The Hospitalist

A novel program that coaches healthcare workers effectively bolsters wellness and resilience in the face of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Investigators found the program they developed successfully reduced the severity of mental health threats in healthcare workers.

The pandemic has been “an enormous threat to the resilience of healthcare workers,” said program leader Benjamin Rosen, MD, assistant professor, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, and staff psychiatrist at Sinai Health in Toronto.

“Working at a hospital this year, you’re not only worried about battling COVID, but you’re also enduring uncertainty and fear and moral distress, which has contributed to unprecedented levels of burnout,” Dr. Rosen added.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, held virtually this year.
 

‘Psychological PPE’

Building on previous experience supporting colleagues through the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in Toronto, Dr. Rosen’s team designed and implemented an initiative to support colleagues’ wellness and resilience early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Resilience Coaching for Healthcare Workers program is designed to support psychological well-being during times of chronic stress and help healthcare workers “keep their heads in the game so that they can sustain the focus and the rigor that they need to do their work,” Dr. Rosen said during a press briefing.

Participating coaches are mental health clinicians with training in psychological first aid, resilience, and psychotherapy to provide peer support to units and teams working on the front line. The program provides a kind of “psychological PPE” to complement other protective measures, Dr. Rosen explained.

There are currently 15 coaches working with 17 units and clinical teams at Sinai Health, which encompasses Mount Sinai Hospital and Bridgepoint Active Health, both in Toronto. Most coaches provide support to groups of up to 15 people either virtually or in person. More than 5,300 staff members have received coaching support since the program’s launch in April 2020.  

Mary Preisman, MD, consultation liaison psychiatrist at Mount Sinai Hospital, who is involved with the program, said it’s important to note that coaches are not in clinical relationships with healthcare providers, but rather are applying diverse psychotherapeutic tools to deliver collegial support. When clinical support is requested, coaches facilitate connection with other psychiatrists.
 

‘An excellent model’

Preliminary analysis of qualitative data, which includes interviews with coaches and providers, suggests that coaching is successful in mitigating the severity of mental health threats that healthcare workers face.

“The feedback so far is that coaching has really helped to strengthen team cohesiveness and resilience, which has been really encouraging for us,” Dr. Rosen said.

For example, some participants said the coaching improved relationships with their colleagues, decreased loneliness, and increased the sense of support from their employer.

Others commented on the value of regularly scheduled coaching “huddles” that are embedded within the work environment.

Dr. Rosen said the program is funded by academic grants through the end of next year, which is key given that Toronto is currently in the middle of a third wave of the pandemic.

“One of the things that we learned from previous pandemics is that the psychological impact on healthcare workers usually exceeds the infectious outbreak. There have been studies that show, even years after a pandemic or an epidemic has ended, the psychological consequences of anxiety and distress persist,” Dr. Rosen said.

Briefing moderator Jeffrey Borenstein, MD, president and CEO, Brain & Behavior Research Foundation and editor-in-chief, Psychiatric News, said the Toronto team has developed “an excellent model that could be used around the world to support the well-being of healthcare workers who are on the front lines of a pandemic.”

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Rosen, Dr. Preisman, and Dr. Borenstein have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel program that coaches healthcare workers effectively bolsters wellness and resilience in the face of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Investigators found the program they developed successfully reduced the severity of mental health threats in healthcare workers.

The pandemic has been “an enormous threat to the resilience of healthcare workers,” said program leader Benjamin Rosen, MD, assistant professor, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, and staff psychiatrist at Sinai Health in Toronto.

“Working at a hospital this year, you’re not only worried about battling COVID, but you’re also enduring uncertainty and fear and moral distress, which has contributed to unprecedented levels of burnout,” Dr. Rosen added.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, held virtually this year.
 

‘Psychological PPE’

Building on previous experience supporting colleagues through the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in Toronto, Dr. Rosen’s team designed and implemented an initiative to support colleagues’ wellness and resilience early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Resilience Coaching for Healthcare Workers program is designed to support psychological well-being during times of chronic stress and help healthcare workers “keep their heads in the game so that they can sustain the focus and the rigor that they need to do their work,” Dr. Rosen said during a press briefing.

Participating coaches are mental health clinicians with training in psychological first aid, resilience, and psychotherapy to provide peer support to units and teams working on the front line. The program provides a kind of “psychological PPE” to complement other protective measures, Dr. Rosen explained.

There are currently 15 coaches working with 17 units and clinical teams at Sinai Health, which encompasses Mount Sinai Hospital and Bridgepoint Active Health, both in Toronto. Most coaches provide support to groups of up to 15 people either virtually or in person. More than 5,300 staff members have received coaching support since the program’s launch in April 2020.  

Mary Preisman, MD, consultation liaison psychiatrist at Mount Sinai Hospital, who is involved with the program, said it’s important to note that coaches are not in clinical relationships with healthcare providers, but rather are applying diverse psychotherapeutic tools to deliver collegial support. When clinical support is requested, coaches facilitate connection with other psychiatrists.
 

‘An excellent model’

Preliminary analysis of qualitative data, which includes interviews with coaches and providers, suggests that coaching is successful in mitigating the severity of mental health threats that healthcare workers face.

“The feedback so far is that coaching has really helped to strengthen team cohesiveness and resilience, which has been really encouraging for us,” Dr. Rosen said.

For example, some participants said the coaching improved relationships with their colleagues, decreased loneliness, and increased the sense of support from their employer.

Others commented on the value of regularly scheduled coaching “huddles” that are embedded within the work environment.

Dr. Rosen said the program is funded by academic grants through the end of next year, which is key given that Toronto is currently in the middle of a third wave of the pandemic.

“One of the things that we learned from previous pandemics is that the psychological impact on healthcare workers usually exceeds the infectious outbreak. There have been studies that show, even years after a pandemic or an epidemic has ended, the psychological consequences of anxiety and distress persist,” Dr. Rosen said.

Briefing moderator Jeffrey Borenstein, MD, president and CEO, Brain & Behavior Research Foundation and editor-in-chief, Psychiatric News, said the Toronto team has developed “an excellent model that could be used around the world to support the well-being of healthcare workers who are on the front lines of a pandemic.”

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Rosen, Dr. Preisman, and Dr. Borenstein have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel program that coaches healthcare workers effectively bolsters wellness and resilience in the face of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Investigators found the program they developed successfully reduced the severity of mental health threats in healthcare workers.

The pandemic has been “an enormous threat to the resilience of healthcare workers,” said program leader Benjamin Rosen, MD, assistant professor, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, and staff psychiatrist at Sinai Health in Toronto.

“Working at a hospital this year, you’re not only worried about battling COVID, but you’re also enduring uncertainty and fear and moral distress, which has contributed to unprecedented levels of burnout,” Dr. Rosen added.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, held virtually this year.
 

‘Psychological PPE’

Building on previous experience supporting colleagues through the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in Toronto, Dr. Rosen’s team designed and implemented an initiative to support colleagues’ wellness and resilience early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Resilience Coaching for Healthcare Workers program is designed to support psychological well-being during times of chronic stress and help healthcare workers “keep their heads in the game so that they can sustain the focus and the rigor that they need to do their work,” Dr. Rosen said during a press briefing.

Participating coaches are mental health clinicians with training in psychological first aid, resilience, and psychotherapy to provide peer support to units and teams working on the front line. The program provides a kind of “psychological PPE” to complement other protective measures, Dr. Rosen explained.

There are currently 15 coaches working with 17 units and clinical teams at Sinai Health, which encompasses Mount Sinai Hospital and Bridgepoint Active Health, both in Toronto. Most coaches provide support to groups of up to 15 people either virtually or in person. More than 5,300 staff members have received coaching support since the program’s launch in April 2020.  

Mary Preisman, MD, consultation liaison psychiatrist at Mount Sinai Hospital, who is involved with the program, said it’s important to note that coaches are not in clinical relationships with healthcare providers, but rather are applying diverse psychotherapeutic tools to deliver collegial support. When clinical support is requested, coaches facilitate connection with other psychiatrists.
 

‘An excellent model’

Preliminary analysis of qualitative data, which includes interviews with coaches and providers, suggests that coaching is successful in mitigating the severity of mental health threats that healthcare workers face.

“The feedback so far is that coaching has really helped to strengthen team cohesiveness and resilience, which has been really encouraging for us,” Dr. Rosen said.

For example, some participants said the coaching improved relationships with their colleagues, decreased loneliness, and increased the sense of support from their employer.

Others commented on the value of regularly scheduled coaching “huddles” that are embedded within the work environment.

Dr. Rosen said the program is funded by academic grants through the end of next year, which is key given that Toronto is currently in the middle of a third wave of the pandemic.

“One of the things that we learned from previous pandemics is that the psychological impact on healthcare workers usually exceeds the infectious outbreak. There have been studies that show, even years after a pandemic or an epidemic has ended, the psychological consequences of anxiety and distress persist,” Dr. Rosen said.

Briefing moderator Jeffrey Borenstein, MD, president and CEO, Brain & Behavior Research Foundation and editor-in-chief, Psychiatric News, said the Toronto team has developed “an excellent model that could be used around the world to support the well-being of healthcare workers who are on the front lines of a pandemic.”

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Rosen, Dr. Preisman, and Dr. Borenstein have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Working to mitigate racial and gender inequity in hospital medicine may seem like a daunting task, but every physician can play a role in turning the tide toward equity, according to Jorge Ganem, MD, FAAP.

“Talking about bias, racism, sexism, gender inequity, and health disparities is difficult,” Dr. Ganem, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas at Austin and director of pediatric hospital medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center in Austin, said May 5 at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “There certainly comes a heavy weight and responsibility that we all feel. But I believe that we should approach gender inequities and racial disparities through a quality and patient safety lens, and looking through that lens.”

Dr. Ganem – along with Vanessa Durand, DO, FAAP, of St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia, and Yemisi O. Jones, MD, FAAP, FHM, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital – devised the concept of “functional allyship” as one way to improve representation in hospital medicine. The approach consists of three categories: listeners, amplifiers, and champions. Listeners are “those who take the time to listen and give space to the voices who are oppressed and disadvantaged,” Dr. Ganem said. “Action may not always be possible, but the space gives those who are marginalized validation to the feelings that the oppression produces.”

He described amplifiers as those who use their position of privilege to spread the message by educating their colleagues and other peers. “This includes elevating those from marginalized communities to speak on their own behalf and giving them the spotlight, given their expertise,” he said.

Champions are those who actively work to dismantle the oppression within systems. Dr. Ganem cited organizations such as ADVANCE PHM, FEMinEM and HeForShe as examples of national and global efforts, “but this also includes those working in committees that are addressing diversity and inclusion in their workplace and coming up with policies and procedures to increase equity,” he said.

Finding opportunities to practice mentorship and sponsorship are also important. “Positive mentorship relationships are key in avoiding burnout and decreasing attrition,” he said. “The development of successful mentorship programs are a must in order to retain women physicians and ‘underrepresented in medicine’ physicians in your organization.” He described a “sponsor” as someone who is in a position of influence and power who actively supports the career of a “protégé” whom they have identified as having high potential. “The sponsor may advance a protégé’s career by nominating them for leadership opportunities and introducing them into career networks,” he said.

Dr. Durand discussed additional ways to improve disparities of gender, race, and ethnicity. “It can all start with measuring the data,” said Dr. Durand, also an assistant professor of pediatrics at Drexel University, Philadelphia. “This means looking at gender and race and ethnicity data by unit or section at your institution, as well as leadership positions.” In 2017, authors led by Hilary Sanfey, MBBBCh, MHPE, FACS, published an article addressing strategies to identify and close the gender salary gap in surgery (J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225[2]:333-8). Their recommendations included changing policies, transparency, oversight of metrics, promoting women to senior leadership positions, and evaluating the organizational culture. “It goes back to culture, because it leads to accountability,” Dr. Durand said. “Behavior change comes with accountability.”

Part of holding people accountable within a culture change includes addressing microaggressions, or indirect expressions of prejudice. In 2016, authors led by Floyd Cheung, PhD., established a framework using the acronym A.C.T.I.O.N., which identifies a microaggression without being aggressive or evoking defensiveness towards the person communicating the microaggression. A.C.T.I.O.N. stands for Ask clarifying questions; Come from curiosity, not judgment; Tell what you observed in a factual manner; Impact exploration – discuss what the impact was; Own your own thoughts and feelings around the situation; and discuss Next steps.

“Granted, this might take a little time, but when we state microaggressions, most of us don’t realize that those statements could be hurtful or uncomfortable for the person receiving them,” Dr. Durand said.

Another strategy to address disparities involves partially blinding the interview process for trainees. “You can do this by not giving any ‘cognitive information’ to your interviewers – such as United States Medical Licensing Examination Step scores – that may anchor their position prior to the interview taking place,” she explained. “You can also standardize one or two questions that all interviewees have to answer, to have a more objective way to compare answers horizontally rather than vertically.”

This complements the notion of the Association of American Medical Colleges’ “holistic review,” a principle that it describes as allowing admissions committees “to consider the ‘whole’ applicant, rather than disproportionately focusing on any one factor.”

“The overall concept is to evaluate what are criteria of the position you are hiring for,” Dr. Durand said. “Different criteria will have different levels of importance. You would take into consideration the values of the group or the institution and make sure those criteria are most important for selection, at the forefront.”

Dr. Ganem and Dr. Durand reported having no financial disclosures.

Working to mitigate racial and gender inequity in hospital medicine may seem like a daunting task, but every physician can play a role in turning the tide toward equity, according to Jorge Ganem, MD, FAAP.

“Talking about bias, racism, sexism, gender inequity, and health disparities is difficult,” Dr. Ganem, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas at Austin and director of pediatric hospital medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center in Austin, said May 5 at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “There certainly comes a heavy weight and responsibility that we all feel. But I believe that we should approach gender inequities and racial disparities through a quality and patient safety lens, and looking through that lens.”

Dr. Ganem – along with Vanessa Durand, DO, FAAP, of St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia, and Yemisi O. Jones, MD, FAAP, FHM, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital – devised the concept of “functional allyship” as one way to improve representation in hospital medicine. The approach consists of three categories: listeners, amplifiers, and champions. Listeners are “those who take the time to listen and give space to the voices who are oppressed and disadvantaged,” Dr. Ganem said. “Action may not always be possible, but the space gives those who are marginalized validation to the feelings that the oppression produces.”

He described amplifiers as those who use their position of privilege to spread the message by educating their colleagues and other peers. “This includes elevating those from marginalized communities to speak on their own behalf and giving them the spotlight, given their expertise,” he said.

Champions are those who actively work to dismantle the oppression within systems. Dr. Ganem cited organizations such as ADVANCE PHM, FEMinEM and HeForShe as examples of national and global efforts, “but this also includes those working in committees that are addressing diversity and inclusion in their workplace and coming up with policies and procedures to increase equity,” he said.

Finding opportunities to practice mentorship and sponsorship are also important. “Positive mentorship relationships are key in avoiding burnout and decreasing attrition,” he said. “The development of successful mentorship programs are a must in order to retain women physicians and ‘underrepresented in medicine’ physicians in your organization.” He described a “sponsor” as someone who is in a position of influence and power who actively supports the career of a “protégé” whom they have identified as having high potential. “The sponsor may advance a protégé’s career by nominating them for leadership opportunities and introducing them into career networks,” he said.

Dr. Durand discussed additional ways to improve disparities of gender, race, and ethnicity. “It can all start with measuring the data,” said Dr. Durand, also an assistant professor of pediatrics at Drexel University, Philadelphia. “This means looking at gender and race and ethnicity data by unit or section at your institution, as well as leadership positions.” In 2017, authors led by Hilary Sanfey, MBBBCh, MHPE, FACS, published an article addressing strategies to identify and close the gender salary gap in surgery (J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225[2]:333-8). Their recommendations included changing policies, transparency, oversight of metrics, promoting women to senior leadership positions, and evaluating the organizational culture. “It goes back to culture, because it leads to accountability,” Dr. Durand said. “Behavior change comes with accountability.”

Part of holding people accountable within a culture change includes addressing microaggressions, or indirect expressions of prejudice. In 2016, authors led by Floyd Cheung, PhD., established a framework using the acronym A.C.T.I.O.N., which identifies a microaggression without being aggressive or evoking defensiveness towards the person communicating the microaggression. A.C.T.I.O.N. stands for Ask clarifying questions; Come from curiosity, not judgment; Tell what you observed in a factual manner; Impact exploration – discuss what the impact was; Own your own thoughts and feelings around the situation; and discuss Next steps.

“Granted, this might take a little time, but when we state microaggressions, most of us don’t realize that those statements could be hurtful or uncomfortable for the person receiving them,” Dr. Durand said.

Another strategy to address disparities involves partially blinding the interview process for trainees. “You can do this by not giving any ‘cognitive information’ to your interviewers – such as United States Medical Licensing Examination Step scores – that may anchor their position prior to the interview taking place,” she explained. “You can also standardize one or two questions that all interviewees have to answer, to have a more objective way to compare answers horizontally rather than vertically.”

This complements the notion of the Association of American Medical Colleges’ “holistic review,” a principle that it describes as allowing admissions committees “to consider the ‘whole’ applicant, rather than disproportionately focusing on any one factor.”

“The overall concept is to evaluate what are criteria of the position you are hiring for,” Dr. Durand said. “Different criteria will have different levels of importance. You would take into consideration the values of the group or the institution and make sure those criteria are most important for selection, at the forefront.”

Dr. Ganem and Dr. Durand reported having no financial disclosures.

Working to mitigate racial and gender inequity in hospital medicine may seem like a daunting task, but every physician can play a role in turning the tide toward equity, according to Jorge Ganem, MD, FAAP.

“Talking about bias, racism, sexism, gender inequity, and health disparities is difficult,” Dr. Ganem, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas at Austin and director of pediatric hospital medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center in Austin, said May 5 at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “There certainly comes a heavy weight and responsibility that we all feel. But I believe that we should approach gender inequities and racial disparities through a quality and patient safety lens, and looking through that lens.”

Dr. Ganem – along with Vanessa Durand, DO, FAAP, of St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia, and Yemisi O. Jones, MD, FAAP, FHM, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital – devised the concept of “functional allyship” as one way to improve representation in hospital medicine. The approach consists of three categories: listeners, amplifiers, and champions. Listeners are “those who take the time to listen and give space to the voices who are oppressed and disadvantaged,” Dr. Ganem said. “Action may not always be possible, but the space gives those who are marginalized validation to the feelings that the oppression produces.”

He described amplifiers as those who use their position of privilege to spread the message by educating their colleagues and other peers. “This includes elevating those from marginalized communities to speak on their own behalf and giving them the spotlight, given their expertise,” he said.

Champions are those who actively work to dismantle the oppression within systems. Dr. Ganem cited organizations such as ADVANCE PHM, FEMinEM and HeForShe as examples of national and global efforts, “but this also includes those working in committees that are addressing diversity and inclusion in their workplace and coming up with policies and procedures to increase equity,” he said.

Finding opportunities to practice mentorship and sponsorship are also important. “Positive mentorship relationships are key in avoiding burnout and decreasing attrition,” he said. “The development of successful mentorship programs are a must in order to retain women physicians and ‘underrepresented in medicine’ physicians in your organization.” He described a “sponsor” as someone who is in a position of influence and power who actively supports the career of a “protégé” whom they have identified as having high potential. “The sponsor may advance a protégé’s career by nominating them for leadership opportunities and introducing them into career networks,” he said.

Dr. Durand discussed additional ways to improve disparities of gender, race, and ethnicity. “It can all start with measuring the data,” said Dr. Durand, also an assistant professor of pediatrics at Drexel University, Philadelphia. “This means looking at gender and race and ethnicity data by unit or section at your institution, as well as leadership positions.” In 2017, authors led by Hilary Sanfey, MBBBCh, MHPE, FACS, published an article addressing strategies to identify and close the gender salary gap in surgery (J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225[2]:333-8). Their recommendations included changing policies, transparency, oversight of metrics, promoting women to senior leadership positions, and evaluating the organizational culture. “It goes back to culture, because it leads to accountability,” Dr. Durand said. “Behavior change comes with accountability.”

Part of holding people accountable within a culture change includes addressing microaggressions, or indirect expressions of prejudice. In 2016, authors led by Floyd Cheung, PhD., established a framework using the acronym A.C.T.I.O.N., which identifies a microaggression without being aggressive or evoking defensiveness towards the person communicating the microaggression. A.C.T.I.O.N. stands for Ask clarifying questions; Come from curiosity, not judgment; Tell what you observed in a factual manner; Impact exploration – discuss what the impact was; Own your own thoughts and feelings around the situation; and discuss Next steps.

“Granted, this might take a little time, but when we state microaggressions, most of us don’t realize that those statements could be hurtful or uncomfortable for the person receiving them,” Dr. Durand said.

Another strategy to address disparities involves partially blinding the interview process for trainees. “You can do this by not giving any ‘cognitive information’ to your interviewers – such as United States Medical Licensing Examination Step scores – that may anchor their position prior to the interview taking place,” she explained. “You can also standardize one or two questions that all interviewees have to answer, to have a more objective way to compare answers horizontally rather than vertically.”

This complements the notion of the Association of American Medical Colleges’ “holistic review,” a principle that it describes as allowing admissions committees “to consider the ‘whole’ applicant, rather than disproportionately focusing on any one factor.”

“The overall concept is to evaluate what are criteria of the position you are hiring for,” Dr. Durand said. “Different criteria will have different levels of importance. You would take into consideration the values of the group or the institution and make sure those criteria are most important for selection, at the forefront.”

Dr. Ganem and Dr. Durand reported having no financial disclosures.

When starting a new loop diuretic for a patient with heart failure, strongly consider torsemide over furosemide, Anthony C. Breu, MD, advised at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“Whether or not you take a patient who’s already on furosemide and you make the switch to torsemide is a little bit tougher for me to advocate, though that has happened in clinical trials,” said Dr. Breu, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who spoke May 5 at the Converge session “Things We Do for No Reason.” He co-presented the session with Leonard Feldman, MD, SFHM, director of the Osler Medical Residency Urban Health Track and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“If you consider doing this it would make sense to do so concert with the outpatient primary doctor and the outpatient cardiologist,” Dr. Breu said. “But in my review of the literature, it’s at least worth having these discussions, particularly for a patient who has multiple readmissions for heart failure. That may be a time to pause and ask: ‘Could torsemide be of benefit here?’ ”

In Dr. Breu’s opinion, there are at least three reasons why consider torsemide should be considered a first-line treatment for heart failure. For one thing, the current evidence says so. In a trial published in 2001, researchers randomized 234 patients with heart failure to receive torsemide or furosemide for 1 year. The percentage of patients who had one or more hospital readmissions was lower among those who received torsemide, compared with those who received furosemide in the torsemide group for heart failure (17% vs. 32%, respectively; P < .01) and for other cardiovascular causes (44% vs. 59%; P = .03). In addition, the number of total admissions was numerically lower for patients in the torsemide group, compared with the furosemide group for heart failure (23 vs. 61; P < .01) and for cardiovascular causes (78 vs. 130; P = .02).

In a separate study, researchers conducted an open-label trial of 237 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV heart failure who were randomized to torsemide or furosemide. They found that a significantly higher percentage of patients in the torsemide group improved by one or more NYHA heart failure class, compared with those in the furosemide group (40%; P = .001 vs. 31%; P = .3). Moreover, patients treated with furosemide had more restrictions of daily life at 9 months, compared with those treated with torsemide (P < .001).

A separate, open-label, nonrandomized, postmarketing surveillance trial also found benefits of torsemide over furosemide or other agents used for patients with NYHA class III and IV heart failure. Patients treated with torsemide had a lower total mortality, compared with those treated with furosemide or other agents (2.2% vs. 4.5%, respectively; P < .05) as well as a lower cardiac mortality (1.4% vs. 3.5%; P < .05). They were also more likely to improve by one or more heart failure class (46% vs. 37%; P < .01) and less likely to have potassium levels less than 3.5 mEq/L or greater than 5.0 mEq/L (13% vs. 18%; P = .01).

According to Dr. Breu, meta-analyses of this topic consistently show that the NYHA class improved more with torsemide than with furosemide. “Some meta-analyses find a mortality benefit, while others find a readmissions benefit,” he said. “None of them show a benefit of furosemide over torsemide.”

A second reason to use torsemide as a first-line treatment for heart failure is that it has superior pharmacokinetics/dynamics, compared with furosemide. “We’ve all heard that furosemide has variable bioavailability,” said Dr. Breu, who also deputy editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine’s “Things We Do For No Reason” article series. “Torsemide and bumetanide are much more reliably absorbed, partially because they are not affected by food, whereas furosemide is. That could be potentially problematic for patients who take their diuretic with meals. The fact that torsemide has less renal clearance is a benefit, because patients with heart failure have changing renal function.” In addition, the half-life of torsemide is 3-4 hours and the duration of action is 12 hours, “which are both longer than those for furosemide or bumetanide,” he added.

He also pointed out that torsemide has been shown to block the aldosterone receptor in vitro and in rat models – an effect that has not been observed with other loop diuretics. A randomized trial of patients with chronic heart failure found that levels of renin and aldosterone increased more with torsemide, compared with furosemide, supporting the hypothesis of aldosterone receptor blockade.

A third main reason to use torsemide as your go-to for heart failure has to do with its purported antifibrotic effects, “so that it could be more than a diuretic,” Dr. Breu said. “In heart failure, myocardial fibrosis occurs from increased collagen synthesis and turnover. Aldosterone has been shown to play a role in this myocardial fibrosis. Spironolactone has been shown to mitigate this to some extent. If torsemide acts a little like spironolactone, maybe that could explain some of the long-term effects that we see in these studies.”

A study supporting this notion found that torsemide but not furosemide reduced levels of serum carboxyl-terminal peptide of procollagen type I, which is associated with exaggerated myocardial deposition of collagen type I fibers in cardiac diseases.

Going forward, a study known as TRANSFORM-HF, which is currently recruiting about 6,000 patients, should bring more clarity to the topic. The primary objective is to compare the treatment strategy of torsemide versus furosemide on clinical outcomes over 12 months in patients with heart failure who are hospitalized. The estimated completion is mid-2022.

Dr. Breu and Dr. Feldman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

When starting a new loop diuretic for a patient with heart failure, strongly consider torsemide over furosemide, Anthony C. Breu, MD, advised at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“Whether or not you take a patient who’s already on furosemide and you make the switch to torsemide is a little bit tougher for me to advocate, though that has happened in clinical trials,” said Dr. Breu, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who spoke May 5 at the Converge session “Things We Do for No Reason.” He co-presented the session with Leonard Feldman, MD, SFHM, director of the Osler Medical Residency Urban Health Track and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“If you consider doing this it would make sense to do so concert with the outpatient primary doctor and the outpatient cardiologist,” Dr. Breu said. “But in my review of the literature, it’s at least worth having these discussions, particularly for a patient who has multiple readmissions for heart failure. That may be a time to pause and ask: ‘Could torsemide be of benefit here?’ ”

In Dr. Breu’s opinion, there are at least three reasons why consider torsemide should be considered a first-line treatment for heart failure. For one thing, the current evidence says so. In a trial published in 2001, researchers randomized 234 patients with heart failure to receive torsemide or furosemide for 1 year. The percentage of patients who had one or more hospital readmissions was lower among those who received torsemide, compared with those who received furosemide in the torsemide group for heart failure (17% vs. 32%, respectively; P < .01) and for other cardiovascular causes (44% vs. 59%; P = .03). In addition, the number of total admissions was numerically lower for patients in the torsemide group, compared with the furosemide group for heart failure (23 vs. 61; P < .01) and for cardiovascular causes (78 vs. 130; P = .02).

In a separate study, researchers conducted an open-label trial of 237 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV heart failure who were randomized to torsemide or furosemide. They found that a significantly higher percentage of patients in the torsemide group improved by one or more NYHA heart failure class, compared with those in the furosemide group (40%; P = .001 vs. 31%; P = .3). Moreover, patients treated with furosemide had more restrictions of daily life at 9 months, compared with those treated with torsemide (P < .001).

A separate, open-label, nonrandomized, postmarketing surveillance trial also found benefits of torsemide over furosemide or other agents used for patients with NYHA class III and IV heart failure. Patients treated with torsemide had a lower total mortality, compared with those treated with furosemide or other agents (2.2% vs. 4.5%, respectively; P < .05) as well as a lower cardiac mortality (1.4% vs. 3.5%; P < .05). They were also more likely to improve by one or more heart failure class (46% vs. 37%; P < .01) and less likely to have potassium levels less than 3.5 mEq/L or greater than 5.0 mEq/L (13% vs. 18%; P = .01).

According to Dr. Breu, meta-analyses of this topic consistently show that the NYHA class improved more with torsemide than with furosemide. “Some meta-analyses find a mortality benefit, while others find a readmissions benefit,” he said. “None of them show a benefit of furosemide over torsemide.”

A second reason to use torsemide as a first-line treatment for heart failure is that it has superior pharmacokinetics/dynamics, compared with furosemide. “We’ve all heard that furosemide has variable bioavailability,” said Dr. Breu, who also deputy editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine’s “Things We Do For No Reason” article series. “Torsemide and bumetanide are much more reliably absorbed, partially because they are not affected by food, whereas furosemide is. That could be potentially problematic for patients who take their diuretic with meals. The fact that torsemide has less renal clearance is a benefit, because patients with heart failure have changing renal function.” In addition, the half-life of torsemide is 3-4 hours and the duration of action is 12 hours, “which are both longer than those for furosemide or bumetanide,” he added.

He also pointed out that torsemide has been shown to block the aldosterone receptor in vitro and in rat models – an effect that has not been observed with other loop diuretics. A randomized trial of patients with chronic heart failure found that levels of renin and aldosterone increased more with torsemide, compared with furosemide, supporting the hypothesis of aldosterone receptor blockade.

A third main reason to use torsemide as your go-to for heart failure has to do with its purported antifibrotic effects, “so that it could be more than a diuretic,” Dr. Breu said. “In heart failure, myocardial fibrosis occurs from increased collagen synthesis and turnover. Aldosterone has been shown to play a role in this myocardial fibrosis. Spironolactone has been shown to mitigate this to some extent. If torsemide acts a little like spironolactone, maybe that could explain some of the long-term effects that we see in these studies.”

A study supporting this notion found that torsemide but not furosemide reduced levels of serum carboxyl-terminal peptide of procollagen type I, which is associated with exaggerated myocardial deposition of collagen type I fibers in cardiac diseases.

Going forward, a study known as TRANSFORM-HF, which is currently recruiting about 6,000 patients, should bring more clarity to the topic. The primary objective is to compare the treatment strategy of torsemide versus furosemide on clinical outcomes over 12 months in patients with heart failure who are hospitalized. The estimated completion is mid-2022.

Dr. Breu and Dr. Feldman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

When starting a new loop diuretic for a patient with heart failure, strongly consider torsemide over furosemide, Anthony C. Breu, MD, advised at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“Whether or not you take a patient who’s already on furosemide and you make the switch to torsemide is a little bit tougher for me to advocate, though that has happened in clinical trials,” said Dr. Breu, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who spoke May 5 at the Converge session “Things We Do for No Reason.” He co-presented the session with Leonard Feldman, MD, SFHM, director of the Osler Medical Residency Urban Health Track and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“If you consider doing this it would make sense to do so concert with the outpatient primary doctor and the outpatient cardiologist,” Dr. Breu said. “But in my review of the literature, it’s at least worth having these discussions, particularly for a patient who has multiple readmissions for heart failure. That may be a time to pause and ask: ‘Could torsemide be of benefit here?’ ”

In Dr. Breu’s opinion, there are at least three reasons why consider torsemide should be considered a first-line treatment for heart failure. For one thing, the current evidence says so. In a trial published in 2001, researchers randomized 234 patients with heart failure to receive torsemide or furosemide for 1 year. The percentage of patients who had one or more hospital readmissions was lower among those who received torsemide, compared with those who received furosemide in the torsemide group for heart failure (17% vs. 32%, respectively; P < .01) and for other cardiovascular causes (44% vs. 59%; P = .03). In addition, the number of total admissions was numerically lower for patients in the torsemide group, compared with the furosemide group for heart failure (23 vs. 61; P < .01) and for cardiovascular causes (78 vs. 130; P = .02).

In a separate study, researchers conducted an open-label trial of 237 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV heart failure who were randomized to torsemide or furosemide. They found that a significantly higher percentage of patients in the torsemide group improved by one or more NYHA heart failure class, compared with those in the furosemide group (40%; P = .001 vs. 31%; P = .3). Moreover, patients treated with furosemide had more restrictions of daily life at 9 months, compared with those treated with torsemide (P < .001).

A separate, open-label, nonrandomized, postmarketing surveillance trial also found benefits of torsemide over furosemide or other agents used for patients with NYHA class III and IV heart failure. Patients treated with torsemide had a lower total mortality, compared with those treated with furosemide or other agents (2.2% vs. 4.5%, respectively; P < .05) as well as a lower cardiac mortality (1.4% vs. 3.5%; P < .05). They were also more likely to improve by one or more heart failure class (46% vs. 37%; P < .01) and less likely to have potassium levels less than 3.5 mEq/L or greater than 5.0 mEq/L (13% vs. 18%; P = .01).

According to Dr. Breu, meta-analyses of this topic consistently show that the NYHA class improved more with torsemide than with furosemide. “Some meta-analyses find a mortality benefit, while others find a readmissions benefit,” he said. “None of them show a benefit of furosemide over torsemide.”

A second reason to use torsemide as a first-line treatment for heart failure is that it has superior pharmacokinetics/dynamics, compared with furosemide. “We’ve all heard that furosemide has variable bioavailability,” said Dr. Breu, who also deputy editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine’s “Things We Do For No Reason” article series. “Torsemide and bumetanide are much more reliably absorbed, partially because they are not affected by food, whereas furosemide is. That could be potentially problematic for patients who take their diuretic with meals. The fact that torsemide has less renal clearance is a benefit, because patients with heart failure have changing renal function.” In addition, the half-life of torsemide is 3-4 hours and the duration of action is 12 hours, “which are both longer than those for furosemide or bumetanide,” he added.

He also pointed out that torsemide has been shown to block the aldosterone receptor in vitro and in rat models – an effect that has not been observed with other loop diuretics. A randomized trial of patients with chronic heart failure found that levels of renin and aldosterone increased more with torsemide, compared with furosemide, supporting the hypothesis of aldosterone receptor blockade.

A third main reason to use torsemide as your go-to for heart failure has to do with its purported antifibrotic effects, “so that it could be more than a diuretic,” Dr. Breu said. “In heart failure, myocardial fibrosis occurs from increased collagen synthesis and turnover. Aldosterone has been shown to play a role in this myocardial fibrosis. Spironolactone has been shown to mitigate this to some extent. If torsemide acts a little like spironolactone, maybe that could explain some of the long-term effects that we see in these studies.”

A study supporting this notion found that torsemide but not furosemide reduced levels of serum carboxyl-terminal peptide of procollagen type I, which is associated with exaggerated myocardial deposition of collagen type I fibers in cardiac diseases.

Going forward, a study known as TRANSFORM-HF, which is currently recruiting about 6,000 patients, should bring more clarity to the topic. The primary objective is to compare the treatment strategy of torsemide versus furosemide on clinical outcomes over 12 months in patients with heart failure who are hospitalized. The estimated completion is mid-2022.

Dr. Breu and Dr. Feldman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

This year, the Society of Hospital Medicine will induct three new Masters in Hospital Medicine (MHM), the society’s highest professional honor.

SHM first introduced the MHM designation in 2010. The honor is reserved for hospitalists who have uniquely distinguished themselves in the specialty through the excellence and significance of their contributions to hospital medicine specifically and healthcare as a whole. SHM members are nominated for MHM consideration, and the SHM Board of Directors rigorously reviews qualifications and selects each year’s MHM class.

The three hospitalists receiving the MHM designation at SHM Converge 2021 are Dr. Nasim Afsar, Dr. Shaun D. Frost, and Dr. Jeffrey L. Schnipper.
 

Nasim Afsar, MD, MBA, MHM

Dr. Nasim Afsar has been elected a Master in Hospital Medicine, honoring her unwavering dedication to hospital medicine and the Society as an accomplished medical leader.

She is known for her accomplishments in establishing and optimizing complex systems of care in the ambulatory and inpatient settings. Her contributions to hospital medicine can be seen through her extensive leadership experience in health care operations, quality, finance, and management.

Dr. Afsar received her MD from the UC Davis School of Medicine, and went on to complete her residency and internship at UCSD and UCLA, internal medicine programs. She currently serves as the chief operating officer for ambulatory care for UCI Health, with the vision of delivering flawless care for the population of patients in Orange County, Calif.

Over her career, Dr. Afsar has led the development and successful implementation of forward-thinking and ambitious healthcare quality strategies across multiple organizations. Her work in patient safety and quality improvement has earned her numerous accolades and awards, including the 2011 John M. Eisenberg Award.

She served on SHM’s Board of Directors from April 2012 through April 2020, including as president and treasurer. During her time on the board, she was instrumental in defining SHM’s role in population health.

Dr. Afsar has held a variety of positions within the Society, including as chair of SHM’s Hospital Quality & Patient Safety Committee, founder and past copresident of SHM’s Los Angeles Chapter, and as faculty at numerous annual conferences. She was an esteemed mentor within SHM’s Project BOOST, a program within SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement focused on care transitions, and served as an associate editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine for nearly 13 years.

Dr. Afsar is a hospital medicine leader and true champion for our Society and for our specialty. She epitomizes what it means to be a passionate, driven, and accomplished hospital medicine pioneer.
 

Shaun D. Frost, MD, MHM

Dr. Shaun D. Frost has been elected a Master in Hospital Medicine, celebrating his enduring commitment to hospital medicine and to the Society for more than 20 years.

After completing his internal medicine residency at the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School in 1998, he launched his career at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, where he was a clinical assistant professor of internal medicine at Penn State’s College of Medicine.

His contributions to hospital medicine can be seen through his comprehensive leadership background, commitment to medical education, innovation in hospitalist program operations, and various publications. He is also well known for his mentorship of young hospitalist leaders.

Dr. Frost currently serves as the associate medical director of care delivery systems at HealthPartners Health Insurance Plan. He is a practicing hospitalist at Regions Hospital in St. Paul, Minn., and is assistant professor at the University of Minnesota’s Medical School. Prior to this role, he worked at the Cleveland Clinic as the director of Nonteaching Inpatient Services for 6 years, and also served as the Northeast Region chief medical officer of Cogent Healthcare from 2006 to 2012 where he standardized program operations through structured leadership training according to phased priorities and critical functions.

Dr. Frost is well known for his expansive contributions to the Society of Hospital Medicine, and was recognized by SHM in 2005 with the National Award for Clinical Excellence.

Dr. Frost joined the Society in 1999, and soon thereafter founded and led the Northeast Ohio Chapter. His influence, leadership, and guidance helped to shape the creation of SHM’s Chapter Program, which is an integral part of the Society, connecting hospitalists at the local level.

He served on SHM’s Board of Directors for 6 years, including as president and treasurer. He has spoken at many of SHM’s annual conferences, participated on annual meeting planning committees, and served as course director for the annual meeting’s Perioperative Medicine Precourse. He also has served as a facilitator at SHM’s Leadership Academies.

Dr. Frost has led and actively participated in numerous SHM committees, councils, and workgroups, including service as the chair of SHM’s Membership Committee for 5 years. In fact, the SHM fellow designations, including this very distinction, the Master in Hospital Medicine, originated within this committee under his leadership.

During his tenure as SHM president in 2012-2013, he helped to focus the organization’s work to define hospital medicine’s strengths and benefits to healthcare, culminating in the publication of the “Key Principles and Characteristics of an Effective Hospital Medicine Group.”

Dr. Frost is a specialty vanguard, innovator, and SHM leader. He demonstrates what it means to be a passionate and dedicated hospital medicine professional in his community and within the field at-large.
 

Jeffrey L. Schnipper, MD, MPH, MHM

Dr. Jeffrey L. Schnipper has been elected a Master in Hospital Medicine, honoring his commitment to hospital medicine as an accomplished hospitalist, researcher, and quality improvement enthusiast.

He graduated from Harvard Medical School in 1996 and went on to receive his master’s degree in public health from the Harvard School of Public Health in 2001. Dr. Schnipper also completed his residency, along with a General Medicine Fellowship, at Massachusetts General Hospital in 2001.

Dr. Schnipper currently serves as the director of clinical research in Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Hospital Medicine Unit. He also serves as the research director of its General Internal Medicine and Primary Care Division and the fellowship director of the Harvard-Brigham Research Fellowship in Hospital Medicine. He is an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

His contributions to hospital medicine are demonstrated through his research efforts focused on improving the quality of healthcare delivery for general medical patients, including inpatient diabetes management, care transitions, medication reconciliation, and hospital at home care. His medication reconciliation research project (known as MARQUIS) was funded through AHRQ and led to a 5+ year partnership with the SHM Center for Quality Improvement. When Dr. Schnipper obtained a second AHRQ grant for the MARQUIS2 study, he also partnered with SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement.

Dr. Schnipper joined the Society in 2005 and remains an engaged member of the Boston Association of Academic Hospital Medicine Chapter. He has been a member of SHM’s Annual Conference Committee and serves on the editorial team of the Journal of Hospital Medicine as an associate editor. He has been invited to speak at numerous SHM annual conferences. His research efforts and impact on the medical field can be found in over 150 peer-reviewed publications including JHM, JAMA Internal Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.

Dr. Schnipper has received numerous awards and honors throughout his career, including SHM’s Excellence in Research Award in 2013. He is an established researcher, educator, and physician with a broad spectrum of clinical interests that embody what it means to be a hospitalist leader and a top-notch patient care provider.

This year, the Society of Hospital Medicine will induct three new Masters in Hospital Medicine (MHM), the society’s highest professional honor.

SHM first introduced the MHM designation in 2010. The honor is reserved for hospitalists who have uniquely distinguished themselves in the specialty through the excellence and significance of their contributions to hospital medicine specifically and healthcare as a whole. SHM members are nominated for MHM consideration, and the SHM Board of Directors rigorously reviews qualifications and selects each year’s MHM class.

The three hospitalists receiving the MHM designation at SHM Converge 2021 are Dr. Nasim Afsar, Dr. Shaun D. Frost, and Dr. Jeffrey L. Schnipper.
 

Nasim Afsar, MD, MBA, MHM

Dr. Nasim Afsar has been elected a Master in Hospital Medicine, honoring her unwavering dedication to hospital medicine and the Society as an accomplished medical leader.

She is known for her accomplishments in establishing and optimizing complex systems of care in the ambulatory and inpatient settings. Her contributions to hospital medicine can be seen through her extensive leadership experience in health care operations, quality, finance, and management.

Dr. Afsar received her MD from the UC Davis School of Medicine, and went on to complete her residency and internship at UCSD and UCLA, internal medicine programs. She currently serves as the chief operating officer for ambulatory care for UCI Health, with the vision of delivering flawless care for the population of patients in Orange County, Calif.

Over her career, Dr. Afsar has led the development and successful implementation of forward-thinking and ambitious healthcare quality strategies across multiple organizations. Her work in patient safety and quality improvement has earned her numerous accolades and awards, including the 2011 John M. Eisenberg Award.

She served on SHM’s Board of Directors from April 2012 through April 2020, including as president and treasurer. During her time on the board, she was instrumental in defining SHM’s role in population health.

Dr. Afsar has held a variety of positions within the Society, including as chair of SHM’s Hospital Quality & Patient Safety Committee, founder and past copresident of SHM’s Los Angeles Chapter, and as faculty at numerous annual conferences. She was an esteemed mentor within SHM’s Project BOOST, a program within SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement focused on care transitions, and served as an associate editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine for nearly 13 years.

Dr. Afsar is a hospital medicine leader and true champion for our Society and for our specialty. She epitomizes what it means to be a passionate, driven, and accomplished hospital medicine pioneer.
 

Shaun D. Frost, MD, MHM

Dr. Shaun D. Frost has been elected a Master in Hospital Medicine, celebrating his enduring commitment to hospital medicine and to the Society for more than 20 years.

After completing his internal medicine residency at the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School in 1998, he launched his career at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, where he was a clinical assistant professor of internal medicine at Penn State’s College of Medicine.

His contributions to hospital medicine can be seen through his comprehensive leadership background, commitment to medical education, innovation in hospitalist program operations, and various publications. He is also well known for his mentorship of young hospitalist leaders.

Dr. Frost currently serves as the associate medical director of care delivery systems at HealthPartners Health Insurance Plan. He is a practicing hospitalist at Regions Hospital in St. Paul, Minn., and is assistant professor at the University of Minnesota’s Medical School. Prior to this role, he worked at the Cleveland Clinic as the director of Nonteaching Inpatient Services for 6 years, and also served as the Northeast Region chief medical officer of Cogent Healthcare from 2006 to 2012 where he standardized program operations through structured leadership training according to phased priorities and critical functions.

Dr. Frost is well known for his expansive contributions to the Society of Hospital Medicine, and was recognized by SHM in 2005 with the National Award for Clinical Excellence.

Dr. Frost joined the Society in 1999, and soon thereafter founded and led the Northeast Ohio Chapter. His influence, leadership, and guidance helped to shape the creation of SHM’s Chapter Program, which is an integral part of the Society, connecting hospitalists at the local level.

He served on SHM’s Board of Directors for 6 years, including as president and treasurer. He has spoken at many of SHM’s annual conferences, participated on annual meeting planning committees, and served as course director for the annual meeting’s Perioperative Medicine Precourse. He also has served as a facilitator at SHM’s Leadership Academies.

Dr. Frost has led and actively participated in numerous SHM committees, councils, and workgroups, including service as the chair of SHM’s Membership Committee for 5 years. In fact, the SHM fellow designations, including this very distinction, the Master in Hospital Medicine, originated within this committee under his leadership.

During his tenure as SHM president in 2012-2013, he helped to focus the organization’s work to define hospital medicine’s strengths and benefits to healthcare, culminating in the publication of the “Key Principles and Characteristics of an Effective Hospital Medicine Group.”

Dr. Frost is a specialty vanguard, innovator, and SHM leader. He demonstrates what it means to be a passionate and dedicated hospital medicine professional in his community and within the field at-large.
 

Jeffrey L. Schnipper, MD, MPH, MHM

Dr. Jeffrey L. Schnipper has been elected a Master in Hospital Medicine, honoring his commitment to hospital medicine as an accomplished hospitalist, researcher, and quality improvement enthusiast.

He graduated from Harvard Medical School in 1996 and went on to receive his master’s degree in public health from the Harvard School of Public Health in 2001. Dr. Schnipper also completed his residency, along with a General Medicine Fellowship, at Massachusetts General Hospital in 2001.

Dr. Schnipper currently serves as the director of clinical research in Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Hospital Medicine Unit. He also serves as the research director of its General Internal Medicine and Primary Care Division and the fellowship director of the Harvard-Brigham Research Fellowship in Hospital Medicine. He is an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

His contributions to hospital medicine are demonstrated through his research efforts focused on improving the quality of healthcare delivery for general medical patients, including inpatient diabetes management, care transitions, medication reconciliation, and hospital at home care. His medication reconciliation research project (known as MARQUIS) was funded through AHRQ and led to a 5+ year partnership with the SHM Center for Quality Improvement. When Dr. Schnipper obtained a second AHRQ grant for the MARQUIS2 study, he also partnered with SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement.

Dr. Schnipper joined the Society in 2005 and remains an engaged member of the Boston Association of Academic Hospital Medicine Chapter. He has been a member of SHM’s Annual Conference Committee and serves on the editorial team of the Journal of Hospital Medicine as an associate editor. He has been invited to speak at numerous SHM annual conferences. His research efforts and impact on the medical field can be found in over 150 peer-reviewed publications including JHM, JAMA Internal Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.

Dr. Schnipper has received numerous awards and honors throughout his career, including SHM’s Excellence in Research Award in 2013. He is an established researcher, educator, and physician with a broad spectrum of clinical interests that embody what it means to be a hospitalist leader and a top-notch patient care provider.

This year, the Society of Hospital Medicine will induct three new Masters in Hospital Medicine (MHM), the society’s highest professional honor.

SHM first introduced the MHM designation in 2010. The honor is reserved for hospitalists who have uniquely distinguished themselves in the specialty through the excellence and significance of their contributions to hospital medicine specifically and healthcare as a whole. SHM members are nominated for MHM consideration, and the SHM Board of Directors rigorously reviews qualifications and selects each year’s MHM class.

The three hospitalists receiving the MHM designation at SHM Converge 2021 are Dr. Nasim Afsar, Dr. Shaun D. Frost, and Dr. Jeffrey L. Schnipper.
 

Nasim Afsar, MD, MBA, MHM

Dr. Nasim Afsar has been elected a Master in Hospital Medicine, honoring her unwavering dedication to hospital medicine and the Society as an accomplished medical leader.

She is known for her accomplishments in establishing and optimizing complex systems of care in the ambulatory and inpatient settings. Her contributions to hospital medicine can be seen through her extensive leadership experience in health care operations, quality, finance, and management.

Dr. Afsar received her MD from the UC Davis School of Medicine, and went on to complete her residency and internship at UCSD and UCLA, internal medicine programs. She currently serves as the chief operating officer for ambulatory care for UCI Health, with the vision of delivering flawless care for the population of patients in Orange County, Calif.

Over her career, Dr. Afsar has led the development and successful implementation of forward-thinking and ambitious healthcare quality strategies across multiple organizations. Her work in patient safety and quality improvement has earned her numerous accolades and awards, including the 2011 John M. Eisenberg Award.

She served on SHM’s Board of Directors from April 2012 through April 2020, including as president and treasurer. During her time on the board, she was instrumental in defining SHM’s role in population health.

Dr. Afsar has held a variety of positions within the Society, including as chair of SHM’s Hospital Quality & Patient Safety Committee, founder and past copresident of SHM’s Los Angeles Chapter, and as faculty at numerous annual conferences. She was an esteemed mentor within SHM’s Project BOOST, a program within SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement focused on care transitions, and served as an associate editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine for nearly 13 years.

Dr. Afsar is a hospital medicine leader and true champion for our Society and for our specialty. She epitomizes what it means to be a passionate, driven, and accomplished hospital medicine pioneer.
 

Shaun D. Frost, MD, MHM

Dr. Shaun D. Frost has been elected a Master in Hospital Medicine, celebrating his enduring commitment to hospital medicine and to the Society for more than 20 years.

After completing his internal medicine residency at the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School in 1998, he launched his career at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, where he was a clinical assistant professor of internal medicine at Penn State’s College of Medicine.

His contributions to hospital medicine can be seen through his comprehensive leadership background, commitment to medical education, innovation in hospitalist program operations, and various publications. He is also well known for his mentorship of young hospitalist leaders.

Dr. Frost currently serves as the associate medical director of care delivery systems at HealthPartners Health Insurance Plan. He is a practicing hospitalist at Regions Hospital in St. Paul, Minn., and is assistant professor at the University of Minnesota’s Medical School. Prior to this role, he worked at the Cleveland Clinic as the director of Nonteaching Inpatient Services for 6 years, and also served as the Northeast Region chief medical officer of Cogent Healthcare from 2006 to 2012 where he standardized program operations through structured leadership training according to phased priorities and critical functions.

Dr. Frost is well known for his expansive contributions to the Society of Hospital Medicine, and was recognized by SHM in 2005 with the National Award for Clinical Excellence.

Dr. Frost joined the Society in 1999, and soon thereafter founded and led the Northeast Ohio Chapter. His influence, leadership, and guidance helped to shape the creation of SHM’s Chapter Program, which is an integral part of the Society, connecting hospitalists at the local level.

He served on SHM’s Board of Directors for 6 years, including as president and treasurer. He has spoken at many of SHM’s annual conferences, participated on annual meeting planning committees, and served as course director for the annual meeting’s Perioperative Medicine Precourse. He also has served as a facilitator at SHM’s Leadership Academies.

Dr. Frost has led and actively participated in numerous SHM committees, councils, and workgroups, including service as the chair of SHM’s Membership Committee for 5 years. In fact, the SHM fellow designations, including this very distinction, the Master in Hospital Medicine, originated within this committee under his leadership.

During his tenure as SHM president in 2012-2013, he helped to focus the organization’s work to define hospital medicine’s strengths and benefits to healthcare, culminating in the publication of the “Key Principles and Characteristics of an Effective Hospital Medicine Group.”

Dr. Frost is a specialty vanguard, innovator, and SHM leader. He demonstrates what it means to be a passionate and dedicated hospital medicine professional in his community and within the field at-large.
 

Jeffrey L. Schnipper, MD, MPH, MHM

Dr. Jeffrey L. Schnipper has been elected a Master in Hospital Medicine, honoring his commitment to hospital medicine as an accomplished hospitalist, researcher, and quality improvement enthusiast.

He graduated from Harvard Medical School in 1996 and went on to receive his master’s degree in public health from the Harvard School of Public Health in 2001. Dr. Schnipper also completed his residency, along with a General Medicine Fellowship, at Massachusetts General Hospital in 2001.

Dr. Schnipper currently serves as the director of clinical research in Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Hospital Medicine Unit. He also serves as the research director of its General Internal Medicine and Primary Care Division and the fellowship director of the Harvard-Brigham Research Fellowship in Hospital Medicine. He is an associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

His contributions to hospital medicine are demonstrated through his research efforts focused on improving the quality of healthcare delivery for general medical patients, including inpatient diabetes management, care transitions, medication reconciliation, and hospital at home care. His medication reconciliation research project (known as MARQUIS) was funded through AHRQ and led to a 5+ year partnership with the SHM Center for Quality Improvement. When Dr. Schnipper obtained a second AHRQ grant for the MARQUIS2 study, he also partnered with SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement.

Dr. Schnipper joined the Society in 2005 and remains an engaged member of the Boston Association of Academic Hospital Medicine Chapter. He has been a member of SHM’s Annual Conference Committee and serves on the editorial team of the Journal of Hospital Medicine as an associate editor. He has been invited to speak at numerous SHM annual conferences. His research efforts and impact on the medical field can be found in over 150 peer-reviewed publications including JHM, JAMA Internal Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.

Dr. Schnipper has received numerous awards and honors throughout his career, including SHM’s Excellence in Research Award in 2013. He is an established researcher, educator, and physician with a broad spectrum of clinical interests that embody what it means to be a hospitalist leader and a top-notch patient care provider.

After navigating a pandemic that turned the world – including the world of hospital medicine – upside down for so long, the very idea of returning to a “normal” career and way of life can seem strange.

Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, MHM, assistant dean for scholarship and discovery and associate chief medical officer for clinical learning environment at the University of Chicago, offered guidance to hospitalists on the transition from pandemic life to postpandemic life on May 5 at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The pandemic, Dr. Arora said, showed how important it is to develop trust. When resources were scarce as dire COVID-19 cases flooded hospitals, a culture of trust was essential to getting through the crisis.

“My team expects me to speak up on their behalf – it’s how we do things. It’s so germane to safety,” Dr. Arora said. “This is what you’re looking for in your organization – a place of psychological safety and trust.”

Surveys show that patients do trust their physicians, and healthcare providers “got a big bump” in trust during the pandemic, she said, which offers a unique opportunity.

“Doctors are trusted messengers for the COVID vaccine,” she said. “It really does matter.” But clinicians should also advocate for social justice, she said. “We must speak up even louder to fight everyday racism.”

As hospitalists move into the postpandemic medical world, Dr. Arora encouraged them to “get rid of delusions of grandeur,” expecting incredible accomplishments around every corner.

“Amazing things do happen, but oftentimes they happen because we sustain the things we start,” Dr. Arora said. For instance, physicians should consider small changes in workflow, but then sustain those changes. Maintaining pushes for change is not necessarily the norm, she said, adding that all hospitalists are probably familiar with quality improvement projects that generate only 3 months of data, because of lost focus.

Hospitalists should also “seek out information brokers” in the postpandemic medical world, or those interacting with a variety of groups who are often good sources of ideas. Hospitalists, she said, are “natural information brokers,” communicating routinely with a wide variety of specialists and healthcare professionals.

“You’ve got to know what’s important to your organization and to your patients and to everybody else,” Dr. Arora said.

She suggested that hospitalists find “zero-gravity thinkers,” and even to be this type of thinker themselves – one who stays open to new ideas and has diverse interests and experiences.

It is easy to settle into the same ways we’ve always done things, Dr. Arora said.

“The truth is there are ways that it can be better,” she said. “But we sometimes have to seek out new ideas and maintain an open mind – and sometimes we need someone to do it for us.”

Often, those closest to us are the least valuable in this regard, she said, referring to them as “innovation killers.”

“They’re not going to give you the next breakthrough idea,” she said. “You have to get outside of your network to understand where the good ideas are coming from.”

With the trauma that hospitalists have experienced for more than a year, well-being might never have been a more vital topic than it is now, Dr. Arora said.

“We’re done with online wellness modules,” she said. “Fix the system and not the person because we all know the system is not working for us. As hospitalists, we actually are experts at fixing systems.”

Dr. Arora said that one way to think of how to improve hospitalist well-being is by emphasizing “the Four Ts” – teamwork (such as the use of scribes and good communication), time (consider new work schedule models), transitions (refining workflows) and tech (technology that works for clinicians rather than creating a burden).

As hospitalists attempt to move ahead in their post–COVID-19 careers, the key is finding new challenges and never stopping the learning process, Dr. Arora said. Referring to a concept described by career coach May Busch, she said physicians can consider successful careers as a “series of S curves” – at the beginning, there is a lot of work without much advancement, followed by a rapid rise, and then arrival at the destination, which brings you to a new plateau higher up the ladder. At the higher plateau, hospitalists should “jump to a new S curve,” learning a new skill and embarking on a new endeavor, which will lift them even higher.

“Success,” Dr. Arora said, “is defined by continuous growth and learning.”

Dr. Arora reported having no financial disclosures.

After navigating a pandemic that turned the world – including the world of hospital medicine – upside down for so long, the very idea of returning to a “normal” career and way of life can seem strange.

Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, MHM, assistant dean for scholarship and discovery and associate chief medical officer for clinical learning environment at the University of Chicago, offered guidance to hospitalists on the transition from pandemic life to postpandemic life on May 5 at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The pandemic, Dr. Arora said, showed how important it is to develop trust. When resources were scarce as dire COVID-19 cases flooded hospitals, a culture of trust was essential to getting through the crisis.

“My team expects me to speak up on their behalf – it’s how we do things. It’s so germane to safety,” Dr. Arora said. “This is what you’re looking for in your organization – a place of psychological safety and trust.”

Surveys show that patients do trust their physicians, and healthcare providers “got a big bump” in trust during the pandemic, she said, which offers a unique opportunity.

“Doctors are trusted messengers for the COVID vaccine,” she said. “It really does matter.” But clinicians should also advocate for social justice, she said. “We must speak up even louder to fight everyday racism.”

As hospitalists move into the postpandemic medical world, Dr. Arora encouraged them to “get rid of delusions of grandeur,” expecting incredible accomplishments around every corner.

“Amazing things do happen, but oftentimes they happen because we sustain the things we start,” Dr. Arora said. For instance, physicians should consider small changes in workflow, but then sustain those changes. Maintaining pushes for change is not necessarily the norm, she said, adding that all hospitalists are probably familiar with quality improvement projects that generate only 3 months of data, because of lost focus.

Hospitalists should also “seek out information brokers” in the postpandemic medical world, or those interacting with a variety of groups who are often good sources of ideas. Hospitalists, she said, are “natural information brokers,” communicating routinely with a wide variety of specialists and healthcare professionals.

“You’ve got to know what’s important to your organization and to your patients and to everybody else,” Dr. Arora said.

She suggested that hospitalists find “zero-gravity thinkers,” and even to be this type of thinker themselves – one who stays open to new ideas and has diverse interests and experiences.

It is easy to settle into the same ways we’ve always done things, Dr. Arora said.

“The truth is there are ways that it can be better,” she said. “But we sometimes have to seek out new ideas and maintain an open mind – and sometimes we need someone to do it for us.”

Often, those closest to us are the least valuable in this regard, she said, referring to them as “innovation killers.”

“They’re not going to give you the next breakthrough idea,” she said. “You have to get outside of your network to understand where the good ideas are coming from.”

With the trauma that hospitalists have experienced for more than a year, well-being might never have been a more vital topic than it is now, Dr. Arora said.

“We’re done with online wellness modules,” she said. “Fix the system and not the person because we all know the system is not working for us. As hospitalists, we actually are experts at fixing systems.”

Dr. Arora said that one way to think of how to improve hospitalist well-being is by emphasizing “the Four Ts” – teamwork (such as the use of scribes and good communication), time (consider new work schedule models), transitions (refining workflows) and tech (technology that works for clinicians rather than creating a burden).

As hospitalists attempt to move ahead in their post–COVID-19 careers, the key is finding new challenges and never stopping the learning process, Dr. Arora said. Referring to a concept described by career coach May Busch, she said physicians can consider successful careers as a “series of S curves” – at the beginning, there is a lot of work without much advancement, followed by a rapid rise, and then arrival at the destination, which brings you to a new plateau higher up the ladder. At the higher plateau, hospitalists should “jump to a new S curve,” learning a new skill and embarking on a new endeavor, which will lift them even higher.

“Success,” Dr. Arora said, “is defined by continuous growth and learning.”

Dr. Arora reported having no financial disclosures.

After navigating a pandemic that turned the world – including the world of hospital medicine – upside down for so long, the very idea of returning to a “normal” career and way of life can seem strange.

Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, MHM, assistant dean for scholarship and discovery and associate chief medical officer for clinical learning environment at the University of Chicago, offered guidance to hospitalists on the transition from pandemic life to postpandemic life on May 5 at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The pandemic, Dr. Arora said, showed how important it is to develop trust. When resources were scarce as dire COVID-19 cases flooded hospitals, a culture of trust was essential to getting through the crisis.

“My team expects me to speak up on their behalf – it’s how we do things. It’s so germane to safety,” Dr. Arora said. “This is what you’re looking for in your organization – a place of psychological safety and trust.”

Surveys show that patients do trust their physicians, and healthcare providers “got a big bump” in trust during the pandemic, she said, which offers a unique opportunity.

“Doctors are trusted messengers for the COVID vaccine,” she said. “It really does matter.” But clinicians should also advocate for social justice, she said. “We must speak up even louder to fight everyday racism.”

As hospitalists move into the postpandemic medical world, Dr. Arora encouraged them to “get rid of delusions of grandeur,” expecting incredible accomplishments around every corner.

“Amazing things do happen, but oftentimes they happen because we sustain the things we start,” Dr. Arora said. For instance, physicians should consider small changes in workflow, but then sustain those changes. Maintaining pushes for change is not necessarily the norm, she said, adding that all hospitalists are probably familiar with quality improvement projects that generate only 3 months of data, because of lost focus.

Hospitalists should also “seek out information brokers” in the postpandemic medical world, or those interacting with a variety of groups who are often good sources of ideas. Hospitalists, she said, are “natural information brokers,” communicating routinely with a wide variety of specialists and healthcare professionals.

“You’ve got to know what’s important to your organization and to your patients and to everybody else,” Dr. Arora said.

She suggested that hospitalists find “zero-gravity thinkers,” and even to be this type of thinker themselves – one who stays open to new ideas and has diverse interests and experiences.

It is easy to settle into the same ways we’ve always done things, Dr. Arora said.

“The truth is there are ways that it can be better,” she said. “But we sometimes have to seek out new ideas and maintain an open mind – and sometimes we need someone to do it for us.”

Often, those closest to us are the least valuable in this regard, she said, referring to them as “innovation killers.”

“They’re not going to give you the next breakthrough idea,” she said. “You have to get outside of your network to understand where the good ideas are coming from.”

With the trauma that hospitalists have experienced for more than a year, well-being might never have been a more vital topic than it is now, Dr. Arora said.

“We’re done with online wellness modules,” she said. “Fix the system and not the person because we all know the system is not working for us. As hospitalists, we actually are experts at fixing systems.”

Dr. Arora said that one way to think of how to improve hospitalist well-being is by emphasizing “the Four Ts” – teamwork (such as the use of scribes and good communication), time (consider new work schedule models), transitions (refining workflows) and tech (technology that works for clinicians rather than creating a burden).

As hospitalists attempt to move ahead in their post–COVID-19 careers, the key is finding new challenges and never stopping the learning process, Dr. Arora said. Referring to a concept described by career coach May Busch, she said physicians can consider successful careers as a “series of S curves” – at the beginning, there is a lot of work without much advancement, followed by a rapid rise, and then arrival at the destination, which brings you to a new plateau higher up the ladder. At the higher plateau, hospitalists should “jump to a new S curve,” learning a new skill and embarking on a new endeavor, which will lift them even higher.

“Success,” Dr. Arora said, “is defined by continuous growth and learning.”

Dr. Arora reported having no financial disclosures.

Click here for the Wednesday issue of the SHM Converge Daily News newsletter.

Click here for the Wednesday issue of the SHM Converge Daily News newsletter.

Click here for the Wednesday issue of the SHM Converge Daily News newsletter.

Earlier this spring, Kimberly D. Manning, MD, FACP, FAAP, was caring for an elderly Black man with multiple comorbidities at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, assembling an order for medications and a discharge plan.

“It was very challenging,” Dr. Manning, professor of medicine and associate vice chair of diversity, equity, and inclusion at Emory University, Atlanta, recalled during a May 4 session at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

At one point, the patient glanced at her, shrugged, and said: “You know, Doc, we get in where we fit in.”

“He was talking about the idea that people who come from historically disadvantaged backgrounds just have to try to figure it out, have to try to make a dollar out of 15 cents,” Dr. Manning said. “This, to me, really underscores what we mean when we say health disparities, this idea that there are people who are working hard and doing the best that they can but who still are forced to ‘get in where they fit in.’”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines health disparities as preventable differences in the burden of disease, injury, violence, or opportunities to achieve optimal health that are experienced by socially disadvantaged populations. “When we think about health disparities we often think about many diagnoses,” Dr. Manning continued. “We think about HIV and the disparate care and outcomes we’ve seen in populations of individuals who come from minority backgrounds. We see disparities in obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease, infant mortality and maternal death, hospital readmissions, and COVID-19. We know that people who do not have access to health care or to healthy neighborhoods and environments or who are economically disadvantaged have poorer outcomes. It plays out with all of these diagnoses.”

In her opinion, health disparities in hospital medicine fall into in one of three buckets: diagnosis and triage, hospital stay and treatment, and sticking the landing – “that is, after a patient leaves the hospital,” Dr. Manning explained. “The hospital stay is the turn on the balance beam. You can do everything perfectly, but then you must dismount. To score a ‘10’ you have to stick the landing. That means being able to get your medications, being able to get to and from clinic appointments, being able to understand the directions you’ve been given. All of these things are intertwined, the inpatient and outpatient care.”

The roots of health disparities in hospitalized patients stem from centuries ago, she said, when America’s health care system was built to benefit white male landowners and their families. Health care for Blacks, on the other hand, “was focused on function, almost like veterinary care, or experimentation,” Dr. Manning said. “After slavery ended, many historically Black institutions of higher learning opened, including medical schools. In 1909, there were seven historically Black medical schools. Acknowledging the history that preceded disparities is essential.”

In her view, the path to improving health care disparities starts with conceding that structural racism exists in the practice of medicine. “This means that health disparities are connected to systemic and individual issues, including our biases,” Dr. Manning said. “Our system was built on this idea that there is greater value of one group of people above others. Access to care, physician workforce, and biases are impacted by system design. Health equity and health equality are not the same.”

She also underscored the importance of the social determinants of health, or “those things we need to be healthy,” including economic stability, neighborhood and physical environment, educational opportunities, access to good food, community and social context, and the idea of health care as a human right and understanding our health care system. “This is what is necessary,” she declared. “Without all of these together, we can’t have the health outcomes that we desire.”

As hospital leaders work to build a more diverse physician workforce, Dr. Manning emphasized the importance of forming antiracism policies by addressing questions such as what will we not stand for? How will we protect and create psychologically safe environments? What is our commitment to diversity in leadership and in trainees? What is our commitment to implicit bias training and bystander training?

“We have to get uncomfortable enough to advocate with urgency because all of these are necessary factors to mitigate health disparities,” she said. “Though the systemic issues are the most urgent, on an individual level, we must continue to disrupt the negative ideology and stereotypes that threaten our environment every day. When we see those negative things, we have to call them out. We need to continue to listen, to humanize those things that are happening around us, and to understand historical context.”

Dr. Manning reported having no financial disclosures.

Earlier this spring, Kimberly D. Manning, MD, FACP, FAAP, was caring for an elderly Black man with multiple comorbidities at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, assembling an order for medications and a discharge plan.

“It was very challenging,” Dr. Manning, professor of medicine and associate vice chair of diversity, equity, and inclusion at Emory University, Atlanta, recalled during a May 4 session at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

At one point, the patient glanced at her, shrugged, and said: “You know, Doc, we get in where we fit in.”

“He was talking about the idea that people who come from historically disadvantaged backgrounds just have to try to figure it out, have to try to make a dollar out of 15 cents,” Dr. Manning said. “This, to me, really underscores what we mean when we say health disparities, this idea that there are people who are working hard and doing the best that they can but who still are forced to ‘get in where they fit in.’”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines health disparities as preventable differences in the burden of disease, injury, violence, or opportunities to achieve optimal health that are experienced by socially disadvantaged populations. “When we think about health disparities we often think about many diagnoses,” Dr. Manning continued. “We think about HIV and the disparate care and outcomes we’ve seen in populations of individuals who come from minority backgrounds. We see disparities in obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease, infant mortality and maternal death, hospital readmissions, and COVID-19. We know that people who do not have access to health care or to healthy neighborhoods and environments or who are economically disadvantaged have poorer outcomes. It plays out with all of these diagnoses.”

In her opinion, health disparities in hospital medicine fall into in one of three buckets: diagnosis and triage, hospital stay and treatment, and sticking the landing – “that is, after a patient leaves the hospital,” Dr. Manning explained. “The hospital stay is the turn on the balance beam. You can do everything perfectly, but then you must dismount. To score a ‘10’ you have to stick the landing. That means being able to get your medications, being able to get to and from clinic appointments, being able to understand the directions you’ve been given. All of these things are intertwined, the inpatient and outpatient care.”

The roots of health disparities in hospitalized patients stem from centuries ago, she said, when America’s health care system was built to benefit white male landowners and their families. Health care for Blacks, on the other hand, “was focused on function, almost like veterinary care, or experimentation,” Dr. Manning said. “After slavery ended, many historically Black institutions of higher learning opened, including medical schools. In 1909, there were seven historically Black medical schools. Acknowledging the history that preceded disparities is essential.”

In her view, the path to improving health care disparities starts with conceding that structural racism exists in the practice of medicine. “This means that health disparities are connected to systemic and individual issues, including our biases,” Dr. Manning said. “Our system was built on this idea that there is greater value of one group of people above others. Access to care, physician workforce, and biases are impacted by system design. Health equity and health equality are not the same.”

She also underscored the importance of the social determinants of health, or “those things we need to be healthy,” including economic stability, neighborhood and physical environment, educational opportunities, access to good food, community and social context, and the idea of health care as a human right and understanding our health care system. “This is what is necessary,” she declared. “Without all of these together, we can’t have the health outcomes that we desire.”

As hospital leaders work to build a more diverse physician workforce, Dr. Manning emphasized the importance of forming antiracism policies by addressing questions such as what will we not stand for? How will we protect and create psychologically safe environments? What is our commitment to diversity in leadership and in trainees? What is our commitment to implicit bias training and bystander training?

“We have to get uncomfortable enough to advocate with urgency because all of these are necessary factors to mitigate health disparities,” she said. “Though the systemic issues are the most urgent, on an individual level, we must continue to disrupt the negative ideology and stereotypes that threaten our environment every day. When we see those negative things, we have to call them out. We need to continue to listen, to humanize those things that are happening around us, and to understand historical context.”

Dr. Manning reported having no financial disclosures.

Earlier this spring, Kimberly D. Manning, MD, FACP, FAAP, was caring for an elderly Black man with multiple comorbidities at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, assembling an order for medications and a discharge plan.

“It was very challenging,” Dr. Manning, professor of medicine and associate vice chair of diversity, equity, and inclusion at Emory University, Atlanta, recalled during a May 4 session at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

At one point, the patient glanced at her, shrugged, and said: “You know, Doc, we get in where we fit in.”

“He was talking about the idea that people who come from historically disadvantaged backgrounds just have to try to figure it out, have to try to make a dollar out of 15 cents,” Dr. Manning said. “This, to me, really underscores what we mean when we say health disparities, this idea that there are people who are working hard and doing the best that they can but who still are forced to ‘get in where they fit in.’”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines health disparities as preventable differences in the burden of disease, injury, violence, or opportunities to achieve optimal health that are experienced by socially disadvantaged populations. “When we think about health disparities we often think about many diagnoses,” Dr. Manning continued. “We think about HIV and the disparate care and outcomes we’ve seen in populations of individuals who come from minority backgrounds. We see disparities in obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease, infant mortality and maternal death, hospital readmissions, and COVID-19. We know that people who do not have access to health care or to healthy neighborhoods and environments or who are economically disadvantaged have poorer outcomes. It plays out with all of these diagnoses.”

In her opinion, health disparities in hospital medicine fall into in one of three buckets: diagnosis and triage, hospital stay and treatment, and sticking the landing – “that is, after a patient leaves the hospital,” Dr. Manning explained. “The hospital stay is the turn on the balance beam. You can do everything perfectly, but then you must dismount. To score a ‘10’ you have to stick the landing. That means being able to get your medications, being able to get to and from clinic appointments, being able to understand the directions you’ve been given. All of these things are intertwined, the inpatient and outpatient care.”

The roots of health disparities in hospitalized patients stem from centuries ago, she said, when America’s health care system was built to benefit white male landowners and their families. Health care for Blacks, on the other hand, “was focused on function, almost like veterinary care, or experimentation,” Dr. Manning said. “After slavery ended, many historically Black institutions of higher learning opened, including medical schools. In 1909, there were seven historically Black medical schools. Acknowledging the history that preceded disparities is essential.”

In her view, the path to improving health care disparities starts with conceding that structural racism exists in the practice of medicine. “This means that health disparities are connected to systemic and individual issues, including our biases,” Dr. Manning said. “Our system was built on this idea that there is greater value of one group of people above others. Access to care, physician workforce, and biases are impacted by system design. Health equity and health equality are not the same.”

She also underscored the importance of the social determinants of health, or “those things we need to be healthy,” including economic stability, neighborhood and physical environment, educational opportunities, access to good food, community and social context, and the idea of health care as a human right and understanding our health care system. “This is what is necessary,” she declared. “Without all of these together, we can’t have the health outcomes that we desire.”

As hospital leaders work to build a more diverse physician workforce, Dr. Manning emphasized the importance of forming antiracism policies by addressing questions such as what will we not stand for? How will we protect and create psychologically safe environments? What is our commitment to diversity in leadership and in trainees? What is our commitment to implicit bias training and bystander training?

“We have to get uncomfortable enough to advocate with urgency because all of these are necessary factors to mitigate health disparities,” she said. “Though the systemic issues are the most urgent, on an individual level, we must continue to disrupt the negative ideology and stereotypes that threaten our environment every day. When we see those negative things, we have to call them out. We need to continue to listen, to humanize those things that are happening around us, and to understand historical context.”

Dr. Manning reported having no financial disclosures.

Severely ill COVID-19 patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) had similar survival to hospital discharge and long-term outcomes as survivors treated with mechanical ventilation alone, results of a new, multicenter study suggest.

Importantly, the study also showed that survivors, regardless of the treatment they received, experienced significant deficits following their stay in the ICU and were suffering problems with physical, psychological, and cognitive functioning for months afterward.

At 3 months after discharge, 50% of the survivors reported cognitive dysfunction, ICU-acquired weakness and depression, anxiety, or PTSD; over 25% still required supplemental oxygen; and only one in six survivors were back at work.

The findings were presented April 30 at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery annual meeting.

The study represents the efforts of a multidisciplinary team that included cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care doctors, medical staff at long-term care facilities, and physical therapists in addition to other specialists. The research followed patients at five academic centers: the University of Colorado, the University of Virginia, the University of Kentucky, Johns Hopkins University, and Vanderbilt University.

“We were a multidisciplinary team, a whole variety of people to really track the long-term outcomes for patients who have been critically ill from COVID-19 and survived to hospital discharge,” presenting author Lauren J. Taylor, MD, fellow at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

It’s unclear currently what happens to these patients once they leave the hospital, she noted. “This is information we have not had, but when we followed these patients in these multidisciplinary clinics, there was a high level of either physical, emotional, or cognitive dysfunction, even for patients who were well enough to be living at home at the time of follow-up.

“So, if you have somebody living at home and they come into the clinic, you assume they are functioning pretty well, but when you actually provide them with cognitive and psychological testing and check their physical capabilities, you find a high degree of deficits throughout the entire cohort of this study,” she said.

The study was prompted by discussion with patients’ family members about the rationale, risks, and benefits of ECMO cannulation in patients with COVID-19 failing mechanical ventilation, senior author Jessica V. Rove, MD, also from the University of Colorado, said in an interview.

“We wanted to find out what their hospital course would be like and what cognitive, physical, or emotional deficits might they experience if they survive,” Dr. Rove said.

The investigators compared 262 mechanically ventilated patients with 46 patients cannulated for ECMO who were hospitalized between March and May 2020.

ECMO patients were younger and traveled farther but there were no significant differences in gender, race, or body mass index.

ECMO patients were mechanically ventilated for longer durations (median, 26 days vs. 13 days) and were more likely to receive inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, neuromuscular blockade, investigational COVID-19 therapies, blood transfusions, and inotropes.

They also experienced greater bleeding and clotting events (P < .01).

Despite a more complex critical illness course, patients treated with ECMO had similar survival at discharge and long-term outcomes, compared with those who were treated with mechanical ventilation alone.

The survival rate for ECMO patients was 69.9%, and for mechanically ventilated patients it was 69.6%.

Of the 215 survivors, 66.5% had documented follow-up within 3 months of discharge from hospital. Most survivors (93.9%) were living at home; a small percentage (16.1%) had returned to work or their usual activities, and 26.2% were still using supplemental oxygen.

These rates did not differ significantly based on ECMO status and rates of physical, psychological, and cognitive deficits did not differ significantly.

“The cognitive, emotional, and physical deficits seen in survivors of critical illness from COVID-19 can only be treated if diagnosed,” Dr. Rove said.

“Detrimental effects can potentially be ameliorated with use of best practices in the ICU, maximizing acute rehabilitation services where indicated, and follow-up with providers in multidisciplinary post-ICU clinics who can assess and treat these patients to optimize survivorship,” she said.

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

Severely ill COVID-19 patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) had similar survival to hospital discharge and long-term outcomes as survivors treated with mechanical ventilation alone, results of a new, multicenter study suggest.

Importantly, the study also showed that survivors, regardless of the treatment they received, experienced significant deficits following their stay in the ICU and were suffering problems with physical, psychological, and cognitive functioning for months afterward.

At 3 months after discharge, 50% of the survivors reported cognitive dysfunction, ICU-acquired weakness and depression, anxiety, or PTSD; over 25% still required supplemental oxygen; and only one in six survivors were back at work.

The findings were presented April 30 at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery annual meeting.

The study represents the efforts of a multidisciplinary team that included cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care doctors, medical staff at long-term care facilities, and physical therapists in addition to other specialists. The research followed patients at five academic centers: the University of Colorado, the University of Virginia, the University of Kentucky, Johns Hopkins University, and Vanderbilt University.

“We were a multidisciplinary team, a whole variety of people to really track the long-term outcomes for patients who have been critically ill from COVID-19 and survived to hospital discharge,” presenting author Lauren J. Taylor, MD, fellow at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

It’s unclear currently what happens to these patients once they leave the hospital, she noted. “This is information we have not had, but when we followed these patients in these multidisciplinary clinics, there was a high level of either physical, emotional, or cognitive dysfunction, even for patients who were well enough to be living at home at the time of follow-up.

“So, if you have somebody living at home and they come into the clinic, you assume they are functioning pretty well, but when you actually provide them with cognitive and psychological testing and check their physical capabilities, you find a high degree of deficits throughout the entire cohort of this study,” she said.

The study was prompted by discussion with patients’ family members about the rationale, risks, and benefits of ECMO cannulation in patients with COVID-19 failing mechanical ventilation, senior author Jessica V. Rove, MD, also from the University of Colorado, said in an interview.

“We wanted to find out what their hospital course would be like and what cognitive, physical, or emotional deficits might they experience if they survive,” Dr. Rove said.

The investigators compared 262 mechanically ventilated patients with 46 patients cannulated for ECMO who were hospitalized between March and May 2020.

ECMO patients were younger and traveled farther but there were no significant differences in gender, race, or body mass index.

ECMO patients were mechanically ventilated for longer durations (median, 26 days vs. 13 days) and were more likely to receive inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, neuromuscular blockade, investigational COVID-19 therapies, blood transfusions, and inotropes.

They also experienced greater bleeding and clotting events (P < .01).

Despite a more complex critical illness course, patients treated with ECMO had similar survival at discharge and long-term outcomes, compared with those who were treated with mechanical ventilation alone.

The survival rate for ECMO patients was 69.9%, and for mechanically ventilated patients it was 69.6%.

Of the 215 survivors, 66.5% had documented follow-up within 3 months of discharge from hospital. Most survivors (93.9%) were living at home; a small percentage (16.1%) had returned to work or their usual activities, and 26.2% were still using supplemental oxygen.

These rates did not differ significantly based on ECMO status and rates of physical, psychological, and cognitive deficits did not differ significantly.

“The cognitive, emotional, and physical deficits seen in survivors of critical illness from COVID-19 can only be treated if diagnosed,” Dr. Rove said.

“Detrimental effects can potentially be ameliorated with use of best practices in the ICU, maximizing acute rehabilitation services where indicated, and follow-up with providers in multidisciplinary post-ICU clinics who can assess and treat these patients to optimize survivorship,” she said.

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

Severely ill COVID-19 patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) had similar survival to hospital discharge and long-term outcomes as survivors treated with mechanical ventilation alone, results of a new, multicenter study suggest.

Importantly, the study also showed that survivors, regardless of the treatment they received, experienced significant deficits following their stay in the ICU and were suffering problems with physical, psychological, and cognitive functioning for months afterward.

At 3 months after discharge, 50% of the survivors reported cognitive dysfunction, ICU-acquired weakness and depression, anxiety, or PTSD; over 25% still required supplemental oxygen; and only one in six survivors were back at work.

The findings were presented April 30 at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery annual meeting.

The study represents the efforts of a multidisciplinary team that included cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care doctors, medical staff at long-term care facilities, and physical therapists in addition to other specialists. The research followed patients at five academic centers: the University of Colorado, the University of Virginia, the University of Kentucky, Johns Hopkins University, and Vanderbilt University.

“We were a multidisciplinary team, a whole variety of people to really track the long-term outcomes for patients who have been critically ill from COVID-19 and survived to hospital discharge,” presenting author Lauren J. Taylor, MD, fellow at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

It’s unclear currently what happens to these patients once they leave the hospital, she noted. “This is information we have not had, but when we followed these patients in these multidisciplinary clinics, there was a high level of either physical, emotional, or cognitive dysfunction, even for patients who were well enough to be living at home at the time of follow-up.

“So, if you have somebody living at home and they come into the clinic, you assume they are functioning pretty well, but when you actually provide them with cognitive and psychological testing and check their physical capabilities, you find a high degree of deficits throughout the entire cohort of this study,” she said.

The study was prompted by discussion with patients’ family members about the rationale, risks, and benefits of ECMO cannulation in patients with COVID-19 failing mechanical ventilation, senior author Jessica V. Rove, MD, also from the University of Colorado, said in an interview.

“We wanted to find out what their hospital course would be like and what cognitive, physical, or emotional deficits might they experience if they survive,” Dr. Rove said.

The investigators compared 262 mechanically ventilated patients with 46 patients cannulated for ECMO who were hospitalized between March and May 2020.

ECMO patients were younger and traveled farther but there were no significant differences in gender, race, or body mass index.

ECMO patients were mechanically ventilated for longer durations (median, 26 days vs. 13 days) and were more likely to receive inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, neuromuscular blockade, investigational COVID-19 therapies, blood transfusions, and inotropes.

They also experienced greater bleeding and clotting events (P < .01).

Despite a more complex critical illness course, patients treated with ECMO had similar survival at discharge and long-term outcomes, compared with those who were treated with mechanical ventilation alone.

The survival rate for ECMO patients was 69.9%, and for mechanically ventilated patients it was 69.6%.

Of the 215 survivors, 66.5% had documented follow-up within 3 months of discharge from hospital. Most survivors (93.9%) were living at home; a small percentage (16.1%) had returned to work or their usual activities, and 26.2% were still using supplemental oxygen.

These rates did not differ significantly based on ECMO status and rates of physical, psychological, and cognitive deficits did not differ significantly.

“The cognitive, emotional, and physical deficits seen in survivors of critical illness from COVID-19 can only be treated if diagnosed,” Dr. Rove said.

“Detrimental effects can potentially be ameliorated with use of best practices in the ICU, maximizing acute rehabilitation services where indicated, and follow-up with providers in multidisciplinary post-ICU clinics who can assess and treat these patients to optimize survivorship,” she said.

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

A year into the COVID-19 pandemic, it is fair to say that children do transmit the virus, but at lower rates, Philip Zachariah, MD, of Columbia University, New York, said in a presentation at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Supportive care remains a key element in treating children with COVID-19, Dr. Zachariah emphasized. His presentation on pediatric hot topics in COVID-19 addressed several issues including the importance of risk stratification, current therapeutic options, and the latest on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) associated with COVID-19.
 

Recognize the high-risk patient

When it comes to identifying risk factors for COVID-19 in children, remember that the trajectory of disease is diverse, Dr. Zachariah said.

The presentations of COVID-19 in children include those who are older and/or have comorbidities and present with mainly respiratory issues, those who are younger with symptoms that might overlap with Kawasaki disease, and those who are older with symptoms of cardiac involvement and MIS-C.

The overall hospitalization rate for children with COVID-19 is approximately 5%, but once hospitalized, the rates of ICU admission are approximately 30% and reflect rates seen in adult patients, Dr. Zachariah noted.

In general, data show that underlying conditions are more common in acute COVID-19 cases, and laboratory anomalies are more pronounced in patients with MIS-C, he said.

Based on the most recent studies, independent risk factors for acute COVID-19 in children include extremes of age (infancy or adolescence), minority populations, obesity, medical complexity, immune compromise, and asthma.

However, data are limited on specific issues of medical complexity, and risk depends on the level and type of immunosuppression, as morbidity and mortality have been relatively low in transplant patients, Dr. Zachariah noted.

Another dilemma lies in recognizing MIS-C in a febrile child, Dr. Zachariah noted. A complex question, “but persistent high fever in the setting of known recent COVID-19 infections (within 3 to 6 weeks) seems key,” he said. “If given the chance to do one blood test, I would suggest doing a CRP [C-reactive protein] as a screening test,” Dr. Zachariah said. The best laboratory prognosticators appear to be lymphopenia and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) he added.

A final risk factor is innate immune defects that might predispose previously healthy children to severe acute COVID-19, such as differences in cytokine expression, said Dr. Zachariah.

“For example, autoantibodies against type 1 interferon production may dispose to severe disease,” he noted. Patients with MIS-C have shown patterns of T-cell activation similar to those seen in severely ill adults, and activation of vascular patrolling CX3CR1+ CD8 + T cells appears as a distinguishing feature in MIS-C, he explained.
 

Prevention plans with monoclonal antibodies

Another hot topic in pediatric COVID-19 is the prevention of severe disease and hospitalization using the currently available therapies, Dr. Zachariah said. However, when interpreting efficacy data, clinicians are almost always extrapolating relative risk to absolute risk in children, he noted.

“Convalescent plasma was promising, but the data on efficacy are increasingly negative,” he noted. Instead, a more exciting development is the use of monoclonal antibodies, which, ideally, “will deliver protection to ‘high risk’ populations in the very early stages of infection,” he said.

Bamlanivimab/etesevimab is “a neutralizing IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds to overlapping domains of the receptor binding domain of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Zachariah. In a study of 1,035 patients with a median age of 56 years, a single intravenous infusion of bamlanivimab plus etesevimab within 3 days of a positive COVID-19 test showed a 70% reduction in risk of COVID-19 hospitalizations or death.

For children, the current Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization for monoclonal antibody use covers patients aged 12-17 years, who weigh 40 kg or more, and meet any of several other criteria: a body mass index at the 85th percentile or higher, sickle cell disease, congenital or acquired heart disease, neurodevelopmental disorders such as cerebral palsy, chronic respiratory disease requiring daily control, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease, Dr. Zachariah said.

In addition, pediatric patients aged 12-17 years could be considered for monoclonal antibody treatment in consultation with a pediatric infectious disease specialist if they are symptomatic with COVID-19, weigh at least 40 kg, are not hospitalized for COVID-19 symptoms, and have no new oxygen requirements, he said.
 

More on MIS-C

Currently, IVIG is the most common treatment for MIS-C in the United States, Dr. Zachariah said. In addition, a study published in JAMA Feb. 1, 2021, showed that IVIG in combination with methylprednisolone was associated with a lower risk of treatment failure compared to IVIG alone in 111 children with a median age of 8.6 years.

Although comparative effectiveness data are lacking, in long-term follow-up, all the patients seemed to be doing fine, Dr. Zachariah said. Potential second-line therapies for atypical MIS-C include anakinra and tocilizumab, he added.

Dr. Zachariah concluded by emphasizing the potential of COVID-19 vaccines, with studies underway for both Moderna and Pfizer vaccines in children younger than 16 years.

Dr. Zachariah had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A year into the COVID-19 pandemic, it is fair to say that children do transmit the virus, but at lower rates, Philip Zachariah, MD, of Columbia University, New York, said in a presentation at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Supportive care remains a key element in treating children with COVID-19, Dr. Zachariah emphasized. His presentation on pediatric hot topics in COVID-19 addressed several issues including the importance of risk stratification, current therapeutic options, and the latest on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) associated with COVID-19.
 

Recognize the high-risk patient

When it comes to identifying risk factors for COVID-19 in children, remember that the trajectory of disease is diverse, Dr. Zachariah said.

The presentations of COVID-19 in children include those who are older and/or have comorbidities and present with mainly respiratory issues, those who are younger with symptoms that might overlap with Kawasaki disease, and those who are older with symptoms of cardiac involvement and MIS-C.

The overall hospitalization rate for children with COVID-19 is approximately 5%, but once hospitalized, the rates of ICU admission are approximately 30% and reflect rates seen in adult patients, Dr. Zachariah noted.

In general, data show that underlying conditions are more common in acute COVID-19 cases, and laboratory anomalies are more pronounced in patients with MIS-C, he said.

Based on the most recent studies, independent risk factors for acute COVID-19 in children include extremes of age (infancy or adolescence), minority populations, obesity, medical complexity, immune compromise, and asthma.

However, data are limited on specific issues of medical complexity, and risk depends on the level and type of immunosuppression, as morbidity and mortality have been relatively low in transplant patients, Dr. Zachariah noted.

Another dilemma lies in recognizing MIS-C in a febrile child, Dr. Zachariah noted. A complex question, “but persistent high fever in the setting of known recent COVID-19 infections (within 3 to 6 weeks) seems key,” he said. “If given the chance to do one blood test, I would suggest doing a CRP [C-reactive protein] as a screening test,” Dr. Zachariah said. The best laboratory prognosticators appear to be lymphopenia and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) he added.

A final risk factor is innate immune defects that might predispose previously healthy children to severe acute COVID-19, such as differences in cytokine expression, said Dr. Zachariah.

“For example, autoantibodies against type 1 interferon production may dispose to severe disease,” he noted. Patients with MIS-C have shown patterns of T-cell activation similar to those seen in severely ill adults, and activation of vascular patrolling CX3CR1+ CD8 + T cells appears as a distinguishing feature in MIS-C, he explained.
 

Prevention plans with monoclonal antibodies

Another hot topic in pediatric COVID-19 is the prevention of severe disease and hospitalization using the currently available therapies, Dr. Zachariah said. However, when interpreting efficacy data, clinicians are almost always extrapolating relative risk to absolute risk in children, he noted.

“Convalescent plasma was promising, but the data on efficacy are increasingly negative,” he noted. Instead, a more exciting development is the use of monoclonal antibodies, which, ideally, “will deliver protection to ‘high risk’ populations in the very early stages of infection,” he said.

Bamlanivimab/etesevimab is “a neutralizing IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds to overlapping domains of the receptor binding domain of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Zachariah. In a study of 1,035 patients with a median age of 56 years, a single intravenous infusion of bamlanivimab plus etesevimab within 3 days of a positive COVID-19 test showed a 70% reduction in risk of COVID-19 hospitalizations or death.

For children, the current Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization for monoclonal antibody use covers patients aged 12-17 years, who weigh 40 kg or more, and meet any of several other criteria: a body mass index at the 85th percentile or higher, sickle cell disease, congenital or acquired heart disease, neurodevelopmental disorders such as cerebral palsy, chronic respiratory disease requiring daily control, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease, Dr. Zachariah said.

In addition, pediatric patients aged 12-17 years could be considered for monoclonal antibody treatment in consultation with a pediatric infectious disease specialist if they are symptomatic with COVID-19, weigh at least 40 kg, are not hospitalized for COVID-19 symptoms, and have no new oxygen requirements, he said.
 

More on MIS-C

Currently, IVIG is the most common treatment for MIS-C in the United States, Dr. Zachariah said. In addition, a study published in JAMA Feb. 1, 2021, showed that IVIG in combination with methylprednisolone was associated with a lower risk of treatment failure compared to IVIG alone in 111 children with a median age of 8.6 years.

Although comparative effectiveness data are lacking, in long-term follow-up, all the patients seemed to be doing fine, Dr. Zachariah said. Potential second-line therapies for atypical MIS-C include anakinra and tocilizumab, he added.

Dr. Zachariah concluded by emphasizing the potential of COVID-19 vaccines, with studies underway for both Moderna and Pfizer vaccines in children younger than 16 years.

Dr. Zachariah had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A year into the COVID-19 pandemic, it is fair to say that children do transmit the virus, but at lower rates, Philip Zachariah, MD, of Columbia University, New York, said in a presentation at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Supportive care remains a key element in treating children with COVID-19, Dr. Zachariah emphasized. His presentation on pediatric hot topics in COVID-19 addressed several issues including the importance of risk stratification, current therapeutic options, and the latest on multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) associated with COVID-19.
 

Recognize the high-risk patient

When it comes to identifying risk factors for COVID-19 in children, remember that the trajectory of disease is diverse, Dr. Zachariah said.

The presentations of COVID-19 in children include those who are older and/or have comorbidities and present with mainly respiratory issues, those who are younger with symptoms that might overlap with Kawasaki disease, and those who are older with symptoms of cardiac involvement and MIS-C.

The overall hospitalization rate for children with COVID-19 is approximately 5%, but once hospitalized, the rates of ICU admission are approximately 30% and reflect rates seen in adult patients, Dr. Zachariah noted.

In general, data show that underlying conditions are more common in acute COVID-19 cases, and laboratory anomalies are more pronounced in patients with MIS-C, he said.

Based on the most recent studies, independent risk factors for acute COVID-19 in children include extremes of age (infancy or adolescence), minority populations, obesity, medical complexity, immune compromise, and asthma.

However, data are limited on specific issues of medical complexity, and risk depends on the level and type of immunosuppression, as morbidity and mortality have been relatively low in transplant patients, Dr. Zachariah noted.

Another dilemma lies in recognizing MIS-C in a febrile child, Dr. Zachariah noted. A complex question, “but persistent high fever in the setting of known recent COVID-19 infections (within 3 to 6 weeks) seems key,” he said. “If given the chance to do one blood test, I would suggest doing a CRP [C-reactive protein] as a screening test,” Dr. Zachariah said. The best laboratory prognosticators appear to be lymphopenia and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) he added.

A final risk factor is innate immune defects that might predispose previously healthy children to severe acute COVID-19, such as differences in cytokine expression, said Dr. Zachariah.

“For example, autoantibodies against type 1 interferon production may dispose to severe disease,” he noted. Patients with MIS-C have shown patterns of T-cell activation similar to those seen in severely ill adults, and activation of vascular patrolling CX3CR1+ CD8 + T cells appears as a distinguishing feature in MIS-C, he explained.
 

Prevention plans with monoclonal antibodies

Another hot topic in pediatric COVID-19 is the prevention of severe disease and hospitalization using the currently available therapies, Dr. Zachariah said. However, when interpreting efficacy data, clinicians are almost always extrapolating relative risk to absolute risk in children, he noted.

“Convalescent plasma was promising, but the data on efficacy are increasingly negative,” he noted. Instead, a more exciting development is the use of monoclonal antibodies, which, ideally, “will deliver protection to ‘high risk’ populations in the very early stages of infection,” he said.

Bamlanivimab/etesevimab is “a neutralizing IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds to overlapping domains of the receptor binding domain of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Zachariah. In a study of 1,035 patients with a median age of 56 years, a single intravenous infusion of bamlanivimab plus etesevimab within 3 days of a positive COVID-19 test showed a 70% reduction in risk of COVID-19 hospitalizations or death.

For children, the current Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization for monoclonal antibody use covers patients aged 12-17 years, who weigh 40 kg or more, and meet any of several other criteria: a body mass index at the 85th percentile or higher, sickle cell disease, congenital or acquired heart disease, neurodevelopmental disorders such as cerebral palsy, chronic respiratory disease requiring daily control, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease, Dr. Zachariah said.

In addition, pediatric patients aged 12-17 years could be considered for monoclonal antibody treatment in consultation with a pediatric infectious disease specialist if they are symptomatic with COVID-19, weigh at least 40 kg, are not hospitalized for COVID-19 symptoms, and have no new oxygen requirements, he said.
 

More on MIS-C

Currently, IVIG is the most common treatment for MIS-C in the United States, Dr. Zachariah said. In addition, a study published in JAMA Feb. 1, 2021, showed that IVIG in combination with methylprednisolone was associated with a lower risk of treatment failure compared to IVIG alone in 111 children with a median age of 8.6 years.

Although comparative effectiveness data are lacking, in long-term follow-up, all the patients seemed to be doing fine, Dr. Zachariah said. Potential second-line therapies for atypical MIS-C include anakinra and tocilizumab, he added.

Dr. Zachariah concluded by emphasizing the potential of COVID-19 vaccines, with studies underway for both Moderna and Pfizer vaccines in children younger than 16 years.

Dr. Zachariah had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues and evidence evolves, clinical judgment is the bottom line for clinical care, according to Adarsh Bhimraj, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, and James Walter, MD, of Northwestern Medicine, Chicago.

In a debate/discussion presented at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine, Dr. Bhimraj and Dr. Walter took sides in a friendly debate on the value of remdesivir and tocilizumab for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Dr. Bhimraj argued for the use of remdesivir or tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia, and Dr. Walter presented the case against their use.
 

Referendum on remdesivir

The main sources referenced by the presenters regarding remdesivir were the WHO Solidarity Trial (N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 11. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2023184) and the Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT) final report (N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 5. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764).

“The ‘debate’ is partly artificial,” and meant to illustrate how clinicians can use their own clinical faculties and reasoning to make an informed decision when treating COVID-19 patients, Dr. Bhimraj said.

The ACCT trial compared remdesivir with placebo in patients with severe enough COVID-19 to require supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The primary outcome in the study was time to recovery, and “the devil is in the details,” Dr. Bhimraj said. The outcomes clinicians should look for in studies are those that matter to patients, such as death, disability, and discomfort, he noted. Disease-oriented endpoints are easier to measure, but not always meaningful for patients, he said. The study showed an average 5-day decrease in illness, “but the fact is that it did not show a mortality benefit,” he noted.

Another large, open-label study of remdesivir across 30 countries showed no survival benefit associated with the drug, compared with standard of care, said Dr. Bhimraj. Patients treated with remdesivir remained in the hospital longer, but Dr. Bhimraj said he believed that was a bias. “I think the physicians kept the patients in the hospital longer to give the treatment rather than the treatments themselves prolonging the treatment duration,” he said.

In conclusion for remdesivir, “the solid data show that there is an early recovery,” he said. “At least for severe disease, even if there is no mortality benefit, there is a role. I argue that, if someone asks if you want to use remdesivir in severe COVID-19 patients, say yes, especially if you value people getting out of the hospital sooner. In a crisis situation, there is a role for remdesivir.”

Dr. Walter discussed the “con” side of using remdesivir. “We can start with a predata hypothesis, but integrate new data about the efficacy into a postdata hypothesis,” he said.

Dr. Walter made several points against the use of remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. First, it has not shown any improvement in mortality and may increase the length of hospital stay, he noted.

Data from the ACCT-1 trial and the WHO solidarity trial, showed “no signal of mortality benefit at all,” he said. In addition, the World Health Organization, American College of Physicians, and National Institutes of Health all recommend against remdesivir for patients who require mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, he said. The efficacy when used with steroids remains unclear, and long-term safety data are lacking, he added.
 

Taking on tocilizumab

Tocilizumab, an anti-inflammatory agent, has demonstrated an impact on several surrogate markers, notably C-reactive protein, temperature, and oxygenation. Dr. Bhimraj said. He reviewed data from eight published studies on the use of tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients.

Arguably, some trials may not have been powered adequately, and in combination, some trials show an effect on clinical deterioration, if not a mortality benefit, he said.

Consequently, in the context of COVID-19, tocilizumab “should be used early in the disease process, especially if steroids are not working,” said Dr. Bhimraj. Despite the limited evidence, “there is a niche population where this might be beneficial,” he said.

By contrast, Dr. Walter took the position of skepticism about the value of tocilizumab for COVID-19 patients.

Notably, decades of research show that tocilizumab has shown no benefit in patients with sepsis or septic shock, or those with acute respiratory distress syndrome, which have similarities to COVID-19 (JAMA. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.17052).

He cited a research letter published in JAMA in September 2020, which showed that cytokine levels were in fact lower in critically ill patients with COVID-19, compared with those who had conditions including sepsis with and without ARDS.

Dr. Walter also cited data on the questionable benefit of tocilizumab when used with steroids and the negligible impact on mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients seen in the RECOVERY trial.

Limited data mean that therapeutic decisions related to COVID-19 are more nuanced, but they can be made, the presenters agreed.

Ultimately, when trying to decide whether a drug is efficacious, futile, or harmful, “What we have to do is consider the grand totality of the evidence,” Dr. Bhimraj emphasized.

Dr. Bhimraj and Dr. Walter had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues and evidence evolves, clinical judgment is the bottom line for clinical care, according to Adarsh Bhimraj, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, and James Walter, MD, of Northwestern Medicine, Chicago.

In a debate/discussion presented at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine, Dr. Bhimraj and Dr. Walter took sides in a friendly debate on the value of remdesivir and tocilizumab for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Dr. Bhimraj argued for the use of remdesivir or tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia, and Dr. Walter presented the case against their use.
 

Referendum on remdesivir

The main sources referenced by the presenters regarding remdesivir were the WHO Solidarity Trial (N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 11. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2023184) and the Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT) final report (N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 5. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764).

“The ‘debate’ is partly artificial,” and meant to illustrate how clinicians can use their own clinical faculties and reasoning to make an informed decision when treating COVID-19 patients, Dr. Bhimraj said.

The ACCT trial compared remdesivir with placebo in patients with severe enough COVID-19 to require supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The primary outcome in the study was time to recovery, and “the devil is in the details,” Dr. Bhimraj said. The outcomes clinicians should look for in studies are those that matter to patients, such as death, disability, and discomfort, he noted. Disease-oriented endpoints are easier to measure, but not always meaningful for patients, he said. The study showed an average 5-day decrease in illness, “but the fact is that it did not show a mortality benefit,” he noted.

Another large, open-label study of remdesivir across 30 countries showed no survival benefit associated with the drug, compared with standard of care, said Dr. Bhimraj. Patients treated with remdesivir remained in the hospital longer, but Dr. Bhimraj said he believed that was a bias. “I think the physicians kept the patients in the hospital longer to give the treatment rather than the treatments themselves prolonging the treatment duration,” he said.

In conclusion for remdesivir, “the solid data show that there is an early recovery,” he said. “At least for severe disease, even if there is no mortality benefit, there is a role. I argue that, if someone asks if you want to use remdesivir in severe COVID-19 patients, say yes, especially if you value people getting out of the hospital sooner. In a crisis situation, there is a role for remdesivir.”

Dr. Walter discussed the “con” side of using remdesivir. “We can start with a predata hypothesis, but integrate new data about the efficacy into a postdata hypothesis,” he said.

Dr. Walter made several points against the use of remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. First, it has not shown any improvement in mortality and may increase the length of hospital stay, he noted.

Data from the ACCT-1 trial and the WHO solidarity trial, showed “no signal of mortality benefit at all,” he said. In addition, the World Health Organization, American College of Physicians, and National Institutes of Health all recommend against remdesivir for patients who require mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, he said. The efficacy when used with steroids remains unclear, and long-term safety data are lacking, he added.
 

Taking on tocilizumab

Tocilizumab, an anti-inflammatory agent, has demonstrated an impact on several surrogate markers, notably C-reactive protein, temperature, and oxygenation. Dr. Bhimraj said. He reviewed data from eight published studies on the use of tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients.

Arguably, some trials may not have been powered adequately, and in combination, some trials show an effect on clinical deterioration, if not a mortality benefit, he said.

Consequently, in the context of COVID-19, tocilizumab “should be used early in the disease process, especially if steroids are not working,” said Dr. Bhimraj. Despite the limited evidence, “there is a niche population where this might be beneficial,” he said.

By contrast, Dr. Walter took the position of skepticism about the value of tocilizumab for COVID-19 patients.

Notably, decades of research show that tocilizumab has shown no benefit in patients with sepsis or septic shock, or those with acute respiratory distress syndrome, which have similarities to COVID-19 (JAMA. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.17052).

He cited a research letter published in JAMA in September 2020, which showed that cytokine levels were in fact lower in critically ill patients with COVID-19, compared with those who had conditions including sepsis with and without ARDS.

Dr. Walter also cited data on the questionable benefit of tocilizumab when used with steroids and the negligible impact on mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients seen in the RECOVERY trial.

Limited data mean that therapeutic decisions related to COVID-19 are more nuanced, but they can be made, the presenters agreed.

Ultimately, when trying to decide whether a drug is efficacious, futile, or harmful, “What we have to do is consider the grand totality of the evidence,” Dr. Bhimraj emphasized.

Dr. Bhimraj and Dr. Walter had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues and evidence evolves, clinical judgment is the bottom line for clinical care, according to Adarsh Bhimraj, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, and James Walter, MD, of Northwestern Medicine, Chicago.

In a debate/discussion presented at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine, Dr. Bhimraj and Dr. Walter took sides in a friendly debate on the value of remdesivir and tocilizumab for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Dr. Bhimraj argued for the use of remdesivir or tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia, and Dr. Walter presented the case against their use.
 

Referendum on remdesivir

The main sources referenced by the presenters regarding remdesivir were the WHO Solidarity Trial (N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 11. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2023184) and the Adaptive Covid-19 Treatment Trial (ACCT) final report (N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 5. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764).

“The ‘debate’ is partly artificial,” and meant to illustrate how clinicians can use their own clinical faculties and reasoning to make an informed decision when treating COVID-19 patients, Dr. Bhimraj said.

The ACCT trial compared remdesivir with placebo in patients with severe enough COVID-19 to require supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The primary outcome in the study was time to recovery, and “the devil is in the details,” Dr. Bhimraj said. The outcomes clinicians should look for in studies are those that matter to patients, such as death, disability, and discomfort, he noted. Disease-oriented endpoints are easier to measure, but not always meaningful for patients, he said. The study showed an average 5-day decrease in illness, “but the fact is that it did not show a mortality benefit,” he noted.

Another large, open-label study of remdesivir across 30 countries showed no survival benefit associated with the drug, compared with standard of care, said Dr. Bhimraj. Patients treated with remdesivir remained in the hospital longer, but Dr. Bhimraj said he believed that was a bias. “I think the physicians kept the patients in the hospital longer to give the treatment rather than the treatments themselves prolonging the treatment duration,” he said.

In conclusion for remdesivir, “the solid data show that there is an early recovery,” he said. “At least for severe disease, even if there is no mortality benefit, there is a role. I argue that, if someone asks if you want to use remdesivir in severe COVID-19 patients, say yes, especially if you value people getting out of the hospital sooner. In a crisis situation, there is a role for remdesivir.”

Dr. Walter discussed the “con” side of using remdesivir. “We can start with a predata hypothesis, but integrate new data about the efficacy into a postdata hypothesis,” he said.

Dr. Walter made several points against the use of remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. First, it has not shown any improvement in mortality and may increase the length of hospital stay, he noted.

Data from the ACCT-1 trial and the WHO solidarity trial, showed “no signal of mortality benefit at all,” he said. In addition, the World Health Organization, American College of Physicians, and National Institutes of Health all recommend against remdesivir for patients who require mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, he said. The efficacy when used with steroids remains unclear, and long-term safety data are lacking, he added.
 

Taking on tocilizumab

Tocilizumab, an anti-inflammatory agent, has demonstrated an impact on several surrogate markers, notably C-reactive protein, temperature, and oxygenation. Dr. Bhimraj said. He reviewed data from eight published studies on the use of tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients.

Arguably, some trials may not have been powered adequately, and in combination, some trials show an effect on clinical deterioration, if not a mortality benefit, he said.

Consequently, in the context of COVID-19, tocilizumab “should be used early in the disease process, especially if steroids are not working,” said Dr. Bhimraj. Despite the limited evidence, “there is a niche population where this might be beneficial,” he said.

By contrast, Dr. Walter took the position of skepticism about the value of tocilizumab for COVID-19 patients.

Notably, decades of research show that tocilizumab has shown no benefit in patients with sepsis or septic shock, or those with acute respiratory distress syndrome, which have similarities to COVID-19 (JAMA. 2020 Sep 3. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.17052).

He cited a research letter published in JAMA in September 2020, which showed that cytokine levels were in fact lower in critically ill patients with COVID-19, compared with those who had conditions including sepsis with and without ARDS.

Dr. Walter also cited data on the questionable benefit of tocilizumab when used with steroids and the negligible impact on mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients seen in the RECOVERY trial.

Limited data mean that therapeutic decisions related to COVID-19 are more nuanced, but they can be made, the presenters agreed.

Ultimately, when trying to decide whether a drug is efficacious, futile, or harmful, “What we have to do is consider the grand totality of the evidence,” Dr. Bhimraj emphasized.

Dr. Bhimraj and Dr. Walter had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.