared close in time to COVID-19 symptoms. It’s also unlikely that any drugs caused the lesions, as drug rashes can take 2-3 weeks to appear.

This fits in line with other evidence of broader skin manifestations appearing at the same time or after COVID-19, Esther Freeman, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Freeman, director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, is the principal investigator of the COVID-19 Dermatology Registry, a collaboration of the American Academy of Dermatology and International League of Dermatological Societies.

The study’s small cohort made it difficult to establish a solid association between the oral lesions and SARS-CoV-2. “However, the presence of enanthem in a patient with a skin rash is a useful finding that suggests a viral etiology rather than a drug reaction. This is particularly useful in COVID-19 patients, who were receiving many drugs as part of the treatment,” Dr. Jimenez-Cauhe said. Future studies should assess whether the presence of enanthem and exanthem lead physicians to consider SARS-CoV-2 as possible agents, ruling out infection with a blood or nasopharyngeal test.

This study adds to the growing body of knowledge on cutaneous and mucocutaneous findings associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, Jules Lipoff, MD, of the department of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “One challenge in evaluating these findings is that these findings are nonspecific, and medication reactions can often cause similar rashes, such as morbilliform eruptions that can be associated with both viruses and medications.”

Enanthems, as the study authors noted, are more specific to viral infections and are less commonly associated with medication reactions. “So, even though this is a small case series with significant limitations, it does add more evidence that COVID-19 is directly responsible for findings in the skin and mucous membranes,” said Dr. Lipoff.

Dr. Freeman noted that the study may also encourage clinicians to look in a patient’s mouth when assessing for SARS-CoV-2. Additional research should examine these data in a larger population.

Several studies by Dr. Freeman, Dr. Lipoff, and others strongly suggest that SARS-CoV-2 has a spectrum of associated dermatologic manifestations. One evaluated perniolike skin lesions (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Aug; 83[2]:486-92). The other was a case series from the COVID-19 registry that examined 716 cases of new-onset dermatologic symptoms in patients from 31 countries with confirmed/suspected SARS-CoV-2 (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul 2;S0190-9622[20]32126-5.).

The authors of the report had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Jimenez-Cauhe J et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jul 15. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.2550.

A study that observed oral petechial lesions in a small number of COVID-19 patients with skin rash fortifies growing evidence that the virus has dermatologic manifestations. Larger studies should explore and confirm this association, the study’s authors and other experts suggested.

Dermatologists are already aware of the connection between enanthem and viral etiology. “As seen with other viral infections, we wondered if COVID-19 could produce enanthem in addition to skin rash exanthem,” one of the study author’s, Juan Jiménez-Cauhe, MD, a dermatologist with Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, said in an interview. He and his colleagues summarized their findings in a research letter in JAMA Dermatology.

They examined the oral cavity of 21 COVID-19 patients at a tertiary care hospital who also had a skin rash from March 30 to April 8. They classified enanthems into four categories: petechial, macular, macular with petechiae, or erythematovesicular. Six of the patients presented with oral lesions, all of them located in the palate; in one patient, the enanthem was macular, it was petechial in two patients and was macular with petechiae in three patients. The six patients ranged between the ages of 40 and 69 years; four were women.

Petechial or vesicular patterns are often associated with viral infections. In this particular study, the investigators did not observe vesicular lesions.

On average, mucocutaneous lesions appeared about 12 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. “Interestingly, this latency was shorter in patients with petechial enanthem, compared with those with a macular lesion with petechiae appearance,” the authors wrote.

This shorter time might suggest an association for SARS-CoV-2, said Dr. Jiménez-Cauhe. Strong cough may have also caused petechial lesions on the palate, but it’s unlikely, as they appeared close in time to COVID-19 symptoms. It’s also unlikely that any drugs caused the lesions, as drug rashes can take 2-3 weeks to appear.

This fits in line with other evidence of broader skin manifestations appearing at the same time or after COVID-19, Esther Freeman, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Freeman, director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, is the principal investigator of the COVID-19 Dermatology Registry, a collaboration of the American Academy of Dermatology and International League of Dermatological Societies.

The study’s small cohort made it difficult to establish a solid association between the oral lesions and SARS-CoV-2. “However, the presence of enanthem in a patient with a skin rash is a useful finding that suggests a viral etiology rather than a drug reaction. This is particularly useful in COVID-19 patients, who were receiving many drugs as part of the treatment,” Dr. Jimenez-Cauhe said. Future studies should assess whether the presence of enanthem and exanthem lead physicians to consider SARS-CoV-2 as possible agents, ruling out infection with a blood or nasopharyngeal test.

This study adds to the growing body of knowledge on cutaneous and mucocutaneous findings associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, Jules Lipoff, MD, of the department of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “One challenge in evaluating these findings is that these findings are nonspecific, and medication reactions can often cause similar rashes, such as morbilliform eruptions that can be associated with both viruses and medications.”

Enanthems, as the study authors noted, are more specific to viral infections and are less commonly associated with medication reactions. “So, even though this is a small case series with significant limitations, it does add more evidence that COVID-19 is directly responsible for findings in the skin and mucous membranes,” said Dr. Lipoff.

Dr. Freeman noted that the study may also encourage clinicians to look in a patient’s mouth when assessing for SARS-CoV-2. Additional research should examine these data in a larger population.

Several studies by Dr. Freeman, Dr. Lipoff, and others strongly suggest that SARS-CoV-2 has a spectrum of associated dermatologic manifestations. One evaluated perniolike skin lesions (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Aug; 83[2]:486-92). The other was a case series from the COVID-19 registry that examined 716 cases of new-onset dermatologic symptoms in patients from 31 countries with confirmed/suspected SARS-CoV-2 (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul 2;S0190-9622[20]32126-5.).

The authors of the report had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Jimenez-Cauhe J et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jul 15. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.2550.

A study that observed oral petechial lesions in a small number of COVID-19 patients with skin rash fortifies growing evidence that the virus has dermatologic manifestations. Larger studies should explore and confirm this association, the study’s authors and other experts suggested.

Dermatologists are already aware of the connection between enanthem and viral etiology. “As seen with other viral infections, we wondered if COVID-19 could produce enanthem in addition to skin rash exanthem,” one of the study author’s, Juan Jiménez-Cauhe, MD, a dermatologist with Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, said in an interview. He and his colleagues summarized their findings in a research letter in JAMA Dermatology.

They examined the oral cavity of 21 COVID-19 patients at a tertiary care hospital who also had a skin rash from March 30 to April 8. They classified enanthems into four categories: petechial, macular, macular with petechiae, or erythematovesicular. Six of the patients presented with oral lesions, all of them located in the palate; in one patient, the enanthem was macular, it was petechial in two patients and was macular with petechiae in three patients. The six patients ranged between the ages of 40 and 69 years; four were women.

Petechial or vesicular patterns are often associated with viral infections. In this particular study, the investigators did not observe vesicular lesions.

On average, mucocutaneous lesions appeared about 12 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. “Interestingly, this latency was shorter in patients with petechial enanthem, compared with those with a macular lesion with petechiae appearance,” the authors wrote.

This shorter time might suggest an association for SARS-CoV-2, said Dr. Jiménez-Cauhe. Strong cough may have also caused petechial lesions on the palate, but it’s unlikely, as they appeared close in time to COVID-19 symptoms. It’s also unlikely that any drugs caused the lesions, as drug rashes can take 2-3 weeks to appear.

This fits in line with other evidence of broader skin manifestations appearing at the same time or after COVID-19, Esther Freeman, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Freeman, director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, is the principal investigator of the COVID-19 Dermatology Registry, a collaboration of the American Academy of Dermatology and International League of Dermatological Societies.

The study’s small cohort made it difficult to establish a solid association between the oral lesions and SARS-CoV-2. “However, the presence of enanthem in a patient with a skin rash is a useful finding that suggests a viral etiology rather than a drug reaction. This is particularly useful in COVID-19 patients, who were receiving many drugs as part of the treatment,” Dr. Jimenez-Cauhe said. Future studies should assess whether the presence of enanthem and exanthem lead physicians to consider SARS-CoV-2 as possible agents, ruling out infection with a blood or nasopharyngeal test.

This study adds to the growing body of knowledge on cutaneous and mucocutaneous findings associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, Jules Lipoff, MD, of the department of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “One challenge in evaluating these findings is that these findings are nonspecific, and medication reactions can often cause similar rashes, such as morbilliform eruptions that can be associated with both viruses and medications.”

Enanthems, as the study authors noted, are more specific to viral infections and are less commonly associated with medication reactions. “So, even though this is a small case series with significant limitations, it does add more evidence that COVID-19 is directly responsible for findings in the skin and mucous membranes,” said Dr. Lipoff.

Dr. Freeman noted that the study may also encourage clinicians to look in a patient’s mouth when assessing for SARS-CoV-2. Additional research should examine these data in a larger population.

Several studies by Dr. Freeman, Dr. Lipoff, and others strongly suggest that SARS-CoV-2 has a spectrum of associated dermatologic manifestations. One evaluated perniolike skin lesions (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Aug; 83[2]:486-92). The other was a case series from the COVID-19 registry that examined 716 cases of new-onset dermatologic symptoms in patients from 31 countries with confirmed/suspected SARS-CoV-2 (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul 2;S0190-9622[20]32126-5.).

The authors of the report had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Jimenez-Cauhe J et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jul 15. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.2550.

Anecdotal reports have suggested that people have been less likely to go to the hospital for emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings from a study by 2 physicians at Mount Sinai in New York now provide support for that: Between March 11 and April 21, 2020, 42% fewer patients were admitted to US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) inpatient facilities when compared with the preceding 6 weeks.

The researchers analyzed data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and examined at trends during the first 16 weeks of 2019 and 2020 for 6 common emergency conditions: stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), appendicitis, and pneumonia. Strikingly, the number of patients admitted dropped from 77,624 in weeks 5 to 10 of 2020 to 45,155 in weeks 11 to 16.

The number of patients admitted for stroke declined by 52%; myocardial infarction, 40%; COPD, 48%; heart failure, 49%; and appendicitis, 57%. By contrast, the number of patients admitted overall and for each condition did not decline during the same weeks in 2019. Admissions for pneumonia dropped during weeks 11 to 16 by 14% in 2019 and 28% in 2020. When patients who tested positive for COVID-19 were excluded, however, pneumonia admissions decreased by 46%. Of patients who were admitted during weeks 11 to 16 of 2020, 2,458 had tested positive for COVID-19 during weeks 5 to 10.

The authers contend that the marked drop in admissions is unlikely to be attributable to a reduction in disease incidence. Rather, they theorize that many patients may be avoiding hospitals out of fear of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2. These data “should raise serious concerns,” the authors say, about the well-being and health outcomes of the patients who aren’t getting the emergency or inpatient care they need.

Anecdotal reports have suggested that people have been less likely to go to the hospital for emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings from a study by 2 physicians at Mount Sinai in New York now provide support for that: Between March 11 and April 21, 2020, 42% fewer patients were admitted to US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) inpatient facilities when compared with the preceding 6 weeks.

The researchers analyzed data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and examined at trends during the first 16 weeks of 2019 and 2020 for 6 common emergency conditions: stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), appendicitis, and pneumonia. Strikingly, the number of patients admitted dropped from 77,624 in weeks 5 to 10 of 2020 to 45,155 in weeks 11 to 16.

The number of patients admitted for stroke declined by 52%; myocardial infarction, 40%; COPD, 48%; heart failure, 49%; and appendicitis, 57%. By contrast, the number of patients admitted overall and for each condition did not decline during the same weeks in 2019. Admissions for pneumonia dropped during weeks 11 to 16 by 14% in 2019 and 28% in 2020. When patients who tested positive for COVID-19 were excluded, however, pneumonia admissions decreased by 46%. Of patients who were admitted during weeks 11 to 16 of 2020, 2,458 had tested positive for COVID-19 during weeks 5 to 10.

The authers contend that the marked drop in admissions is unlikely to be attributable to a reduction in disease incidence. Rather, they theorize that many patients may be avoiding hospitals out of fear of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2. These data “should raise serious concerns,” the authors say, about the well-being and health outcomes of the patients who aren’t getting the emergency or inpatient care they need.

Anecdotal reports have suggested that people have been less likely to go to the hospital for emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings from a study by 2 physicians at Mount Sinai in New York now provide support for that: Between March 11 and April 21, 2020, 42% fewer patients were admitted to US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) inpatient facilities when compared with the preceding 6 weeks.

The researchers analyzed data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and examined at trends during the first 16 weeks of 2019 and 2020 for 6 common emergency conditions: stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), appendicitis, and pneumonia. Strikingly, the number of patients admitted dropped from 77,624 in weeks 5 to 10 of 2020 to 45,155 in weeks 11 to 16.

The number of patients admitted for stroke declined by 52%; myocardial infarction, 40%; COPD, 48%; heart failure, 49%; and appendicitis, 57%. By contrast, the number of patients admitted overall and for each condition did not decline during the same weeks in 2019. Admissions for pneumonia dropped during weeks 11 to 16 by 14% in 2019 and 28% in 2020. When patients who tested positive for COVID-19 were excluded, however, pneumonia admissions decreased by 46%. Of patients who were admitted during weeks 11 to 16 of 2020, 2,458 had tested positive for COVID-19 during weeks 5 to 10.

The authers contend that the marked drop in admissions is unlikely to be attributable to a reduction in disease incidence. Rather, they theorize that many patients may be avoiding hospitals out of fear of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2. These data “should raise serious concerns,” the authors say, about the well-being and health outcomes of the patients who aren’t getting the emergency or inpatient care they need.

Using point-of-care ultrasound, internists can reduce the number of tests performed in a hospital without affecting mortality, researchers say.

“It’s a safe and very useful tool,” Marco Barchiesi, MD, an internal medicine resident at Luigi Sacco Hospital in Milan, said in an interview. “We had a great reduction in chest x-rays because of the use of ultrasound.”

The finding addresses concerns that ultrasound used in primary care could consume more health care resources or put patients at risk.

Dr. Barchiesi and colleagues published their findings July 20 in the European Journal of Internal Medicine.

Point-of-care ultrasound has become increasingly common as miniaturization of devices has made them more portable. The approach has caught on particularly in emergency departments where quick decisions are of the essence.

Its use in internal medicine has been more controversial, with concerns raised that improperly trained practitioners may miss diagnoses or refer patients for unnecessary tests as a result of uncertainty about their findings.

To measure the effect of point-of-care ultrasound in an internal medicine hospital ward, Dr. Barchiesi and colleagues alternated months when point-of-care ultrasound was allowed with months when it was not allowed, for a total of 4 months each, on an internal medicine unit. They allowed the ultrasound to be used for invasive procedures and excluded patients whose critical condition made point-of-care ultrasound crucial.

The researchers analyzed data on 263 patients in the “on” months when point-of-care ultrasound was used, and 255 in the “off” months when it wasn’t used. The two groups were well balanced in age, sex, comorbidity, and clinical impairment.

During the on months, the internists ordered 113 diagnostic tests (0.43 per patient). During the off months they ordered 329 tests (1.29 per patient).

The odds of being referred for a chest x-ray were 87% less in the “on” months, compared with the off months, a statistically significant finding (P < .001). The risk for a chest CT scan and abdominal ultrasound were also reduced during the on months, but the risk for an abdominal CT was increased.

Nineteen patients died during the o” months and 10 during the off months, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .15). The median length of stay in the hospital was almost the same for the two groups: 9 days for the on months and 9 days for the off months. The difference was also not statistically significant (P = .094).

Point-of-care ultrasound is particularly accurate in identifying cardiac abnormalities and pleural fluid and pneumonia, and it can be used effectively for monitoring heart conditions, the researchers wrote. This could explain the reduction in chest x-rays and CT scans.

On the other hand, ultrasound cannot address such questions as staging in an abdominal malignancy, and unexpected findings are more common with abdominal than chest ultrasound. This could explain why the point-of-care ultrasound did not reduce the use of abdominal CT, the researchers speculated.

They acknowledged that the patients in their sample had an average age of 81 years, raising questions about how well their data could be applied to a younger population. And they noted that they used point-of-care ultrasound frequently, so they were particularly adept with it. “We use it almost every day in our clinical practice,” said Dr. Barchiesi.

Those factors may have played a key role in the success of point-of-care ultrasound in this study, said Michael Wagner, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, who has helped colleagues incorporate ultrasound into their practices.

Elderly patients often present with multiple comorbidities and atypical signs and symptoms, he said. “Sometimes they can be very confusing as to the underlying clinical picture. Ultrasound is being used frequently to better assess these complicated patients.”

Dr. Wagner said extensive training is required to use point-of-care ultrasound accurately.

Dr. Barchiesi also acknowledged that the devices used in this study were large portable machines, not the simpler and less expensive hand-held versions that are also available for similar purposes.

Point-of-care ultrasound is a promising innovation, said Thomas Melgar, MD, a professor of medicine at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. “The advantage is that the exam is being done by someone who knows the patient and specifically what they’re looking for. It’s done at the bedside so you don’t have to move the patient.”

The study could help address opposition to internal medicine residents being trained in the technique, he said, adding that “I think it’s very exciting.”

The study was partially supported by Philips, which provided the ultrasound devices. Dr. Barchiesi, Dr. Melgar, and Dr. Wagner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Using point-of-care ultrasound, internists can reduce the number of tests performed in a hospital without affecting mortality, researchers say.

“It’s a safe and very useful tool,” Marco Barchiesi, MD, an internal medicine resident at Luigi Sacco Hospital in Milan, said in an interview. “We had a great reduction in chest x-rays because of the use of ultrasound.”

The finding addresses concerns that ultrasound used in primary care could consume more health care resources or put patients at risk.

Dr. Barchiesi and colleagues published their findings July 20 in the European Journal of Internal Medicine.

Point-of-care ultrasound has become increasingly common as miniaturization of devices has made them more portable. The approach has caught on particularly in emergency departments where quick decisions are of the essence.

Its use in internal medicine has been more controversial, with concerns raised that improperly trained practitioners may miss diagnoses or refer patients for unnecessary tests as a result of uncertainty about their findings.

To measure the effect of point-of-care ultrasound in an internal medicine hospital ward, Dr. Barchiesi and colleagues alternated months when point-of-care ultrasound was allowed with months when it was not allowed, for a total of 4 months each, on an internal medicine unit. They allowed the ultrasound to be used for invasive procedures and excluded patients whose critical condition made point-of-care ultrasound crucial.

The researchers analyzed data on 263 patients in the “on” months when point-of-care ultrasound was used, and 255 in the “off” months when it wasn’t used. The two groups were well balanced in age, sex, comorbidity, and clinical impairment.

During the on months, the internists ordered 113 diagnostic tests (0.43 per patient). During the off months they ordered 329 tests (1.29 per patient).

The odds of being referred for a chest x-ray were 87% less in the “on” months, compared with the off months, a statistically significant finding (P < .001). The risk for a chest CT scan and abdominal ultrasound were also reduced during the on months, but the risk for an abdominal CT was increased.

Nineteen patients died during the o” months and 10 during the off months, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .15). The median length of stay in the hospital was almost the same for the two groups: 9 days for the on months and 9 days for the off months. The difference was also not statistically significant (P = .094).

Point-of-care ultrasound is particularly accurate in identifying cardiac abnormalities and pleural fluid and pneumonia, and it can be used effectively for monitoring heart conditions, the researchers wrote. This could explain the reduction in chest x-rays and CT scans.

On the other hand, ultrasound cannot address such questions as staging in an abdominal malignancy, and unexpected findings are more common with abdominal than chest ultrasound. This could explain why the point-of-care ultrasound did not reduce the use of abdominal CT, the researchers speculated.

They acknowledged that the patients in their sample had an average age of 81 years, raising questions about how well their data could be applied to a younger population. And they noted that they used point-of-care ultrasound frequently, so they were particularly adept with it. “We use it almost every day in our clinical practice,” said Dr. Barchiesi.

Those factors may have played a key role in the success of point-of-care ultrasound in this study, said Michael Wagner, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, who has helped colleagues incorporate ultrasound into their practices.

Elderly patients often present with multiple comorbidities and atypical signs and symptoms, he said. “Sometimes they can be very confusing as to the underlying clinical picture. Ultrasound is being used frequently to better assess these complicated patients.”

Dr. Wagner said extensive training is required to use point-of-care ultrasound accurately.

Dr. Barchiesi also acknowledged that the devices used in this study were large portable machines, not the simpler and less expensive hand-held versions that are also available for similar purposes.

Point-of-care ultrasound is a promising innovation, said Thomas Melgar, MD, a professor of medicine at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. “The advantage is that the exam is being done by someone who knows the patient and specifically what they’re looking for. It’s done at the bedside so you don’t have to move the patient.”

The study could help address opposition to internal medicine residents being trained in the technique, he said, adding that “I think it’s very exciting.”

The study was partially supported by Philips, which provided the ultrasound devices. Dr. Barchiesi, Dr. Melgar, and Dr. Wagner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Using point-of-care ultrasound, internists can reduce the number of tests performed in a hospital without affecting mortality, researchers say.

“It’s a safe and very useful tool,” Marco Barchiesi, MD, an internal medicine resident at Luigi Sacco Hospital in Milan, said in an interview. “We had a great reduction in chest x-rays because of the use of ultrasound.”

The finding addresses concerns that ultrasound used in primary care could consume more health care resources or put patients at risk.

Dr. Barchiesi and colleagues published their findings July 20 in the European Journal of Internal Medicine.

Point-of-care ultrasound has become increasingly common as miniaturization of devices has made them more portable. The approach has caught on particularly in emergency departments where quick decisions are of the essence.

Its use in internal medicine has been more controversial, with concerns raised that improperly trained practitioners may miss diagnoses or refer patients for unnecessary tests as a result of uncertainty about their findings.

To measure the effect of point-of-care ultrasound in an internal medicine hospital ward, Dr. Barchiesi and colleagues alternated months when point-of-care ultrasound was allowed with months when it was not allowed, for a total of 4 months each, on an internal medicine unit. They allowed the ultrasound to be used for invasive procedures and excluded patients whose critical condition made point-of-care ultrasound crucial.

The researchers analyzed data on 263 patients in the “on” months when point-of-care ultrasound was used, and 255 in the “off” months when it wasn’t used. The two groups were well balanced in age, sex, comorbidity, and clinical impairment.

During the on months, the internists ordered 113 diagnostic tests (0.43 per patient). During the off months they ordered 329 tests (1.29 per patient).

The odds of being referred for a chest x-ray were 87% less in the “on” months, compared with the off months, a statistically significant finding (P < .001). The risk for a chest CT scan and abdominal ultrasound were also reduced during the on months, but the risk for an abdominal CT was increased.

Nineteen patients died during the o” months and 10 during the off months, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .15). The median length of stay in the hospital was almost the same for the two groups: 9 days for the on months and 9 days for the off months. The difference was also not statistically significant (P = .094).

Point-of-care ultrasound is particularly accurate in identifying cardiac abnormalities and pleural fluid and pneumonia, and it can be used effectively for monitoring heart conditions, the researchers wrote. This could explain the reduction in chest x-rays and CT scans.

On the other hand, ultrasound cannot address such questions as staging in an abdominal malignancy, and unexpected findings are more common with abdominal than chest ultrasound. This could explain why the point-of-care ultrasound did not reduce the use of abdominal CT, the researchers speculated.

They acknowledged that the patients in their sample had an average age of 81 years, raising questions about how well their data could be applied to a younger population. And they noted that they used point-of-care ultrasound frequently, so they were particularly adept with it. “We use it almost every day in our clinical practice,” said Dr. Barchiesi.

Those factors may have played a key role in the success of point-of-care ultrasound in this study, said Michael Wagner, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, who has helped colleagues incorporate ultrasound into their practices.

Elderly patients often present with multiple comorbidities and atypical signs and symptoms, he said. “Sometimes they can be very confusing as to the underlying clinical picture. Ultrasound is being used frequently to better assess these complicated patients.”

Dr. Wagner said extensive training is required to use point-of-care ultrasound accurately.

Dr. Barchiesi also acknowledged that the devices used in this study were large portable machines, not the simpler and less expensive hand-held versions that are also available for similar purposes.

Point-of-care ultrasound is a promising innovation, said Thomas Melgar, MD, a professor of medicine at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. “The advantage is that the exam is being done by someone who knows the patient and specifically what they’re looking for. It’s done at the bedside so you don’t have to move the patient.”

The study could help address opposition to internal medicine residents being trained in the technique, he said, adding that “I think it’s very exciting.”

The study was partially supported by Philips, which provided the ultrasound devices. Dr. Barchiesi, Dr. Melgar, and Dr. Wagner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As more and more reopened medical practices ramp up toward normal activity, the safety of patients and health care workers alike remains paramount. As always, the responsibility for enforcing all the new safety guidelines ultimately rests with the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA).

Most of the modified guidelines are already familiar: wear masks (and other personal protective equipment as necessary); maintain social distancing; have hand cleaner, soap, and water readily available; and sanitize between patient examinations.

It is also important to remember that COVID-19 is now a reportable disease; check with your local health authorities as to where and how. Also remember that, if you decide to screen employees and/or patients for fevers and other symptoms of COVID-19, those data are subject to HIPAA rules and must be kept confidential.

Now might be a good time to confirm that you remain in compliance with both the new and old regulations. Even if you hold regular safety meetings – which often is not the case – it is always a good idea to occasionally conduct a comprehensive review, which could save you a lot in fines.

So get your OSHA logs out, and walk through your office. Start by making sure you have an official OSHA poster, which enumerates employee rights and explains how to file complaints. Every office must have one posted in plain site, and is what an OSHA inspector will look for first. They are available for free at OSHA’s website or you can order one by calling 800-321-OSHA.

How long have you had your written exposure control plan for blood-borne pathogens? This plan should document your use of such protective equipment as gloves, face and eye protection, needle guards, and gowns, as well as your implementation of universal precautions. It should be updated annually to reflect changes in technology – and new threats, such as COVID-19.

Review your list of hazardous substances, which all employees have a right to know about. OSHA’s list includes alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, liquid nitrogen, and other substances that you might not consider particularly dangerous, but are classified as “hazardous.” Also remember that you’re probably using new disinfectants, which may need to be added to your list. For each substance, your employees must have access to the manufacturer-supplied Material Safety Data Sheet, which outlines the proper procedures for working with a specific material, and for handling and containing it in a spill or other emergency.

It is not necessary to adopt every new safety device as it comes on the market, but you should document which ones you are using and which ones you decide not to use – and why. For example, if you and your employees decide against buying a new safety needle because you don’t think it will improve safety, or that it will be more trouble than it is worth, you still should document how you made that decision and why you believe that your current protocol is as good or better.

All at-risk employees should be provided with hepatitis B vaccine at no cost to them. And after any exposure to dangerous pathogens – which now include COVID-19 – you also must provide and pay for appropriate medical treatment and follow-up.

Another important consideration in your review: Electrical devices and their power sources in the office. All electrically powered equipment – medical or clerical – must operate safely and should all be examined. It is particularly important to check how wall outlets are set up. Make sure each outlet has sufficient power to run the equipment plugged into it and that circuit breakers are present and functioning.

Other components of the rule include proper containment of regulated medical waste, identification of regulated-waste containers, sharps disposal boxes, and periodic employee training regarding all of these things.

Medical and dental offices are not required to keep an injury and illness log under federal OSHA regulations, which other businesses must. However, your state may have a requirement that supersedes the federal law so you should check with your state, or with your local OSHA office, regarding any such requirements.

It is important to take OSHA regulations seriously because failure to comply with them can result in stiff penalties running into many thousands of dollars.

To be certain you are complying with all the rules, you can call your local OSHA office and request an inspection. This is the easiest and cheapest way because OSHA issues no citations during voluntary inspections as long as you agree to remedy any violations they discover.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

As more and more reopened medical practices ramp up toward normal activity, the safety of patients and health care workers alike remains paramount. As always, the responsibility for enforcing all the new safety guidelines ultimately rests with the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA).

Most of the modified guidelines are already familiar: wear masks (and other personal protective equipment as necessary); maintain social distancing; have hand cleaner, soap, and water readily available; and sanitize between patient examinations.

It is also important to remember that COVID-19 is now a reportable disease; check with your local health authorities as to where and how. Also remember that, if you decide to screen employees and/or patients for fevers and other symptoms of COVID-19, those data are subject to HIPAA rules and must be kept confidential.

Now might be a good time to confirm that you remain in compliance with both the new and old regulations. Even if you hold regular safety meetings – which often is not the case – it is always a good idea to occasionally conduct a comprehensive review, which could save you a lot in fines.

So get your OSHA logs out, and walk through your office. Start by making sure you have an official OSHA poster, which enumerates employee rights and explains how to file complaints. Every office must have one posted in plain site, and is what an OSHA inspector will look for first. They are available for free at OSHA’s website or you can order one by calling 800-321-OSHA.

How long have you had your written exposure control plan for blood-borne pathogens? This plan should document your use of such protective equipment as gloves, face and eye protection, needle guards, and gowns, as well as your implementation of universal precautions. It should be updated annually to reflect changes in technology – and new threats, such as COVID-19.

Review your list of hazardous substances, which all employees have a right to know about. OSHA’s list includes alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, liquid nitrogen, and other substances that you might not consider particularly dangerous, but are classified as “hazardous.” Also remember that you’re probably using new disinfectants, which may need to be added to your list. For each substance, your employees must have access to the manufacturer-supplied Material Safety Data Sheet, which outlines the proper procedures for working with a specific material, and for handling and containing it in a spill or other emergency.

It is not necessary to adopt every new safety device as it comes on the market, but you should document which ones you are using and which ones you decide not to use – and why. For example, if you and your employees decide against buying a new safety needle because you don’t think it will improve safety, or that it will be more trouble than it is worth, you still should document how you made that decision and why you believe that your current protocol is as good or better.

All at-risk employees should be provided with hepatitis B vaccine at no cost to them. And after any exposure to dangerous pathogens – which now include COVID-19 – you also must provide and pay for appropriate medical treatment and follow-up.

Another important consideration in your review: Electrical devices and their power sources in the office. All electrically powered equipment – medical or clerical – must operate safely and should all be examined. It is particularly important to check how wall outlets are set up. Make sure each outlet has sufficient power to run the equipment plugged into it and that circuit breakers are present and functioning.

Other components of the rule include proper containment of regulated medical waste, identification of regulated-waste containers, sharps disposal boxes, and periodic employee training regarding all of these things.

Medical and dental offices are not required to keep an injury and illness log under federal OSHA regulations, which other businesses must. However, your state may have a requirement that supersedes the federal law so you should check with your state, or with your local OSHA office, regarding any such requirements.

It is important to take OSHA regulations seriously because failure to comply with them can result in stiff penalties running into many thousands of dollars.

To be certain you are complying with all the rules, you can call your local OSHA office and request an inspection. This is the easiest and cheapest way because OSHA issues no citations during voluntary inspections as long as you agree to remedy any violations they discover.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

As more and more reopened medical practices ramp up toward normal activity, the safety of patients and health care workers alike remains paramount. As always, the responsibility for enforcing all the new safety guidelines ultimately rests with the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA).

Most of the modified guidelines are already familiar: wear masks (and other personal protective equipment as necessary); maintain social distancing; have hand cleaner, soap, and water readily available; and sanitize between patient examinations.

It is also important to remember that COVID-19 is now a reportable disease; check with your local health authorities as to where and how. Also remember that, if you decide to screen employees and/or patients for fevers and other symptoms of COVID-19, those data are subject to HIPAA rules and must be kept confidential.

Now might be a good time to confirm that you remain in compliance with both the new and old regulations. Even if you hold regular safety meetings – which often is not the case – it is always a good idea to occasionally conduct a comprehensive review, which could save you a lot in fines.

So get your OSHA logs out, and walk through your office. Start by making sure you have an official OSHA poster, which enumerates employee rights and explains how to file complaints. Every office must have one posted in plain site, and is what an OSHA inspector will look for first. They are available for free at OSHA’s website or you can order one by calling 800-321-OSHA.

How long have you had your written exposure control plan for blood-borne pathogens? This plan should document your use of such protective equipment as gloves, face and eye protection, needle guards, and gowns, as well as your implementation of universal precautions. It should be updated annually to reflect changes in technology – and new threats, such as COVID-19.

Review your list of hazardous substances, which all employees have a right to know about. OSHA’s list includes alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, liquid nitrogen, and other substances that you might not consider particularly dangerous, but are classified as “hazardous.” Also remember that you’re probably using new disinfectants, which may need to be added to your list. For each substance, your employees must have access to the manufacturer-supplied Material Safety Data Sheet, which outlines the proper procedures for working with a specific material, and for handling and containing it in a spill or other emergency.

It is not necessary to adopt every new safety device as it comes on the market, but you should document which ones you are using and which ones you decide not to use – and why. For example, if you and your employees decide against buying a new safety needle because you don’t think it will improve safety, or that it will be more trouble than it is worth, you still should document how you made that decision and why you believe that your current protocol is as good or better.

All at-risk employees should be provided with hepatitis B vaccine at no cost to them. And after any exposure to dangerous pathogens – which now include COVID-19 – you also must provide and pay for appropriate medical treatment and follow-up.

Another important consideration in your review: Electrical devices and their power sources in the office. All electrically powered equipment – medical or clerical – must operate safely and should all be examined. It is particularly important to check how wall outlets are set up. Make sure each outlet has sufficient power to run the equipment plugged into it and that circuit breakers are present and functioning.

Other components of the rule include proper containment of regulated medical waste, identification of regulated-waste containers, sharps disposal boxes, and periodic employee training regarding all of these things.

Medical and dental offices are not required to keep an injury and illness log under federal OSHA regulations, which other businesses must. However, your state may have a requirement that supersedes the federal law so you should check with your state, or with your local OSHA office, regarding any such requirements.

It is important to take OSHA regulations seriously because failure to comply with them can result in stiff penalties running into many thousands of dollars.

To be certain you are complying with all the rules, you can call your local OSHA office and request an inspection. This is the easiest and cheapest way because OSHA issues no citations during voluntary inspections as long as you agree to remedy any violations they discover.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Family physicians were the specialists most likely to report a net worth of $500,000 or less, a Medscape survey has found.

According to the Medscape Family Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020, almost half of FPs (46%) reported having that amount as their net worth, compared with the 18% of gastroenterologists and 19% of urologists who fell into that category.

And whereas 19% of orthopedists reported at least $5 million in net worth, only 3% of FPs did.
 

A third are paying off student loans

FPs were also more likely, along with physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians, at 34%, to report that they are continuing to pay off student loans. Conversely, 14% of gastroenterologists and 15% of nephrologists and rheumatologists said they were still paying off the loans.

Student loan debt was third on the list for FPs. Two-thirds of FPs were paying off a mortgage, and 41% had car loan payments.

Overall, FPs appear to manage their finances well and are living within their means. Only 6% of FPs said they live above their means, whereas 51% said they live at their means, and 42% said they live below that threshold.

Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minn., said in an interview he recommends saving 20% of gross salary each year.

The survey was completed before Feb. 11 and before the financial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic could be known. The report is based on responses from more than 17,000 physicians across 30 specialties.

A lower level of net worth among FPs corresponds with their being close to the bottom among physicians in compensation. They made $234,000 on average, according to the report. By contrast, orthopedists made more than twice as much, at $511,000.
 

Smaller homes, less mortgage debt

FPs were among the least likely to indicate that they had a home of more than 5,000 square feet. That was true for only 6% of FPs; it was true for 22% of plastic surgeons and orthopedists. Most (61%) lived in dwellings of 3,000 square feet or less.

At the same time, FPs reported smaller mortgages than many of their colleagues.

Nearly half (49%) of FPs have mortgages of $300,000 or less; 26% have no mortgage at all. That figure was much higher than the 37% of physicians overall who had mortgages of $300,000 or less, although almost the same percentage had no mortgage at all.
 

Most had no financial loss in the past year

In further good news, most FPs (70%) said they did not experience a financial loss in the past year. Of those who did experience a loss, the top reasons were problems with their practice, such as reimbursement changes or changes in practice situations, or bad investments.

FPs socked away more into tax-deferred than taxable accounts, the survey showed.

More than half (54%) of FPs put at least $1,000 into tax-deferred accounts, such as college savings or retirement accounts, although 14% said they do not regularly contribute to such accounts.

Fewer (29%) contributed at least $1,000 to a taxable account.

As for who pays the day-to-day bills in households, 56% of FPs said they pool resources with a spouse or partner and pay bills from a common fund. Only 4% split the bills equally, no matter the income difference. One in four said they do not have joint finances with a spouse or partner.

FPs were divided as to whether they are currently working with a financial planner (38%) or had not worked with one (37%); the remainder said they had met with or used one in the past.

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

Family physicians were the specialists most likely to report a net worth of $500,000 or less, a Medscape survey has found.

According to the Medscape Family Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020, almost half of FPs (46%) reported having that amount as their net worth, compared with the 18% of gastroenterologists and 19% of urologists who fell into that category.

And whereas 19% of orthopedists reported at least $5 million in net worth, only 3% of FPs did.
 

A third are paying off student loans

FPs were also more likely, along with physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians, at 34%, to report that they are continuing to pay off student loans. Conversely, 14% of gastroenterologists and 15% of nephrologists and rheumatologists said they were still paying off the loans.

Student loan debt was third on the list for FPs. Two-thirds of FPs were paying off a mortgage, and 41% had car loan payments.

Overall, FPs appear to manage their finances well and are living within their means. Only 6% of FPs said they live above their means, whereas 51% said they live at their means, and 42% said they live below that threshold.

Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minn., said in an interview he recommends saving 20% of gross salary each year.

The survey was completed before Feb. 11 and before the financial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic could be known. The report is based on responses from more than 17,000 physicians across 30 specialties.

A lower level of net worth among FPs corresponds with their being close to the bottom among physicians in compensation. They made $234,000 on average, according to the report. By contrast, orthopedists made more than twice as much, at $511,000.
 

Smaller homes, less mortgage debt

FPs were among the least likely to indicate that they had a home of more than 5,000 square feet. That was true for only 6% of FPs; it was true for 22% of plastic surgeons and orthopedists. Most (61%) lived in dwellings of 3,000 square feet or less.

At the same time, FPs reported smaller mortgages than many of their colleagues.

Nearly half (49%) of FPs have mortgages of $300,000 or less; 26% have no mortgage at all. That figure was much higher than the 37% of physicians overall who had mortgages of $300,000 or less, although almost the same percentage had no mortgage at all.
 

Most had no financial loss in the past year

In further good news, most FPs (70%) said they did not experience a financial loss in the past year. Of those who did experience a loss, the top reasons were problems with their practice, such as reimbursement changes or changes in practice situations, or bad investments.

FPs socked away more into tax-deferred than taxable accounts, the survey showed.

More than half (54%) of FPs put at least $1,000 into tax-deferred accounts, such as college savings or retirement accounts, although 14% said they do not regularly contribute to such accounts.

Fewer (29%) contributed at least $1,000 to a taxable account.

As for who pays the day-to-day bills in households, 56% of FPs said they pool resources with a spouse or partner and pay bills from a common fund. Only 4% split the bills equally, no matter the income difference. One in four said they do not have joint finances with a spouse or partner.

FPs were divided as to whether they are currently working with a financial planner (38%) or had not worked with one (37%); the remainder said they had met with or used one in the past.

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

Family physicians were the specialists most likely to report a net worth of $500,000 or less, a Medscape survey has found.

According to the Medscape Family Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020, almost half of FPs (46%) reported having that amount as their net worth, compared with the 18% of gastroenterologists and 19% of urologists who fell into that category.

And whereas 19% of orthopedists reported at least $5 million in net worth, only 3% of FPs did.
 

A third are paying off student loans

FPs were also more likely, along with physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians, at 34%, to report that they are continuing to pay off student loans. Conversely, 14% of gastroenterologists and 15% of nephrologists and rheumatologists said they were still paying off the loans.

Student loan debt was third on the list for FPs. Two-thirds of FPs were paying off a mortgage, and 41% had car loan payments.

Overall, FPs appear to manage their finances well and are living within their means. Only 6% of FPs said they live above their means, whereas 51% said they live at their means, and 42% said they live below that threshold.

Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minn., said in an interview he recommends saving 20% of gross salary each year.

The survey was completed before Feb. 11 and before the financial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic could be known. The report is based on responses from more than 17,000 physicians across 30 specialties.

A lower level of net worth among FPs corresponds with their being close to the bottom among physicians in compensation. They made $234,000 on average, according to the report. By contrast, orthopedists made more than twice as much, at $511,000.
 

Smaller homes, less mortgage debt

FPs were among the least likely to indicate that they had a home of more than 5,000 square feet. That was true for only 6% of FPs; it was true for 22% of plastic surgeons and orthopedists. Most (61%) lived in dwellings of 3,000 square feet or less.

At the same time, FPs reported smaller mortgages than many of their colleagues.

Nearly half (49%) of FPs have mortgages of $300,000 or less; 26% have no mortgage at all. That figure was much higher than the 37% of physicians overall who had mortgages of $300,000 or less, although almost the same percentage had no mortgage at all.
 

Most had no financial loss in the past year

In further good news, most FPs (70%) said they did not experience a financial loss in the past year. Of those who did experience a loss, the top reasons were problems with their practice, such as reimbursement changes or changes in practice situations, or bad investments.

FPs socked away more into tax-deferred than taxable accounts, the survey showed.

More than half (54%) of FPs put at least $1,000 into tax-deferred accounts, such as college savings or retirement accounts, although 14% said they do not regularly contribute to such accounts.

Fewer (29%) contributed at least $1,000 to a taxable account.

As for who pays the day-to-day bills in households, 56% of FPs said they pool resources with a spouse or partner and pay bills from a common fund. Only 4% split the bills equally, no matter the income difference. One in four said they do not have joint finances with a spouse or partner.

FPs were divided as to whether they are currently working with a financial planner (38%) or had not worked with one (37%); the remainder said they had met with or used one in the past.

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

Delays in cancer referrals caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing shutdown in cancer services will lead to thousands of additional deaths and tens of thousands of life-years lost, suggest two new modeling studies from the United Kingdom.

Clearing the backlog in cancer diagnoses will require a coordinated effort from the government and the National Health Service (NHS), say the authors, inasmuch as services were already running at “full capacity” before the pandemic.

Both studies were published in The Lancet Oncology on July 20.

When the UK-wide lockdown to combat the COVID-19 pandemic was implemented on March 23, cancer screening and routine outpatient referrals in the NHS were suspended, and treatment of cancer patients either halted or slowed down.

Moreover, because of physical distancing measures, which are expected to continue for up to a year, urgent 3-week referrals for suspected cancer cases have fallen by as much as 80%.

To estimate the potential impact on cancer deaths, Ajay Aggarwal, MD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom, and colleagues conducted a population-based modeling study.

They collected data on 32,583 patients with breast cancer, 24,975 with colorectal cancer, 6744 with esophageal cancer, and 29,305 with lung cancer. Patients were diagnosed between 2010 and 2012 and were followed to 2015.

The investigators used that data to estimate the impact of diagnostic delays resulting from 12 months of physical distancing.

For breast cancer, this would lead to a 7.9%-9.6% increase in the number of cancer deaths within 5 years after diagnosis, or to 281-344 additional deaths.

For colorectal cancer, there would be a 15.3%-16.7% increase in mortality over 5 years, or an additional 1,445-1,563 deaths.

For lung cancer, there would a 4.8%-5.3% increase in mortality, or an additional 1235-1372 deaths.

For esophageal cancer, the mortality increase over 5 years would be 5.8%-6.0%, leading to 330-342 additional deaths.

Across the four tumor types, 59,204-63,229 life-years would be lost because of physical distancing compared to the prepandemic era.
 

Resources need to be increased

These additional deaths are not inevitable, the researchers suggest.

To prevent the increase in colorectal cancer deaths, for example, Aggarwal said, “It is vital that more resources are made urgently available for endoscopy and colonoscopy services, which are managing significant backlogs currently.

“Whilst currently attention is being focused on diagnostic pathways where cancer is suspected, the issue is that a significant number of cancers are diagnosed in patients awaiting investigation for symptoms not considered related to be cancer,” he added in a statement.

“Therefore we need a whole system approach to avoid the predicted excess deaths.”

Coauthor Bernard Rachet, PhD, also from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, added that “to absorb the cancer patient backlog, the healthcare community also needs to establish clear criteria to prioritise patients on clinical grounds, in order to maintain equitability in care delivery.”

It will not be easy “to pin down the exact number of additional cancer deaths we expect to see over the coming years, but studies like this help us to understand the devastating long-term effect a pandemic like COVID-19 will have on the lives of thousands of cancer patients,” commented Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research UK.

Underlining the “enormous backlog” of cancer care that has built up during the pandemic, she said: “Diagnosing and treating people swiftly is vital to give people with cancer the greatest chances of survival.

“The government must work closely with the NHS to ensure it has sufficient staff and equipment to clear the backlog while giving patients the care that they need, quickly and safely,” Mitchell added.

Increasing resources will not be easy. In an accompanying editorial, William Hamilton, MD, PhD, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, warns that many NHS imaging departments, for example, were “working at full capacity before the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Consequently, they “might not be able to meet the increase in demand” resulting from the backlog in patients, especially as “the need to keep patients separate and to clean equipment has reduced their efficiency.

“The UK has had a long-term shortage of diagnostic capacity, although this shortage is not simply of equipment, but also of personnel, which is not so easily improved,” he cautions.
 

Another study, similar estimates

For the second study, Clare Turnbull, PhD, Institute of Cancer Research, London, and colleagues obtained age- and stage-stratified 10-year cancer survival estimates for patients in England diagnosed with 20 common tumor types between 2008 and 2017.

They also gathered data on cancer diagnoses made via urgent 2-week referrals between 2013 and 2016. They estimate that 6,281 patients were diagnosed with cancer of stages I-III per month.

Of those, 1,691 (27%) would die within 10 years of their diagnosis, they found.

They then calculated that delays in 2-week referrals during a 3-month lockdown would lead to an average delay in presentation of 2 months per patient.

A resulting 25% backlog in referrals would lead to 181 additional lives and 3,316 life-years lost. With a 75% backlog in referrals, an additional 276 lives and 5,075 life-years would be lost.

The team says that additional diagnostic delays spread over 3-8 months after the lockdown could increase the impact of a 25% backlog in referrals to 401 additional lives and 14,873 life-years lost.

For a 75% backlog in referrals, the additional lives lost would rise to 1,231, and the number of life-years lost would reach 22,635.

“Substantial additional deaths from diagnostic delays on top of those expected from delays in presentation – because many people are simply too afraid to visit their GP or hospital – are likely, especially if rapid provision of additional capacity, including technical provision and increased staffing, is not forthcoming,” Turnbull commented in a statement.

The study by Aggarwal and colleagues was funded by the U.K. Research and Innovation Economic and Social Research Council. Several of the researchers were supported by Cancer Research UK and Breast Cancer Now. Turnbull reports receiving support from the Movember Foundation.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delays in cancer referrals caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing shutdown in cancer services will lead to thousands of additional deaths and tens of thousands of life-years lost, suggest two new modeling studies from the United Kingdom.

Clearing the backlog in cancer diagnoses will require a coordinated effort from the government and the National Health Service (NHS), say the authors, inasmuch as services were already running at “full capacity” before the pandemic.

Both studies were published in The Lancet Oncology on July 20.

When the UK-wide lockdown to combat the COVID-19 pandemic was implemented on March 23, cancer screening and routine outpatient referrals in the NHS were suspended, and treatment of cancer patients either halted or slowed down.

Moreover, because of physical distancing measures, which are expected to continue for up to a year, urgent 3-week referrals for suspected cancer cases have fallen by as much as 80%.

To estimate the potential impact on cancer deaths, Ajay Aggarwal, MD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom, and colleagues conducted a population-based modeling study.

They collected data on 32,583 patients with breast cancer, 24,975 with colorectal cancer, 6744 with esophageal cancer, and 29,305 with lung cancer. Patients were diagnosed between 2010 and 2012 and were followed to 2015.

The investigators used that data to estimate the impact of diagnostic delays resulting from 12 months of physical distancing.

For breast cancer, this would lead to a 7.9%-9.6% increase in the number of cancer deaths within 5 years after diagnosis, or to 281-344 additional deaths.

For colorectal cancer, there would be a 15.3%-16.7% increase in mortality over 5 years, or an additional 1,445-1,563 deaths.

For lung cancer, there would a 4.8%-5.3% increase in mortality, or an additional 1235-1372 deaths.

For esophageal cancer, the mortality increase over 5 years would be 5.8%-6.0%, leading to 330-342 additional deaths.

Across the four tumor types, 59,204-63,229 life-years would be lost because of physical distancing compared to the prepandemic era.
 

Resources need to be increased

These additional deaths are not inevitable, the researchers suggest.

To prevent the increase in colorectal cancer deaths, for example, Aggarwal said, “It is vital that more resources are made urgently available for endoscopy and colonoscopy services, which are managing significant backlogs currently.

“Whilst currently attention is being focused on diagnostic pathways where cancer is suspected, the issue is that a significant number of cancers are diagnosed in patients awaiting investigation for symptoms not considered related to be cancer,” he added in a statement.

“Therefore we need a whole system approach to avoid the predicted excess deaths.”

Coauthor Bernard Rachet, PhD, also from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, added that “to absorb the cancer patient backlog, the healthcare community also needs to establish clear criteria to prioritise patients on clinical grounds, in order to maintain equitability in care delivery.”

It will not be easy “to pin down the exact number of additional cancer deaths we expect to see over the coming years, but studies like this help us to understand the devastating long-term effect a pandemic like COVID-19 will have on the lives of thousands of cancer patients,” commented Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research UK.

Underlining the “enormous backlog” of cancer care that has built up during the pandemic, she said: “Diagnosing and treating people swiftly is vital to give people with cancer the greatest chances of survival.

“The government must work closely with the NHS to ensure it has sufficient staff and equipment to clear the backlog while giving patients the care that they need, quickly and safely,” Mitchell added.

Increasing resources will not be easy. In an accompanying editorial, William Hamilton, MD, PhD, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, warns that many NHS imaging departments, for example, were “working at full capacity before the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Consequently, they “might not be able to meet the increase in demand” resulting from the backlog in patients, especially as “the need to keep patients separate and to clean equipment has reduced their efficiency.

“The UK has had a long-term shortage of diagnostic capacity, although this shortage is not simply of equipment, but also of personnel, which is not so easily improved,” he cautions.
 

Another study, similar estimates

For the second study, Clare Turnbull, PhD, Institute of Cancer Research, London, and colleagues obtained age- and stage-stratified 10-year cancer survival estimates for patients in England diagnosed with 20 common tumor types between 2008 and 2017.

They also gathered data on cancer diagnoses made via urgent 2-week referrals between 2013 and 2016. They estimate that 6,281 patients were diagnosed with cancer of stages I-III per month.

Of those, 1,691 (27%) would die within 10 years of their diagnosis, they found.

They then calculated that delays in 2-week referrals during a 3-month lockdown would lead to an average delay in presentation of 2 months per patient.

A resulting 25% backlog in referrals would lead to 181 additional lives and 3,316 life-years lost. With a 75% backlog in referrals, an additional 276 lives and 5,075 life-years would be lost.

The team says that additional diagnostic delays spread over 3-8 months after the lockdown could increase the impact of a 25% backlog in referrals to 401 additional lives and 14,873 life-years lost.

For a 75% backlog in referrals, the additional lives lost would rise to 1,231, and the number of life-years lost would reach 22,635.

“Substantial additional deaths from diagnostic delays on top of those expected from delays in presentation – because many people are simply too afraid to visit their GP or hospital – are likely, especially if rapid provision of additional capacity, including technical provision and increased staffing, is not forthcoming,” Turnbull commented in a statement.

The study by Aggarwal and colleagues was funded by the U.K. Research and Innovation Economic and Social Research Council. Several of the researchers were supported by Cancer Research UK and Breast Cancer Now. Turnbull reports receiving support from the Movember Foundation.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delays in cancer referrals caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing shutdown in cancer services will lead to thousands of additional deaths and tens of thousands of life-years lost, suggest two new modeling studies from the United Kingdom.

Clearing the backlog in cancer diagnoses will require a coordinated effort from the government and the National Health Service (NHS), say the authors, inasmuch as services were already running at “full capacity” before the pandemic.

Both studies were published in The Lancet Oncology on July 20.

When the UK-wide lockdown to combat the COVID-19 pandemic was implemented on March 23, cancer screening and routine outpatient referrals in the NHS were suspended, and treatment of cancer patients either halted or slowed down.

Moreover, because of physical distancing measures, which are expected to continue for up to a year, urgent 3-week referrals for suspected cancer cases have fallen by as much as 80%.

To estimate the potential impact on cancer deaths, Ajay Aggarwal, MD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom, and colleagues conducted a population-based modeling study.

They collected data on 32,583 patients with breast cancer, 24,975 with colorectal cancer, 6744 with esophageal cancer, and 29,305 with lung cancer. Patients were diagnosed between 2010 and 2012 and were followed to 2015.

The investigators used that data to estimate the impact of diagnostic delays resulting from 12 months of physical distancing.

For breast cancer, this would lead to a 7.9%-9.6% increase in the number of cancer deaths within 5 years after diagnosis, or to 281-344 additional deaths.

For colorectal cancer, there would be a 15.3%-16.7% increase in mortality over 5 years, or an additional 1,445-1,563 deaths.

For lung cancer, there would a 4.8%-5.3% increase in mortality, or an additional 1235-1372 deaths.

For esophageal cancer, the mortality increase over 5 years would be 5.8%-6.0%, leading to 330-342 additional deaths.

Across the four tumor types, 59,204-63,229 life-years would be lost because of physical distancing compared to the prepandemic era.
 

Resources need to be increased

These additional deaths are not inevitable, the researchers suggest.

To prevent the increase in colorectal cancer deaths, for example, Aggarwal said, “It is vital that more resources are made urgently available for endoscopy and colonoscopy services, which are managing significant backlogs currently.

“Whilst currently attention is being focused on diagnostic pathways where cancer is suspected, the issue is that a significant number of cancers are diagnosed in patients awaiting investigation for symptoms not considered related to be cancer,” he added in a statement.

“Therefore we need a whole system approach to avoid the predicted excess deaths.”

Coauthor Bernard Rachet, PhD, also from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, added that “to absorb the cancer patient backlog, the healthcare community also needs to establish clear criteria to prioritise patients on clinical grounds, in order to maintain equitability in care delivery.”

It will not be easy “to pin down the exact number of additional cancer deaths we expect to see over the coming years, but studies like this help us to understand the devastating long-term effect a pandemic like COVID-19 will have on the lives of thousands of cancer patients,” commented Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research UK.

Underlining the “enormous backlog” of cancer care that has built up during the pandemic, she said: “Diagnosing and treating people swiftly is vital to give people with cancer the greatest chances of survival.

“The government must work closely with the NHS to ensure it has sufficient staff and equipment to clear the backlog while giving patients the care that they need, quickly and safely,” Mitchell added.

Increasing resources will not be easy. In an accompanying editorial, William Hamilton, MD, PhD, University of Exeter, United Kingdom, warns that many NHS imaging departments, for example, were “working at full capacity before the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Consequently, they “might not be able to meet the increase in demand” resulting from the backlog in patients, especially as “the need to keep patients separate and to clean equipment has reduced their efficiency.

“The UK has had a long-term shortage of diagnostic capacity, although this shortage is not simply of equipment, but also of personnel, which is not so easily improved,” he cautions.
 

Another study, similar estimates

For the second study, Clare Turnbull, PhD, Institute of Cancer Research, London, and colleagues obtained age- and stage-stratified 10-year cancer survival estimates for patients in England diagnosed with 20 common tumor types between 2008 and 2017.

They also gathered data on cancer diagnoses made via urgent 2-week referrals between 2013 and 2016. They estimate that 6,281 patients were diagnosed with cancer of stages I-III per month.

Of those, 1,691 (27%) would die within 10 years of their diagnosis, they found.

They then calculated that delays in 2-week referrals during a 3-month lockdown would lead to an average delay in presentation of 2 months per patient.

A resulting 25% backlog in referrals would lead to 181 additional lives and 3,316 life-years lost. With a 75% backlog in referrals, an additional 276 lives and 5,075 life-years would be lost.

The team says that additional diagnostic delays spread over 3-8 months after the lockdown could increase the impact of a 25% backlog in referrals to 401 additional lives and 14,873 life-years lost.

For a 75% backlog in referrals, the additional lives lost would rise to 1,231, and the number of life-years lost would reach 22,635.

“Substantial additional deaths from diagnostic delays on top of those expected from delays in presentation – because many people are simply too afraid to visit their GP or hospital – are likely, especially if rapid provision of additional capacity, including technical provision and increased staffing, is not forthcoming,” Turnbull commented in a statement.

The study by Aggarwal and colleagues was funded by the U.K. Research and Innovation Economic and Social Research Council. Several of the researchers were supported by Cancer Research UK and Breast Cancer Now. Turnbull reports receiving support from the Movember Foundation.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients on oral anticoagulants who experience a bleeding event may be able to discontinue therapy if certain circumstances apply, according to updated guidance from the American College of Cardiology.

The emergence of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to prevent venous thromboembolism and the introduction of new reversal strategies for factor Xa inhibitors prompted the creation of an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway to update the version from 2017, according to the ACC. Expert consensus decision pathways (ECDPs) are a component of the solution sets issued by the ACC to “address key questions facing care teams and attempt to provide practical guidance to be applied at the point of care.”

In an ECDP published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the writing committee members developed treatment algorithms for managing bleeding in patients on DOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).

Bleeding was classified as major or nonmajor, with major defined as “bleeding that is associated with hemodynamic compromise, occurs in an anatomically critical site, requires transfusion of at least 2 units of packed red blood cells [RBCs]), or results in a hemoglobin drop greater than 2 g/dL. All other types of bleeding were classified as nonmajor.

The document includes a graphic algorithm for assessing bleed severity and managing major versus nonmajor bleeding, and a separate graphic describes considerations for reversal and use of hemostatic agents according to whether the patient is taking a VKA (warfarin and other coumarins), a direct thrombin inhibitor (dabigatran), the factor Xa inhibitors apixaban and rivaroxaban, or the factor Xa inhibitors betrixaban and edoxaban.

Another algorithm outlines whether to discontinue, delay, or restart anticoagulation. Considerations for restarting anticoagulation include whether the patient is pregnant, awaiting an invasive procedure, not able to receive medication by mouth, has a high risk of rebleeding, or is being bridged back to a vitamin K antagonist with high thrombotic risk.

In most cases of GI bleeding, for example, current data support restarting oral anticoagulants once hemostasis is achieved, but patients who experience intracranial hemorrhage should delay restarting any anticoagulation for at least 4 weeks if they are without high thrombotic risk, according to the document.

The report also recommends clinician-patient discussion before resuming anticoagulation, ideally with time allowed for patients to develop questions. Discussions should include the signs of bleeding, assessment of risk for a thromboembolic event, and the benefits of anticoagulation.

“The proliferation of oral anticoagulants (warfarin and DOACs) and growing indications for their use prompted the need for guidance on the management of these drugs,” said Gordon F. Tomaselli, MD, chair of the writing committee, in an interview. “This document provides guidance on management at the time of a bleeding complication. This includes acute management, starting and stopping drugs, and use of reversal agents,” he said. “This of course will be a dynamic document as the list of these drugs and their antidotes expand,” he noted.  

“The biggest change from the previous guidelines are twofold: an update on laboratory assessment to monitor drug levels and use of reversal agents,” while the acute management strategies have otherwise remained similar to previous documents, said Dr. Tomaselli.

Dr. Tomaselli said that he was not surprised by the biological aspects of recent research while developing the statement. However, “the extent of the use of multiple anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents was a bit surprising and complicates therapy with each of the agents,” he noted.

The way the pathways are presented may make them challenging to follow in clinical practice, said Dr. Tomaselli. “The pathways are described linearly and in practice often many things have to happen at once,” he said. “The other main issue may be limitations in the availability of some of the newer reversal agents,” he added.

“The complication of bleeding is difficult to avoid,” said Dr. Tomaselli, and for future research, “the focus needs to continue to refine the indications for anticoagulation and appropriate use with other drugs that predispose to bleeding. We also need better methods and testing to monitor drugs levels and the effect on coagulation,” he said.

In accordance with the ACC Solution Set Oversight Committee, the writing committee members, including Dr. Tomaselli, had no relevant relationships with industry to disclose.

SOURCE: Tomaselli GF et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.053.

Patients on oral anticoagulants who experience a bleeding event may be able to discontinue therapy if certain circumstances apply, according to updated guidance from the American College of Cardiology.

The emergence of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to prevent venous thromboembolism and the introduction of new reversal strategies for factor Xa inhibitors prompted the creation of an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway to update the version from 2017, according to the ACC. Expert consensus decision pathways (ECDPs) are a component of the solution sets issued by the ACC to “address key questions facing care teams and attempt to provide practical guidance to be applied at the point of care.”

In an ECDP published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the writing committee members developed treatment algorithms for managing bleeding in patients on DOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).

Bleeding was classified as major or nonmajor, with major defined as “bleeding that is associated with hemodynamic compromise, occurs in an anatomically critical site, requires transfusion of at least 2 units of packed red blood cells [RBCs]), or results in a hemoglobin drop greater than 2 g/dL. All other types of bleeding were classified as nonmajor.

The document includes a graphic algorithm for assessing bleed severity and managing major versus nonmajor bleeding, and a separate graphic describes considerations for reversal and use of hemostatic agents according to whether the patient is taking a VKA (warfarin and other coumarins), a direct thrombin inhibitor (dabigatran), the factor Xa inhibitors apixaban and rivaroxaban, or the factor Xa inhibitors betrixaban and edoxaban.

Another algorithm outlines whether to discontinue, delay, or restart anticoagulation. Considerations for restarting anticoagulation include whether the patient is pregnant, awaiting an invasive procedure, not able to receive medication by mouth, has a high risk of rebleeding, or is being bridged back to a vitamin K antagonist with high thrombotic risk.

In most cases of GI bleeding, for example, current data support restarting oral anticoagulants once hemostasis is achieved, but patients who experience intracranial hemorrhage should delay restarting any anticoagulation for at least 4 weeks if they are without high thrombotic risk, according to the document.

The report also recommends clinician-patient discussion before resuming anticoagulation, ideally with time allowed for patients to develop questions. Discussions should include the signs of bleeding, assessment of risk for a thromboembolic event, and the benefits of anticoagulation.

“The proliferation of oral anticoagulants (warfarin and DOACs) and growing indications for their use prompted the need for guidance on the management of these drugs,” said Gordon F. Tomaselli, MD, chair of the writing committee, in an interview. “This document provides guidance on management at the time of a bleeding complication. This includes acute management, starting and stopping drugs, and use of reversal agents,” he said. “This of course will be a dynamic document as the list of these drugs and their antidotes expand,” he noted.  

“The biggest change from the previous guidelines are twofold: an update on laboratory assessment to monitor drug levels and use of reversal agents,” while the acute management strategies have otherwise remained similar to previous documents, said Dr. Tomaselli.

Dr. Tomaselli said that he was not surprised by the biological aspects of recent research while developing the statement. However, “the extent of the use of multiple anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents was a bit surprising and complicates therapy with each of the agents,” he noted.

The way the pathways are presented may make them challenging to follow in clinical practice, said Dr. Tomaselli. “The pathways are described linearly and in practice often many things have to happen at once,” he said. “The other main issue may be limitations in the availability of some of the newer reversal agents,” he added.

“The complication of bleeding is difficult to avoid,” said Dr. Tomaselli, and for future research, “the focus needs to continue to refine the indications for anticoagulation and appropriate use with other drugs that predispose to bleeding. We also need better methods and testing to monitor drugs levels and the effect on coagulation,” he said.

In accordance with the ACC Solution Set Oversight Committee, the writing committee members, including Dr. Tomaselli, had no relevant relationships with industry to disclose.

SOURCE: Tomaselli GF et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.053.

Patients on oral anticoagulants who experience a bleeding event may be able to discontinue therapy if certain circumstances apply, according to updated guidance from the American College of Cardiology.

The emergence of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to prevent venous thromboembolism and the introduction of new reversal strategies for factor Xa inhibitors prompted the creation of an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway to update the version from 2017, according to the ACC. Expert consensus decision pathways (ECDPs) are a component of the solution sets issued by the ACC to “address key questions facing care teams and attempt to provide practical guidance to be applied at the point of care.”

In an ECDP published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the writing committee members developed treatment algorithms for managing bleeding in patients on DOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).

Bleeding was classified as major or nonmajor, with major defined as “bleeding that is associated with hemodynamic compromise, occurs in an anatomically critical site, requires transfusion of at least 2 units of packed red blood cells [RBCs]), or results in a hemoglobin drop greater than 2 g/dL. All other types of bleeding were classified as nonmajor.

The document includes a graphic algorithm for assessing bleed severity and managing major versus nonmajor bleeding, and a separate graphic describes considerations for reversal and use of hemostatic agents according to whether the patient is taking a VKA (warfarin and other coumarins), a direct thrombin inhibitor (dabigatran), the factor Xa inhibitors apixaban and rivaroxaban, or the factor Xa inhibitors betrixaban and edoxaban.

Another algorithm outlines whether to discontinue, delay, or restart anticoagulation. Considerations for restarting anticoagulation include whether the patient is pregnant, awaiting an invasive procedure, not able to receive medication by mouth, has a high risk of rebleeding, or is being bridged back to a vitamin K antagonist with high thrombotic risk.

In most cases of GI bleeding, for example, current data support restarting oral anticoagulants once hemostasis is achieved, but patients who experience intracranial hemorrhage should delay restarting any anticoagulation for at least 4 weeks if they are without high thrombotic risk, according to the document.

The report also recommends clinician-patient discussion before resuming anticoagulation, ideally with time allowed for patients to develop questions. Discussions should include the signs of bleeding, assessment of risk for a thromboembolic event, and the benefits of anticoagulation.

“The proliferation of oral anticoagulants (warfarin and DOACs) and growing indications for their use prompted the need for guidance on the management of these drugs,” said Gordon F. Tomaselli, MD, chair of the writing committee, in an interview. “This document provides guidance on management at the time of a bleeding complication. This includes acute management, starting and stopping drugs, and use of reversal agents,” he said. “This of course will be a dynamic document as the list of these drugs and their antidotes expand,” he noted.  

“The biggest change from the previous guidelines are twofold: an update on laboratory assessment to monitor drug levels and use of reversal agents,” while the acute management strategies have otherwise remained similar to previous documents, said Dr. Tomaselli.

Dr. Tomaselli said that he was not surprised by the biological aspects of recent research while developing the statement. However, “the extent of the use of multiple anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents was a bit surprising and complicates therapy with each of the agents,” he noted.

The way the pathways are presented may make them challenging to follow in clinical practice, said Dr. Tomaselli. “The pathways are described linearly and in practice often many things have to happen at once,” he said. “The other main issue may be limitations in the availability of some of the newer reversal agents,” he added.

“The complication of bleeding is difficult to avoid,” said Dr. Tomaselli, and for future research, “the focus needs to continue to refine the indications for anticoagulation and appropriate use with other drugs that predispose to bleeding. We also need better methods and testing to monitor drugs levels and the effect on coagulation,” he said.

In accordance with the ACC Solution Set Oversight Committee, the writing committee members, including Dr. Tomaselli, had no relevant relationships with industry to disclose.