Hematology News

During a telemedicine visit with his physician, a 62-year-old obese patient with an ankle injury reported new swelling of his leg. Three weeks had passed since the man visited an emergency department, where he underwent surgery and had a cast applied to the wound. The physician, during the telemedicine visit, advised the patient to elevate his leg and see an orthopedist within 24 hours. A Doppler ultrasound was ordered for 12:30 p.m. that same day.

The patient never made it to the appointment. He became unresponsive and went into full arrest hours later. His death fueled a lawsuit by his family that claimed failure to diagnose and treat deep venous thrombosis. The family contended the providers involved should have referred the patient to care immediately during the video visit.  

The case, which comes from the claims database of national medical liability insurer The Doctors Company, illustrates the legal risks that can stem from video visits with patients, says Richard Cahill, JD, vice president and associate general counsel for The Doctors Company.

“By evaluating the patient remotely, the physician failed to appreciate the often subtle nuances of the clinical presentation, which undoubtedly could have been more accurately assessed in the office setting, and would probably have led to more urgent evaluation and intervention, thereby likely preventing the unfortunate and otherwise avoidable result,” said Mr. Cahill.

According to a Harris poll, 42% of Americans reported using video visits during the pandemic, a trend that is likely to continue as practices reopen and virtual care becomes the norm. But as physicians conduct more video visits, so grows their risk for lawsuits associated with the technology. 

“We probably will see more malpractice suits filed the more telehealth is used,” said Mei Wa Kwong, JD, executive director of the Center for Connected Health Policy. “It’s a numbers game. The more it’s used, the higher likelihood that lawsuits occur.”
 

Three problems in not being able to touch the patient

1. The primary challenge with video visits “is the inability to directly observe and lay hands on the patient,” says Jonathan Einbinder, MD, assistant vice president of analytics for CRICO, a medical liability insurer based in Boston.

“While you can see them via video, it can be hard to get a full sense of how sick the patient is and whether other things might be going on than what they are reporting,” said Dr. Einbinder, a practicing internist. 

Such incomplete pictures can lead to diagnostic errors and the potential for lawsuits, as demonstrated by a recent CRICO analysis. Of 106 telemedicine-related claims from 2014 to 2018, 66% were diagnosis related, according to the analysis of claims from CRICO’s national database. Twelve percent of the telemedicine-related claims were associated with surgical treatment, 11% were related to medical treatment, and 5% were associated with medication issues. A smaller number of claims resulted from patient monitoring, ob.gyn. care, and safety and security.

Another analysis by The Doctors Company similarly determined that diagnostic errors are the most common allegation in telemedicine-related claims. In the study of 28 telemedicine-related claims from The Doctors’ database, 71% were diagnosis related, 11% were associated with mismanagement of treatment, and 7% were related to improper management of a surgical patient. Other allegations included improper performance of treatment or procedure and improper performance of surgery.

“Because a ‘typical’ exam can’t be done, there is the potential to miss things,” said David L. Feldman, MD, chief medical officer for The Doctors Company Group. “A subtlety, perhaps a lump that can’t be seen but only felt, and only by an experienced examiner, for example, may be missed.” 

2. Documentation dangers also loom, said William Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and an attorney who specializes in health care. The legal risk lies in documenting a video visit in the same way the doctor would document an in-person visit, he explained.

“Investigation into a potential lawsuit begins when there is some type of bad outcome related to medical care,” Dr. Sullivan explained. “To determine whether the lawsuit has merit, patients/attorneys review the medical records to retrospectively determine the potential cause of the bad outcome. If the documentation reflects an examination that could not have been performed, a lawyer might be more likely to pursue a case, and it would be more difficult to defend the care provided.”

Dr. Sullivan provided this example: During a video visit, a patient complains of acute onset weakness. The physician documents that the patient’s heart has a “regular rate and rhythm,” and “muscle strength is equal bilaterally.” The following day, the patient’s weakness continues, and the patient goes to the emergency department where he is diagnosed with stroke. An EKG in the ED shows that the patient is in atrial fibrillation.

“The telehealth provider would have a difficult time explaining how it was determined that the patient had normal muscle strength and a normal heart rhythm over a video visit the day before,” Dr. Sullivan said. “A lawyer in a subsequent malpractice case would present the provider as careless and would argue that if the provider had only sent the patient to the emergency department after the telehealth visit instead of documenting exam findings that couldn’t have been performed, the patient could have been successfully treated for the stroke.”

3. Poorly executed informed consent can also give rise to a lawsuit. This includes informed consent regarding the use of telehealth as the accepted modality for the visit rather than traditional on-site evaluations, as well as preprocedure informed consent.

“Inadequate and/or poorly documented informed consent can result in a claim for medical battery,” Mr. Cahill said.

A medical battery allegation refers to the alleged treatment or touching of a patient’s body without that person’s consent. As the AMA Journal of Ethics explains, a patient’s consent must be given, either expressly or implicitly, before a physician may legally “interfere” with the physical body of the patient.

Ideally, the informed consent process is undertaken during a first in-person visit, before virtual visits begin, Dr. Feldman said.

“There is a lot that a patient has to understand when a visit is done virtually, which is part of the informed consent process,” Dr. Feldman said. “The pandemic has forced some physicians to do their first visit virtually, and this makes the process of informing patients more onerous. It is not a simple matter of converting an in-person office practice to a remote office practice. The work flows are different, so there are definitely legal concerns as it relates to privacy and cybersecurity to name a few.”
 

Waivers may be weak protection

Since the pandemic started, a number of states have enacted emergency malpractice protections to shield health professionals from lawsuits. Some protections, such as those in Massachusetts, offer immunity to health professionals who provide general care to patients during the COVID-19 emergency, in addition to treatment of COVID-19 patients. Other protections, like those in Connecticut, apply specifically to care provided in support of the state’s pandemic response.

Whether that immunity applies both to in-person visits and video visits during the pandemic is not certain, said J. Richard Moore, JD, a medical liability defense attorney based in Indianapolis. Indiana’s immunity statute for example, does not make a specific provision for telehealth, he said.

“My best prediction is that if considered by the courts, the immunity would be applied to telehealth services, so long as they are being provided ‘in response to the emergency,’ which is the scope of the immunity,” he said. “I would not consider telehealth physicians to be either more or less protected than in-person providers.”

Regulatory scrutiny for telehealth providers has also been relaxed in response to COVID-19, but experts warn not to rely on the temporary shields for ultimate protection.

In March, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) eased enforcement actions for noncompliance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act requirements in connection with the good faith provision of telehealth during the COVID-19 health crisis. Under the notice, health providers can use popular applications such as Apple FaceTime, Facebook Messenger, Zoom, or Google Hangouts, to offer telehealth care without risk that OCR will impose fines or penalties for HIPAA violations.

But once the current health care emergency is mitigated, the waivers will likely be withdrawn, and enforcement actions will probably resume, Mr. Cahill said.

“It is recommended that, to avoid potential problems going forward, practitioners use due diligence and undertake best efforts to obey existing privacy and security requirements, including the use of technology that satisfies compliance regulations, despite the waiver by OCR,” he said.

In addition, a majority of states have relaxed state-specific rules for practicing telehealth and loosened licensure requirements during the pandemic. At least 47 states have issued waivers to alter in-state licensure requirements for telemedicine in response to COVID-19, according to the Federation of State Medical Boards. Most of the waivers allow physicians licensed in other states to provide care in states where they do not hold licenses, and some enable doctors to treat patients without first having had an in-person evaluation.

But at least for now, these are temporary changes, reminds Amy Lerman, JD, a health care attorney based in Washington, who specializes in telehealth and corporate compliance. Given the current pandemic environment, a significant concern is that physicians new to the telemedicine space are reacting only to the most recent rules established in the context of the pandemic, Ms. Lerman said.

“As previously noted, the recent developments are temporary in nature – states and various federal agencies have been pretty clear in setting this temporal boundary,” she said. “It is not advisable for providers to build telepractice models around temporary sets of rules. 

“Furthermore, the recent developments are not necessarily comprehensive relative to all of the state-specific and other requirements that telemedicine providers are otherwise expected to follow, so relying only on the most recent guidance may cause providers to create telepractice models that have key gaps with respect to regulatory compliance.”
 

How you can avoid a lawsuit

As businesses reopen and practices resume treatments, physicians should weigh the choice between in-person care and video visits very carefully, said Joseph Kvedar, MD, president of the American Telemedicine Association and a dermatology professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“We have to be very thoughtful about quality in this current phase, where we are doing what I call a hybrid model,” he said. “Some services are offered by telehealth and some require patients to come into the doctor’s office. We have to be very thoughtful about what types of care we determine to be appropriate for telehealth, and that has to be based on clinical quality. And if it is, it should follow that we’ll have low incidence of liability claims.”

Data should be at the center of that conclusion, Dr. Kvedar advises.

“Think about what data is needed to make a therapeutic or diagnostic decision,” he said. “If a health care provider can gather the information needed without touching the patient, then the provider is probably on safe, solid ground making that decision via a telehealth interaction. If the patient can come into the doctor’s office, and the provider deems it necessary to see the patient in person and touch the patient in order to make that clinical decision, then the patient should come in.”

An important step to preventing liability is also having strong telehealth systems and protocols in place and the necessary support to carry them out, said Dr. Einbinder of medical liability insurer CRICO.

For example, Dr. Einbinder, who practices in a 12-doctor internal medicine group, said when he finishes a virtual visit, he enters any orders into the electronic health record. Some of the orders will result in notifications to Dr. Einbinder if they are not executed, such as a referral appointment or a procedure that was not completed. 

“I also can forward my orders to a front desk pool that is responsible for making sure things get done,” he said. “And, in our hospital system, we have good case management for complex patients and population management for a variety of chronic conditions. These represent additional safety nets.” 

Another liability safeguard is sending patients a “visit summary” after each virtual visit, Dr. Sullivan said. This could be in the form of an email or a text that includes a brief template including items such as diagnosis, recommendations, follow-up, and a reminder to contact the doctor or go to the emergency department if symptoms worsen or new problems develop.

“Patients tend to remember about half of what physicians tell them and half of the information patients do remember is incorrect,” he said. “Consider a few sentences in an e-mail or text message as a substitute for the after-visit instructions from an office visit to enhance patient understanding. There are several inexpensive programs/services that allow text messages to be sent from a computer using a separate dedicated phone number and pretty much every patient has a cell phone to receive the instructions.”

Dr. Sullivan suggests having a documentation template specifically for telehealth visits. He also recommends the inclusion an “informed refusal of care” in the record when necessary. Dr. Sullivan’s wife, a family physician, has encountered several patients who fear contracting COVID-19 and who have refused her recommendations for in-person visits, he said. In such cases, he said it’s a good idea to document that the patient decided to forgo the recommendations given.

“If a patient suffers a bad outcome because of a failure to seek an in-person exam, a short note in the patient’s chart would help to establish that the lack of a follow-up physical exam was the patient’s informed decision, not due to some alleged negligence of the medical provider,” he said.

Concerning informed consent, Dr. Feldman says at a minimum physicians should discuss the following with patients:

• Names and credentials of staff participating.
• The right to stop or refuse treatment by telemedicine.
• Technology that will be used.
• Privacy and security risks.
• Technology-specific risks and permission to bill.
• Alternative care in case of an emergency or technology malfunction.
• Any state-specific requirements.

“Physicians can ensure they have a strong informed consent process during video visits by taking the time to cover these points at the beginning of the first visit, and being sure the patient understands and agrees to these,” Dr. Sullivan explained. “Ideally, this conversation can be recorded for future reference if necessary or at a minimum documented in the medical record.”
 

Consider these extra precautions

Mr. Cahill advises that practitioners be especially mindful of their “web-side manner” and the setting in which they are communicating with virtual patients to promote confidentiality, professionalism, and uninterrupted interactions.

“Use of a headset in a quiet home office is advisable,” he said. “Physicians must also be cognizant of their physical appearance and the background behind them when the visit includes both audio and visual capability. For ‘face-to-face’ telehealth encounters, it is recommended that a white lab jacket be worn as the appropriate attire; coat and tie are unnecessary.”

Some patients may need to be reminded of the need for confidentiality during a video visit, Mr. Moore added. Physicians are typically in a position to ensure confidentiality, but some patients may not understand how to protect their privacy on their end. 

“If the physician sees on the screen or hears from an audio connection that there are other people around who may be able to overhear what is communicated, the physician probably has some responsibility to remind the patient that she or he may want to go to a more private place, close the door, etc.,” he said. “While I think a claim against a physician on this basis would be pretty weak, it is still a good practice for the physician to be cognizant of those kinds of concerns even if the patient is not.”

Finally, for physicians who set up telehealth operability during the pandemic – possibly in a hurry – consider using your actual case data to take a look backward, said Ms. Lerman, the Washington-based health care attorney. Reviewing the data can help determine whether you’re in compliance with relevant state laws, she said. 

“If, for example, a provider set up telehealth operations during the pandemic and can see that most of [the] patients are based in a single state, or a small group of states, it is worthwhile to take [the] time and become familiar with the telemedicine laws in those states,” she said. “If there are modifications that need to be made, it may be easier to make them incrementally before the telehealth operations grow any larger in scope.” 

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

During a telemedicine visit with his physician, a 62-year-old obese patient with an ankle injury reported new swelling of his leg. Three weeks had passed since the man visited an emergency department, where he underwent surgery and had a cast applied to the wound. The physician, during the telemedicine visit, advised the patient to elevate his leg and see an orthopedist within 24 hours. A Doppler ultrasound was ordered for 12:30 p.m. that same day.

The patient never made it to the appointment. He became unresponsive and went into full arrest hours later. His death fueled a lawsuit by his family that claimed failure to diagnose and treat deep venous thrombosis. The family contended the providers involved should have referred the patient to care immediately during the video visit.  

The case, which comes from the claims database of national medical liability insurer The Doctors Company, illustrates the legal risks that can stem from video visits with patients, says Richard Cahill, JD, vice president and associate general counsel for The Doctors Company.

“By evaluating the patient remotely, the physician failed to appreciate the often subtle nuances of the clinical presentation, which undoubtedly could have been more accurately assessed in the office setting, and would probably have led to more urgent evaluation and intervention, thereby likely preventing the unfortunate and otherwise avoidable result,” said Mr. Cahill.

According to a Harris poll, 42% of Americans reported using video visits during the pandemic, a trend that is likely to continue as practices reopen and virtual care becomes the norm. But as physicians conduct more video visits, so grows their risk for lawsuits associated with the technology. 

“We probably will see more malpractice suits filed the more telehealth is used,” said Mei Wa Kwong, JD, executive director of the Center for Connected Health Policy. “It’s a numbers game. The more it’s used, the higher likelihood that lawsuits occur.”
 

Three problems in not being able to touch the patient

1. The primary challenge with video visits “is the inability to directly observe and lay hands on the patient,” says Jonathan Einbinder, MD, assistant vice president of analytics for CRICO, a medical liability insurer based in Boston.

“While you can see them via video, it can be hard to get a full sense of how sick the patient is and whether other things might be going on than what they are reporting,” said Dr. Einbinder, a practicing internist. 

Such incomplete pictures can lead to diagnostic errors and the potential for lawsuits, as demonstrated by a recent CRICO analysis. Of 106 telemedicine-related claims from 2014 to 2018, 66% were diagnosis related, according to the analysis of claims from CRICO’s national database. Twelve percent of the telemedicine-related claims were associated with surgical treatment, 11% were related to medical treatment, and 5% were associated with medication issues. A smaller number of claims resulted from patient monitoring, ob.gyn. care, and safety and security.

Another analysis by The Doctors Company similarly determined that diagnostic errors are the most common allegation in telemedicine-related claims. In the study of 28 telemedicine-related claims from The Doctors’ database, 71% were diagnosis related, 11% were associated with mismanagement of treatment, and 7% were related to improper management of a surgical patient. Other allegations included improper performance of treatment or procedure and improper performance of surgery.

“Because a ‘typical’ exam can’t be done, there is the potential to miss things,” said David L. Feldman, MD, chief medical officer for The Doctors Company Group. “A subtlety, perhaps a lump that can’t be seen but only felt, and only by an experienced examiner, for example, may be missed.” 

2. Documentation dangers also loom, said William Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and an attorney who specializes in health care. The legal risk lies in documenting a video visit in the same way the doctor would document an in-person visit, he explained.

“Investigation into a potential lawsuit begins when there is some type of bad outcome related to medical care,” Dr. Sullivan explained. “To determine whether the lawsuit has merit, patients/attorneys review the medical records to retrospectively determine the potential cause of the bad outcome. If the documentation reflects an examination that could not have been performed, a lawyer might be more likely to pursue a case, and it would be more difficult to defend the care provided.”

Dr. Sullivan provided this example: During a video visit, a patient complains of acute onset weakness. The physician documents that the patient’s heart has a “regular rate and rhythm,” and “muscle strength is equal bilaterally.” The following day, the patient’s weakness continues, and the patient goes to the emergency department where he is diagnosed with stroke. An EKG in the ED shows that the patient is in atrial fibrillation.

“The telehealth provider would have a difficult time explaining how it was determined that the patient had normal muscle strength and a normal heart rhythm over a video visit the day before,” Dr. Sullivan said. “A lawyer in a subsequent malpractice case would present the provider as careless and would argue that if the provider had only sent the patient to the emergency department after the telehealth visit instead of documenting exam findings that couldn’t have been performed, the patient could have been successfully treated for the stroke.”

3. Poorly executed informed consent can also give rise to a lawsuit. This includes informed consent regarding the use of telehealth as the accepted modality for the visit rather than traditional on-site evaluations, as well as preprocedure informed consent.

“Inadequate and/or poorly documented informed consent can result in a claim for medical battery,” Mr. Cahill said.

A medical battery allegation refers to the alleged treatment or touching of a patient’s body without that person’s consent. As the AMA Journal of Ethics explains, a patient’s consent must be given, either expressly or implicitly, before a physician may legally “interfere” with the physical body of the patient.

Ideally, the informed consent process is undertaken during a first in-person visit, before virtual visits begin, Dr. Feldman said.

“There is a lot that a patient has to understand when a visit is done virtually, which is part of the informed consent process,” Dr. Feldman said. “The pandemic has forced some physicians to do their first visit virtually, and this makes the process of informing patients more onerous. It is not a simple matter of converting an in-person office practice to a remote office practice. The work flows are different, so there are definitely legal concerns as it relates to privacy and cybersecurity to name a few.”
 

Waivers may be weak protection

Since the pandemic started, a number of states have enacted emergency malpractice protections to shield health professionals from lawsuits. Some protections, such as those in Massachusetts, offer immunity to health professionals who provide general care to patients during the COVID-19 emergency, in addition to treatment of COVID-19 patients. Other protections, like those in Connecticut, apply specifically to care provided in support of the state’s pandemic response.

Whether that immunity applies both to in-person visits and video visits during the pandemic is not certain, said J. Richard Moore, JD, a medical liability defense attorney based in Indianapolis. Indiana’s immunity statute for example, does not make a specific provision for telehealth, he said.

“My best prediction is that if considered by the courts, the immunity would be applied to telehealth services, so long as they are being provided ‘in response to the emergency,’ which is the scope of the immunity,” he said. “I would not consider telehealth physicians to be either more or less protected than in-person providers.”

Regulatory scrutiny for telehealth providers has also been relaxed in response to COVID-19, but experts warn not to rely on the temporary shields for ultimate protection.

In March, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) eased enforcement actions for noncompliance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act requirements in connection with the good faith provision of telehealth during the COVID-19 health crisis. Under the notice, health providers can use popular applications such as Apple FaceTime, Facebook Messenger, Zoom, or Google Hangouts, to offer telehealth care without risk that OCR will impose fines or penalties for HIPAA violations.

But once the current health care emergency is mitigated, the waivers will likely be withdrawn, and enforcement actions will probably resume, Mr. Cahill said.

“It is recommended that, to avoid potential problems going forward, practitioners use due diligence and undertake best efforts to obey existing privacy and security requirements, including the use of technology that satisfies compliance regulations, despite the waiver by OCR,” he said.

In addition, a majority of states have relaxed state-specific rules for practicing telehealth and loosened licensure requirements during the pandemic. At least 47 states have issued waivers to alter in-state licensure requirements for telemedicine in response to COVID-19, according to the Federation of State Medical Boards. Most of the waivers allow physicians licensed in other states to provide care in states where they do not hold licenses, and some enable doctors to treat patients without first having had an in-person evaluation.

But at least for now, these are temporary changes, reminds Amy Lerman, JD, a health care attorney based in Washington, who specializes in telehealth and corporate compliance. Given the current pandemic environment, a significant concern is that physicians new to the telemedicine space are reacting only to the most recent rules established in the context of the pandemic, Ms. Lerman said.

“As previously noted, the recent developments are temporary in nature – states and various federal agencies have been pretty clear in setting this temporal boundary,” she said. “It is not advisable for providers to build telepractice models around temporary sets of rules. 

“Furthermore, the recent developments are not necessarily comprehensive relative to all of the state-specific and other requirements that telemedicine providers are otherwise expected to follow, so relying only on the most recent guidance may cause providers to create telepractice models that have key gaps with respect to regulatory compliance.”
 

How you can avoid a lawsuit

As businesses reopen and practices resume treatments, physicians should weigh the choice between in-person care and video visits very carefully, said Joseph Kvedar, MD, president of the American Telemedicine Association and a dermatology professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“We have to be very thoughtful about quality in this current phase, where we are doing what I call a hybrid model,” he said. “Some services are offered by telehealth and some require patients to come into the doctor’s office. We have to be very thoughtful about what types of care we determine to be appropriate for telehealth, and that has to be based on clinical quality. And if it is, it should follow that we’ll have low incidence of liability claims.”

Data should be at the center of that conclusion, Dr. Kvedar advises.

“Think about what data is needed to make a therapeutic or diagnostic decision,” he said. “If a health care provider can gather the information needed without touching the patient, then the provider is probably on safe, solid ground making that decision via a telehealth interaction. If the patient can come into the doctor’s office, and the provider deems it necessary to see the patient in person and touch the patient in order to make that clinical decision, then the patient should come in.”

An important step to preventing liability is also having strong telehealth systems and protocols in place and the necessary support to carry them out, said Dr. Einbinder of medical liability insurer CRICO.

For example, Dr. Einbinder, who practices in a 12-doctor internal medicine group, said when he finishes a virtual visit, he enters any orders into the electronic health record. Some of the orders will result in notifications to Dr. Einbinder if they are not executed, such as a referral appointment or a procedure that was not completed. 

“I also can forward my orders to a front desk pool that is responsible for making sure things get done,” he said. “And, in our hospital system, we have good case management for complex patients and population management for a variety of chronic conditions. These represent additional safety nets.” 

Another liability safeguard is sending patients a “visit summary” after each virtual visit, Dr. Sullivan said. This could be in the form of an email or a text that includes a brief template including items such as diagnosis, recommendations, follow-up, and a reminder to contact the doctor or go to the emergency department if symptoms worsen or new problems develop.

“Patients tend to remember about half of what physicians tell them and half of the information patients do remember is incorrect,” he said. “Consider a few sentences in an e-mail or text message as a substitute for the after-visit instructions from an office visit to enhance patient understanding. There are several inexpensive programs/services that allow text messages to be sent from a computer using a separate dedicated phone number and pretty much every patient has a cell phone to receive the instructions.”

Dr. Sullivan suggests having a documentation template specifically for telehealth visits. He also recommends the inclusion an “informed refusal of care” in the record when necessary. Dr. Sullivan’s wife, a family physician, has encountered several patients who fear contracting COVID-19 and who have refused her recommendations for in-person visits, he said. In such cases, he said it’s a good idea to document that the patient decided to forgo the recommendations given.

“If a patient suffers a bad outcome because of a failure to seek an in-person exam, a short note in the patient’s chart would help to establish that the lack of a follow-up physical exam was the patient’s informed decision, not due to some alleged negligence of the medical provider,” he said.

Concerning informed consent, Dr. Feldman says at a minimum physicians should discuss the following with patients:

• Names and credentials of staff participating.
• The right to stop or refuse treatment by telemedicine.
• Technology that will be used.
• Privacy and security risks.
• Technology-specific risks and permission to bill.
• Alternative care in case of an emergency or technology malfunction.
• Any state-specific requirements.

“Physicians can ensure they have a strong informed consent process during video visits by taking the time to cover these points at the beginning of the first visit, and being sure the patient understands and agrees to these,” Dr. Sullivan explained. “Ideally, this conversation can be recorded for future reference if necessary or at a minimum documented in the medical record.”
 

Consider these extra precautions

Mr. Cahill advises that practitioners be especially mindful of their “web-side manner” and the setting in which they are communicating with virtual patients to promote confidentiality, professionalism, and uninterrupted interactions.

“Use of a headset in a quiet home office is advisable,” he said. “Physicians must also be cognizant of their physical appearance and the background behind them when the visit includes both audio and visual capability. For ‘face-to-face’ telehealth encounters, it is recommended that a white lab jacket be worn as the appropriate attire; coat and tie are unnecessary.”

Some patients may need to be reminded of the need for confidentiality during a video visit, Mr. Moore added. Physicians are typically in a position to ensure confidentiality, but some patients may not understand how to protect their privacy on their end. 

“If the physician sees on the screen or hears from an audio connection that there are other people around who may be able to overhear what is communicated, the physician probably has some responsibility to remind the patient that she or he may want to go to a more private place, close the door, etc.,” he said. “While I think a claim against a physician on this basis would be pretty weak, it is still a good practice for the physician to be cognizant of those kinds of concerns even if the patient is not.”

Finally, for physicians who set up telehealth operability during the pandemic – possibly in a hurry – consider using your actual case data to take a look backward, said Ms. Lerman, the Washington-based health care attorney. Reviewing the data can help determine whether you’re in compliance with relevant state laws, she said. 

“If, for example, a provider set up telehealth operations during the pandemic and can see that most of [the] patients are based in a single state, or a small group of states, it is worthwhile to take [the] time and become familiar with the telemedicine laws in those states,” she said. “If there are modifications that need to be made, it may be easier to make them incrementally before the telehealth operations grow any larger in scope.” 

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

During a telemedicine visit with his physician, a 62-year-old obese patient with an ankle injury reported new swelling of his leg. Three weeks had passed since the man visited an emergency department, where he underwent surgery and had a cast applied to the wound. The physician, during the telemedicine visit, advised the patient to elevate his leg and see an orthopedist within 24 hours. A Doppler ultrasound was ordered for 12:30 p.m. that same day.

The patient never made it to the appointment. He became unresponsive and went into full arrest hours later. His death fueled a lawsuit by his family that claimed failure to diagnose and treat deep venous thrombosis. The family contended the providers involved should have referred the patient to care immediately during the video visit.  

The case, which comes from the claims database of national medical liability insurer The Doctors Company, illustrates the legal risks that can stem from video visits with patients, says Richard Cahill, JD, vice president and associate general counsel for The Doctors Company.

“By evaluating the patient remotely, the physician failed to appreciate the often subtle nuances of the clinical presentation, which undoubtedly could have been more accurately assessed in the office setting, and would probably have led to more urgent evaluation and intervention, thereby likely preventing the unfortunate and otherwise avoidable result,” said Mr. Cahill.

According to a Harris poll, 42% of Americans reported using video visits during the pandemic, a trend that is likely to continue as practices reopen and virtual care becomes the norm. But as physicians conduct more video visits, so grows their risk for lawsuits associated with the technology. 

“We probably will see more malpractice suits filed the more telehealth is used,” said Mei Wa Kwong, JD, executive director of the Center for Connected Health Policy. “It’s a numbers game. The more it’s used, the higher likelihood that lawsuits occur.”
 

Three problems in not being able to touch the patient

1. The primary challenge with video visits “is the inability to directly observe and lay hands on the patient,” says Jonathan Einbinder, MD, assistant vice president of analytics for CRICO, a medical liability insurer based in Boston.

“While you can see them via video, it can be hard to get a full sense of how sick the patient is and whether other things might be going on than what they are reporting,” said Dr. Einbinder, a practicing internist. 

Such incomplete pictures can lead to diagnostic errors and the potential for lawsuits, as demonstrated by a recent CRICO analysis. Of 106 telemedicine-related claims from 2014 to 2018, 66% were diagnosis related, according to the analysis of claims from CRICO’s national database. Twelve percent of the telemedicine-related claims were associated with surgical treatment, 11% were related to medical treatment, and 5% were associated with medication issues. A smaller number of claims resulted from patient monitoring, ob.gyn. care, and safety and security.

Another analysis by The Doctors Company similarly determined that diagnostic errors are the most common allegation in telemedicine-related claims. In the study of 28 telemedicine-related claims from The Doctors’ database, 71% were diagnosis related, 11% were associated with mismanagement of treatment, and 7% were related to improper management of a surgical patient. Other allegations included improper performance of treatment or procedure and improper performance of surgery.

“Because a ‘typical’ exam can’t be done, there is the potential to miss things,” said David L. Feldman, MD, chief medical officer for The Doctors Company Group. “A subtlety, perhaps a lump that can’t be seen but only felt, and only by an experienced examiner, for example, may be missed.” 

2. Documentation dangers also loom, said William Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and an attorney who specializes in health care. The legal risk lies in documenting a video visit in the same way the doctor would document an in-person visit, he explained.

“Investigation into a potential lawsuit begins when there is some type of bad outcome related to medical care,” Dr. Sullivan explained. “To determine whether the lawsuit has merit, patients/attorneys review the medical records to retrospectively determine the potential cause of the bad outcome. If the documentation reflects an examination that could not have been performed, a lawyer might be more likely to pursue a case, and it would be more difficult to defend the care provided.”

Dr. Sullivan provided this example: During a video visit, a patient complains of acute onset weakness. The physician documents that the patient’s heart has a “regular rate and rhythm,” and “muscle strength is equal bilaterally.” The following day, the patient’s weakness continues, and the patient goes to the emergency department where he is diagnosed with stroke. An EKG in the ED shows that the patient is in atrial fibrillation.

“The telehealth provider would have a difficult time explaining how it was determined that the patient had normal muscle strength and a normal heart rhythm over a video visit the day before,” Dr. Sullivan said. “A lawyer in a subsequent malpractice case would present the provider as careless and would argue that if the provider had only sent the patient to the emergency department after the telehealth visit instead of documenting exam findings that couldn’t have been performed, the patient could have been successfully treated for the stroke.”

3. Poorly executed informed consent can also give rise to a lawsuit. This includes informed consent regarding the use of telehealth as the accepted modality for the visit rather than traditional on-site evaluations, as well as preprocedure informed consent.

“Inadequate and/or poorly documented informed consent can result in a claim for medical battery,” Mr. Cahill said.

A medical battery allegation refers to the alleged treatment or touching of a patient’s body without that person’s consent. As the AMA Journal of Ethics explains, a patient’s consent must be given, either expressly or implicitly, before a physician may legally “interfere” with the physical body of the patient.

Ideally, the informed consent process is undertaken during a first in-person visit, before virtual visits begin, Dr. Feldman said.

“There is a lot that a patient has to understand when a visit is done virtually, which is part of the informed consent process,” Dr. Feldman said. “The pandemic has forced some physicians to do their first visit virtually, and this makes the process of informing patients more onerous. It is not a simple matter of converting an in-person office practice to a remote office practice. The work flows are different, so there are definitely legal concerns as it relates to privacy and cybersecurity to name a few.”
 

Waivers may be weak protection

Since the pandemic started, a number of states have enacted emergency malpractice protections to shield health professionals from lawsuits. Some protections, such as those in Massachusetts, offer immunity to health professionals who provide general care to patients during the COVID-19 emergency, in addition to treatment of COVID-19 patients. Other protections, like those in Connecticut, apply specifically to care provided in support of the state’s pandemic response.

Whether that immunity applies both to in-person visits and video visits during the pandemic is not certain, said J. Richard Moore, JD, a medical liability defense attorney based in Indianapolis. Indiana’s immunity statute for example, does not make a specific provision for telehealth, he said.

“My best prediction is that if considered by the courts, the immunity would be applied to telehealth services, so long as they are being provided ‘in response to the emergency,’ which is the scope of the immunity,” he said. “I would not consider telehealth physicians to be either more or less protected than in-person providers.”

Regulatory scrutiny for telehealth providers has also been relaxed in response to COVID-19, but experts warn not to rely on the temporary shields for ultimate protection.

In March, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) eased enforcement actions for noncompliance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act requirements in connection with the good faith provision of telehealth during the COVID-19 health crisis. Under the notice, health providers can use popular applications such as Apple FaceTime, Facebook Messenger, Zoom, or Google Hangouts, to offer telehealth care without risk that OCR will impose fines or penalties for HIPAA violations.

But once the current health care emergency is mitigated, the waivers will likely be withdrawn, and enforcement actions will probably resume, Mr. Cahill said.

“It is recommended that, to avoid potential problems going forward, practitioners use due diligence and undertake best efforts to obey existing privacy and security requirements, including the use of technology that satisfies compliance regulations, despite the waiver by OCR,” he said.

In addition, a majority of states have relaxed state-specific rules for practicing telehealth and loosened licensure requirements during the pandemic. At least 47 states have issued waivers to alter in-state licensure requirements for telemedicine in response to COVID-19, according to the Federation of State Medical Boards. Most of the waivers allow physicians licensed in other states to provide care in states where they do not hold licenses, and some enable doctors to treat patients without first having had an in-person evaluation.

But at least for now, these are temporary changes, reminds Amy Lerman, JD, a health care attorney based in Washington, who specializes in telehealth and corporate compliance. Given the current pandemic environment, a significant concern is that physicians new to the telemedicine space are reacting only to the most recent rules established in the context of the pandemic, Ms. Lerman said.

“As previously noted, the recent developments are temporary in nature – states and various federal agencies have been pretty clear in setting this temporal boundary,” she said. “It is not advisable for providers to build telepractice models around temporary sets of rules. 

“Furthermore, the recent developments are not necessarily comprehensive relative to all of the state-specific and other requirements that telemedicine providers are otherwise expected to follow, so relying only on the most recent guidance may cause providers to create telepractice models that have key gaps with respect to regulatory compliance.”
 

How you can avoid a lawsuit

As businesses reopen and practices resume treatments, physicians should weigh the choice between in-person care and video visits very carefully, said Joseph Kvedar, MD, president of the American Telemedicine Association and a dermatology professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“We have to be very thoughtful about quality in this current phase, where we are doing what I call a hybrid model,” he said. “Some services are offered by telehealth and some require patients to come into the doctor’s office. We have to be very thoughtful about what types of care we determine to be appropriate for telehealth, and that has to be based on clinical quality. And if it is, it should follow that we’ll have low incidence of liability claims.”

Data should be at the center of that conclusion, Dr. Kvedar advises.

“Think about what data is needed to make a therapeutic or diagnostic decision,” he said. “If a health care provider can gather the information needed without touching the patient, then the provider is probably on safe, solid ground making that decision via a telehealth interaction. If the patient can come into the doctor’s office, and the provider deems it necessary to see the patient in person and touch the patient in order to make that clinical decision, then the patient should come in.”

An important step to preventing liability is also having strong telehealth systems and protocols in place and the necessary support to carry them out, said Dr. Einbinder of medical liability insurer CRICO.

For example, Dr. Einbinder, who practices in a 12-doctor internal medicine group, said when he finishes a virtual visit, he enters any orders into the electronic health record. Some of the orders will result in notifications to Dr. Einbinder if they are not executed, such as a referral appointment or a procedure that was not completed. 

“I also can forward my orders to a front desk pool that is responsible for making sure things get done,” he said. “And, in our hospital system, we have good case management for complex patients and population management for a variety of chronic conditions. These represent additional safety nets.” 

Another liability safeguard is sending patients a “visit summary” after each virtual visit, Dr. Sullivan said. This could be in the form of an email or a text that includes a brief template including items such as diagnosis, recommendations, follow-up, and a reminder to contact the doctor or go to the emergency department if symptoms worsen or new problems develop.

“Patients tend to remember about half of what physicians tell them and half of the information patients do remember is incorrect,” he said. “Consider a few sentences in an e-mail or text message as a substitute for the after-visit instructions from an office visit to enhance patient understanding. There are several inexpensive programs/services that allow text messages to be sent from a computer using a separate dedicated phone number and pretty much every patient has a cell phone to receive the instructions.”

Dr. Sullivan suggests having a documentation template specifically for telehealth visits. He also recommends the inclusion an “informed refusal of care” in the record when necessary. Dr. Sullivan’s wife, a family physician, has encountered several patients who fear contracting COVID-19 and who have refused her recommendations for in-person visits, he said. In such cases, he said it’s a good idea to document that the patient decided to forgo the recommendations given.

“If a patient suffers a bad outcome because of a failure to seek an in-person exam, a short note in the patient’s chart would help to establish that the lack of a follow-up physical exam was the patient’s informed decision, not due to some alleged negligence of the medical provider,” he said.

Concerning informed consent, Dr. Feldman says at a minimum physicians should discuss the following with patients:

• Names and credentials of staff participating.
• The right to stop or refuse treatment by telemedicine.
• Technology that will be used.
• Privacy and security risks.
• Technology-specific risks and permission to bill.
• Alternative care in case of an emergency or technology malfunction.
• Any state-specific requirements.

“Physicians can ensure they have a strong informed consent process during video visits by taking the time to cover these points at the beginning of the first visit, and being sure the patient understands and agrees to these,” Dr. Sullivan explained. “Ideally, this conversation can be recorded for future reference if necessary or at a minimum documented in the medical record.”
 

Consider these extra precautions

Mr. Cahill advises that practitioners be especially mindful of their “web-side manner” and the setting in which they are communicating with virtual patients to promote confidentiality, professionalism, and uninterrupted interactions.

“Use of a headset in a quiet home office is advisable,” he said. “Physicians must also be cognizant of their physical appearance and the background behind them when the visit includes both audio and visual capability. For ‘face-to-face’ telehealth encounters, it is recommended that a white lab jacket be worn as the appropriate attire; coat and tie are unnecessary.”

Some patients may need to be reminded of the need for confidentiality during a video visit, Mr. Moore added. Physicians are typically in a position to ensure confidentiality, but some patients may not understand how to protect their privacy on their end. 

“If the physician sees on the screen or hears from an audio connection that there are other people around who may be able to overhear what is communicated, the physician probably has some responsibility to remind the patient that she or he may want to go to a more private place, close the door, etc.,” he said. “While I think a claim against a physician on this basis would be pretty weak, it is still a good practice for the physician to be cognizant of those kinds of concerns even if the patient is not.”

Finally, for physicians who set up telehealth operability during the pandemic – possibly in a hurry – consider using your actual case data to take a look backward, said Ms. Lerman, the Washington-based health care attorney. Reviewing the data can help determine whether you’re in compliance with relevant state laws, she said. 

“If, for example, a provider set up telehealth operations during the pandemic and can see that most of [the] patients are based in a single state, or a small group of states, it is worthwhile to take [the] time and become familiar with the telemedicine laws in those states,” she said. “If there are modifications that need to be made, it may be easier to make them incrementally before the telehealth operations grow any larger in scope.” 

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

A new analysis of existing research confirms a stark link between excess weight and COVID-19: People with obesity are much more likely to be diagnosed with the novel coronavirus, undergo hospitalization and ICU admission, and die.

Obese patients faced the greatest bump in risk on the hospitalization front, with their odds of being admitted listed as 113% higher. The odds of diagnosis, ICU admission, and death were 46% higher (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.65; P < .0001); 74% higher (OR, 1.74, CI, 1.46-2.08, P < .0001); 48% (OR, 1.48, CI, 1.22–1.80, P < .001, all pooled analyses and 95% CI), respectively. All differences were highly significantly different, investigators reported in a systematic review and meta-analysis published online Aug. 26 in Obesity Reviews.

“Essentially, these are pretty scary statistics,” nutrition researcher and study lead author Barry M. Popkin, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health, said in an interview. “Other studies have talked about an increase in mortality, and we were thinking there’d be a little increase like 10% – nothing like 48%.”

According to the Johns Hopkins University of Medicine tracker, nearly 6 million people in the United States had been diagnosed with COVID-19 as of Aug. 30. The number of deaths had surpassed 183,000.

The authors of the new review launched their project to better understand the link between obesity and COVID-19 “all the way from being diagnosed to death,” Dr. Popkin said, adding that the meta-analysis is the largest of its kind to examine the link.

Dr. Popkin and colleagues analyzed 75 studies during January to June 2020 that tracked 399,461 patients (55% of whom were male) diagnosed with COVID-19. They found that 18 of 20 studies linked obesity with a 46% higher risk of diagnosis, but Dr. Popkin cautioned that this may be misleading. “I suspect it’s because they’re sicker and getting tested more for COVID,” he said. “I don’t think obesity enhances your likelihood of getting COVID. We don’t have a biological rationale for that.”

The researchers examined 19 studies that explored a link between obesity and hospitalization; all 19 found a higher risk of hospitalization in patients with obesity (pooled OR, 2.13). Twenty-one of 22 studies that looked at ICU admissions discovered a higher risk for patients with obesity (pooled OR, 1.74). And 27 of 35 studies that examined COVID-19 mortality found a higher death rate in patients with obesity (pooled OR, 1.48).

The review also looked at 14 studies that examined links between obesity and administration of invasive mechanical ventilation. All the studies found a higher risk for patients with obesity (pooled OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.38-1.99; P < .0001).

Could socioeconomic factors explain the difference in risk for people with obesity? It’s not clear. According to Dr. Popkin, most of the studies don’t examine factors such as income. While he believes physical factors are the key to the higher risk, he said “there’s clearly a social side to this.”

On the biological front, it appears that “the immune system is much weaker if you’re obese,” he said, and excess weight may worsen the course of a respiratory disease such as COVID-19 because of lung disorders such as sleep apnea.

In addition to highlighting inflammation and a weakened immune system, the review offers multiple explanations for why patients with obesity face worse outcomes in COVID-19. It may be more difficult for medical professionals to care for them in the hospital because of their weight, the authors wrote, and “obesity may also impair therapeutic treatments during COVID-19 infections.” The authors noted that ACE inhibitors may worsen COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The researchers noted that “potentially the vaccines developed to address COVID-19 will be less effective for individuals with obesity due to a weakened immune response.” They pointed to research that suggests T-cell responses are weaker and antibody titers wane at a faster rate in people with obesity who are vaccinated against influenza.

SOURCE: Popkin BM et al. Obes Rev. 2020 Aug 26. doi: 10.1111/obr.13128.

A new analysis of existing research confirms a stark link between excess weight and COVID-19: People with obesity are much more likely to be diagnosed with the novel coronavirus, undergo hospitalization and ICU admission, and die.

Obese patients faced the greatest bump in risk on the hospitalization front, with their odds of being admitted listed as 113% higher. The odds of diagnosis, ICU admission, and death were 46% higher (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.65; P < .0001); 74% higher (OR, 1.74, CI, 1.46-2.08, P < .0001); 48% (OR, 1.48, CI, 1.22–1.80, P < .001, all pooled analyses and 95% CI), respectively. All differences were highly significantly different, investigators reported in a systematic review and meta-analysis published online Aug. 26 in Obesity Reviews.

“Essentially, these are pretty scary statistics,” nutrition researcher and study lead author Barry M. Popkin, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health, said in an interview. “Other studies have talked about an increase in mortality, and we were thinking there’d be a little increase like 10% – nothing like 48%.”

According to the Johns Hopkins University of Medicine tracker, nearly 6 million people in the United States had been diagnosed with COVID-19 as of Aug. 30. The number of deaths had surpassed 183,000.

The authors of the new review launched their project to better understand the link between obesity and COVID-19 “all the way from being diagnosed to death,” Dr. Popkin said, adding that the meta-analysis is the largest of its kind to examine the link.

Dr. Popkin and colleagues analyzed 75 studies during January to June 2020 that tracked 399,461 patients (55% of whom were male) diagnosed with COVID-19. They found that 18 of 20 studies linked obesity with a 46% higher risk of diagnosis, but Dr. Popkin cautioned that this may be misleading. “I suspect it’s because they’re sicker and getting tested more for COVID,” he said. “I don’t think obesity enhances your likelihood of getting COVID. We don’t have a biological rationale for that.”

The researchers examined 19 studies that explored a link between obesity and hospitalization; all 19 found a higher risk of hospitalization in patients with obesity (pooled OR, 2.13). Twenty-one of 22 studies that looked at ICU admissions discovered a higher risk for patients with obesity (pooled OR, 1.74). And 27 of 35 studies that examined COVID-19 mortality found a higher death rate in patients with obesity (pooled OR, 1.48).

The review also looked at 14 studies that examined links between obesity and administration of invasive mechanical ventilation. All the studies found a higher risk for patients with obesity (pooled OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.38-1.99; P < .0001).

Could socioeconomic factors explain the difference in risk for people with obesity? It’s not clear. According to Dr. Popkin, most of the studies don’t examine factors such as income. While he believes physical factors are the key to the higher risk, he said “there’s clearly a social side to this.”

On the biological front, it appears that “the immune system is much weaker if you’re obese,” he said, and excess weight may worsen the course of a respiratory disease such as COVID-19 because of lung disorders such as sleep apnea.

In addition to highlighting inflammation and a weakened immune system, the review offers multiple explanations for why patients with obesity face worse outcomes in COVID-19. It may be more difficult for medical professionals to care for them in the hospital because of their weight, the authors wrote, and “obesity may also impair therapeutic treatments during COVID-19 infections.” The authors noted that ACE inhibitors may worsen COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The researchers noted that “potentially the vaccines developed to address COVID-19 will be less effective for individuals with obesity due to a weakened immune response.” They pointed to research that suggests T-cell responses are weaker and antibody titers wane at a faster rate in people with obesity who are vaccinated against influenza.

SOURCE: Popkin BM et al. Obes Rev. 2020 Aug 26. doi: 10.1111/obr.13128.

A new analysis of existing research confirms a stark link between excess weight and COVID-19: People with obesity are much more likely to be diagnosed with the novel coronavirus, undergo hospitalization and ICU admission, and die.

Obese patients faced the greatest bump in risk on the hospitalization front, with their odds of being admitted listed as 113% higher. The odds of diagnosis, ICU admission, and death were 46% higher (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-1.65; P < .0001); 74% higher (OR, 1.74, CI, 1.46-2.08, P < .0001); 48% (OR, 1.48, CI, 1.22–1.80, P < .001, all pooled analyses and 95% CI), respectively. All differences were highly significantly different, investigators reported in a systematic review and meta-analysis published online Aug. 26 in Obesity Reviews.

“Essentially, these are pretty scary statistics,” nutrition researcher and study lead author Barry M. Popkin, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health, said in an interview. “Other studies have talked about an increase in mortality, and we were thinking there’d be a little increase like 10% – nothing like 48%.”

According to the Johns Hopkins University of Medicine tracker, nearly 6 million people in the United States had been diagnosed with COVID-19 as of Aug. 30. The number of deaths had surpassed 183,000.

The authors of the new review launched their project to better understand the link between obesity and COVID-19 “all the way from being diagnosed to death,” Dr. Popkin said, adding that the meta-analysis is the largest of its kind to examine the link.

Dr. Popkin and colleagues analyzed 75 studies during January to June 2020 that tracked 399,461 patients (55% of whom were male) diagnosed with COVID-19. They found that 18 of 20 studies linked obesity with a 46% higher risk of diagnosis, but Dr. Popkin cautioned that this may be misleading. “I suspect it’s because they’re sicker and getting tested more for COVID,” he said. “I don’t think obesity enhances your likelihood of getting COVID. We don’t have a biological rationale for that.”

The researchers examined 19 studies that explored a link between obesity and hospitalization; all 19 found a higher risk of hospitalization in patients with obesity (pooled OR, 2.13). Twenty-one of 22 studies that looked at ICU admissions discovered a higher risk for patients with obesity (pooled OR, 1.74). And 27 of 35 studies that examined COVID-19 mortality found a higher death rate in patients with obesity (pooled OR, 1.48).

The review also looked at 14 studies that examined links between obesity and administration of invasive mechanical ventilation. All the studies found a higher risk for patients with obesity (pooled OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.38-1.99; P < .0001).

Could socioeconomic factors explain the difference in risk for people with obesity? It’s not clear. According to Dr. Popkin, most of the studies don’t examine factors such as income. While he believes physical factors are the key to the higher risk, he said “there’s clearly a social side to this.”

On the biological front, it appears that “the immune system is much weaker if you’re obese,” he said, and excess weight may worsen the course of a respiratory disease such as COVID-19 because of lung disorders such as sleep apnea.

In addition to highlighting inflammation and a weakened immune system, the review offers multiple explanations for why patients with obesity face worse outcomes in COVID-19. It may be more difficult for medical professionals to care for them in the hospital because of their weight, the authors wrote, and “obesity may also impair therapeutic treatments during COVID-19 infections.” The authors noted that ACE inhibitors may worsen COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The researchers noted that “potentially the vaccines developed to address COVID-19 will be less effective for individuals with obesity due to a weakened immune response.” They pointed to research that suggests T-cell responses are weaker and antibody titers wane at a faster rate in people with obesity who are vaccinated against influenza.

SOURCE: Popkin BM et al. Obes Rev. 2020 Aug 26. doi: 10.1111/obr.13128.

The pragmatic Hestia criteria proved as safe as the more structured, points-based simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) score for selection of patients with acute pulmonary embolism for outpatient care in the large, randomized HOME-PE trial presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Walter Serra, Giuseppe De Iaco, Claudio Reverberi, and Tiziano Gherli/Creative Commons License

“These results support outpatient management of acute pulmonary embolism patients using either the Hestia method or the sPESI score with the option for the physician-in-charge to override the decision. In hospitals organized for outpatient management, both triaging strategies enable more than a third of pulmonary embolism patients to be managed at home with a low rate of complications,” Pierre-Marie Roy, MD, said in presenting the HOME-PE findings.

The study clarifies a transatlantic controversy regarding how best to triage patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for outpatient care. The answer? It’s basically a tie between the points-based sPESI score recommended in the current ESC guidelines (Eur Respir J. 2019 Oct 9;54[3]:1901647) and the Hestia method endorsed in the American College of Chest Physician guidelines (Chest. 2016 Feb;149[2]:315-52).

The sPESI is a validated tool that grants 1 point each for age over 80 years, background cardiopulmonary disease, a systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, cancer, a heart rate of 110 bpm or more, and an oxygen saturation level below 90%. A patient needs a score of zero to be eligible for outpatient management. In contrast, the Hestia method relies upon 11 simple bedside criteria rather than a points system, explained Dr. Roy of University Hospital of Angers, France (J Thromb Haemost. 2011 Aug;9[8]:1500-7).

HOME-PE was a randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial conducted at 26 hospitals in France, Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. The study included 1,974 patients presenting to the emergency department with non–high-risk acute PE as defined by hemodynamic stability. About 39% of patients in the Hestia group were eligible for outpatient care on the basis of ‘no’ answers regarding all 11 criteria, while 48% of patients had an sPESI score of 0 and were thus initially considered appropriate for outpatient management.

However, the investigators recognized that no scoring system for acute PE is perfect, and that the judgment of a physician with extensive experience in managing this life-threatening condition counts for a lot. So they stipulated that a patient’s physician-in-charge could overrule a decision for early discharge. This happened 29% of the time in patients with a sPESI score of 0, as compared with a 3% overrule rate with the Hestia rule. The physician-in-charge also moved small numbers of patients who were Hestia or sPESI positive into the outpatient care group. As a result, a similar proportion of patients in both groups were discharged home within 24 hours for outpatient treatment: 38% of the total Hestia group and 37% in the sPESI arm.

Major adverse event rates were reassuringly low in both groups managed on an outpatient basis. The composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism, bleeding, or death within 30 days occurred in 1.3% of Hestia outpatients and 1.1% of sPESI outpatients. Among patients managed in the hospital, these rates were 5.6% in the Hestia group and 4.7% in the sPESI group.

Discussant Stavros V. Konstantinides, MD, who chaired the ESC guideline committee, asked rhetorically, “who’s happy with the HOME-PE trial? I think everybody.”

“The Hestia criteria integrate the feasibility of family support of the individual patient. This is a good thing. And eligibility based on the Hestia criteria, unlike sPESI, does not require age younger than 80 years or no cancer, and it appears from the HOME-PE study that this is okay,” observed Dr. Konstantinides of the Center for Thrombosis and Hemostasis at the University of Mainz (Germany).

In an interview, Hadley Wilson, MD, called the HOME-PE trial “transformative” and predicted it will change clinical practice. He was particularly impressed with the high quality of the trial, noting that 87% of participants managed as outpatients received a direct oral anticoagulant.

The Hestia rule is simpler and more user-friendly. And greater use of this triaging strategy might have advantages in terms of economics and health care utilization by potentially encouraging movement of decision-making regarding outpatient management of acute PE out of the hospital wards and into emergency departments, said Dr. Wilson, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute and a cardiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dr. Roy reported receiving research grants to conduct HOME-PE from the French Ministry of Health, the study sponsor. In addition, he is on scientific advisory boards and/or speakers’ panels for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Aspen, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi Aventis.
 

[email protected]

The pragmatic Hestia criteria proved as safe as the more structured, points-based simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) score for selection of patients with acute pulmonary embolism for outpatient care in the large, randomized HOME-PE trial presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Walter Serra, Giuseppe De Iaco, Claudio Reverberi, and Tiziano Gherli/Creative Commons License

“These results support outpatient management of acute pulmonary embolism patients using either the Hestia method or the sPESI score with the option for the physician-in-charge to override the decision. In hospitals organized for outpatient management, both triaging strategies enable more than a third of pulmonary embolism patients to be managed at home with a low rate of complications,” Pierre-Marie Roy, MD, said in presenting the HOME-PE findings.

The study clarifies a transatlantic controversy regarding how best to triage patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for outpatient care. The answer? It’s basically a tie between the points-based sPESI score recommended in the current ESC guidelines (Eur Respir J. 2019 Oct 9;54[3]:1901647) and the Hestia method endorsed in the American College of Chest Physician guidelines (Chest. 2016 Feb;149[2]:315-52).

The sPESI is a validated tool that grants 1 point each for age over 80 years, background cardiopulmonary disease, a systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, cancer, a heart rate of 110 bpm or more, and an oxygen saturation level below 90%. A patient needs a score of zero to be eligible for outpatient management. In contrast, the Hestia method relies upon 11 simple bedside criteria rather than a points system, explained Dr. Roy of University Hospital of Angers, France (J Thromb Haemost. 2011 Aug;9[8]:1500-7).

HOME-PE was a randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial conducted at 26 hospitals in France, Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. The study included 1,974 patients presenting to the emergency department with non–high-risk acute PE as defined by hemodynamic stability. About 39% of patients in the Hestia group were eligible for outpatient care on the basis of ‘no’ answers regarding all 11 criteria, while 48% of patients had an sPESI score of 0 and were thus initially considered appropriate for outpatient management.

However, the investigators recognized that no scoring system for acute PE is perfect, and that the judgment of a physician with extensive experience in managing this life-threatening condition counts for a lot. So they stipulated that a patient’s physician-in-charge could overrule a decision for early discharge. This happened 29% of the time in patients with a sPESI score of 0, as compared with a 3% overrule rate with the Hestia rule. The physician-in-charge also moved small numbers of patients who were Hestia or sPESI positive into the outpatient care group. As a result, a similar proportion of patients in both groups were discharged home within 24 hours for outpatient treatment: 38% of the total Hestia group and 37% in the sPESI arm.

Major adverse event rates were reassuringly low in both groups managed on an outpatient basis. The composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism, bleeding, or death within 30 days occurred in 1.3% of Hestia outpatients and 1.1% of sPESI outpatients. Among patients managed in the hospital, these rates were 5.6% in the Hestia group and 4.7% in the sPESI group.

Discussant Stavros V. Konstantinides, MD, who chaired the ESC guideline committee, asked rhetorically, “who’s happy with the HOME-PE trial? I think everybody.”

“The Hestia criteria integrate the feasibility of family support of the individual patient. This is a good thing. And eligibility based on the Hestia criteria, unlike sPESI, does not require age younger than 80 years or no cancer, and it appears from the HOME-PE study that this is okay,” observed Dr. Konstantinides of the Center for Thrombosis and Hemostasis at the University of Mainz (Germany).

In an interview, Hadley Wilson, MD, called the HOME-PE trial “transformative” and predicted it will change clinical practice. He was particularly impressed with the high quality of the trial, noting that 87% of participants managed as outpatients received a direct oral anticoagulant.

The Hestia rule is simpler and more user-friendly. And greater use of this triaging strategy might have advantages in terms of economics and health care utilization by potentially encouraging movement of decision-making regarding outpatient management of acute PE out of the hospital wards and into emergency departments, said Dr. Wilson, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute and a cardiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dr. Roy reported receiving research grants to conduct HOME-PE from the French Ministry of Health, the study sponsor. In addition, he is on scientific advisory boards and/or speakers’ panels for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Aspen, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi Aventis.
 

[email protected]

The pragmatic Hestia criteria proved as safe as the more structured, points-based simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) score for selection of patients with acute pulmonary embolism for outpatient care in the large, randomized HOME-PE trial presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Walter Serra, Giuseppe De Iaco, Claudio Reverberi, and Tiziano Gherli/Creative Commons License

“These results support outpatient management of acute pulmonary embolism patients using either the Hestia method or the sPESI score with the option for the physician-in-charge to override the decision. In hospitals organized for outpatient management, both triaging strategies enable more than a third of pulmonary embolism patients to be managed at home with a low rate of complications,” Pierre-Marie Roy, MD, said in presenting the HOME-PE findings.

The study clarifies a transatlantic controversy regarding how best to triage patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for outpatient care. The answer? It’s basically a tie between the points-based sPESI score recommended in the current ESC guidelines (Eur Respir J. 2019 Oct 9;54[3]:1901647) and the Hestia method endorsed in the American College of Chest Physician guidelines (Chest. 2016 Feb;149[2]:315-52).

The sPESI is a validated tool that grants 1 point each for age over 80 years, background cardiopulmonary disease, a systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, cancer, a heart rate of 110 bpm or more, and an oxygen saturation level below 90%. A patient needs a score of zero to be eligible for outpatient management. In contrast, the Hestia method relies upon 11 simple bedside criteria rather than a points system, explained Dr. Roy of University Hospital of Angers, France (J Thromb Haemost. 2011 Aug;9[8]:1500-7).

HOME-PE was a randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial conducted at 26 hospitals in France, Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. The study included 1,974 patients presenting to the emergency department with non–high-risk acute PE as defined by hemodynamic stability. About 39% of patients in the Hestia group were eligible for outpatient care on the basis of ‘no’ answers regarding all 11 criteria, while 48% of patients had an sPESI score of 0 and were thus initially considered appropriate for outpatient management.

However, the investigators recognized that no scoring system for acute PE is perfect, and that the judgment of a physician with extensive experience in managing this life-threatening condition counts for a lot. So they stipulated that a patient’s physician-in-charge could overrule a decision for early discharge. This happened 29% of the time in patients with a sPESI score of 0, as compared with a 3% overrule rate with the Hestia rule. The physician-in-charge also moved small numbers of patients who were Hestia or sPESI positive into the outpatient care group. As a result, a similar proportion of patients in both groups were discharged home within 24 hours for outpatient treatment: 38% of the total Hestia group and 37% in the sPESI arm.

Major adverse event rates were reassuringly low in both groups managed on an outpatient basis. The composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism, bleeding, or death within 30 days occurred in 1.3% of Hestia outpatients and 1.1% of sPESI outpatients. Among patients managed in the hospital, these rates were 5.6% in the Hestia group and 4.7% in the sPESI group.

Discussant Stavros V. Konstantinides, MD, who chaired the ESC guideline committee, asked rhetorically, “who’s happy with the HOME-PE trial? I think everybody.”

“The Hestia criteria integrate the feasibility of family support of the individual patient. This is a good thing. And eligibility based on the Hestia criteria, unlike sPESI, does not require age younger than 80 years or no cancer, and it appears from the HOME-PE study that this is okay,” observed Dr. Konstantinides of the Center for Thrombosis and Hemostasis at the University of Mainz (Germany).

In an interview, Hadley Wilson, MD, called the HOME-PE trial “transformative” and predicted it will change clinical practice. He was particularly impressed with the high quality of the trial, noting that 87% of participants managed as outpatients received a direct oral anticoagulant.

The Hestia rule is simpler and more user-friendly. And greater use of this triaging strategy might have advantages in terms of economics and health care utilization by potentially encouraging movement of decision-making regarding outpatient management of acute PE out of the hospital wards and into emergency departments, said Dr. Wilson, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute and a cardiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dr. Roy reported receiving research grants to conduct HOME-PE from the French Ministry of Health, the study sponsor. In addition, he is on scientific advisory boards and/or speakers’ panels for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Aspen, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi Aventis.
 

[email protected]

The US Food and Drug Administration on Aug. 28 expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) of remdesivir (Veklury) to include treatment of all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease.

An EUA of remdesivir issued in May allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who need oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

“Today, based on the Agency’s ongoing review of the EUA, including its review of the totality of scientific information now available, the FDA has determined that it is reasonable to believe Veklury may be effective for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients,” the FDA news release about the expanded EUA said. “The Agency’s review has also concluded that the known and potential benefits of Veklury outweigh the known and potential risks for these uses.”
 

‘Further evaluation’ needed

The EUA expansion is partially based on the results of a randomized, open-label trial that Gilead Sciences, remdesivir’s manufacturer, conducted at multiple sites.

The trial showed that a 5-day course of remdesivir was associated with statistically significant improvement among patients hospitalized with moderate COVID-19 in comparison with those receiving standard care. However, patients who were randomly assigned to a receive longer, 10-day remdesivir course had not improved significantly 11 days after treatment started, compared with those who received standard care.

Results with remdesivir in this trial and in two previously reported randomized trials varied, “raising the question of whether the discrepancies are artifacts of study design choices, including patient populations, or whether the drug is less efficacious than hoped,” wrote Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, and Derek C. Angus, MD, MPH, with the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, in an editorial that accompanied publication of the trials in JAMA.

Angus previously expressed concern that expanding remdesivir’s EUA could “interrupt or thwart efforts to execute the needed RCTs [randomized controlled trials].

“We think there really needs to be further evaluation of remdesivir in large-scale RCTs adequately powered to understand in which patients, at which dose, given at which point in the course of illness leads to what concrete and tangible improvement in clinical outcomes,” he told Medscape Medical News.

“At this point, remdesivir definitely holds promise, but given the cost to produce and distribute the drug, it seems crucial to know with more certainty how best to use it,” Angus said.

The EUA expansion is also partially based on results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases conducted. In that trial, there was a statistically significant reduction in median recovery time and higher odds of clinical improvement after 2 weeks for hospitalized patients who received remdesivir.

For hospitalized patients with mild to moderate disease, the results were consistent with the overall study results but were not statistically significant.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration on Aug. 28 expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) of remdesivir (Veklury) to include treatment of all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease.

An EUA of remdesivir issued in May allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who need oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

“Today, based on the Agency’s ongoing review of the EUA, including its review of the totality of scientific information now available, the FDA has determined that it is reasonable to believe Veklury may be effective for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients,” the FDA news release about the expanded EUA said. “The Agency’s review has also concluded that the known and potential benefits of Veklury outweigh the known and potential risks for these uses.”
 

‘Further evaluation’ needed

The EUA expansion is partially based on the results of a randomized, open-label trial that Gilead Sciences, remdesivir’s manufacturer, conducted at multiple sites.

The trial showed that a 5-day course of remdesivir was associated with statistically significant improvement among patients hospitalized with moderate COVID-19 in comparison with those receiving standard care. However, patients who were randomly assigned to a receive longer, 10-day remdesivir course had not improved significantly 11 days after treatment started, compared with those who received standard care.

Results with remdesivir in this trial and in two previously reported randomized trials varied, “raising the question of whether the discrepancies are artifacts of study design choices, including patient populations, or whether the drug is less efficacious than hoped,” wrote Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, and Derek C. Angus, MD, MPH, with the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, in an editorial that accompanied publication of the trials in JAMA.

Angus previously expressed concern that expanding remdesivir’s EUA could “interrupt or thwart efforts to execute the needed RCTs [randomized controlled trials].

“We think there really needs to be further evaluation of remdesivir in large-scale RCTs adequately powered to understand in which patients, at which dose, given at which point in the course of illness leads to what concrete and tangible improvement in clinical outcomes,” he told Medscape Medical News.

“At this point, remdesivir definitely holds promise, but given the cost to produce and distribute the drug, it seems crucial to know with more certainty how best to use it,” Angus said.

The EUA expansion is also partially based on results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases conducted. In that trial, there was a statistically significant reduction in median recovery time and higher odds of clinical improvement after 2 weeks for hospitalized patients who received remdesivir.

For hospitalized patients with mild to moderate disease, the results were consistent with the overall study results but were not statistically significant.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration on Aug. 28 expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) of remdesivir (Veklury) to include treatment of all adult and pediatric hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regardless of the severity of their disease.

An EUA of remdesivir issued in May allowed the drug to be used only for patients with severe COVID-19, specifically, COVID-19 patients with low blood oxygen levels or who need oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation.

“Today, based on the Agency’s ongoing review of the EUA, including its review of the totality of scientific information now available, the FDA has determined that it is reasonable to believe Veklury may be effective for the treatment of suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients,” the FDA news release about the expanded EUA said. “The Agency’s review has also concluded that the known and potential benefits of Veklury outweigh the known and potential risks for these uses.”
 

‘Further evaluation’ needed

The EUA expansion is partially based on the results of a randomized, open-label trial that Gilead Sciences, remdesivir’s manufacturer, conducted at multiple sites.

The trial showed that a 5-day course of remdesivir was associated with statistically significant improvement among patients hospitalized with moderate COVID-19 in comparison with those receiving standard care. However, patients who were randomly assigned to a receive longer, 10-day remdesivir course had not improved significantly 11 days after treatment started, compared with those who received standard care.

Results with remdesivir in this trial and in two previously reported randomized trials varied, “raising the question of whether the discrepancies are artifacts of study design choices, including patient populations, or whether the drug is less efficacious than hoped,” wrote Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, and Derek C. Angus, MD, MPH, with the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, in an editorial that accompanied publication of the trials in JAMA.

Angus previously expressed concern that expanding remdesivir’s EUA could “interrupt or thwart efforts to execute the needed RCTs [randomized controlled trials].

“We think there really needs to be further evaluation of remdesivir in large-scale RCTs adequately powered to understand in which patients, at which dose, given at which point in the course of illness leads to what concrete and tangible improvement in clinical outcomes,” he told Medscape Medical News.

“At this point, remdesivir definitely holds promise, but given the cost to produce and distribute the drug, it seems crucial to know with more certainty how best to use it,” Angus said.

The EUA expansion is also partially based on results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial that the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases conducted. In that trial, there was a statistically significant reduction in median recovery time and higher odds of clinical improvement after 2 weeks for hospitalized patients who received remdesivir.

For hospitalized patients with mild to moderate disease, the results were consistent with the overall study results but were not statistically significant.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 patients with cancer have a significantly greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and sepsis, but no greater risk of death, when compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer, according to data from a registry study.

Researchers analyzed data on 5,556 patients with COVID-19 who had an inpatient or emergency encounter at Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) in New York between March 1 and May 27, 2020. Patients were included in an anonymous MSHS COVID-19 registry.

There were 421 patients who had cancer: 96 with a hematologic malignancy and 325 with solid tumors.

After adjustment for age, gender, and number of comorbidities, the odds ratios for acute VTE and sepsis for patients with cancer (versus those without cancer) were 1.77 and 1.34, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for mortality in cancer patients was 1.02.

The results remained “relatively consistent” after stratification by solid and nonsolid cancer types, with no significant difference in outcomes between those two groups, and results remained consistent in a propensity-matched model, according to Naomi Alpert, a biostatistician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Ms. Alpert reported these findings at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

She noted that the cancer patients were older than the noncancer patients (mean age, 69.2 years vs. 63.8 years), and cancer patients were more likely to have two or more comorbid conditions (48.2% vs. 30.4%). Cancer patients also had significantly lower hemoglobin levels and red blood cell, platelet, and white blood cell counts (P < .01 for all).

“Low white blood cell count may be one of the reasons for higher risk of sepsis in cancer patients, as it may lead to a higher risk of infection,” Ms. Alpert said. “However, it’s not clear what role cancer therapies play in the risks of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, so there is still quite a bit to learn.”

In fact, the findings are limited by a lack of information about cancer treatment, as the registry was not designed for that purpose, she noted.

Another study limitation is the short follow-up of a month or less in most patients, due, in part, to the novelty of COVID-19, but also to the lack of information on patients after they left the hospital.

“However, we had a very large sample size, with more than 400 cancer patients included, and, to our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of its kind to be done so far,” Ms. Alpert said. “In the future, it’s going to be very important to assess the effect of cancer therapies on COVID-19 complications and to see if prior therapies had any effect on outcomes.”

Longer follow-up would also be helpful for assessing the chronic effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients over time, she said. “It would be important to see whether some of these elevated risks of venous thromboembolism and sepsis are associated with longer-term mortality risks than what we were able to measure here,” she added.

Asked about the discrepancy between mortality in this study and those of larger registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and TERAVOLT, Ms. Alpert noted that the current study included only patients who required hospitalization or emergency care.

“Our mortality rate was actually a bit higher than what was reported in some of the other studies,” she said. “We had about a 30% mortality rate in the cancer patients and about 25% for the noncancer patients, so ... we’re sort of looking at a subset of patients who we know are the sickest of the sick, which may explain some of the higher mortality that we’re seeing.”

Ms. Alpert reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alpert N et al. AACR COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S12-02.

COVID-19 patients with cancer have a significantly greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and sepsis, but no greater risk of death, when compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer, according to data from a registry study.

Researchers analyzed data on 5,556 patients with COVID-19 who had an inpatient or emergency encounter at Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) in New York between March 1 and May 27, 2020. Patients were included in an anonymous MSHS COVID-19 registry.

There were 421 patients who had cancer: 96 with a hematologic malignancy and 325 with solid tumors.

After adjustment for age, gender, and number of comorbidities, the odds ratios for acute VTE and sepsis for patients with cancer (versus those without cancer) were 1.77 and 1.34, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for mortality in cancer patients was 1.02.

The results remained “relatively consistent” after stratification by solid and nonsolid cancer types, with no significant difference in outcomes between those two groups, and results remained consistent in a propensity-matched model, according to Naomi Alpert, a biostatistician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Ms. Alpert reported these findings at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

She noted that the cancer patients were older than the noncancer patients (mean age, 69.2 years vs. 63.8 years), and cancer patients were more likely to have two or more comorbid conditions (48.2% vs. 30.4%). Cancer patients also had significantly lower hemoglobin levels and red blood cell, platelet, and white blood cell counts (P < .01 for all).

“Low white blood cell count may be one of the reasons for higher risk of sepsis in cancer patients, as it may lead to a higher risk of infection,” Ms. Alpert said. “However, it’s not clear what role cancer therapies play in the risks of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, so there is still quite a bit to learn.”

In fact, the findings are limited by a lack of information about cancer treatment, as the registry was not designed for that purpose, she noted.

Another study limitation is the short follow-up of a month or less in most patients, due, in part, to the novelty of COVID-19, but also to the lack of information on patients after they left the hospital.

“However, we had a very large sample size, with more than 400 cancer patients included, and, to our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of its kind to be done so far,” Ms. Alpert said. “In the future, it’s going to be very important to assess the effect of cancer therapies on COVID-19 complications and to see if prior therapies had any effect on outcomes.”

Longer follow-up would also be helpful for assessing the chronic effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients over time, she said. “It would be important to see whether some of these elevated risks of venous thromboembolism and sepsis are associated with longer-term mortality risks than what we were able to measure here,” she added.

Asked about the discrepancy between mortality in this study and those of larger registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and TERAVOLT, Ms. Alpert noted that the current study included only patients who required hospitalization or emergency care.

“Our mortality rate was actually a bit higher than what was reported in some of the other studies,” she said. “We had about a 30% mortality rate in the cancer patients and about 25% for the noncancer patients, so ... we’re sort of looking at a subset of patients who we know are the sickest of the sick, which may explain some of the higher mortality that we’re seeing.”

Ms. Alpert reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alpert N et al. AACR COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S12-02.

COVID-19 patients with cancer have a significantly greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and sepsis, but no greater risk of death, when compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer, according to data from a registry study.

Researchers analyzed data on 5,556 patients with COVID-19 who had an inpatient or emergency encounter at Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS) in New York between March 1 and May 27, 2020. Patients were included in an anonymous MSHS COVID-19 registry.

There were 421 patients who had cancer: 96 with a hematologic malignancy and 325 with solid tumors.

After adjustment for age, gender, and number of comorbidities, the odds ratios for acute VTE and sepsis for patients with cancer (versus those without cancer) were 1.77 and 1.34, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio for mortality in cancer patients was 1.02.

The results remained “relatively consistent” after stratification by solid and nonsolid cancer types, with no significant difference in outcomes between those two groups, and results remained consistent in a propensity-matched model, according to Naomi Alpert, a biostatistician at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Ms. Alpert reported these findings at the AACR virtual meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.

She noted that the cancer patients were older than the noncancer patients (mean age, 69.2 years vs. 63.8 years), and cancer patients were more likely to have two or more comorbid conditions (48.2% vs. 30.4%). Cancer patients also had significantly lower hemoglobin levels and red blood cell, platelet, and white blood cell counts (P < .01 for all).

“Low white blood cell count may be one of the reasons for higher risk of sepsis in cancer patients, as it may lead to a higher risk of infection,” Ms. Alpert said. “However, it’s not clear what role cancer therapies play in the risks of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, so there is still quite a bit to learn.”

In fact, the findings are limited by a lack of information about cancer treatment, as the registry was not designed for that purpose, she noted.

Another study limitation is the short follow-up of a month or less in most patients, due, in part, to the novelty of COVID-19, but also to the lack of information on patients after they left the hospital.

“However, we had a very large sample size, with more than 400 cancer patients included, and, to our knowledge, this is the largest analysis of its kind to be done so far,” Ms. Alpert said. “In the future, it’s going to be very important to assess the effect of cancer therapies on COVID-19 complications and to see if prior therapies had any effect on outcomes.”

Longer follow-up would also be helpful for assessing the chronic effects of COVID-19 on cancer patients over time, she said. “It would be important to see whether some of these elevated risks of venous thromboembolism and sepsis are associated with longer-term mortality risks than what we were able to measure here,” she added.

Asked about the discrepancy between mortality in this study and those of larger registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and TERAVOLT, Ms. Alpert noted that the current study included only patients who required hospitalization or emergency care.

“Our mortality rate was actually a bit higher than what was reported in some of the other studies,” she said. “We had about a 30% mortality rate in the cancer patients and about 25% for the noncancer patients, so ... we’re sort of looking at a subset of patients who we know are the sickest of the sick, which may explain some of the higher mortality that we’re seeing.”

Ms. Alpert reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alpert N et al. AACR COVID-19 and Cancer, Abstract S12-02.

The US Food and Drug Administration has removed two senior public relations employees, one of whom advised the agency against unbridled promotion of convalescent blood plasma as a treatment for people with COVID-19, multiple media outlets reported Aug. 28.

Officials claim the dismissals are coincidental and are not related to a controversy about whether claims regarding convalescent plasma therapy that were put forth by President Donald Trump and FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, were exaggerated, according to reports from The New York Times , CNN, and elsewhere.

One of the PR employees, Emily Miller, was on the job less than 2 weeks. The White House named her FDA chief spokeswoman 11 days ago, but Hahn removed her from that post Aug. 28.

On Aug. 27, the US Department of Health and Human Services terminated the contract for Wayne L. Pines, a PR consultant to the FDA. Pines reportedly advised Hahn to apologize for making misleading claims about the therapeutic benefits of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19.

The FDA did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The controversy stems from comments Hahn made about the announcement of the emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma for patients with COVID-19. He said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 people who were treated. That statement was later found to be erroneous because he presented a relative risk reduction as an absolute decrease in risk. He later apologized via Twitter.

Researchers running clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 are concerned that the emergency use authorization could thwart efforts to recruit participants for their studies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has removed two senior public relations employees, one of whom advised the agency against unbridled promotion of convalescent blood plasma as a treatment for people with COVID-19, multiple media outlets reported Aug. 28.

Officials claim the dismissals are coincidental and are not related to a controversy about whether claims regarding convalescent plasma therapy that were put forth by President Donald Trump and FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, were exaggerated, according to reports from The New York Times , CNN, and elsewhere.

One of the PR employees, Emily Miller, was on the job less than 2 weeks. The White House named her FDA chief spokeswoman 11 days ago, but Hahn removed her from that post Aug. 28.

On Aug. 27, the US Department of Health and Human Services terminated the contract for Wayne L. Pines, a PR consultant to the FDA. Pines reportedly advised Hahn to apologize for making misleading claims about the therapeutic benefits of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19.

The FDA did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The controversy stems from comments Hahn made about the announcement of the emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma for patients with COVID-19. He said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 people who were treated. That statement was later found to be erroneous because he presented a relative risk reduction as an absolute decrease in risk. He later apologized via Twitter.

Researchers running clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 are concerned that the emergency use authorization could thwart efforts to recruit participants for their studies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has removed two senior public relations employees, one of whom advised the agency against unbridled promotion of convalescent blood plasma as a treatment for people with COVID-19, multiple media outlets reported Aug. 28.

Officials claim the dismissals are coincidental and are not related to a controversy about whether claims regarding convalescent plasma therapy that were put forth by President Donald Trump and FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, were exaggerated, according to reports from The New York Times , CNN, and elsewhere.

One of the PR employees, Emily Miller, was on the job less than 2 weeks. The White House named her FDA chief spokeswoman 11 days ago, but Hahn removed her from that post Aug. 28.

On Aug. 27, the US Department of Health and Human Services terminated the contract for Wayne L. Pines, a PR consultant to the FDA. Pines reportedly advised Hahn to apologize for making misleading claims about the therapeutic benefits of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19.

The FDA did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The controversy stems from comments Hahn made about the announcement of the emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma for patients with COVID-19. He said that plasma had been found to save the lives of 35 out of every 100 people who were treated. That statement was later found to be erroneous because he presented a relative risk reduction as an absolute decrease in risk. He later apologized via Twitter.

Researchers running clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 are concerned that the emergency use authorization could thwart efforts to recruit participants for their studies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New York City Health + Hospitals (NYCH+H), the country’s largest public health care system, encompasses 11 hospitals with 4,354 staffed acute beds during normal times. It serves as the safety net for 1.1 million of the 8.4 million residents of the most populous city in the United States, many of them uninsured, undocumented, covered by Medicaid, or otherwise disadvantaged.

At the very epicenter in the early days of the historic COVID-19 pandemic, NYCH+H transferred patients between its facilities, added medical and ICU beds by the hundreds, mobilized palliative care volunteers, harnessed telemedicine and a clinician hotline, and made other sweeping changes to ensure that the city’s public health system would be able to respond to demand at the peak of the surge. That peak hit in April, when an average of 9,000 new COVID-19 cases were being reported in the city every day.

Through it all, hospitalists have played critical roles in both planning for the system’s response and caring for severely ill COVID-19 patients. Their stories reflect both the unprecedented demands on the system and the dedication of frontline clinicians.

One of those, Carla Saladini-Aponte, MD, who just finished her residency in June 2019, found herself on the firing line in March 2020 as an attending physician at 457-bed NYCH+H/Jacobi Hospital in the Bronx. “I have experienced so much in my first year on the job, dealing with a disease that we’ve never seen before,” she said. “We didn’t grasp the extent of the COVID crisis in the beginning, so we were emotionally unprepared when it first hit.”

Starting on March 30, NYCH+H administration mobilized a centralized incident command structure to coordinate response systemwide to a rapidly changing situation.

Two weeks later Jacobi was a COVID-19 hospital, top to bottom, with its medical ICU beds increased from 12 to more than 100. By mid-April, Dr. Saladini-Aponte’s team, one of 11 medical teams in the hospital, had 26 patients, all of them with COVID-19. There was not a consensus in the early days on how to manage patients with severe respiratory distress. “But by the time the surge came, we had a better understanding of the scope of the situation,” she said.

Learning to be an attending

“They don’t teach you how to be an attending during residency,” Dr. Saladini-Aponte said. “At the beginning I wasn’t such a good teacher. I just wanted to prove myself and stay one step ahead of the residents. But as an academic hospitalist you have to listen to others. I learned to ask questions of the residents every morning, including how they were doing personally.”

Sometimes a visiting consultant would ask on the floor: “‘Where’s your attending?’” not recognizing Dr. Saladini-Aponte, fresh out of residency, filling that role. At times, she felt like a PGY-4 (postgraduate year 4). But she quickly grew into the attending role and was asked to be site coordinator for the mobilization of palliative medicine volunteers at Jacobi.

“We found ourselves having to make tough ethical decisions. Some patients, even if we provided a ventilator and maximum oxygen therapy, would still die. There were difficult discussions when we didn’t know if we had enough dialysis machines, or how to manage other limited resources. The hospital was saying: You decide, if there’s a high degree of certainty about the outcome. But we had never practiced medicine this way before,” she said.

“That’s why our hospital provided daily ethics meetings with our ethics council. There would be eight people sitting 6 feet apart in a conference room, all wearing masks. We’d talk about situations that were giving us trouble. Their role wasn’t to provide answers but to help us see the scope of the situation and the complexities,” she explained.

Dr. Saladini-Aponte said she has had many sleepless nights since the pandemic began. “Sometimes, I would come home from work and lie down on the floor and cry,” she said. “But we had so much support from volunteers helping our little hospitalist service of seven.” It was also important to keep up with the clinical information, and one of her coworkers created “cheat sheets” for the clinicians, regularly updated with the latest essential information on antibiotics, testing, and the like.

“At the peak, I was trying to read everything I could about the virus. I was just pulling myself in too many directions. I asked for help from my boyfriend to remind me not to log onto my computer when I came home from work,” she said. “One of my techniques for preventing burnout was just to avoid social media. I couldn’t deal with what was going on in the news. It just angered me. Even now, seeing people without masks makes me very uncomfortable.”
 

Organizing the crisis response

As chief value officer for NYCH+H, Hyung (Harry) Cho, MD, FACP, SFHM, typically focuses on issues of patient safety and overuse of medical treatments in the health system. But in the COVID-19 crisis, he found himself at the forefront of organizing its response. “We tried to provide support centrally and to standardize practice in how we test and treat,” he said.

“We were truly at the epicenter of the pandemic,” Dr. Cho said. “All of our hospitals had different experiences, and unique responses. But the system worked well.” Patients were transferred from the more overtaxed hospitals to Bellevue and other NYCH+H hospitals with spare beds. An emergency medical response structure was put in place, and every morning the system’s Tiger Team, with multidisciplinary personnel from administration, operations, logistics, and medical/technical specialists, would gather virtually to discuss needs across the system.

“It was a very open atmosphere and we asked people to report what was happening on the ground,” Dr. Cho said. “We started rapidly reviewing batches of 20 patients at a time for transfer in order to alleviate pressure in the most overtaxed ERs.”

NYCH+H also had to work through concerns about PPE, just like other U.S. hospitals. Treatment guidelines were changing by the day. Medical concerns were relayed at a rapid pace. Another priority was trying to limit unnecessary exposure for staff through a recommendation that only one clinician from a team would go into the room of an infected patient, unless another was absolutely needed.

The reality of public health

NYCH+H was created by the New York State Legislature in 1969 and rebranded in 2015. It includes a low- to no-cost health insurance plan called MetroPlus, along with outpatient centers, comprehensive case management, and social supports in the home.

“What people know about public health systems is that we typically are underresourced. That’s just the reality of public health,” Dr. Cho said. “We help the community, the underserved. The people who truly needed our help are also the ones who have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. And that is where we really shine as a system.”

Dr. Cho lauded the performance of the health system’s frontline staff. “Watching them come together during the entire pandemic, and do their best every day, was truly inspiring,” he said. “But when they got to the peak, it really took an emotional toll on them.”

NYCH+H’s in-house staff support program, called Helping Healers Heal, was mobilized with specially trained teams at each of its 11 hospitals to provide peer-to-peer support, mental health expertise, and team-debriefing sessions to staff members following traumatic events. Support is provided both over the phone and in person on the floors, Dr. Cho said. “During the surge, everything was happening so quickly, there was no time to take a pause. Now, as we are able to catch our breath, that’s when they most need support.”

The hospitalists at NYCH+H hospitals intended to have goals-of-care conversations with all patients, but everyone was very busy – so having these conversations became harder and harder, Dr. Cho said. Recognizing limited staffing for the quadrupling of patients who needed palliative care at NYCH+H hospitals, he asked the medicine chairs about their palliative care needs and then used social media outreach to ask for help. The message went viral, attracting 413 volunteers from across the country. Sixty-seven telepalliative volunteers were put to work doing goals-of-care conversations remotely with inpatients and their families.¹

Expediting transfers

For Ian Fagan, MD, a hospitalist and associate medical director for general internal medicine Inpatient Services at Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan, hospitalist shifts are a normal part of his job. But he had to give them up during the surge to focus on planning, management, and especially scheduling other doctors, with sufficient backups needed to cover last minute changes. Dr. Fagan did that by using the existing pool of hospitalist staff, physicians who were reassigned from other specialties, agency staff, military medical personnel, and volunteer doctors who flew in from around the country to help. He also worked 10- to 12-hour days for 36 consecutive days.

The impact of disparities in access to care in New York City was reflected in the greater demand for care in the hospitals in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. “With fewer patients and more hospital beds in Manhattan, we had the capacity to share our beds,” Dr. Fagan said. “It was so amazing to me how quickly we could move patients from one hospital to another. We started accepting up to 40 transfers a day. But hey, we were still really busy.”

Bellevue is the nation’s oldest public hospital. “We care for the homeless, for immigrants, and we don’t ask questions. That’s our mission. I’m so proud to work here, and so grateful,” Dr. Fagan said. “If someone is undocumented or without insurance, I will give them exactly the same care. We stepped up in a big way to care for people of New York, but we’ve always been there for them – and we were there for them during the COVID surge.”

The hospitals in the system also worked together in ways Dr. Fagan had never seen. “It helped to have a central command structure with a bird’s eye view from above the level of individual hospitals, to organize and see which hospitals could step up. It’s good to have the data to put it in perspective,” he said. The system also utilized a temporary low-acuity medical center set up by NYCH+H on Roosevelt Island, as well as field hospitals organized at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center and the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center.

“At Bellevue we tried to stay ready, with the ability to turn former hospital units that were being used as offices back to beds. We always had three units lined up that were fully ready to convert. For example, I was medical director of the preop clinic and one day they gave us 24 hours to pack everything and move out. Three days later, it was a 24-bed unit. We also built a more robust rapid response and code team,” he said.

“It was hard for me not to take hospitalist shifts, because my identity is being a doctor. I eventually came to terms with the importance of the role that I was doing every day. I felt I could protect my colleagues, and if they were having an emotional day, to give them the opportunity to talk to someone. I also did the onboarding, one-on-one, of the new doctors.”

As the crisis in New York City has ebbed, Dr. Fagan was recently able to again take a week of clinical service. “The first day back on the floor I felt that I had forgotten everything. But by the end of the day, I thought, ‘Okay, I do know how to do this, after all.’ Census is down here. It’s quiet. That’s good. We need it now,” he said.

“I think the hardest moment for me was when the head nurse on our trauma unit, Ernesto DeLeon, known to everybody here, died of COVID in our ICU in April,” Dr. Fagan said. When Mr. DeLeon died, 100 hospital personnel gathered in the halls outside the room to pay their respects. “There had been a palpable fear in our lives – and this showed us that the fear was real. Ernesto was the first person I knew well who died, who acquired COVID at work doing what we’re all doing. We haven’t lost any doctors yet, but when this nurse died, we allowed ourselves to realize that this is personal. In that moment, we needed to allow ourselves to be human.”

Joan Curcio, MD, associate director of medicine at Elmhurst Hospital, said Elmhurst was where the story started for New York City and for NYCH+H. “I trained here and have spent my entire career at this hospital. It came to feel like what a battleground must be like, with things coming at you from every direction,” she said. “It was overwhelming in ways I could not have foreseen. I had seen videos from Italy [an early COVID-19 epicenter], but until it happened here, it was just hard to process.”

Things started slowly, with a few patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and a 5- to 7-day turnaround to get results of their viral infection tests. “By week 2, a greater number of patients from our clinics and testing sites were filtering through the emergency department. Then hundreds.”

The normal occupancy rate for the department of medicine at Elmhurst is 110-115%, which typically means full beds plus patients in the emergency department. “We started to grow to 160, then 180, and then a peak of 250% of occupancy. We took over a rehab surgery floor, then a 35-bed surgery and hospice floor, which went to full capacity just like that,” she said. The number of non–critical care service teams increased to 20, working with redeployed staff, volunteers, military, and agency personnel, while ICU beds increased from 20 to 105.

“We were dealing with a much higher acuity level and enduring emotional turmoil with families, trying to carve out time to call them after our shift was over,” Dr. Curcio explained. Elmhurst developed a call-in hotline and a daily call-out service for families. Technology was mobilized to provide video visits and new systems were designed for isolation and for PPE distribution and use.

“I just felt that I couldn’t get everything done. I felt continually overwhelmed, and it didn’t matter how much time I took. I never felt I was able to give enough to anybody in any area, which was hard to take,” Dr. Curcio said. “But I still felt a sense of purpose and that I was making a difference – thanks to lots of support from the central office.”

Patient volume at Elmhurst is now down, lower than Dr. Curcio has ever seen it. “One of the main issues right now, moving forward, is ‘how do we function in a post-crisis mode?’” she said. The process of transitioning back to non-COVID-19 care will be complex. “When we clear a floor and clean it to go back to being a cold [COVID-19-negative] unit, it’s a whole different level of cleaning that takes 7 days.”

One moment that was particularly jarring for Dr. Curcio occurred while she was giving a tour of the hospital to visiting military medical personnel. “We went into the emergency department and I turned around and looked into a shower room, which was full of body bags. They were all full.”

But the experience has also been inspiring. “People gave their all without complaint. We hospitalists, and all those recruited to act as hospitalists, essentially took responsibility for the COVID response,” she said. “This was, hopefully, the experience of a lifetime as a medical professional. I wouldn’t want to ever experience something as daunting as this again.”
 

Reference

1. Israilov S et al. National outreach of telepalliative medicine volunteers for a New York City safety net system COVID-19 pandemic response. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2020 May 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.05.026.

New York City Health + Hospitals (NYCH+H), the country’s largest public health care system, encompasses 11 hospitals with 4,354 staffed acute beds during normal times. It serves as the safety net for 1.1 million of the 8.4 million residents of the most populous city in the United States, many of them uninsured, undocumented, covered by Medicaid, or otherwise disadvantaged.

At the very epicenter in the early days of the historic COVID-19 pandemic, NYCH+H transferred patients between its facilities, added medical and ICU beds by the hundreds, mobilized palliative care volunteers, harnessed telemedicine and a clinician hotline, and made other sweeping changes to ensure that the city’s public health system would be able to respond to demand at the peak of the surge. That peak hit in April, when an average of 9,000 new COVID-19 cases were being reported in the city every day.

Through it all, hospitalists have played critical roles in both planning for the system’s response and caring for severely ill COVID-19 patients. Their stories reflect both the unprecedented demands on the system and the dedication of frontline clinicians.

One of those, Carla Saladini-Aponte, MD, who just finished her residency in June 2019, found herself on the firing line in March 2020 as an attending physician at 457-bed NYCH+H/Jacobi Hospital in the Bronx. “I have experienced so much in my first year on the job, dealing with a disease that we’ve never seen before,” she said. “We didn’t grasp the extent of the COVID crisis in the beginning, so we were emotionally unprepared when it first hit.”

Starting on March 30, NYCH+H administration mobilized a centralized incident command structure to coordinate response systemwide to a rapidly changing situation.

Two weeks later Jacobi was a COVID-19 hospital, top to bottom, with its medical ICU beds increased from 12 to more than 100. By mid-April, Dr. Saladini-Aponte’s team, one of 11 medical teams in the hospital, had 26 patients, all of them with COVID-19. There was not a consensus in the early days on how to manage patients with severe respiratory distress. “But by the time the surge came, we had a better understanding of the scope of the situation,” she said.

Learning to be an attending

“They don’t teach you how to be an attending during residency,” Dr. Saladini-Aponte said. “At the beginning I wasn’t such a good teacher. I just wanted to prove myself and stay one step ahead of the residents. But as an academic hospitalist you have to listen to others. I learned to ask questions of the residents every morning, including how they were doing personally.”

Sometimes a visiting consultant would ask on the floor: “‘Where’s your attending?’” not recognizing Dr. Saladini-Aponte, fresh out of residency, filling that role. At times, she felt like a PGY-4 (postgraduate year 4). But she quickly grew into the attending role and was asked to be site coordinator for the mobilization of palliative medicine volunteers at Jacobi.

“We found ourselves having to make tough ethical decisions. Some patients, even if we provided a ventilator and maximum oxygen therapy, would still die. There were difficult discussions when we didn’t know if we had enough dialysis machines, or how to manage other limited resources. The hospital was saying: You decide, if there’s a high degree of certainty about the outcome. But we had never practiced medicine this way before,” she said.

“That’s why our hospital provided daily ethics meetings with our ethics council. There would be eight people sitting 6 feet apart in a conference room, all wearing masks. We’d talk about situations that were giving us trouble. Their role wasn’t to provide answers but to help us see the scope of the situation and the complexities,” she explained.

Dr. Saladini-Aponte said she has had many sleepless nights since the pandemic began. “Sometimes, I would come home from work and lie down on the floor and cry,” she said. “But we had so much support from volunteers helping our little hospitalist service of seven.” It was also important to keep up with the clinical information, and one of her coworkers created “cheat sheets” for the clinicians, regularly updated with the latest essential information on antibiotics, testing, and the like.

“At the peak, I was trying to read everything I could about the virus. I was just pulling myself in too many directions. I asked for help from my boyfriend to remind me not to log onto my computer when I came home from work,” she said. “One of my techniques for preventing burnout was just to avoid social media. I couldn’t deal with what was going on in the news. It just angered me. Even now, seeing people without masks makes me very uncomfortable.”
 

Organizing the crisis response

As chief value officer for NYCH+H, Hyung (Harry) Cho, MD, FACP, SFHM, typically focuses on issues of patient safety and overuse of medical treatments in the health system. But in the COVID-19 crisis, he found himself at the forefront of organizing its response. “We tried to provide support centrally and to standardize practice in how we test and treat,” he said.

“We were truly at the epicenter of the pandemic,” Dr. Cho said. “All of our hospitals had different experiences, and unique responses. But the system worked well.” Patients were transferred from the more overtaxed hospitals to Bellevue and other NYCH+H hospitals with spare beds. An emergency medical response structure was put in place, and every morning the system’s Tiger Team, with multidisciplinary personnel from administration, operations, logistics, and medical/technical specialists, would gather virtually to discuss needs across the system.

“It was a very open atmosphere and we asked people to report what was happening on the ground,” Dr. Cho said. “We started rapidly reviewing batches of 20 patients at a time for transfer in order to alleviate pressure in the most overtaxed ERs.”

NYCH+H also had to work through concerns about PPE, just like other U.S. hospitals. Treatment guidelines were changing by the day. Medical concerns were relayed at a rapid pace. Another priority was trying to limit unnecessary exposure for staff through a recommendation that only one clinician from a team would go into the room of an infected patient, unless another was absolutely needed.

The reality of public health

NYCH+H was created by the New York State Legislature in 1969 and rebranded in 2015. It includes a low- to no-cost health insurance plan called MetroPlus, along with outpatient centers, comprehensive case management, and social supports in the home.

“What people know about public health systems is that we typically are underresourced. That’s just the reality of public health,” Dr. Cho said. “We help the community, the underserved. The people who truly needed our help are also the ones who have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. And that is where we really shine as a system.”

Dr. Cho lauded the performance of the health system’s frontline staff. “Watching them come together during the entire pandemic, and do their best every day, was truly inspiring,” he said. “But when they got to the peak, it really took an emotional toll on them.”

NYCH+H’s in-house staff support program, called Helping Healers Heal, was mobilized with specially trained teams at each of its 11 hospitals to provide peer-to-peer support, mental health expertise, and team-debriefing sessions to staff members following traumatic events. Support is provided both over the phone and in person on the floors, Dr. Cho said. “During the surge, everything was happening so quickly, there was no time to take a pause. Now, as we are able to catch our breath, that’s when they most need support.”

The hospitalists at NYCH+H hospitals intended to have goals-of-care conversations with all patients, but everyone was very busy – so having these conversations became harder and harder, Dr. Cho said. Recognizing limited staffing for the quadrupling of patients who needed palliative care at NYCH+H hospitals, he asked the medicine chairs about their palliative care needs and then used social media outreach to ask for help. The message went viral, attracting 413 volunteers from across the country. Sixty-seven telepalliative volunteers were put to work doing goals-of-care conversations remotely with inpatients and their families.¹

Expediting transfers

For Ian Fagan, MD, a hospitalist and associate medical director for general internal medicine Inpatient Services at Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan, hospitalist shifts are a normal part of his job. But he had to give them up during the surge to focus on planning, management, and especially scheduling other doctors, with sufficient backups needed to cover last minute changes. Dr. Fagan did that by using the existing pool of hospitalist staff, physicians who were reassigned from other specialties, agency staff, military medical personnel, and volunteer doctors who flew in from around the country to help. He also worked 10- to 12-hour days for 36 consecutive days.

The impact of disparities in access to care in New York City was reflected in the greater demand for care in the hospitals in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. “With fewer patients and more hospital beds in Manhattan, we had the capacity to share our beds,” Dr. Fagan said. “It was so amazing to me how quickly we could move patients from one hospital to another. We started accepting up to 40 transfers a day. But hey, we were still really busy.”

Bellevue is the nation’s oldest public hospital. “We care for the homeless, for immigrants, and we don’t ask questions. That’s our mission. I’m so proud to work here, and so grateful,” Dr. Fagan said. “If someone is undocumented or without insurance, I will give them exactly the same care. We stepped up in a big way to care for people of New York, but we’ve always been there for them – and we were there for them during the COVID surge.”

The hospitals in the system also worked together in ways Dr. Fagan had never seen. “It helped to have a central command structure with a bird’s eye view from above the level of individual hospitals, to organize and see which hospitals could step up. It’s good to have the data to put it in perspective,” he said. The system also utilized a temporary low-acuity medical center set up by NYCH+H on Roosevelt Island, as well as field hospitals organized at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center and the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center.

“At Bellevue we tried to stay ready, with the ability to turn former hospital units that were being used as offices back to beds. We always had three units lined up that were fully ready to convert. For example, I was medical director of the preop clinic and one day they gave us 24 hours to pack everything and move out. Three days later, it was a 24-bed unit. We also built a more robust rapid response and code team,” he said.

“It was hard for me not to take hospitalist shifts, because my identity is being a doctor. I eventually came to terms with the importance of the role that I was doing every day. I felt I could protect my colleagues, and if they were having an emotional day, to give them the opportunity to talk to someone. I also did the onboarding, one-on-one, of the new doctors.”

As the crisis in New York City has ebbed, Dr. Fagan was recently able to again take a week of clinical service. “The first day back on the floor I felt that I had forgotten everything. But by the end of the day, I thought, ‘Okay, I do know how to do this, after all.’ Census is down here. It’s quiet. That’s good. We need it now,” he said.

“I think the hardest moment for me was when the head nurse on our trauma unit, Ernesto DeLeon, known to everybody here, died of COVID in our ICU in April,” Dr. Fagan said. When Mr. DeLeon died, 100 hospital personnel gathered in the halls outside the room to pay their respects. “There had been a palpable fear in our lives – and this showed us that the fear was real. Ernesto was the first person I knew well who died, who acquired COVID at work doing what we’re all doing. We haven’t lost any doctors yet, but when this nurse died, we allowed ourselves to realize that this is personal. In that moment, we needed to allow ourselves to be human.”

Joan Curcio, MD, associate director of medicine at Elmhurst Hospital, said Elmhurst was where the story started for New York City and for NYCH+H. “I trained here and have spent my entire career at this hospital. It came to feel like what a battleground must be like, with things coming at you from every direction,” she said. “It was overwhelming in ways I could not have foreseen. I had seen videos from Italy [an early COVID-19 epicenter], but until it happened here, it was just hard to process.”

Things started slowly, with a few patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and a 5- to 7-day turnaround to get results of their viral infection tests. “By week 2, a greater number of patients from our clinics and testing sites were filtering through the emergency department. Then hundreds.”

The normal occupancy rate for the department of medicine at Elmhurst is 110-115%, which typically means full beds plus patients in the emergency department. “We started to grow to 160, then 180, and then a peak of 250% of occupancy. We took over a rehab surgery floor, then a 35-bed surgery and hospice floor, which went to full capacity just like that,” she said. The number of non–critical care service teams increased to 20, working with redeployed staff, volunteers, military, and agency personnel, while ICU beds increased from 20 to 105.

“We were dealing with a much higher acuity level and enduring emotional turmoil with families, trying to carve out time to call them after our shift was over,” Dr. Curcio explained. Elmhurst developed a call-in hotline and a daily call-out service for families. Technology was mobilized to provide video visits and new systems were designed for isolation and for PPE distribution and use.

“I just felt that I couldn’t get everything done. I felt continually overwhelmed, and it didn’t matter how much time I took. I never felt I was able to give enough to anybody in any area, which was hard to take,” Dr. Curcio said. “But I still felt a sense of purpose and that I was making a difference – thanks to lots of support from the central office.”

Patient volume at Elmhurst is now down, lower than Dr. Curcio has ever seen it. “One of the main issues right now, moving forward, is ‘how do we function in a post-crisis mode?’” she said. The process of transitioning back to non-COVID-19 care will be complex. “When we clear a floor and clean it to go back to being a cold [COVID-19-negative] unit, it’s a whole different level of cleaning that takes 7 days.”

One moment that was particularly jarring for Dr. Curcio occurred while she was giving a tour of the hospital to visiting military medical personnel. “We went into the emergency department and I turned around and looked into a shower room, which was full of body bags. They were all full.”

But the experience has also been inspiring. “People gave their all without complaint. We hospitalists, and all those recruited to act as hospitalists, essentially took responsibility for the COVID response,” she said. “This was, hopefully, the experience of a lifetime as a medical professional. I wouldn’t want to ever experience something as daunting as this again.”
 

Reference

1. Israilov S et al. National outreach of telepalliative medicine volunteers for a New York City safety net system COVID-19 pandemic response. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2020 May 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.05.026.

New York City Health + Hospitals (NYCH+H), the country’s largest public health care system, encompasses 11 hospitals with 4,354 staffed acute beds during normal times. It serves as the safety net for 1.1 million of the 8.4 million residents of the most populous city in the United States, many of them uninsured, undocumented, covered by Medicaid, or otherwise disadvantaged.

At the very epicenter in the early days of the historic COVID-19 pandemic, NYCH+H transferred patients between its facilities, added medical and ICU beds by the hundreds, mobilized palliative care volunteers, harnessed telemedicine and a clinician hotline, and made other sweeping changes to ensure that the city’s public health system would be able to respond to demand at the peak of the surge. That peak hit in April, when an average of 9,000 new COVID-19 cases were being reported in the city every day.

Through it all, hospitalists have played critical roles in both planning for the system’s response and caring for severely ill COVID-19 patients. Their stories reflect both the unprecedented demands on the system and the dedication of frontline clinicians.

One of those, Carla Saladini-Aponte, MD, who just finished her residency in June 2019, found herself on the firing line in March 2020 as an attending physician at 457-bed NYCH+H/Jacobi Hospital in the Bronx. “I have experienced so much in my first year on the job, dealing with a disease that we’ve never seen before,” she said. “We didn’t grasp the extent of the COVID crisis in the beginning, so we were emotionally unprepared when it first hit.”

Starting on March 30, NYCH+H administration mobilized a centralized incident command structure to coordinate response systemwide to a rapidly changing situation.

Two weeks later Jacobi was a COVID-19 hospital, top to bottom, with its medical ICU beds increased from 12 to more than 100. By mid-April, Dr. Saladini-Aponte’s team, one of 11 medical teams in the hospital, had 26 patients, all of them with COVID-19. There was not a consensus in the early days on how to manage patients with severe respiratory distress. “But by the time the surge came, we had a better understanding of the scope of the situation,” she said.

Learning to be an attending

“They don’t teach you how to be an attending during residency,” Dr. Saladini-Aponte said. “At the beginning I wasn’t such a good teacher. I just wanted to prove myself and stay one step ahead of the residents. But as an academic hospitalist you have to listen to others. I learned to ask questions of the residents every morning, including how they were doing personally.”

Sometimes a visiting consultant would ask on the floor: “‘Where’s your attending?’” not recognizing Dr. Saladini-Aponte, fresh out of residency, filling that role. At times, she felt like a PGY-4 (postgraduate year 4). But she quickly grew into the attending role and was asked to be site coordinator for the mobilization of palliative medicine volunteers at Jacobi.

“We found ourselves having to make tough ethical decisions. Some patients, even if we provided a ventilator and maximum oxygen therapy, would still die. There were difficult discussions when we didn’t know if we had enough dialysis machines, or how to manage other limited resources. The hospital was saying: You decide, if there’s a high degree of certainty about the outcome. But we had never practiced medicine this way before,” she said.

“That’s why our hospital provided daily ethics meetings with our ethics council. There would be eight people sitting 6 feet apart in a conference room, all wearing masks. We’d talk about situations that were giving us trouble. Their role wasn’t to provide answers but to help us see the scope of the situation and the complexities,” she explained.

Dr. Saladini-Aponte said she has had many sleepless nights since the pandemic began. “Sometimes, I would come home from work and lie down on the floor and cry,” she said. “But we had so much support from volunteers helping our little hospitalist service of seven.” It was also important to keep up with the clinical information, and one of her coworkers created “cheat sheets” for the clinicians, regularly updated with the latest essential information on antibiotics, testing, and the like.

“At the peak, I was trying to read everything I could about the virus. I was just pulling myself in too many directions. I asked for help from my boyfriend to remind me not to log onto my computer when I came home from work,” she said. “One of my techniques for preventing burnout was just to avoid social media. I couldn’t deal with what was going on in the news. It just angered me. Even now, seeing people without masks makes me very uncomfortable.”
 

Organizing the crisis response

As chief value officer for NYCH+H, Hyung (Harry) Cho, MD, FACP, SFHM, typically focuses on issues of patient safety and overuse of medical treatments in the health system. But in the COVID-19 crisis, he found himself at the forefront of organizing its response. “We tried to provide support centrally and to standardize practice in how we test and treat,” he said.

“We were truly at the epicenter of the pandemic,” Dr. Cho said. “All of our hospitals had different experiences, and unique responses. But the system worked well.” Patients were transferred from the more overtaxed hospitals to Bellevue and other NYCH+H hospitals with spare beds. An emergency medical response structure was put in place, and every morning the system’s Tiger Team, with multidisciplinary personnel from administration, operations, logistics, and medical/technical specialists, would gather virtually to discuss needs across the system.

“It was a very open atmosphere and we asked people to report what was happening on the ground,” Dr. Cho said. “We started rapidly reviewing batches of 20 patients at a time for transfer in order to alleviate pressure in the most overtaxed ERs.”

NYCH+H also had to work through concerns about PPE, just like other U.S. hospitals. Treatment guidelines were changing by the day. Medical concerns were relayed at a rapid pace. Another priority was trying to limit unnecessary exposure for staff through a recommendation that only one clinician from a team would go into the room of an infected patient, unless another was absolutely needed.

The reality of public health

NYCH+H was created by the New York State Legislature in 1969 and rebranded in 2015. It includes a low- to no-cost health insurance plan called MetroPlus, along with outpatient centers, comprehensive case management, and social supports in the home.

“What people know about public health systems is that we typically are underresourced. That’s just the reality of public health,” Dr. Cho said. “We help the community, the underserved. The people who truly needed our help are also the ones who have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. And that is where we really shine as a system.”

Dr. Cho lauded the performance of the health system’s frontline staff. “Watching them come together during the entire pandemic, and do their best every day, was truly inspiring,” he said. “But when they got to the peak, it really took an emotional toll on them.”

NYCH+H’s in-house staff support program, called Helping Healers Heal, was mobilized with specially trained teams at each of its 11 hospitals to provide peer-to-peer support, mental health expertise, and team-debriefing sessions to staff members following traumatic events. Support is provided both over the phone and in person on the floors, Dr. Cho said. “During the surge, everything was happening so quickly, there was no time to take a pause. Now, as we are able to catch our breath, that’s when they most need support.”

The hospitalists at NYCH+H hospitals intended to have goals-of-care conversations with all patients, but everyone was very busy – so having these conversations became harder and harder, Dr. Cho said. Recognizing limited staffing for the quadrupling of patients who needed palliative care at NYCH+H hospitals, he asked the medicine chairs about their palliative care needs and then used social media outreach to ask for help. The message went viral, attracting 413 volunteers from across the country. Sixty-seven telepalliative volunteers were put to work doing goals-of-care conversations remotely with inpatients and their families.¹

Expediting transfers

For Ian Fagan, MD, a hospitalist and associate medical director for general internal medicine Inpatient Services at Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan, hospitalist shifts are a normal part of his job. But he had to give them up during the surge to focus on planning, management, and especially scheduling other doctors, with sufficient backups needed to cover last minute changes. Dr. Fagan did that by using the existing pool of hospitalist staff, physicians who were reassigned from other specialties, agency staff, military medical personnel, and volunteer doctors who flew in from around the country to help. He also worked 10- to 12-hour days for 36 consecutive days.

The impact of disparities in access to care in New York City was reflected in the greater demand for care in the hospitals in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. “With fewer patients and more hospital beds in Manhattan, we had the capacity to share our beds,” Dr. Fagan said. “It was so amazing to me how quickly we could move patients from one hospital to another. We started accepting up to 40 transfers a day. But hey, we were still really busy.”

Bellevue is the nation’s oldest public hospital. “We care for the homeless, for immigrants, and we don’t ask questions. That’s our mission. I’m so proud to work here, and so grateful,” Dr. Fagan said. “If someone is undocumented or without insurance, I will give them exactly the same care. We stepped up in a big way to care for people of New York, but we’ve always been there for them – and we were there for them during the COVID surge.”

The hospitals in the system also worked together in ways Dr. Fagan had never seen. “It helped to have a central command structure with a bird’s eye view from above the level of individual hospitals, to organize and see which hospitals could step up. It’s good to have the data to put it in perspective,” he said. The system also utilized a temporary low-acuity medical center set up by NYCH+H on Roosevelt Island, as well as field hospitals organized at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center and the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center.

“At Bellevue we tried to stay ready, with the ability to turn former hospital units that were being used as offices back to beds. We always had three units lined up that were fully ready to convert. For example, I was medical director of the preop clinic and one day they gave us 24 hours to pack everything and move out. Three days later, it was a 24-bed unit. We also built a more robust rapid response and code team,” he said.

“It was hard for me not to take hospitalist shifts, because my identity is being a doctor. I eventually came to terms with the importance of the role that I was doing every day. I felt I could protect my colleagues, and if they were having an emotional day, to give them the opportunity to talk to someone. I also did the onboarding, one-on-one, of the new doctors.”

As the crisis in New York City has ebbed, Dr. Fagan was recently able to again take a week of clinical service. “The first day back on the floor I felt that I had forgotten everything. But by the end of the day, I thought, ‘Okay, I do know how to do this, after all.’ Census is down here. It’s quiet. That’s good. We need it now,” he said.

“I think the hardest moment for me was when the head nurse on our trauma unit, Ernesto DeLeon, known to everybody here, died of COVID in our ICU in April,” Dr. Fagan said. When Mr. DeLeon died, 100 hospital personnel gathered in the halls outside the room to pay their respects. “There had been a palpable fear in our lives – and this showed us that the fear was real. Ernesto was the first person I knew well who died, who acquired COVID at work doing what we’re all doing. We haven’t lost any doctors yet, but when this nurse died, we allowed ourselves to realize that this is personal. In that moment, we needed to allow ourselves to be human.”

Joan Curcio, MD, associate director of medicine at Elmhurst Hospital, said Elmhurst was where the story started for New York City and for NYCH+H. “I trained here and have spent my entire career at this hospital. It came to feel like what a battleground must be like, with things coming at you from every direction,” she said. “It was overwhelming in ways I could not have foreseen. I had seen videos from Italy [an early COVID-19 epicenter], but until it happened here, it was just hard to process.”

Things started slowly, with a few patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and a 5- to 7-day turnaround to get results of their viral infection tests. “By week 2, a greater number of patients from our clinics and testing sites were filtering through the emergency department. Then hundreds.”

The normal occupancy rate for the department of medicine at Elmhurst is 110-115%, which typically means full beds plus patients in the emergency department. “We started to grow to 160, then 180, and then a peak of 250% of occupancy. We took over a rehab surgery floor, then a 35-bed surgery and hospice floor, which went to full capacity just like that,” she said. The number of non–critical care service teams increased to 20, working with redeployed staff, volunteers, military, and agency personnel, while ICU beds increased from 20 to 105.

“We were dealing with a much higher acuity level and enduring emotional turmoil with families, trying to carve out time to call them after our shift was over,” Dr. Curcio explained. Elmhurst developed a call-in hotline and a daily call-out service for families. Technology was mobilized to provide video visits and new systems were designed for isolation and for PPE distribution and use.

“I just felt that I couldn’t get everything done. I felt continually overwhelmed, and it didn’t matter how much time I took. I never felt I was able to give enough to anybody in any area, which was hard to take,” Dr. Curcio said. “But I still felt a sense of purpose and that I was making a difference – thanks to lots of support from the central office.”

Patient volume at Elmhurst is now down, lower than Dr. Curcio has ever seen it. “One of the main issues right now, moving forward, is ‘how do we function in a post-crisis mode?’” she said. The process of transitioning back to non-COVID-19 care will be complex. “When we clear a floor and clean it to go back to being a cold [COVID-19-negative] unit, it’s a whole different level of cleaning that takes 7 days.”

One moment that was particularly jarring for Dr. Curcio occurred while she was giving a tour of the hospital to visiting military medical personnel. “We went into the emergency department and I turned around and looked into a shower room, which was full of body bags. They were all full.”

But the experience has also been inspiring. “People gave their all without complaint. We hospitalists, and all those recruited to act as hospitalists, essentially took responsibility for the COVID response,” she said. “This was, hopefully, the experience of a lifetime as a medical professional. I wouldn’t want to ever experience something as daunting as this again.”
 

Reference

1. Israilov S et al. National outreach of telepalliative medicine volunteers for a New York City safety net system COVID-19 pandemic response. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2020 May 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.05.026.

Breast milk is an unlikely source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mothers to infants, according to data from case reports and breast milk samples from 18 women.

South_agency/Getty Images

“To date, SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated from breast milk, and there are no documented cases of transmission of infectious virus to the infant through breast milk,” but the potential for transmission remains a concern among women who want to breastfeed, wrote Christina Chambers, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA, the investigators identified 18 women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections (all but 1 of the women had symptomatic COVID-19 disease) and infants aged 0-19 months between March 27 and May 6, 2020. The average age of the mothers was 34 years, and 78% were non-Hispanic White. The women provided 1-12 samples of breast milk for a total of 64 samples collected before and after positive COVID-19 tests.

One sample yielded detectable RNA from SARS-CoV-2 and was collected on the day of the woman’s symptom onset. However, one sample taken 2 days prior to symptom onset and two samples collected 12 and 41 days later tested negative for viral RNA, the researchers said. In addition, no replication-competent virus was identified in the positive sample or any of the other samples.

The researchers spiked two stored milk samples collected prior to the pandemic with replication-competent SARS-CoV-2. Virus was not detected by culture in the samples after Holder pasteurization, but was detected by culture in nonpasteurized aliquots of the same samples.

“These data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 RNA does not represent replication-competent virus and that breast milk may not be a source of infection for the infant,” Dr. Chambers and associates said.

The results were limited by several factors including the small sample size and potential for selection bias, as well as the use of self-reports of positive tests and self-collection of breast milk, the researchers noted. However, the findings are reassuring in light of the known benefits of breastfeeding and the use of milk banks.

“This research is important because the pandemic is ongoing and has far-reaching consequences: as the authors indicate, the potential for viral transmission through breast milk remains a critical question for women infected with SARS-CoV-2 who wish to breastfeed,” Janet R. Hardy, PhD, MPH, MSc, a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology, said in an interview.

“This virus has everyone on a rapid learning track, and all information that helps build evidence to support women’s decision-making in the care of their children is valuable,” she said. “These findings suggest that breast milk may not be a source of SARS-CoV-2 infection for the infant. They provide some reassurance given the recognized benefits of breastfeeding and human milk.”

However, “This study is very specific to breast milk,” she emphasized. “In advising women infected with SARS-CoV-2, clinicians may want to include a discussion of protection methods to prevent maternal transmission of the virus through respiratory droplets.”

Although the data are preliminary, “the investigators established and validated an RT-PCR [reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction] assay and developed tissue culture methods for replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 in breast milk, both valuable tools for further studies. Next steps will include controlled studies of greater sample size with independent verification of RT-PCR positivity,” said Dr. Hardy, a consultant to Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, Conn.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Institute of Mental Health. Medela Corporation provided milk sample collection materials. The Family Larsson-Rosenquist Foundation provided an unrestricted COVID19 emergency gift fund. The Mothers’ Milk Bank at Austin paid for shipping costs.

SOURCE: Chambers C et al. JAMA. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.15580.

Breast milk is an unlikely source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mothers to infants, according to data from case reports and breast milk samples from 18 women.

South_agency/Getty Images

“To date, SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated from breast milk, and there are no documented cases of transmission of infectious virus to the infant through breast milk,” but the potential for transmission remains a concern among women who want to breastfeed, wrote Christina Chambers, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA, the investigators identified 18 women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections (all but 1 of the women had symptomatic COVID-19 disease) and infants aged 0-19 months between March 27 and May 6, 2020. The average age of the mothers was 34 years, and 78% were non-Hispanic White. The women provided 1-12 samples of breast milk for a total of 64 samples collected before and after positive COVID-19 tests.

One sample yielded detectable RNA from SARS-CoV-2 and was collected on the day of the woman’s symptom onset. However, one sample taken 2 days prior to symptom onset and two samples collected 12 and 41 days later tested negative for viral RNA, the researchers said. In addition, no replication-competent virus was identified in the positive sample or any of the other samples.

The researchers spiked two stored milk samples collected prior to the pandemic with replication-competent SARS-CoV-2. Virus was not detected by culture in the samples after Holder pasteurization, but was detected by culture in nonpasteurized aliquots of the same samples.

“These data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 RNA does not represent replication-competent virus and that breast milk may not be a source of infection for the infant,” Dr. Chambers and associates said.

The results were limited by several factors including the small sample size and potential for selection bias, as well as the use of self-reports of positive tests and self-collection of breast milk, the researchers noted. However, the findings are reassuring in light of the known benefits of breastfeeding and the use of milk banks.

“This research is important because the pandemic is ongoing and has far-reaching consequences: as the authors indicate, the potential for viral transmission through breast milk remains a critical question for women infected with SARS-CoV-2 who wish to breastfeed,” Janet R. Hardy, PhD, MPH, MSc, a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology, said in an interview.

“This virus has everyone on a rapid learning track, and all information that helps build evidence to support women’s decision-making in the care of their children is valuable,” she said. “These findings suggest that breast milk may not be a source of SARS-CoV-2 infection for the infant. They provide some reassurance given the recognized benefits of breastfeeding and human milk.”

However, “This study is very specific to breast milk,” she emphasized. “In advising women infected with SARS-CoV-2, clinicians may want to include a discussion of protection methods to prevent maternal transmission of the virus through respiratory droplets.”

Although the data are preliminary, “the investigators established and validated an RT-PCR [reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction] assay and developed tissue culture methods for replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 in breast milk, both valuable tools for further studies. Next steps will include controlled studies of greater sample size with independent verification of RT-PCR positivity,” said Dr. Hardy, a consultant to Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, Conn.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Institute of Mental Health. Medela Corporation provided milk sample collection materials. The Family Larsson-Rosenquist Foundation provided an unrestricted COVID19 emergency gift fund. The Mothers’ Milk Bank at Austin paid for shipping costs.

SOURCE: Chambers C et al. JAMA. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.15580.

Breast milk is an unlikely source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mothers to infants, according to data from case reports and breast milk samples from 18 women.

South_agency/Getty Images

“To date, SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated from breast milk, and there are no documented cases of transmission of infectious virus to the infant through breast milk,” but the potential for transmission remains a concern among women who want to breastfeed, wrote Christina Chambers, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA, the investigators identified 18 women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections (all but 1 of the women had symptomatic COVID-19 disease) and infants aged 0-19 months between March 27 and May 6, 2020. The average age of the mothers was 34 years, and 78% were non-Hispanic White. The women provided 1-12 samples of breast milk for a total of 64 samples collected before and after positive COVID-19 tests.

One sample yielded detectable RNA from SARS-CoV-2 and was collected on the day of the woman’s symptom onset. However, one sample taken 2 days prior to symptom onset and two samples collected 12 and 41 days later tested negative for viral RNA, the researchers said. In addition, no replication-competent virus was identified in the positive sample or any of the other samples.

The researchers spiked two stored milk samples collected prior to the pandemic with replication-competent SARS-CoV-2. Virus was not detected by culture in the samples after Holder pasteurization, but was detected by culture in nonpasteurized aliquots of the same samples.

“These data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 RNA does not represent replication-competent virus and that breast milk may not be a source of infection for the infant,” Dr. Chambers and associates said.

The results were limited by several factors including the small sample size and potential for selection bias, as well as the use of self-reports of positive tests and self-collection of breast milk, the researchers noted. However, the findings are reassuring in light of the known benefits of breastfeeding and the use of milk banks.

“This research is important because the pandemic is ongoing and has far-reaching consequences: as the authors indicate, the potential for viral transmission through breast milk remains a critical question for women infected with SARS-CoV-2 who wish to breastfeed,” Janet R. Hardy, PhD, MPH, MSc, a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology, said in an interview.

“This virus has everyone on a rapid learning track, and all information that helps build evidence to support women’s decision-making in the care of their children is valuable,” she said. “These findings suggest that breast milk may not be a source of SARS-CoV-2 infection for the infant. They provide some reassurance given the recognized benefits of breastfeeding and human milk.”

However, “This study is very specific to breast milk,” she emphasized. “In advising women infected with SARS-CoV-2, clinicians may want to include a discussion of protection methods to prevent maternal transmission of the virus through respiratory droplets.”

Although the data are preliminary, “the investigators established and validated an RT-PCR [reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction] assay and developed tissue culture methods for replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 in breast milk, both valuable tools for further studies. Next steps will include controlled studies of greater sample size with independent verification of RT-PCR positivity,” said Dr. Hardy, a consultant to Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, Conn.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Institute of Mental Health. Medela Corporation provided milk sample collection materials. The Family Larsson-Rosenquist Foundation provided an unrestricted COVID19 emergency gift fund. The Mothers’ Milk Bank at Austin paid for shipping costs.

SOURCE: Chambers C et al. JAMA. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.15580.

In a previous column, I addressed some of the issues that quickly arose in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for reproductive psychiatry. These issues ranged from the importance of sustaining well-being in pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, to temporary restrictions that were in place during the early part of the pandemic with respect to performing infertility procedures, to the practical issues of limiting the number of people who could attend to women during labor and delivery in the hospital.

lechatnoir/E+

Five months later, we’ve learned a great deal about trying to sustain emotional well-being among pregnant women during COVID-19. There is a high rate of anxiety among women who are pregnant and women who have particularly young children around the various issues of juggling activities of daily living during the pandemic, including switching to remote work and homeschooling children. There is fear of contracting COVID-19 during pregnancy, the exact effects of which are still somewhat unknown. We have seen a shift to telemedicine for prenatal and postpartum obstetrics visits, and a change with respect to visitors and even in-home nurses that would help during the first weeks of life for some couples.

We wondered whether we would see a falloff in the numbers of women presenting to our clinic with questions about the reproductive safety of taking psychiatric medications during pregnancy. We were unclear as to whether women would defer plans to get pregnant given some of the uncertainties that have come with COVID-19. What we’ve seen, at least early on in the pandemic in Massachusetts, has been the opposite. More women during the first 4 months of the pandemic have been seen in our center compared with the same corresponding period over the last 5 years. The precise reasons for this are unclear, but one reason may be that shifting the practice of reproductive psychiatry and pregnancy planning for reproductive-age women to full virtual care has dropped the number of missed appointments to essentially zero. Women perhaps feel an urgency to have a plan for using psychiatric medication during pregnancy. They may also see the benefit of being able to have extended telemedicine consultations that frequently involve their partners, a practice we have always supported, but posed logistical challenges for some.

As our colleagues learned that we had shifted our clinical rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health, which we’ve been doing for 25 years, to a virtual format, we began offering a free 1-hour forum to discuss relevant issues around caring for psychiatrically ill women, with a focus on some of the issues that were particularly relevant during the pandemic. The most common reasons for consultation on our service are the appropriate, safest use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy, and that continues to be the case.

If there has been one guiding principle in treating perinatal depression during pregnancy, it has been our long-standing, laser-like focus on keeping women emotionally well during pregnancy, and to highlight the importance of this with women during consultations prior to and during pregnancy. Relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is one the strongest predictors of postpartum depression, and the impact of untreated depression during pregnancy has been described in the literature and over the years in this column. However, the implications of having severe relapse of a mood disorder, for example, such as depression or bipolar disorder during the pandemic, takes on a new context where we want to minimize, if possible, severe onset of illness requiring hospitalization or emergent attention considering it may make social distancing and some of the other mitigating factors vis-à-vis COVID-19 more challenging.

Despite the accumulated data over the last 2 decades on the reproductive safety of antidepressants, women continue to have questions about the safety of these medications during pregnancy. Studies show now that many women would prefer, if at all possible, to defer treatment with antidepressants, and so they come to us with questions about their reproductive safety, the potential of switching to nonpharmacologic interventions, and the use of alternative interventions that might be used to treat their underlying mood disorder.

Investigators at the University of British Columbia recently have tried to inform the field with still another look, not at reproductive safety per se, but at risk of relapse of depression if women discontinue those medicines during pregnancy.¹ There is a timeliness to this investigation, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that met a priori criteria for inclusion. Since some of our own group’s early work over 15 years ago on relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy,² which indicated a substantial difference in risk of relapse between women who continued versus who discontinued antidepressants, other investigators have showed the difference in risk for relapse is not as substantial, and that continuation of medication did not appear to mitigate risk for relapse. In fact, in the systematic review, the investigators demonstrated that as a group, maintaining medicine did not appear to confer particular benefit to patients relative to risk for relapse compared to discontinuation of antidepressants.

However, looking more closely, Bayrampour and colleagues note for women with histories of more severe recurrent, major depression, relapse did in fact appear to be greater in women who discontinued compared with those with cases of mild to moderate depression. It is noteworthy that in both our early and later work, and certainly dovetailing with our clinical practice, we have noted severity of illness does not appear to correlate with the actual decisions women ultimately make regarding what they will do with antidepressants. Specifically, some women with very severe illness histories will discontinue antidepressants regardless of their risk for relapse. Alternatively, women with mild to moderate illness will sometimes elect to stay on antidepressant therapy. With all the information that we have about fetal exposure to antidepressants on one hand, the “unknown unknowns” are an understandable concern to both patients and clinicians. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of how to best counsel women on continuing or discontinuing antidepressants as they plan to conceive or during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.

The literature cited and clinical experience over the last 3 decades suggests rather strongly that there is a relatively low likelihood women with histories of severe recurrent disease will be able to successfully discontinue antidepressants in the absence of relapse. A greater question is, what is the best way to proceed for women who have been on maintenance therapy and had more moderate symptoms?

I am inspired by some of the more recent literature that has tried to elucidate the role of nonpharmacologic interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in an effort to mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who are well with histories of depression. To date, data do not inform the question as to whether MBCT can be used to mitigate risk of depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressants. That research question is actively being studied by several investigators, including ourselves.

Of particular interest is whether the addition of mindfulness practices such as MBCT in treatment could mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressant treatment, as that would certainly be a no-harm intervention that could mitigate risk even in a lower risk sample of patients. The question of how to “thread the needle” during the pandemic and best approach woman with a history of recurrent major depression on antidepressants is particularly timely and critical.

Regardless, we make clinical decisions collaboratively with patients based on their histories and individual wishes, and perhaps what we have learned over the last 5 months is the use of telemedicine does afford us the opportunity, regardless of the decisions that patients make, to more closely follow the clinical trajectory of women during pregnancy and the postpartum period so that regardless of treatment, we have an opportunity to intervene early when needed and to ascertain changes in clinical status early to mitigate the risk of frank relapse. From a reproductive psychiatric point of view, that is a silver lining with respect to the associated challenges that have come along with the pandemic.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

References

1. J Clin Psychiatry 2020;81(4):19r13134.

2. JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295(5):499-507.

In a previous column, I addressed some of the issues that quickly arose in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for reproductive psychiatry. These issues ranged from the importance of sustaining well-being in pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, to temporary restrictions that were in place during the early part of the pandemic with respect to performing infertility procedures, to the practical issues of limiting the number of people who could attend to women during labor and delivery in the hospital.

lechatnoir/E+

Five months later, we’ve learned a great deal about trying to sustain emotional well-being among pregnant women during COVID-19. There is a high rate of anxiety among women who are pregnant and women who have particularly young children around the various issues of juggling activities of daily living during the pandemic, including switching to remote work and homeschooling children. There is fear of contracting COVID-19 during pregnancy, the exact effects of which are still somewhat unknown. We have seen a shift to telemedicine for prenatal and postpartum obstetrics visits, and a change with respect to visitors and even in-home nurses that would help during the first weeks of life for some couples.

We wondered whether we would see a falloff in the numbers of women presenting to our clinic with questions about the reproductive safety of taking psychiatric medications during pregnancy. We were unclear as to whether women would defer plans to get pregnant given some of the uncertainties that have come with COVID-19. What we’ve seen, at least early on in the pandemic in Massachusetts, has been the opposite. More women during the first 4 months of the pandemic have been seen in our center compared with the same corresponding period over the last 5 years. The precise reasons for this are unclear, but one reason may be that shifting the practice of reproductive psychiatry and pregnancy planning for reproductive-age women to full virtual care has dropped the number of missed appointments to essentially zero. Women perhaps feel an urgency to have a plan for using psychiatric medication during pregnancy. They may also see the benefit of being able to have extended telemedicine consultations that frequently involve their partners, a practice we have always supported, but posed logistical challenges for some.

As our colleagues learned that we had shifted our clinical rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health, which we’ve been doing for 25 years, to a virtual format, we began offering a free 1-hour forum to discuss relevant issues around caring for psychiatrically ill women, with a focus on some of the issues that were particularly relevant during the pandemic. The most common reasons for consultation on our service are the appropriate, safest use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy, and that continues to be the case.

If there has been one guiding principle in treating perinatal depression during pregnancy, it has been our long-standing, laser-like focus on keeping women emotionally well during pregnancy, and to highlight the importance of this with women during consultations prior to and during pregnancy. Relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is one the strongest predictors of postpartum depression, and the impact of untreated depression during pregnancy has been described in the literature and over the years in this column. However, the implications of having severe relapse of a mood disorder, for example, such as depression or bipolar disorder during the pandemic, takes on a new context where we want to minimize, if possible, severe onset of illness requiring hospitalization or emergent attention considering it may make social distancing and some of the other mitigating factors vis-à-vis COVID-19 more challenging.

Despite the accumulated data over the last 2 decades on the reproductive safety of antidepressants, women continue to have questions about the safety of these medications during pregnancy. Studies show now that many women would prefer, if at all possible, to defer treatment with antidepressants, and so they come to us with questions about their reproductive safety, the potential of switching to nonpharmacologic interventions, and the use of alternative interventions that might be used to treat their underlying mood disorder.

Investigators at the University of British Columbia recently have tried to inform the field with still another look, not at reproductive safety per se, but at risk of relapse of depression if women discontinue those medicines during pregnancy.¹ There is a timeliness to this investigation, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that met a priori criteria for inclusion. Since some of our own group’s early work over 15 years ago on relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy,² which indicated a substantial difference in risk of relapse between women who continued versus who discontinued antidepressants, other investigators have showed the difference in risk for relapse is not as substantial, and that continuation of medication did not appear to mitigate risk for relapse. In fact, in the systematic review, the investigators demonstrated that as a group, maintaining medicine did not appear to confer particular benefit to patients relative to risk for relapse compared to discontinuation of antidepressants.

However, looking more closely, Bayrampour and colleagues note for women with histories of more severe recurrent, major depression, relapse did in fact appear to be greater in women who discontinued compared with those with cases of mild to moderate depression. It is noteworthy that in both our early and later work, and certainly dovetailing with our clinical practice, we have noted severity of illness does not appear to correlate with the actual decisions women ultimately make regarding what they will do with antidepressants. Specifically, some women with very severe illness histories will discontinue antidepressants regardless of their risk for relapse. Alternatively, women with mild to moderate illness will sometimes elect to stay on antidepressant therapy. With all the information that we have about fetal exposure to antidepressants on one hand, the “unknown unknowns” are an understandable concern to both patients and clinicians. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of how to best counsel women on continuing or discontinuing antidepressants as they plan to conceive or during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.

The literature cited and clinical experience over the last 3 decades suggests rather strongly that there is a relatively low likelihood women with histories of severe recurrent disease will be able to successfully discontinue antidepressants in the absence of relapse. A greater question is, what is the best way to proceed for women who have been on maintenance therapy and had more moderate symptoms?

I am inspired by some of the more recent literature that has tried to elucidate the role of nonpharmacologic interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in an effort to mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who are well with histories of depression. To date, data do not inform the question as to whether MBCT can be used to mitigate risk of depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressants. That research question is actively being studied by several investigators, including ourselves.

Of particular interest is whether the addition of mindfulness practices such as MBCT in treatment could mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressant treatment, as that would certainly be a no-harm intervention that could mitigate risk even in a lower risk sample of patients. The question of how to “thread the needle” during the pandemic and best approach woman with a history of recurrent major depression on antidepressants is particularly timely and critical.

Regardless, we make clinical decisions collaboratively with patients based on their histories and individual wishes, and perhaps what we have learned over the last 5 months is the use of telemedicine does afford us the opportunity, regardless of the decisions that patients make, to more closely follow the clinical trajectory of women during pregnancy and the postpartum period so that regardless of treatment, we have an opportunity to intervene early when needed and to ascertain changes in clinical status early to mitigate the risk of frank relapse. From a reproductive psychiatric point of view, that is a silver lining with respect to the associated challenges that have come along with the pandemic.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

References

1. J Clin Psychiatry 2020;81(4):19r13134.

2. JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295(5):499-507.

In a previous column, I addressed some of the issues that quickly arose in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for reproductive psychiatry. These issues ranged from the importance of sustaining well-being in pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, to temporary restrictions that were in place during the early part of the pandemic with respect to performing infertility procedures, to the practical issues of limiting the number of people who could attend to women during labor and delivery in the hospital.

lechatnoir/E+

Five months later, we’ve learned a great deal about trying to sustain emotional well-being among pregnant women during COVID-19. There is a high rate of anxiety among women who are pregnant and women who have particularly young children around the various issues of juggling activities of daily living during the pandemic, including switching to remote work and homeschooling children. There is fear of contracting COVID-19 during pregnancy, the exact effects of which are still somewhat unknown. We have seen a shift to telemedicine for prenatal and postpartum obstetrics visits, and a change with respect to visitors and even in-home nurses that would help during the first weeks of life for some couples.

We wondered whether we would see a falloff in the numbers of women presenting to our clinic with questions about the reproductive safety of taking psychiatric medications during pregnancy. We were unclear as to whether women would defer plans to get pregnant given some of the uncertainties that have come with COVID-19. What we’ve seen, at least early on in the pandemic in Massachusetts, has been the opposite. More women during the first 4 months of the pandemic have been seen in our center compared with the same corresponding period over the last 5 years. The precise reasons for this are unclear, but one reason may be that shifting the practice of reproductive psychiatry and pregnancy planning for reproductive-age women to full virtual care has dropped the number of missed appointments to essentially zero. Women perhaps feel an urgency to have a plan for using psychiatric medication during pregnancy. They may also see the benefit of being able to have extended telemedicine consultations that frequently involve their partners, a practice we have always supported, but posed logistical challenges for some.

As our colleagues learned that we had shifted our clinical rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health, which we’ve been doing for 25 years, to a virtual format, we began offering a free 1-hour forum to discuss relevant issues around caring for psychiatrically ill women, with a focus on some of the issues that were particularly relevant during the pandemic. The most common reasons for consultation on our service are the appropriate, safest use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy, and that continues to be the case.

If there has been one guiding principle in treating perinatal depression during pregnancy, it has been our long-standing, laser-like focus on keeping women emotionally well during pregnancy, and to highlight the importance of this with women during consultations prior to and during pregnancy. Relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is one the strongest predictors of postpartum depression, and the impact of untreated depression during pregnancy has been described in the literature and over the years in this column. However, the implications of having severe relapse of a mood disorder, for example, such as depression or bipolar disorder during the pandemic, takes on a new context where we want to minimize, if possible, severe onset of illness requiring hospitalization or emergent attention considering it may make social distancing and some of the other mitigating factors vis-à-vis COVID-19 more challenging.

Despite the accumulated data over the last 2 decades on the reproductive safety of antidepressants, women continue to have questions about the safety of these medications during pregnancy. Studies show now that many women would prefer, if at all possible, to defer treatment with antidepressants, and so they come to us with questions about their reproductive safety, the potential of switching to nonpharmacologic interventions, and the use of alternative interventions that might be used to treat their underlying mood disorder.

Investigators at the University of British Columbia recently have tried to inform the field with still another look, not at reproductive safety per se, but at risk of relapse of depression if women discontinue those medicines during pregnancy.¹ There is a timeliness to this investigation, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that met a priori criteria for inclusion. Since some of our own group’s early work over 15 years ago on relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy,² which indicated a substantial difference in risk of relapse between women who continued versus who discontinued antidepressants, other investigators have showed the difference in risk for relapse is not as substantial, and that continuation of medication did not appear to mitigate risk for relapse. In fact, in the systematic review, the investigators demonstrated that as a group, maintaining medicine did not appear to confer particular benefit to patients relative to risk for relapse compared to discontinuation of antidepressants.

However, looking more closely, Bayrampour and colleagues note for women with histories of more severe recurrent, major depression, relapse did in fact appear to be greater in women who discontinued compared with those with cases of mild to moderate depression. It is noteworthy that in both our early and later work, and certainly dovetailing with our clinical practice, we have noted severity of illness does not appear to correlate with the actual decisions women ultimately make regarding what they will do with antidepressants. Specifically, some women with very severe illness histories will discontinue antidepressants regardless of their risk for relapse. Alternatively, women with mild to moderate illness will sometimes elect to stay on antidepressant therapy. With all the information that we have about fetal exposure to antidepressants on one hand, the “unknown unknowns” are an understandable concern to both patients and clinicians. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of how to best counsel women on continuing or discontinuing antidepressants as they plan to conceive or during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.

The literature cited and clinical experience over the last 3 decades suggests rather strongly that there is a relatively low likelihood women with histories of severe recurrent disease will be able to successfully discontinue antidepressants in the absence of relapse. A greater question is, what is the best way to proceed for women who have been on maintenance therapy and had more moderate symptoms?

I am inspired by some of the more recent literature that has tried to elucidate the role of nonpharmacologic interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in an effort to mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who are well with histories of depression. To date, data do not inform the question as to whether MBCT can be used to mitigate risk of depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressants. That research question is actively being studied by several investigators, including ourselves.

Of particular interest is whether the addition of mindfulness practices such as MBCT in treatment could mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressant treatment, as that would certainly be a no-harm intervention that could mitigate risk even in a lower risk sample of patients. The question of how to “thread the needle” during the pandemic and best approach woman with a history of recurrent major depression on antidepressants is particularly timely and critical.

Regardless, we make clinical decisions collaboratively with patients based on their histories and individual wishes, and perhaps what we have learned over the last 5 months is the use of telemedicine does afford us the opportunity, regardless of the decisions that patients make, to more closely follow the clinical trajectory of women during pregnancy and the postpartum period so that regardless of treatment, we have an opportunity to intervene early when needed and to ascertain changes in clinical status early to mitigate the risk of frank relapse. From a reproductive psychiatric point of view, that is a silver lining with respect to the associated challenges that have come along with the pandemic.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

References

1. J Clin Psychiatry 2020;81(4):19r13134.

2. JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295(5):499-507.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved marketing of the first authorized diagnostic antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 that can be used without an analyzer.

Abbott

The BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (Abbott) is similar in some ways to a home pregnancy test. Clinicians read results on a card – one line for a negative result, two lines for positive.

A health care provider swabs a symptomatic patient’s nose, twirls the sample on a test card with a reagent, and waits approximately 15 minutes for results. No additional equipment is required.

Abbott expects the test to cost about $5.00, the company announced.

Office-based physicians, ED physicians, and school nurses could potentially use the product as a point-of-care test. The FDA granted the test emergency use authorization. It is approved for people suspected of having COVID-19 who are within 7 days of symptom onset.

“This new COVID-19 antigen test is an important addition to available tests because the results can be read in minutes, right off the testing card,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote in a news release. “This means people will know if they have the virus in almost real time.”

“This fits into the testing landscape as a simple, inexpensive test that does not require additional equipment,” Marcus Lynch, PhD, assistant manager of the Health Care Horizon Scanning program at ECRI, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment. ECRI is an independent, nonprofit organization that reviews and analyses COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics.

The test could help with early triage of patients who test positive, perhaps alerting physicians to the need to start COVID-19 therapy, added Lynch, who specializes in immunology and vaccine development. The test also could be useful in low-resource settings.

The FDA included a caveat: antigen tests are generally less sensitive than molecular assays. “Due to the potential for decreased sensitivity compared to molecular assays, negative results from an antigen test may need to be confirmed with a molecular test prior to making treatment decisions,” the agency noted.

Lynch agreed and said that when a patient tests negative, physicians still need to use their clinical judgment on the basis of symptoms and other factors. The test is not designed for population-based screening of asymptomatic people, he added.

Abbott announced plans to make up to 50 million tests available per month in the United States starting in October. The product comes with a free smartphone app that people can use to share results with an employer or with others as needed.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved marketing of the first authorized diagnostic antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 that can be used without an analyzer.

Abbott

The BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (Abbott) is similar in some ways to a home pregnancy test. Clinicians read results on a card – one line for a negative result, two lines for positive.

A health care provider swabs a symptomatic patient’s nose, twirls the sample on a test card with a reagent, and waits approximately 15 minutes for results. No additional equipment is required.

Abbott expects the test to cost about $5.00, the company announced.

Office-based physicians, ED physicians, and school nurses could potentially use the product as a point-of-care test. The FDA granted the test emergency use authorization. It is approved for people suspected of having COVID-19 who are within 7 days of symptom onset.

“This new COVID-19 antigen test is an important addition to available tests because the results can be read in minutes, right off the testing card,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote in a news release. “This means people will know if they have the virus in almost real time.”

“This fits into the testing landscape as a simple, inexpensive test that does not require additional equipment,” Marcus Lynch, PhD, assistant manager of the Health Care Horizon Scanning program at ECRI, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment. ECRI is an independent, nonprofit organization that reviews and analyses COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics.

The test could help with early triage of patients who test positive, perhaps alerting physicians to the need to start COVID-19 therapy, added Lynch, who specializes in immunology and vaccine development. The test also could be useful in low-resource settings.

The FDA included a caveat: antigen tests are generally less sensitive than molecular assays. “Due to the potential for decreased sensitivity compared to molecular assays, negative results from an antigen test may need to be confirmed with a molecular test prior to making treatment decisions,” the agency noted.

Lynch agreed and said that when a patient tests negative, physicians still need to use their clinical judgment on the basis of symptoms and other factors. The test is not designed for population-based screening of asymptomatic people, he added.

Abbott announced plans to make up to 50 million tests available per month in the United States starting in October. The product comes with a free smartphone app that people can use to share results with an employer or with others as needed.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved marketing of the first authorized diagnostic antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 that can be used without an analyzer.

Abbott

The BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (Abbott) is similar in some ways to a home pregnancy test. Clinicians read results on a card – one line for a negative result, two lines for positive.

A health care provider swabs a symptomatic patient’s nose, twirls the sample on a test card with a reagent, and waits approximately 15 minutes for results. No additional equipment is required.

Abbott expects the test to cost about $5.00, the company announced.

Office-based physicians, ED physicians, and school nurses could potentially use the product as a point-of-care test. The FDA granted the test emergency use authorization. It is approved for people suspected of having COVID-19 who are within 7 days of symptom onset.

“This new COVID-19 antigen test is an important addition to available tests because the results can be read in minutes, right off the testing card,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote in a news release. “This means people will know if they have the virus in almost real time.”

“This fits into the testing landscape as a simple, inexpensive test that does not require additional equipment,” Marcus Lynch, PhD, assistant manager of the Health Care Horizon Scanning program at ECRI, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment. ECRI is an independent, nonprofit organization that reviews and analyses COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics.

The test could help with early triage of patients who test positive, perhaps alerting physicians to the need to start COVID-19 therapy, added Lynch, who specializes in immunology and vaccine development. The test also could be useful in low-resource settings.

The FDA included a caveat: antigen tests are generally less sensitive than molecular assays. “Due to the potential for decreased sensitivity compared to molecular assays, negative results from an antigen test may need to be confirmed with a molecular test prior to making treatment decisions,” the agency noted.

Lynch agreed and said that when a patient tests negative, physicians still need to use their clinical judgment on the basis of symptoms and other factors. The test is not designed for population-based screening of asymptomatic people, he added.

Abbott announced plans to make up to 50 million tests available per month in the United States starting in October. The product comes with a free smartphone app that people can use to share results with an employer or with others as needed.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.