Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Clinicians and researchers have focused on the acute phase of COVID-19 infection, but it’s increasingly clear that some recovered patients discharged from acute care need continued monitoring for long-lasting effects, a study has found.

In a research letter published online July 9 in JAMA, Angelo Carfi, MD, and colleagues from the Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post–Acute Care Study Group in Rome, report that 87.4% of 143 previously hospitalized patients had at least one persistent symptom 2 months or longer after initial onset and at more than a month after discharge.

Postdischarge assessments of patients who met criteria for SARS-CoV-2 negativity, including a reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction test, were conducted from April 21 to May 29. Among the results:

• Only 12.6% of the 143 patients were completely free of any COVID-19 symptom
• About 32% of patients had one or two symptoms and 55% had three or more
• None had fever or other signs and symptoms of acute illness
• About 53% of patients still had fatigue, 43.4% had dyspnea, 27.3% had joint pain, and had 21.7% chest pain
• About 44% reported worsened quality of life on the EuroQol visual analog scale.

The sample cohort, assessed in a COVID-19 patient service recently established at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli had a mean age of 56.5 years and 37% were women. The mean length of hospital stay was 13.5 days. During their hospitalization, 72.7% of patients showed evidence of interstitial pneumonia. Noninvasive ventilation was given to 14.7% of patients and 4.9% received invasive ventilation.

The reality of lingering symptoms has led Dr. Carfi’s clinic to schedule a final “wrap-up visit” for patients after full assessment. “On that occasion the doctor prescribes anything necessary to correct the anomalies found during the full evaluation,” Dr. Carfi, a geriatrician at the Gemelli clinic, said in an interview. “These usually include vitamin supplementation and, in selected cases, a new drug prescription such as a blood thinner if necessary.”

Patients can also enroll in a training program in which breathing status is monitored.

In North America, doctors are also addressing the reality that the road to recovery can be a long and upward one, with persistent symptoms worse than those seen with acute influenza infection. “We see patients who were first diagnosed in March or April and still have symptoms in July,” said Zijian Chen, MD, an endocrinologist and medical director of Mount Sinai Health System’s Center for Post-COVID Care in New York.

“Persistent symptoms are much worse for COVID patients than flu patients. Even flu patients who spent time in the intensive care unit recover fully, and we can optimize their breathing before discharge,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.

As in the Italian study, Dr. Chen sees patients with COVID-19 who have ongoing shortness of breath, some requiring supplemental oxygen, or with persistent chest pain on exertion, blood clotting problems, poor concentration, gastrointestinal distress, and reduced muscle strength and impaired grasping power. He doesn’t rule out permanent lung damage in some. “Even asymptomatic individuals already show lung scarring on imaging,” he said.

The Mount Sinai program provides specialized interdisciplinary management that may include CT scans, endoscopy, and drugs such as respiratory medications or anticoagulants. It also offers training to combat the fatigue and deconditioning caused by the infection, symptoms that are not medically treatable but impact quality of life.

“These patients do get better, but I expect they may still have symptoms requiring monitoring after a year,” Dr. Chen said.

The study received no specific funding. Dr. Carfi and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinicians and researchers have focused on the acute phase of COVID-19 infection, but it’s increasingly clear that some recovered patients discharged from acute care need continued monitoring for long-lasting effects, a study has found.

In a research letter published online July 9 in JAMA, Angelo Carfi, MD, and colleagues from the Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post–Acute Care Study Group in Rome, report that 87.4% of 143 previously hospitalized patients had at least one persistent symptom 2 months or longer after initial onset and at more than a month after discharge.

Postdischarge assessments of patients who met criteria for SARS-CoV-2 negativity, including a reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction test, were conducted from April 21 to May 29. Among the results:

• Only 12.6% of the 143 patients were completely free of any COVID-19 symptom
• About 32% of patients had one or two symptoms and 55% had three or more
• None had fever or other signs and symptoms of acute illness
• About 53% of patients still had fatigue, 43.4% had dyspnea, 27.3% had joint pain, and had 21.7% chest pain
• About 44% reported worsened quality of life on the EuroQol visual analog scale.

The sample cohort, assessed in a COVID-19 patient service recently established at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli had a mean age of 56.5 years and 37% were women. The mean length of hospital stay was 13.5 days. During their hospitalization, 72.7% of patients showed evidence of interstitial pneumonia. Noninvasive ventilation was given to 14.7% of patients and 4.9% received invasive ventilation.

The reality of lingering symptoms has led Dr. Carfi’s clinic to schedule a final “wrap-up visit” for patients after full assessment. “On that occasion the doctor prescribes anything necessary to correct the anomalies found during the full evaluation,” Dr. Carfi, a geriatrician at the Gemelli clinic, said in an interview. “These usually include vitamin supplementation and, in selected cases, a new drug prescription such as a blood thinner if necessary.”

Patients can also enroll in a training program in which breathing status is monitored.

In North America, doctors are also addressing the reality that the road to recovery can be a long and upward one, with persistent symptoms worse than those seen with acute influenza infection. “We see patients who were first diagnosed in March or April and still have symptoms in July,” said Zijian Chen, MD, an endocrinologist and medical director of Mount Sinai Health System’s Center for Post-COVID Care in New York.

“Persistent symptoms are much worse for COVID patients than flu patients. Even flu patients who spent time in the intensive care unit recover fully, and we can optimize their breathing before discharge,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.

As in the Italian study, Dr. Chen sees patients with COVID-19 who have ongoing shortness of breath, some requiring supplemental oxygen, or with persistent chest pain on exertion, blood clotting problems, poor concentration, gastrointestinal distress, and reduced muscle strength and impaired grasping power. He doesn’t rule out permanent lung damage in some. “Even asymptomatic individuals already show lung scarring on imaging,” he said.

The Mount Sinai program provides specialized interdisciplinary management that may include CT scans, endoscopy, and drugs such as respiratory medications or anticoagulants. It also offers training to combat the fatigue and deconditioning caused by the infection, symptoms that are not medically treatable but impact quality of life.

“These patients do get better, but I expect they may still have symptoms requiring monitoring after a year,” Dr. Chen said.

The study received no specific funding. Dr. Carfi and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinicians and researchers have focused on the acute phase of COVID-19 infection, but it’s increasingly clear that some recovered patients discharged from acute care need continued monitoring for long-lasting effects, a study has found.

In a research letter published online July 9 in JAMA, Angelo Carfi, MD, and colleagues from the Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post–Acute Care Study Group in Rome, report that 87.4% of 143 previously hospitalized patients had at least one persistent symptom 2 months or longer after initial onset and at more than a month after discharge.

Postdischarge assessments of patients who met criteria for SARS-CoV-2 negativity, including a reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction test, were conducted from April 21 to May 29. Among the results:

• Only 12.6% of the 143 patients were completely free of any COVID-19 symptom
• About 32% of patients had one or two symptoms and 55% had three or more
• None had fever or other signs and symptoms of acute illness
• About 53% of patients still had fatigue, 43.4% had dyspnea, 27.3% had joint pain, and had 21.7% chest pain
• About 44% reported worsened quality of life on the EuroQol visual analog scale.

The sample cohort, assessed in a COVID-19 patient service recently established at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli had a mean age of 56.5 years and 37% were women. The mean length of hospital stay was 13.5 days. During their hospitalization, 72.7% of patients showed evidence of interstitial pneumonia. Noninvasive ventilation was given to 14.7% of patients and 4.9% received invasive ventilation.

The reality of lingering symptoms has led Dr. Carfi’s clinic to schedule a final “wrap-up visit” for patients after full assessment. “On that occasion the doctor prescribes anything necessary to correct the anomalies found during the full evaluation,” Dr. Carfi, a geriatrician at the Gemelli clinic, said in an interview. “These usually include vitamin supplementation and, in selected cases, a new drug prescription such as a blood thinner if necessary.”

Patients can also enroll in a training program in which breathing status is monitored.

In North America, doctors are also addressing the reality that the road to recovery can be a long and upward one, with persistent symptoms worse than those seen with acute influenza infection. “We see patients who were first diagnosed in March or April and still have symptoms in July,” said Zijian Chen, MD, an endocrinologist and medical director of Mount Sinai Health System’s Center for Post-COVID Care in New York.

“Persistent symptoms are much worse for COVID patients than flu patients. Even flu patients who spent time in the intensive care unit recover fully, and we can optimize their breathing before discharge,” Dr. Chen said in an interview.

As in the Italian study, Dr. Chen sees patients with COVID-19 who have ongoing shortness of breath, some requiring supplemental oxygen, or with persistent chest pain on exertion, blood clotting problems, poor concentration, gastrointestinal distress, and reduced muscle strength and impaired grasping power. He doesn’t rule out permanent lung damage in some. “Even asymptomatic individuals already show lung scarring on imaging,” he said.

The Mount Sinai program provides specialized interdisciplinary management that may include CT scans, endoscopy, and drugs such as respiratory medications or anticoagulants. It also offers training to combat the fatigue and deconditioning caused by the infection, symptoms that are not medically treatable but impact quality of life.

“These patients do get better, but I expect they may still have symptoms requiring monitoring after a year,” Dr. Chen said.

The study received no specific funding. Dr. Carfi and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Ten patients smiled and waved out on the computer monitor, as Jacob Mirsky, MD, greeted each one, asked them to introduce themselves, and inquired as to how each was doing with their stress reduction tactics.

The attendees of the online session had been patients at in-person group visits at the Massachusetts General Hospital Revere HealthCare Center. But those in-person group sessions, known as shared medical appointments (SMAs), were shut down when COVID-19 arrived.

“Our group patients have been missing the sessions,” said Dr. Mirsky, a general internist who codirects the center’s group visit program. The online sessions, called virtual SMAs (V-SMAs), work well with COVID-19 social distancing.

In the group sessions, Dr. Mirsky reads a standardized message that addresses privacy concerns during the session. For the next 60-90 minutes, “we ask them to talk about what has gone well for them and what they are struggling with,” he said. “Then I answer their questions using materials in a PowerPoint to address key points, such as reducing salt for high blood pressure or interpreting blood sugar levels for diabetes.

“I try to end group sessions with one area of focus,” Dr. Mirsky said. “In the stress reduction group, this could be meditation. In the diabetes group, it could be a discussion on weight loss.” Then the program’s health coach goes over some key concepts on behavior change and invites participants to contact her after the session.

“The nice thing is that these virtual sessions are fully reimbursable by all of our insurers in Massachusetts,” Dr. Mirsky said. Through evaluation and management (E/M) codes, each patient in a group visit is paid the same as a patient in an individual visit with the same level of complexity.

Dr. Mirsky writes a note in the chart about each patient who was in the group session. “This includes information about the specific patient, such as the history and physical, and information about the group meeting,” he said. In the next few months, the center plans to put its other group sessions online – on blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, and insomnia.

Attracting doctors who hadn’t done groups before

The COVID-19 crisis has given group visits a second wind. Some doctors who never used SMAs before are now trying out this new mode of patient engagement, said Marianne Sumego, MD, director of the Cleveland Clinic’s SMA program, which began 21 years ago.

In this era of COVID-19, group visits have either switched to V-SMAs or halted. However, the COVID-19 crisis has given group visits a second wind. Some doctors who never used SMAs before are now trying out this new mode of patient engagement,

Many of the 100 doctors using SMAs at the Cleveland Clinic have switched over to V-SMAs for now, and the new mode is also attracting colleagues who are new to SMAs, she said.

“When doctors started using telemedicine, virtual group visits started making sense to them,” Dr. Sumego said. “This is a time of a great deal of experimentation in practice design.”

Indeed, V-SMAs have eliminated some problems that had discouraged doctors from trying SMAs, said Amy Wheeler, MD, a general internist who founded the Revere SMA program and codirects it with Dr. Mirsky.

V-SMAs eliminate the need for a large space to hold sessions and reduce the number of staff needed to run sessions, Dr. Wheeler said. “Virtual group visits can actually be easier to use than in-person group visits.”

Dr. Sumego believes small practices in particular will take up V-SMAs because they are easier to run than regular SMAs. “Necessity drives change,” she said. “Across the country everyone is looking at the virtual group model.”

Group visits can help your bottom line

Medicare and many private payers cover group visits. In most cases, they tend to pay the same rate as for an individual office visit. As with telehealth, Medicare and many other payers are temporarily reimbursing for virtual visits at the same rate as for real visits.

Not all payers have a stated policy about covering SMAs, and physicians have to ask. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, for example, has not published any coding rules on SMAs. But in response to a query by the American Academy of Family Physicians, CMS said it would allow use of CPT codes for E/M services for individual patients.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina is one of the few payers with a clearly stated policy on its website. Like Medicare, the insurer accepts E/M codes, and it requires that patients’ attendance must be voluntary; they must be established patients; and the visit must be specific to a disease or condition, although several conditions are allowed.

Dr. Mirsky said his group uses the same E/M level – 99213 – for all of his SMA patients. “Since a regular primary care visit is usually billed at a level 3 or 4, depending on how many topics are covered, we chose level 3 for groups, because the group session deals with just one topic.”

One challenge for billing for SMAs is that most health insurers require patients to provide a copay for each visit, which can discourage patients in groups that meet frequently, says Wayne Dysinger, MD, founder of Lifestyle Medical Solutions, a two-physician primary care practice in Riverside, Calif.

But Dr. Dysinger, who has been using SMAs for 5 years, usually doesn’t have to worry about copays because much of his work is capitated and doesn’t require a copay.

Also, some of Dr. Dysinger’s SMA patients are in direct primary care, in which the patients pay an $18 monthly membership fee. Other practices may charge a flat out-of-pocket fee.
 

How group visits operate

SMAs are based on the observation that patients with the same condition generally ask their doctor the same questions, and rather than repeat the answers each time, why not provide them to a group?

Dr. Wheeler said trying to be more efficient with her time was the primary reason she became interested in SMAs a dozen years ago. “I was trying to squeeze the advice patients needed into a normal patient visit, and it wasn’t working. When I tried to tell them everything they needed to know, I’d run behind for the rest of my day’s visits.”

She found she was continually repeating the same conversation with patients, but these talks weren’t detailed enough to be effective. “When my weight loss patients came back for the next appointment, they had not made the recommended changes in lifestyle. I started to realize how complicated weight loss was.” So Dr. Wheeler founded the SMA program at the Revere Center.

Doctors enjoy the patient interaction

Some doctors who use SMAs talk about how connected they feel with their patients. “For me, the group sessions are the most gratifying part of the week,” Dr. Dysinger says. “I like to see the patients interacting with me and with each other, and watch their health behavior change over time.”

“These groups have a great deal of energy,” he said. “They have a kind of vulnerability that is very raw, very human. People make commitments to meet goals. Will they meet them or not?”

Dr. Dysinger’s enthusiasm has been echoed by other doctors. In a study of older patients, physicians who used SMAs were more satisfied with care than physicians who relied on standard one-to-one interactions. In another study, the researchers surmised that, in SMAs, doctors learn from their patients how they can better meet their needs.

Dr. Dysinger thinks SMAs are widely applicable in primary care. He estimates that 80%-85% of appointments at a primary care practice involve chronic diseases, and this type of patient is a good fit for group visits. SMAs typically treat patients with diabetes, asthma, arthritis, and obesity.

Dr. Sumego said SMAs are used for specialty care at Cleveland Clinic, such as to help patients before and after bariatric surgery. SMAs have also been used to treat patients with ulcerative colitis, multiple sclerosis, cancer, HIV, menopause, insomnia, and stress, according to one report.

Dr. Dysinger, who runs a small practice, organizes his group sessions somewhat differently. He doesn’t organize his groups around conditions like diabetes, but instead his groups focus on four “pillars” of lifestyle medicine: nourishment, movement, resilience (involving sleep and stress), and connectedness.
 

Why patients like group visits

Feeling part of a whole is a major draw for many patients. “Patients seem to like committing to something bigger than just themselves,” Dr. Wheeler said. “They enjoy the sense of community that groups have, the joy of supporting one another.”

“It’s feeling that you’re not alone,” Dr. Mirsky said. “When a patient struggling with diabetes hears how hard it is for another patient, it validates their experience and gives them someone to connect with. There is a positive peer pressure.”

Many programs, including Dr. Wheeler’s and Dr. Mirsky’s in Boston, allow patients to drop in and out of sessions, rather than attending one course all the way through. But even under this format, Dr. Wheeler said that patients often tend to stick together. “At the end of a session, one patient asks another: ‘Which session do you want to go to next?’ ” she said.

Patients also learn from each other in SMAs. Patients exchange experiences and share advice they may not have had the chance to get during an individual visit.

The group dynamic can make it easier for some patients to reveal sensitive information, said Dr. Dysinger. “In these groups, people feel free to talk about their bowel movements, or about having to deal with the influence of a parent on their lives,” Dr. Dysinger said. “The sessions can have the feel of an [Alcoholics Anonymous] meeting, but they’re firmly grounded in medicine.”

Potential downsides of virtual group visits

SMAs and VSMAs may not work for every practice. Some small practices may not have enough patients to organize a group visit around a particular condition – even a common one like diabetes. In a presentation before the Society of General Internal Medicine, a physician from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, warned that it may be difficult for a practice to fill diabetes group visits every year.

Additionally, some patients don’t want to talk about personal matters in a group. “They may not want to reveal certain things about themselves,” Dr. Mirsky said. “So I tell the group that if there is anything that anyone wants to talk about in private, I’m available.”

Another drawback of SMAs is that more experienced patients may have to slog through information they already know, which is a particular problem when patients can drop in and out of sessions. Dr. Mirsky noted that “what often ends up happening is that the experienced participant helps the newcomer.”

Finally, confidentially is a big concern in a group session. “In a one-on-one visit, you can go into details about the patient’s health, and even bring up an entry in the chart,” Dr. Wheeler said. “But in a group visit, you can’t raise any personal details about a patient unless the patient brings it up first.”

SMA patients sign confidentiality agreements in which they agree not to talk about other patients outside the session. Ensuring confidentiality becomes more complicated in virtual group visits, because someone located in the room near a participant could overhear the conversation. For this reason, patients in V-SMAs are advised to use headphones or, at a minimum, close the door to the room they are in.

To address privacy concerns, Zoom encrypts its data, but some privacy breeches have been reported, and a U.S. senator has been looking into Zoom’s privacy vulnerabilities.

Transferring groups to virtual groups

It took the COVID-19 crisis for most doctors to take up virtual SMAs. Dr. Sumego said that the Cleveland Clinic started virtual SMAs more than a year ago, but most other groups operating SMAs were apparently not providing them virtually before COVID-19 started.

Dr. Dysinger said he tried virtual SMAs in 2017 but dropped them because the technology – using Zoom – was challenging at the time, and his staff and most patients were resistant. “Only three to five people were attending the virtual sessions, and the meetings took place in the evening, which was hard on the staff.”

“When COVID-19 first appeared, our initial response was to try to keep the in-person group and add social distancing to it, but that wasn’t workable, so very quickly we shifted to Zoom meetings,” Dr. Dysinger said. “We had experience with Zoom already, and the Zoom technology had improved and was easier to use. COVID-19 forced it all forward.”

Are V-SMAs effective? While there have been many studies showing the effectiveness of in-person SMAs, there have been very few on V-SMAs. One 2018 study of obesity patients found that those attending in-person SMAs lost somewhat more weight than those in V-SMAs.

As with telemedicine, some patients have trouble with the technology of V-SMAs. Dr. Dysinger said 5%-10% of his SMA patients don’t make the switch over to V-SMAs – mainly because of problems in adapting to the technology – but the rest are happy. “We’re averaging 10 people per meeting, and as many as 20.”

Getting comfortable with group visits

Dealing with group visits takes a very different mindset than what doctors normally have, Dr. Wheeler said. “It took me 6-8 months to feel comfortable enough with group sessions to do them myself,” she recalled. “This was a very different way to practice, compared to the one-on-one care I was trained to give patients. Others may find the transition easier, though.

“Doctors are used to being in control of the patient visit, but the exchange in a group visit is more fluid,” Dr. Wheeler said. “Patients offer their own opinions, and this sends the discussion off on a tangent that is often quite useful. As doctors, we have to learn when to let these tangents continue, and know when the discussion might have to be brought back to the theme at hand. Often it’s better not to intercede.”

Do doctors need training to conduct SMAs? Patients in group visits reported worse communication with physicians than those in individual visits, according to a 2014 study. The authors surmised that the doctors needed to learn how to talk to groups and suggested that they get some training.

The potential staying power of V-SMAs post COVID?

Once the COVID-19 crisis is over, Medicare is scheduled to no longer provide the same level of reimbursement for virtual sessions as for real sessions. Dr. Mirsky anticipates a great deal of resistance to this change from thousands of physicians and patients who have become comfortable with telehealth, including virtual SMAs.

Dr. Dysinger thinks V-SMAs will continue. “When COVID-19 clears and we can go back to in-person groups, we expect to keep some virtual groups. People have already come to accept and value virtual groups.”

Dr. Wheeler sees virtual groups playing an essential role post COVID-19, when practices have to get back up to speed. “Virtual group visits could make it easier to deal with a large backlog of patients who couldn’t be seen up until now,” she said. “And virtual groups will be the only way to see patients who are still reluctant to meet in a group.”

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

Ten patients smiled and waved out on the computer monitor, as Jacob Mirsky, MD, greeted each one, asked them to introduce themselves, and inquired as to how each was doing with their stress reduction tactics.

The attendees of the online session had been patients at in-person group visits at the Massachusetts General Hospital Revere HealthCare Center. But those in-person group sessions, known as shared medical appointments (SMAs), were shut down when COVID-19 arrived.

“Our group patients have been missing the sessions,” said Dr. Mirsky, a general internist who codirects the center’s group visit program. The online sessions, called virtual SMAs (V-SMAs), work well with COVID-19 social distancing.

In the group sessions, Dr. Mirsky reads a standardized message that addresses privacy concerns during the session. For the next 60-90 minutes, “we ask them to talk about what has gone well for them and what they are struggling with,” he said. “Then I answer their questions using materials in a PowerPoint to address key points, such as reducing salt for high blood pressure or interpreting blood sugar levels for diabetes.

“I try to end group sessions with one area of focus,” Dr. Mirsky said. “In the stress reduction group, this could be meditation. In the diabetes group, it could be a discussion on weight loss.” Then the program’s health coach goes over some key concepts on behavior change and invites participants to contact her after the session.

“The nice thing is that these virtual sessions are fully reimbursable by all of our insurers in Massachusetts,” Dr. Mirsky said. Through evaluation and management (E/M) codes, each patient in a group visit is paid the same as a patient in an individual visit with the same level of complexity.

Dr. Mirsky writes a note in the chart about each patient who was in the group session. “This includes information about the specific patient, such as the history and physical, and information about the group meeting,” he said. In the next few months, the center plans to put its other group sessions online – on blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, and insomnia.

Attracting doctors who hadn’t done groups before

The COVID-19 crisis has given group visits a second wind. Some doctors who never used SMAs before are now trying out this new mode of patient engagement, said Marianne Sumego, MD, director of the Cleveland Clinic’s SMA program, which began 21 years ago.

In this era of COVID-19, group visits have either switched to V-SMAs or halted. However, the COVID-19 crisis has given group visits a second wind. Some doctors who never used SMAs before are now trying out this new mode of patient engagement,

Many of the 100 doctors using SMAs at the Cleveland Clinic have switched over to V-SMAs for now, and the new mode is also attracting colleagues who are new to SMAs, she said.

“When doctors started using telemedicine, virtual group visits started making sense to them,” Dr. Sumego said. “This is a time of a great deal of experimentation in practice design.”

Indeed, V-SMAs have eliminated some problems that had discouraged doctors from trying SMAs, said Amy Wheeler, MD, a general internist who founded the Revere SMA program and codirects it with Dr. Mirsky.

V-SMAs eliminate the need for a large space to hold sessions and reduce the number of staff needed to run sessions, Dr. Wheeler said. “Virtual group visits can actually be easier to use than in-person group visits.”

Dr. Sumego believes small practices in particular will take up V-SMAs because they are easier to run than regular SMAs. “Necessity drives change,” she said. “Across the country everyone is looking at the virtual group model.”

Group visits can help your bottom line

Medicare and many private payers cover group visits. In most cases, they tend to pay the same rate as for an individual office visit. As with telehealth, Medicare and many other payers are temporarily reimbursing for virtual visits at the same rate as for real visits.

Not all payers have a stated policy about covering SMAs, and physicians have to ask. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, for example, has not published any coding rules on SMAs. But in response to a query by the American Academy of Family Physicians, CMS said it would allow use of CPT codes for E/M services for individual patients.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina is one of the few payers with a clearly stated policy on its website. Like Medicare, the insurer accepts E/M codes, and it requires that patients’ attendance must be voluntary; they must be established patients; and the visit must be specific to a disease or condition, although several conditions are allowed.

Dr. Mirsky said his group uses the same E/M level – 99213 – for all of his SMA patients. “Since a regular primary care visit is usually billed at a level 3 or 4, depending on how many topics are covered, we chose level 3 for groups, because the group session deals with just one topic.”

One challenge for billing for SMAs is that most health insurers require patients to provide a copay for each visit, which can discourage patients in groups that meet frequently, says Wayne Dysinger, MD, founder of Lifestyle Medical Solutions, a two-physician primary care practice in Riverside, Calif.

But Dr. Dysinger, who has been using SMAs for 5 years, usually doesn’t have to worry about copays because much of his work is capitated and doesn’t require a copay.

Also, some of Dr. Dysinger’s SMA patients are in direct primary care, in which the patients pay an $18 monthly membership fee. Other practices may charge a flat out-of-pocket fee.
 

How group visits operate

SMAs are based on the observation that patients with the same condition generally ask their doctor the same questions, and rather than repeat the answers each time, why not provide them to a group?

Dr. Wheeler said trying to be more efficient with her time was the primary reason she became interested in SMAs a dozen years ago. “I was trying to squeeze the advice patients needed into a normal patient visit, and it wasn’t working. When I tried to tell them everything they needed to know, I’d run behind for the rest of my day’s visits.”

She found she was continually repeating the same conversation with patients, but these talks weren’t detailed enough to be effective. “When my weight loss patients came back for the next appointment, they had not made the recommended changes in lifestyle. I started to realize how complicated weight loss was.” So Dr. Wheeler founded the SMA program at the Revere Center.

Doctors enjoy the patient interaction

Some doctors who use SMAs talk about how connected they feel with their patients. “For me, the group sessions are the most gratifying part of the week,” Dr. Dysinger says. “I like to see the patients interacting with me and with each other, and watch their health behavior change over time.”

“These groups have a great deal of energy,” he said. “They have a kind of vulnerability that is very raw, very human. People make commitments to meet goals. Will they meet them or not?”

Dr. Dysinger’s enthusiasm has been echoed by other doctors. In a study of older patients, physicians who used SMAs were more satisfied with care than physicians who relied on standard one-to-one interactions. In another study, the researchers surmised that, in SMAs, doctors learn from their patients how they can better meet their needs.

Dr. Dysinger thinks SMAs are widely applicable in primary care. He estimates that 80%-85% of appointments at a primary care practice involve chronic diseases, and this type of patient is a good fit for group visits. SMAs typically treat patients with diabetes, asthma, arthritis, and obesity.

Dr. Sumego said SMAs are used for specialty care at Cleveland Clinic, such as to help patients before and after bariatric surgery. SMAs have also been used to treat patients with ulcerative colitis, multiple sclerosis, cancer, HIV, menopause, insomnia, and stress, according to one report.

Dr. Dysinger, who runs a small practice, organizes his group sessions somewhat differently. He doesn’t organize his groups around conditions like diabetes, but instead his groups focus on four “pillars” of lifestyle medicine: nourishment, movement, resilience (involving sleep and stress), and connectedness.
 

Why patients like group visits

Feeling part of a whole is a major draw for many patients. “Patients seem to like committing to something bigger than just themselves,” Dr. Wheeler said. “They enjoy the sense of community that groups have, the joy of supporting one another.”

“It’s feeling that you’re not alone,” Dr. Mirsky said. “When a patient struggling with diabetes hears how hard it is for another patient, it validates their experience and gives them someone to connect with. There is a positive peer pressure.”

Many programs, including Dr. Wheeler’s and Dr. Mirsky’s in Boston, allow patients to drop in and out of sessions, rather than attending one course all the way through. But even under this format, Dr. Wheeler said that patients often tend to stick together. “At the end of a session, one patient asks another: ‘Which session do you want to go to next?’ ” she said.

Patients also learn from each other in SMAs. Patients exchange experiences and share advice they may not have had the chance to get during an individual visit.

The group dynamic can make it easier for some patients to reveal sensitive information, said Dr. Dysinger. “In these groups, people feel free to talk about their bowel movements, or about having to deal with the influence of a parent on their lives,” Dr. Dysinger said. “The sessions can have the feel of an [Alcoholics Anonymous] meeting, but they’re firmly grounded in medicine.”

Potential downsides of virtual group visits

SMAs and VSMAs may not work for every practice. Some small practices may not have enough patients to organize a group visit around a particular condition – even a common one like diabetes. In a presentation before the Society of General Internal Medicine, a physician from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, warned that it may be difficult for a practice to fill diabetes group visits every year.

Additionally, some patients don’t want to talk about personal matters in a group. “They may not want to reveal certain things about themselves,” Dr. Mirsky said. “So I tell the group that if there is anything that anyone wants to talk about in private, I’m available.”

Another drawback of SMAs is that more experienced patients may have to slog through information they already know, which is a particular problem when patients can drop in and out of sessions. Dr. Mirsky noted that “what often ends up happening is that the experienced participant helps the newcomer.”

Finally, confidentially is a big concern in a group session. “In a one-on-one visit, you can go into details about the patient’s health, and even bring up an entry in the chart,” Dr. Wheeler said. “But in a group visit, you can’t raise any personal details about a patient unless the patient brings it up first.”

SMA patients sign confidentiality agreements in which they agree not to talk about other patients outside the session. Ensuring confidentiality becomes more complicated in virtual group visits, because someone located in the room near a participant could overhear the conversation. For this reason, patients in V-SMAs are advised to use headphones or, at a minimum, close the door to the room they are in.

To address privacy concerns, Zoom encrypts its data, but some privacy breeches have been reported, and a U.S. senator has been looking into Zoom’s privacy vulnerabilities.

Transferring groups to virtual groups

It took the COVID-19 crisis for most doctors to take up virtual SMAs. Dr. Sumego said that the Cleveland Clinic started virtual SMAs more than a year ago, but most other groups operating SMAs were apparently not providing them virtually before COVID-19 started.

Dr. Dysinger said he tried virtual SMAs in 2017 but dropped them because the technology – using Zoom – was challenging at the time, and his staff and most patients were resistant. “Only three to five people were attending the virtual sessions, and the meetings took place in the evening, which was hard on the staff.”

“When COVID-19 first appeared, our initial response was to try to keep the in-person group and add social distancing to it, but that wasn’t workable, so very quickly we shifted to Zoom meetings,” Dr. Dysinger said. “We had experience with Zoom already, and the Zoom technology had improved and was easier to use. COVID-19 forced it all forward.”

Are V-SMAs effective? While there have been many studies showing the effectiveness of in-person SMAs, there have been very few on V-SMAs. One 2018 study of obesity patients found that those attending in-person SMAs lost somewhat more weight than those in V-SMAs.

As with telemedicine, some patients have trouble with the technology of V-SMAs. Dr. Dysinger said 5%-10% of his SMA patients don’t make the switch over to V-SMAs – mainly because of problems in adapting to the technology – but the rest are happy. “We’re averaging 10 people per meeting, and as many as 20.”

Getting comfortable with group visits

Dealing with group visits takes a very different mindset than what doctors normally have, Dr. Wheeler said. “It took me 6-8 months to feel comfortable enough with group sessions to do them myself,” she recalled. “This was a very different way to practice, compared to the one-on-one care I was trained to give patients. Others may find the transition easier, though.

“Doctors are used to being in control of the patient visit, but the exchange in a group visit is more fluid,” Dr. Wheeler said. “Patients offer their own opinions, and this sends the discussion off on a tangent that is often quite useful. As doctors, we have to learn when to let these tangents continue, and know when the discussion might have to be brought back to the theme at hand. Often it’s better not to intercede.”

Do doctors need training to conduct SMAs? Patients in group visits reported worse communication with physicians than those in individual visits, according to a 2014 study. The authors surmised that the doctors needed to learn how to talk to groups and suggested that they get some training.

The potential staying power of V-SMAs post COVID?

Once the COVID-19 crisis is over, Medicare is scheduled to no longer provide the same level of reimbursement for virtual sessions as for real sessions. Dr. Mirsky anticipates a great deal of resistance to this change from thousands of physicians and patients who have become comfortable with telehealth, including virtual SMAs.

Dr. Dysinger thinks V-SMAs will continue. “When COVID-19 clears and we can go back to in-person groups, we expect to keep some virtual groups. People have already come to accept and value virtual groups.”

Dr. Wheeler sees virtual groups playing an essential role post COVID-19, when practices have to get back up to speed. “Virtual group visits could make it easier to deal with a large backlog of patients who couldn’t be seen up until now,” she said. “And virtual groups will be the only way to see patients who are still reluctant to meet in a group.”

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

Ten patients smiled and waved out on the computer monitor, as Jacob Mirsky, MD, greeted each one, asked them to introduce themselves, and inquired as to how each was doing with their stress reduction tactics.

The attendees of the online session had been patients at in-person group visits at the Massachusetts General Hospital Revere HealthCare Center. But those in-person group sessions, known as shared medical appointments (SMAs), were shut down when COVID-19 arrived.

“Our group patients have been missing the sessions,” said Dr. Mirsky, a general internist who codirects the center’s group visit program. The online sessions, called virtual SMAs (V-SMAs), work well with COVID-19 social distancing.

In the group sessions, Dr. Mirsky reads a standardized message that addresses privacy concerns during the session. For the next 60-90 minutes, “we ask them to talk about what has gone well for them and what they are struggling with,” he said. “Then I answer their questions using materials in a PowerPoint to address key points, such as reducing salt for high blood pressure or interpreting blood sugar levels for diabetes.

“I try to end group sessions with one area of focus,” Dr. Mirsky said. “In the stress reduction group, this could be meditation. In the diabetes group, it could be a discussion on weight loss.” Then the program’s health coach goes over some key concepts on behavior change and invites participants to contact her after the session.

“The nice thing is that these virtual sessions are fully reimbursable by all of our insurers in Massachusetts,” Dr. Mirsky said. Through evaluation and management (E/M) codes, each patient in a group visit is paid the same as a patient in an individual visit with the same level of complexity.

Dr. Mirsky writes a note in the chart about each patient who was in the group session. “This includes information about the specific patient, such as the history and physical, and information about the group meeting,” he said. In the next few months, the center plans to put its other group sessions online – on blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, and insomnia.

Attracting doctors who hadn’t done groups before

The COVID-19 crisis has given group visits a second wind. Some doctors who never used SMAs before are now trying out this new mode of patient engagement, said Marianne Sumego, MD, director of the Cleveland Clinic’s SMA program, which began 21 years ago.

In this era of COVID-19, group visits have either switched to V-SMAs or halted. However, the COVID-19 crisis has given group visits a second wind. Some doctors who never used SMAs before are now trying out this new mode of patient engagement,

Many of the 100 doctors using SMAs at the Cleveland Clinic have switched over to V-SMAs for now, and the new mode is also attracting colleagues who are new to SMAs, she said.

“When doctors started using telemedicine, virtual group visits started making sense to them,” Dr. Sumego said. “This is a time of a great deal of experimentation in practice design.”

Indeed, V-SMAs have eliminated some problems that had discouraged doctors from trying SMAs, said Amy Wheeler, MD, a general internist who founded the Revere SMA program and codirects it with Dr. Mirsky.

V-SMAs eliminate the need for a large space to hold sessions and reduce the number of staff needed to run sessions, Dr. Wheeler said. “Virtual group visits can actually be easier to use than in-person group visits.”

Dr. Sumego believes small practices in particular will take up V-SMAs because they are easier to run than regular SMAs. “Necessity drives change,” she said. “Across the country everyone is looking at the virtual group model.”

Group visits can help your bottom line

Medicare and many private payers cover group visits. In most cases, they tend to pay the same rate as for an individual office visit. As with telehealth, Medicare and many other payers are temporarily reimbursing for virtual visits at the same rate as for real visits.

Not all payers have a stated policy about covering SMAs, and physicians have to ask. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, for example, has not published any coding rules on SMAs. But in response to a query by the American Academy of Family Physicians, CMS said it would allow use of CPT codes for E/M services for individual patients.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina is one of the few payers with a clearly stated policy on its website. Like Medicare, the insurer accepts E/M codes, and it requires that patients’ attendance must be voluntary; they must be established patients; and the visit must be specific to a disease or condition, although several conditions are allowed.

Dr. Mirsky said his group uses the same E/M level – 99213 – for all of his SMA patients. “Since a regular primary care visit is usually billed at a level 3 or 4, depending on how many topics are covered, we chose level 3 for groups, because the group session deals with just one topic.”

One challenge for billing for SMAs is that most health insurers require patients to provide a copay for each visit, which can discourage patients in groups that meet frequently, says Wayne Dysinger, MD, founder of Lifestyle Medical Solutions, a two-physician primary care practice in Riverside, Calif.

But Dr. Dysinger, who has been using SMAs for 5 years, usually doesn’t have to worry about copays because much of his work is capitated and doesn’t require a copay.

Also, some of Dr. Dysinger’s SMA patients are in direct primary care, in which the patients pay an $18 monthly membership fee. Other practices may charge a flat out-of-pocket fee.
 

How group visits operate

SMAs are based on the observation that patients with the same condition generally ask their doctor the same questions, and rather than repeat the answers each time, why not provide them to a group?

Dr. Wheeler said trying to be more efficient with her time was the primary reason she became interested in SMAs a dozen years ago. “I was trying to squeeze the advice patients needed into a normal patient visit, and it wasn’t working. When I tried to tell them everything they needed to know, I’d run behind for the rest of my day’s visits.”

She found she was continually repeating the same conversation with patients, but these talks weren’t detailed enough to be effective. “When my weight loss patients came back for the next appointment, they had not made the recommended changes in lifestyle. I started to realize how complicated weight loss was.” So Dr. Wheeler founded the SMA program at the Revere Center.

Doctors enjoy the patient interaction

Some doctors who use SMAs talk about how connected they feel with their patients. “For me, the group sessions are the most gratifying part of the week,” Dr. Dysinger says. “I like to see the patients interacting with me and with each other, and watch their health behavior change over time.”

“These groups have a great deal of energy,” he said. “They have a kind of vulnerability that is very raw, very human. People make commitments to meet goals. Will they meet them or not?”

Dr. Dysinger’s enthusiasm has been echoed by other doctors. In a study of older patients, physicians who used SMAs were more satisfied with care than physicians who relied on standard one-to-one interactions. In another study, the researchers surmised that, in SMAs, doctors learn from their patients how they can better meet their needs.

Dr. Dysinger thinks SMAs are widely applicable in primary care. He estimates that 80%-85% of appointments at a primary care practice involve chronic diseases, and this type of patient is a good fit for group visits. SMAs typically treat patients with diabetes, asthma, arthritis, and obesity.

Dr. Sumego said SMAs are used for specialty care at Cleveland Clinic, such as to help patients before and after bariatric surgery. SMAs have also been used to treat patients with ulcerative colitis, multiple sclerosis, cancer, HIV, menopause, insomnia, and stress, according to one report.

Dr. Dysinger, who runs a small practice, organizes his group sessions somewhat differently. He doesn’t organize his groups around conditions like diabetes, but instead his groups focus on four “pillars” of lifestyle medicine: nourishment, movement, resilience (involving sleep and stress), and connectedness.
 

Why patients like group visits

Feeling part of a whole is a major draw for many patients. “Patients seem to like committing to something bigger than just themselves,” Dr. Wheeler said. “They enjoy the sense of community that groups have, the joy of supporting one another.”

“It’s feeling that you’re not alone,” Dr. Mirsky said. “When a patient struggling with diabetes hears how hard it is for another patient, it validates their experience and gives them someone to connect with. There is a positive peer pressure.”

Many programs, including Dr. Wheeler’s and Dr. Mirsky’s in Boston, allow patients to drop in and out of sessions, rather than attending one course all the way through. But even under this format, Dr. Wheeler said that patients often tend to stick together. “At the end of a session, one patient asks another: ‘Which session do you want to go to next?’ ” she said.

Patients also learn from each other in SMAs. Patients exchange experiences and share advice they may not have had the chance to get during an individual visit.

The group dynamic can make it easier for some patients to reveal sensitive information, said Dr. Dysinger. “In these groups, people feel free to talk about their bowel movements, or about having to deal with the influence of a parent on their lives,” Dr. Dysinger said. “The sessions can have the feel of an [Alcoholics Anonymous] meeting, but they’re firmly grounded in medicine.”

Potential downsides of virtual group visits

SMAs and VSMAs may not work for every practice. Some small practices may not have enough patients to organize a group visit around a particular condition – even a common one like diabetes. In a presentation before the Society of General Internal Medicine, a physician from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, warned that it may be difficult for a practice to fill diabetes group visits every year.

Additionally, some patients don’t want to talk about personal matters in a group. “They may not want to reveal certain things about themselves,” Dr. Mirsky said. “So I tell the group that if there is anything that anyone wants to talk about in private, I’m available.”

Another drawback of SMAs is that more experienced patients may have to slog through information they already know, which is a particular problem when patients can drop in and out of sessions. Dr. Mirsky noted that “what often ends up happening is that the experienced participant helps the newcomer.”

Finally, confidentially is a big concern in a group session. “In a one-on-one visit, you can go into details about the patient’s health, and even bring up an entry in the chart,” Dr. Wheeler said. “But in a group visit, you can’t raise any personal details about a patient unless the patient brings it up first.”

SMA patients sign confidentiality agreements in which they agree not to talk about other patients outside the session. Ensuring confidentiality becomes more complicated in virtual group visits, because someone located in the room near a participant could overhear the conversation. For this reason, patients in V-SMAs are advised to use headphones or, at a minimum, close the door to the room they are in.

To address privacy concerns, Zoom encrypts its data, but some privacy breeches have been reported, and a U.S. senator has been looking into Zoom’s privacy vulnerabilities.

Transferring groups to virtual groups

It took the COVID-19 crisis for most doctors to take up virtual SMAs. Dr. Sumego said that the Cleveland Clinic started virtual SMAs more than a year ago, but most other groups operating SMAs were apparently not providing them virtually before COVID-19 started.

Dr. Dysinger said he tried virtual SMAs in 2017 but dropped them because the technology – using Zoom – was challenging at the time, and his staff and most patients were resistant. “Only three to five people were attending the virtual sessions, and the meetings took place in the evening, which was hard on the staff.”

“When COVID-19 first appeared, our initial response was to try to keep the in-person group and add social distancing to it, but that wasn’t workable, so very quickly we shifted to Zoom meetings,” Dr. Dysinger said. “We had experience with Zoom already, and the Zoom technology had improved and was easier to use. COVID-19 forced it all forward.”

Are V-SMAs effective? While there have been many studies showing the effectiveness of in-person SMAs, there have been very few on V-SMAs. One 2018 study of obesity patients found that those attending in-person SMAs lost somewhat more weight than those in V-SMAs.

As with telemedicine, some patients have trouble with the technology of V-SMAs. Dr. Dysinger said 5%-10% of his SMA patients don’t make the switch over to V-SMAs – mainly because of problems in adapting to the technology – but the rest are happy. “We’re averaging 10 people per meeting, and as many as 20.”

Getting comfortable with group visits

Dealing with group visits takes a very different mindset than what doctors normally have, Dr. Wheeler said. “It took me 6-8 months to feel comfortable enough with group sessions to do them myself,” she recalled. “This was a very different way to practice, compared to the one-on-one care I was trained to give patients. Others may find the transition easier, though.

“Doctors are used to being in control of the patient visit, but the exchange in a group visit is more fluid,” Dr. Wheeler said. “Patients offer their own opinions, and this sends the discussion off on a tangent that is often quite useful. As doctors, we have to learn when to let these tangents continue, and know when the discussion might have to be brought back to the theme at hand. Often it’s better not to intercede.”

Do doctors need training to conduct SMAs? Patients in group visits reported worse communication with physicians than those in individual visits, according to a 2014 study. The authors surmised that the doctors needed to learn how to talk to groups and suggested that they get some training.

The potential staying power of V-SMAs post COVID?

Once the COVID-19 crisis is over, Medicare is scheduled to no longer provide the same level of reimbursement for virtual sessions as for real sessions. Dr. Mirsky anticipates a great deal of resistance to this change from thousands of physicians and patients who have become comfortable with telehealth, including virtual SMAs.

Dr. Dysinger thinks V-SMAs will continue. “When COVID-19 clears and we can go back to in-person groups, we expect to keep some virtual groups. People have already come to accept and value virtual groups.”

Dr. Wheeler sees virtual groups playing an essential role post COVID-19, when practices have to get back up to speed. “Virtual group visits could make it easier to deal with a large backlog of patients who couldn’t be seen up until now,” she said. “And virtual groups will be the only way to see patients who are still reluctant to meet in a group.”

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

An intervention designed to prevent serious fall injuries among older adults was less effective than researchers expected but did identify important ways for clinicians to help, including screening all older patients for fall risk and deprescribing certain medications when possible.

The study was conducted by Shalender Bhasin, MD, MBBS, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues on behalf of the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) trial investigators and was published online July 8 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients are often unaware of their increased risk until they have fallen for the first time, and they often underestimate how many of their risk factors can be improved, Dr. Bhasin said in an interview.

“Fall injuries are a very important cause of injury-related deaths among older adults, and these are preventable. Yet they are so difficult; for 30 years the rates of fall injuries have not declined,” he said.

Using a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial, the researchers studied the clinical effectiveness of a “patient-centered intervention that combined elements of practice redesign (reconfiguration of workflow to improve quality of care) and an evidence-based, multifactorial, individually tailored intervention implemented by specially trained nurses in primary care settings,” the authors explained.

Participants in the intervention group worked with trained nurses (fall care managers) to identify their risk factors and determine which risks they wanted to modify. Participants in the control group received their typical care and a pamphlet with information on falls and were encouraged to talk with their primary care physicians (who received the results on risk factor screening) about fall prevention. Those in the intervention group also received the pamphlet.

Fall care managers evaluated patients’ home environments and in some cases visited the patient’s home, Dr. Bhasin said.

The researchers enrolled community-dwelling adults aged 70 years or older who were at higher risk for fall injuries from 86 primary care practices across 10 U.S. health care systems. Half of the practices were randomly assigned to provide the intervention to their patients; the other half of the practices provided enhanced usual care.

The researchers defined patients with increased risk for fall injuries as those who had suffered a fall-related injury at least twice during the previous year or those whose difficulties with balance or walking made them fearful of falling. Serious fall injuries were defined as falls that cause a fracture (other than a thoracic or lumbar vertebral fracture), joint dislocation, a cut needing closure, or falls that resulted in hospital admission for a “head injury, sprain or strain, bruising or swelling, or other serious injury,” they explained.

Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar for both groups of patients (mean age, 80 years; 62.0% women); 38.9% had experienced a fall-related injury during the previous year, and 35.1% had suffered at least two falls during the previous year.

The researchers hypothesized that serious fall injuries would be 20% lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group, but that was not the case.

The findings showed no significant difference between the intervention group (4.9 events per 100 person-years of follow-up) and the control group (5.3 events per 100 person-years of follow-up) for the rate of first adjudicated serious fall injury (hazard ratio, 0.92; P = .25). Results were similar in a practice-level analysis and a sensitivity analysis adjusted for participant-level covariates.

However, there was a difference in rates of first participant-reported fall injury, which was a secondary endpoint, at 25.6 events per 100 person-years of follow-up among participants in the intervention group versus 28.6 events among those in the control group (HR, 0.90; P = .004).

There were no significant differences between the groups for rates of all adjudicated serious fall injuries and all patient-reported fall injuries. Bone fractures and injuries resulting in hospitalization were the most frequent types of adjudicated serious fall injuries.

Rates of serious adverse events resulting in hospitalization were similar for the intervention group and the control group (32.8 and 33.3 hospitalizations per 100 person-years of follow-up, respectively), as well as rates of death (3.3 deaths per 100 person-years of follow-up in both groups).
 

Simple steps can help

“The most important thing clinicians can do is a quick screen for fall injury risk,” Dr. Bhasin said in an interview. The screening tool he uses consists of three questions and can be completed in less than a minute. Clinicians should share that information with patients, he continued.

“Just recognizing that they are at risk for falls, patients are much more motivated to take action,” Dr. Bhasin added.

The top three risk factors identified among trial participants were trouble with strength, gait, or balance; osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency; and impaired vision. “The use of certain medications, postural hypotension, problems with feet or footwear, and home safety hazards were less commonly identified, and the use of certain medications was the least commonly prioritized,” the authors wrote.

It is vital that clinicians help patients implement changes, Dr. Bhasin said. He noted that many patients encounter barriers that prevent them from taking action, including transportation or insurance problems and lack of access to exercise programs in the community.

Deprescribing medications such as sleep medications and benzodiazepines is also a key piece of the puzzle, he added. “They’re pretty huge risks, and yet it is so hard to get people off these medications.”

Future research will focus on how to improve the intervention’s effectiveness and also will test the strategy among those with cognitive impairments who have even higher risk for fall injuries, Dr. Bhasin said.
 

Falls remain common

A report published online July 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report underscores the prevalence of fall-related injuries: In 2018, more than one quarter (27.5%) of adults 65 years or older said they had fallen at least once during the previous year (35.6 million falls), and 10.2% said they had experienced a fall-related injury (8.4 million fall-related injuries). The percentage of adults who reported a fall increased during 2012-2016, then decreased during 2016-2018.

Briana Moreland, MPH, from Synergy America and the Division of Injury Prevention at National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and colleagues wrote that older adults and health care providers can work together to reduce fall risk.

“CDC created the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths and Injuries (STEADI) initiative, which offers tools and resources for health care providers to screen their older patients for fall risk, assess modifiable fall risk factors, and to intervene with evidence-based fall prevention interventions (https://www.cdc.gov/steadi). These include medication management, vision screening, home modifications, referral to physical therapists who can address problems with gait, strength, and balance, and referral to effective community-based fall prevention programs,” Ms. Moreland and colleagues explain.

Dr. Bhasin has received grants from the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) during the conduct of the study. He has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AbbVie; grants from Transition Therapeutics, Alivegen, and Metro International Biotechnology; and personal fees from OPKO outside the submitted work. A coauthor received grants from the NIA and PCORI during the conduct of the study and is co-owner of Lynx Health, and another Peduzzi received grants and other compensation from NIA-PCORI during the conduct of the study. Two other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The remaining authors report a variety of relevant financial relationships; a complete list is available on the journal’s website. The authors of the article in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An intervention designed to prevent serious fall injuries among older adults was less effective than researchers expected but did identify important ways for clinicians to help, including screening all older patients for fall risk and deprescribing certain medications when possible.

The study was conducted by Shalender Bhasin, MD, MBBS, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues on behalf of the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) trial investigators and was published online July 8 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients are often unaware of their increased risk until they have fallen for the first time, and they often underestimate how many of their risk factors can be improved, Dr. Bhasin said in an interview.

“Fall injuries are a very important cause of injury-related deaths among older adults, and these are preventable. Yet they are so difficult; for 30 years the rates of fall injuries have not declined,” he said.

Using a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial, the researchers studied the clinical effectiveness of a “patient-centered intervention that combined elements of practice redesign (reconfiguration of workflow to improve quality of care) and an evidence-based, multifactorial, individually tailored intervention implemented by specially trained nurses in primary care settings,” the authors explained.

Participants in the intervention group worked with trained nurses (fall care managers) to identify their risk factors and determine which risks they wanted to modify. Participants in the control group received their typical care and a pamphlet with information on falls and were encouraged to talk with their primary care physicians (who received the results on risk factor screening) about fall prevention. Those in the intervention group also received the pamphlet.

Fall care managers evaluated patients’ home environments and in some cases visited the patient’s home, Dr. Bhasin said.

The researchers enrolled community-dwelling adults aged 70 years or older who were at higher risk for fall injuries from 86 primary care practices across 10 U.S. health care systems. Half of the practices were randomly assigned to provide the intervention to their patients; the other half of the practices provided enhanced usual care.

The researchers defined patients with increased risk for fall injuries as those who had suffered a fall-related injury at least twice during the previous year or those whose difficulties with balance or walking made them fearful of falling. Serious fall injuries were defined as falls that cause a fracture (other than a thoracic or lumbar vertebral fracture), joint dislocation, a cut needing closure, or falls that resulted in hospital admission for a “head injury, sprain or strain, bruising or swelling, or other serious injury,” they explained.

Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar for both groups of patients (mean age, 80 years; 62.0% women); 38.9% had experienced a fall-related injury during the previous year, and 35.1% had suffered at least two falls during the previous year.

The researchers hypothesized that serious fall injuries would be 20% lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group, but that was not the case.

The findings showed no significant difference between the intervention group (4.9 events per 100 person-years of follow-up) and the control group (5.3 events per 100 person-years of follow-up) for the rate of first adjudicated serious fall injury (hazard ratio, 0.92; P = .25). Results were similar in a practice-level analysis and a sensitivity analysis adjusted for participant-level covariates.

However, there was a difference in rates of first participant-reported fall injury, which was a secondary endpoint, at 25.6 events per 100 person-years of follow-up among participants in the intervention group versus 28.6 events among those in the control group (HR, 0.90; P = .004).

There were no significant differences between the groups for rates of all adjudicated serious fall injuries and all patient-reported fall injuries. Bone fractures and injuries resulting in hospitalization were the most frequent types of adjudicated serious fall injuries.

Rates of serious adverse events resulting in hospitalization were similar for the intervention group and the control group (32.8 and 33.3 hospitalizations per 100 person-years of follow-up, respectively), as well as rates of death (3.3 deaths per 100 person-years of follow-up in both groups).
 

Simple steps can help

“The most important thing clinicians can do is a quick screen for fall injury risk,” Dr. Bhasin said in an interview. The screening tool he uses consists of three questions and can be completed in less than a minute. Clinicians should share that information with patients, he continued.

“Just recognizing that they are at risk for falls, patients are much more motivated to take action,” Dr. Bhasin added.

The top three risk factors identified among trial participants were trouble with strength, gait, or balance; osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency; and impaired vision. “The use of certain medications, postural hypotension, problems with feet or footwear, and home safety hazards were less commonly identified, and the use of certain medications was the least commonly prioritized,” the authors wrote.

It is vital that clinicians help patients implement changes, Dr. Bhasin said. He noted that many patients encounter barriers that prevent them from taking action, including transportation or insurance problems and lack of access to exercise programs in the community.

Deprescribing medications such as sleep medications and benzodiazepines is also a key piece of the puzzle, he added. “They’re pretty huge risks, and yet it is so hard to get people off these medications.”

Future research will focus on how to improve the intervention’s effectiveness and also will test the strategy among those with cognitive impairments who have even higher risk for fall injuries, Dr. Bhasin said.
 

Falls remain common

A report published online July 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report underscores the prevalence of fall-related injuries: In 2018, more than one quarter (27.5%) of adults 65 years or older said they had fallen at least once during the previous year (35.6 million falls), and 10.2% said they had experienced a fall-related injury (8.4 million fall-related injuries). The percentage of adults who reported a fall increased during 2012-2016, then decreased during 2016-2018.

Briana Moreland, MPH, from Synergy America and the Division of Injury Prevention at National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and colleagues wrote that older adults and health care providers can work together to reduce fall risk.

“CDC created the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths and Injuries (STEADI) initiative, which offers tools and resources for health care providers to screen their older patients for fall risk, assess modifiable fall risk factors, and to intervene with evidence-based fall prevention interventions (https://www.cdc.gov/steadi). These include medication management, vision screening, home modifications, referral to physical therapists who can address problems with gait, strength, and balance, and referral to effective community-based fall prevention programs,” Ms. Moreland and colleagues explain.

Dr. Bhasin has received grants from the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) during the conduct of the study. He has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AbbVie; grants from Transition Therapeutics, Alivegen, and Metro International Biotechnology; and personal fees from OPKO outside the submitted work. A coauthor received grants from the NIA and PCORI during the conduct of the study and is co-owner of Lynx Health, and another Peduzzi received grants and other compensation from NIA-PCORI during the conduct of the study. Two other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The remaining authors report a variety of relevant financial relationships; a complete list is available on the journal’s website. The authors of the article in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An intervention designed to prevent serious fall injuries among older adults was less effective than researchers expected but did identify important ways for clinicians to help, including screening all older patients for fall risk and deprescribing certain medications when possible.

The study was conducted by Shalender Bhasin, MD, MBBS, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues on behalf of the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) trial investigators and was published online July 8 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients are often unaware of their increased risk until they have fallen for the first time, and they often underestimate how many of their risk factors can be improved, Dr. Bhasin said in an interview.

“Fall injuries are a very important cause of injury-related deaths among older adults, and these are preventable. Yet they are so difficult; for 30 years the rates of fall injuries have not declined,” he said.

Using a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial, the researchers studied the clinical effectiveness of a “patient-centered intervention that combined elements of practice redesign (reconfiguration of workflow to improve quality of care) and an evidence-based, multifactorial, individually tailored intervention implemented by specially trained nurses in primary care settings,” the authors explained.

Participants in the intervention group worked with trained nurses (fall care managers) to identify their risk factors and determine which risks they wanted to modify. Participants in the control group received their typical care and a pamphlet with information on falls and were encouraged to talk with their primary care physicians (who received the results on risk factor screening) about fall prevention. Those in the intervention group also received the pamphlet.

Fall care managers evaluated patients’ home environments and in some cases visited the patient’s home, Dr. Bhasin said.

The researchers enrolled community-dwelling adults aged 70 years or older who were at higher risk for fall injuries from 86 primary care practices across 10 U.S. health care systems. Half of the practices were randomly assigned to provide the intervention to their patients; the other half of the practices provided enhanced usual care.

The researchers defined patients with increased risk for fall injuries as those who had suffered a fall-related injury at least twice during the previous year or those whose difficulties with balance or walking made them fearful of falling. Serious fall injuries were defined as falls that cause a fracture (other than a thoracic or lumbar vertebral fracture), joint dislocation, a cut needing closure, or falls that resulted in hospital admission for a “head injury, sprain or strain, bruising or swelling, or other serious injury,” they explained.

Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar for both groups of patients (mean age, 80 years; 62.0% women); 38.9% had experienced a fall-related injury during the previous year, and 35.1% had suffered at least two falls during the previous year.

The researchers hypothesized that serious fall injuries would be 20% lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group, but that was not the case.

The findings showed no significant difference between the intervention group (4.9 events per 100 person-years of follow-up) and the control group (5.3 events per 100 person-years of follow-up) for the rate of first adjudicated serious fall injury (hazard ratio, 0.92; P = .25). Results were similar in a practice-level analysis and a sensitivity analysis adjusted for participant-level covariates.

However, there was a difference in rates of first participant-reported fall injury, which was a secondary endpoint, at 25.6 events per 100 person-years of follow-up among participants in the intervention group versus 28.6 events among those in the control group (HR, 0.90; P = .004).

There were no significant differences between the groups for rates of all adjudicated serious fall injuries and all patient-reported fall injuries. Bone fractures and injuries resulting in hospitalization were the most frequent types of adjudicated serious fall injuries.

Rates of serious adverse events resulting in hospitalization were similar for the intervention group and the control group (32.8 and 33.3 hospitalizations per 100 person-years of follow-up, respectively), as well as rates of death (3.3 deaths per 100 person-years of follow-up in both groups).
 

Simple steps can help

“The most important thing clinicians can do is a quick screen for fall injury risk,” Dr. Bhasin said in an interview. The screening tool he uses consists of three questions and can be completed in less than a minute. Clinicians should share that information with patients, he continued.

“Just recognizing that they are at risk for falls, patients are much more motivated to take action,” Dr. Bhasin added.

The top three risk factors identified among trial participants were trouble with strength, gait, or balance; osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency; and impaired vision. “The use of certain medications, postural hypotension, problems with feet or footwear, and home safety hazards were less commonly identified, and the use of certain medications was the least commonly prioritized,” the authors wrote.

It is vital that clinicians help patients implement changes, Dr. Bhasin said. He noted that many patients encounter barriers that prevent them from taking action, including transportation or insurance problems and lack of access to exercise programs in the community.

Deprescribing medications such as sleep medications and benzodiazepines is also a key piece of the puzzle, he added. “They’re pretty huge risks, and yet it is so hard to get people off these medications.”

Future research will focus on how to improve the intervention’s effectiveness and also will test the strategy among those with cognitive impairments who have even higher risk for fall injuries, Dr. Bhasin said.
 

Falls remain common

A report published online July 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report underscores the prevalence of fall-related injuries: In 2018, more than one quarter (27.5%) of adults 65 years or older said they had fallen at least once during the previous year (35.6 million falls), and 10.2% said they had experienced a fall-related injury (8.4 million fall-related injuries). The percentage of adults who reported a fall increased during 2012-2016, then decreased during 2016-2018.

Briana Moreland, MPH, from Synergy America and the Division of Injury Prevention at National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and colleagues wrote that older adults and health care providers can work together to reduce fall risk.

“CDC created the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths and Injuries (STEADI) initiative, which offers tools and resources for health care providers to screen their older patients for fall risk, assess modifiable fall risk factors, and to intervene with evidence-based fall prevention interventions (https://www.cdc.gov/steadi). These include medication management, vision screening, home modifications, referral to physical therapists who can address problems with gait, strength, and balance, and referral to effective community-based fall prevention programs,” Ms. Moreland and colleagues explain.

Dr. Bhasin has received grants from the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) during the conduct of the study. He has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AbbVie; grants from Transition Therapeutics, Alivegen, and Metro International Biotechnology; and personal fees from OPKO outside the submitted work. A coauthor received grants from the NIA and PCORI during the conduct of the study and is co-owner of Lynx Health, and another Peduzzi received grants and other compensation from NIA-PCORI during the conduct of the study. Two other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The remaining authors report a variety of relevant financial relationships; a complete list is available on the journal’s website. The authors of the article in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clear aerosol boxes designed to keep COVID-19 patients’ airborne droplets from infecting health care workers during intubation may actually increase providers’ exposure to the virus, a small study suggests.

Joanna P. Simpson, MbChB, an intensivist in the department of anaesthesia and perioperative medicine at Eastern Health in Melbourne, and colleagues tested five models of barriers used for protection while intubating simulated “patients” with COVID-19 and compared the interventions with a control of having no protection. They published their findings online in Anaesthesia.

Coauthor Peter Chan, MBBS, also an intensivist at Eastern Health, said in an interview that the virus essentially concentrates inside the box and because the box has holes on the sides to allow providers’ arms in, the gaps “act as nozzles, so when a patient coughs, it creates a sudden wave of air that pushes all these particles out the path of least resistance” and into the face of the intubator.

Their institution stopped using any such aerosol-containment devices during intubation until safety can be proven.
 

Many forms for boxes

The boxes take different forms and are made by various designers and manufacturers around the world, including in the United States, but they generally cover the head and upper body of patients and allow providers to reach through holes to intubate.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 1 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for “protective barrier enclosures ... to prevent [health care provider] exposure to pathogenic biological airborne particulates by providing an extra layer of barrier protection in addition to personal protective equipment [PPE].”

Others refer to them as “intubation boxes.” A search of GoFundMe campaigns showed hundreds of campaigns for intubation boxes.

Dr. Simpson and colleagues used an in-situ simulation model to evaluate laryngoscopist exposure to airborne particles sized 0.3-5.0 mcm using five aerosol containment devices (aerosol box, sealed box with suction, sealed box without suction, vertical drapes, and horizontal drapes) compared with no aerosol containment device.

Nebulized saline was used in an aerosol-generating model for 300 seconds, at which point the devices were removed to gauge particle spread for another 60 seconds.

Compared with no device use, the sealed intubation box with suction resulted in a decreased exposure for particle sizes of 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.5 mcm – but not 5.0 mcm – over all time periods (P = .003 for all time periods, which ranged from 30 to 360 seconds).

Conversely, the aerosol box, compared with no device use, showed an increase in 1.0, 2.5, and 5.0 mcm airborne-particle exposure at 300 seconds (P = .002, 0.008, and .002, respectively). Compared with no device use, neither horizontal nor vertical drapes showed any difference in any particle size exposure at any time.

The researchers used seven volunteers who took turns acting as the patient or the intubator. As each of the seven volunteers did all six trials (the five interventions plus no intervention), the study generated 42 sets of results.
 

More evidence passive boxes are ineffective

Plastic surgeon Dave Turer, MD, MS, who is also an electrical and biomedical engineer, and some emergency physician colleagues had doubts about these boxes early on and wrote about the need for thorough testing.

He told this news organization, “I find it kind of infuriating that if you search for ‘intubation box’ there are all these companies making claims that are totally unsubstantiated.”

A desperate need to stop the virus is leading to unacceptable practices, he said.

His team at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania tested commercially available boxes using white vapor to simulate patients› exhaled breath and found the vapor billowed into the surrounding environment.

He said Simpson and colleagues had similar findings: The boxes didn’t contain the patients’ breaths and may even increase the stream heading toward intubators.

Dr. Turer said his team has designed a different kind of box, without armholes for the intubators, and with active airflow and filtering and have submitted their design and research to the FDA for an EUA.

The FDA’s current EUA is for boxes “that are no different from a face shield or a splash shield,” Dr. Turer said, adding that “they specifically state that they are not designed or intended to contain aerosol.”

He said while this study is a good start, his team’s findings will help demonstrate why the common passive boxes should not be used.

One of the most prevalent designs, he pointed out, was one by Taiwanese anesthesiologist Hsien Yung Lai that was widely circulated in March.

David W. Kaczka, MD, PhD, associate professor of anesthesia, biomedical engineering, and radiology at University of Iowa in Iowa City, is one of the researchers who modified that design and made prototypes. He said in an interview he thinks the study conclusion by Simpson et al is “not as dismal as the authors are making it out to be.”

He pointed to the relative success of the sealed box with suction. His team’s adapted model added a suction port to generate a negative pressure field around the patient.

The biggest critique he had of the study, Dr. Kaczka said, was a lack of a true control group.

“They tested all their conditions with nebulized saline,” he pointed out. “I think a more appropriately designed study would have also looked at a group where no saline was being nebulized and see what the particle counts were afterwards. It’s not clear how the device would distinguish between a particle coming from a saline nebulizer vs. coming from a simulated patient vs. coming from the laryngoscopist.”

He also noted that what comes out of a patient is not going to be saline and will have different density and viscosity.

That said, the study by Dr. Simpson and colleagues highlights the need to take a hard look at these boxes with more research, he said, adding, “I think there’s some hope there.”

He noted that a letter to the editor by Boston researchers, published online April 3 in the New England Journal of Medicine, describes how they used fluorescent dye forced from a balloon to simulate a patient’s cough to see whether an aerosol box protected intubators.

That letter concludes, “We suggest that our ad hoc barrier enclosure provided a modicum of additional protection and could be considered to be an adjunct to standard PPE.”

The Anaesthesia findings come as a second global wave becomes more likely as does awareness of the potential of airborne droplets to spread the virus.

Scientists from 32 countries warned the World Health Organization that the spread of COVID-19 through airborne droplets may have been severely underestimated.

On Wednesday, the World Health Organization formally acknowledged evidence regarding potential spread of the virus through these droplets and on Thursday issued an updated brief.

Intellectual property surrounding the device invented by Dr. Turer’s team is owned by UPMC. Dr. Chan and Dr. Kaczka have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clear aerosol boxes designed to keep COVID-19 patients’ airborne droplets from infecting health care workers during intubation may actually increase providers’ exposure to the virus, a small study suggests.

Joanna P. Simpson, MbChB, an intensivist in the department of anaesthesia and perioperative medicine at Eastern Health in Melbourne, and colleagues tested five models of barriers used for protection while intubating simulated “patients” with COVID-19 and compared the interventions with a control of having no protection. They published their findings online in Anaesthesia.

Coauthor Peter Chan, MBBS, also an intensivist at Eastern Health, said in an interview that the virus essentially concentrates inside the box and because the box has holes on the sides to allow providers’ arms in, the gaps “act as nozzles, so when a patient coughs, it creates a sudden wave of air that pushes all these particles out the path of least resistance” and into the face of the intubator.

Their institution stopped using any such aerosol-containment devices during intubation until safety can be proven.
 

Many forms for boxes

The boxes take different forms and are made by various designers and manufacturers around the world, including in the United States, but they generally cover the head and upper body of patients and allow providers to reach through holes to intubate.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 1 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for “protective barrier enclosures ... to prevent [health care provider] exposure to pathogenic biological airborne particulates by providing an extra layer of barrier protection in addition to personal protective equipment [PPE].”

Others refer to them as “intubation boxes.” A search of GoFundMe campaigns showed hundreds of campaigns for intubation boxes.

Dr. Simpson and colleagues used an in-situ simulation model to evaluate laryngoscopist exposure to airborne particles sized 0.3-5.0 mcm using five aerosol containment devices (aerosol box, sealed box with suction, sealed box without suction, vertical drapes, and horizontal drapes) compared with no aerosol containment device.

Nebulized saline was used in an aerosol-generating model for 300 seconds, at which point the devices were removed to gauge particle spread for another 60 seconds.

Compared with no device use, the sealed intubation box with suction resulted in a decreased exposure for particle sizes of 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.5 mcm – but not 5.0 mcm – over all time periods (P = .003 for all time periods, which ranged from 30 to 360 seconds).

Conversely, the aerosol box, compared with no device use, showed an increase in 1.0, 2.5, and 5.0 mcm airborne-particle exposure at 300 seconds (P = .002, 0.008, and .002, respectively). Compared with no device use, neither horizontal nor vertical drapes showed any difference in any particle size exposure at any time.

The researchers used seven volunteers who took turns acting as the patient or the intubator. As each of the seven volunteers did all six trials (the five interventions plus no intervention), the study generated 42 sets of results.
 

More evidence passive boxes are ineffective

Plastic surgeon Dave Turer, MD, MS, who is also an electrical and biomedical engineer, and some emergency physician colleagues had doubts about these boxes early on and wrote about the need for thorough testing.

He told this news organization, “I find it kind of infuriating that if you search for ‘intubation box’ there are all these companies making claims that are totally unsubstantiated.”

A desperate need to stop the virus is leading to unacceptable practices, he said.

His team at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania tested commercially available boxes using white vapor to simulate patients› exhaled breath and found the vapor billowed into the surrounding environment.

He said Simpson and colleagues had similar findings: The boxes didn’t contain the patients’ breaths and may even increase the stream heading toward intubators.

Dr. Turer said his team has designed a different kind of box, without armholes for the intubators, and with active airflow and filtering and have submitted their design and research to the FDA for an EUA.

The FDA’s current EUA is for boxes “that are no different from a face shield or a splash shield,” Dr. Turer said, adding that “they specifically state that they are not designed or intended to contain aerosol.”

He said while this study is a good start, his team’s findings will help demonstrate why the common passive boxes should not be used.

One of the most prevalent designs, he pointed out, was one by Taiwanese anesthesiologist Hsien Yung Lai that was widely circulated in March.

David W. Kaczka, MD, PhD, associate professor of anesthesia, biomedical engineering, and radiology at University of Iowa in Iowa City, is one of the researchers who modified that design and made prototypes. He said in an interview he thinks the study conclusion by Simpson et al is “not as dismal as the authors are making it out to be.”

He pointed to the relative success of the sealed box with suction. His team’s adapted model added a suction port to generate a negative pressure field around the patient.

The biggest critique he had of the study, Dr. Kaczka said, was a lack of a true control group.

“They tested all their conditions with nebulized saline,” he pointed out. “I think a more appropriately designed study would have also looked at a group where no saline was being nebulized and see what the particle counts were afterwards. It’s not clear how the device would distinguish between a particle coming from a saline nebulizer vs. coming from a simulated patient vs. coming from the laryngoscopist.”

He also noted that what comes out of a patient is not going to be saline and will have different density and viscosity.

That said, the study by Dr. Simpson and colleagues highlights the need to take a hard look at these boxes with more research, he said, adding, “I think there’s some hope there.”

He noted that a letter to the editor by Boston researchers, published online April 3 in the New England Journal of Medicine, describes how they used fluorescent dye forced from a balloon to simulate a patient’s cough to see whether an aerosol box protected intubators.

That letter concludes, “We suggest that our ad hoc barrier enclosure provided a modicum of additional protection and could be considered to be an adjunct to standard PPE.”

The Anaesthesia findings come as a second global wave becomes more likely as does awareness of the potential of airborne droplets to spread the virus.

Scientists from 32 countries warned the World Health Organization that the spread of COVID-19 through airborne droplets may have been severely underestimated.

On Wednesday, the World Health Organization formally acknowledged evidence regarding potential spread of the virus through these droplets and on Thursday issued an updated brief.

Intellectual property surrounding the device invented by Dr. Turer’s team is owned by UPMC. Dr. Chan and Dr. Kaczka have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clear aerosol boxes designed to keep COVID-19 patients’ airborne droplets from infecting health care workers during intubation may actually increase providers’ exposure to the virus, a small study suggests.

Joanna P. Simpson, MbChB, an intensivist in the department of anaesthesia and perioperative medicine at Eastern Health in Melbourne, and colleagues tested five models of barriers used for protection while intubating simulated “patients” with COVID-19 and compared the interventions with a control of having no protection. They published their findings online in Anaesthesia.

Coauthor Peter Chan, MBBS, also an intensivist at Eastern Health, said in an interview that the virus essentially concentrates inside the box and because the box has holes on the sides to allow providers’ arms in, the gaps “act as nozzles, so when a patient coughs, it creates a sudden wave of air that pushes all these particles out the path of least resistance” and into the face of the intubator.

Their institution stopped using any such aerosol-containment devices during intubation until safety can be proven.
 

Many forms for boxes

The boxes take different forms and are made by various designers and manufacturers around the world, including in the United States, but they generally cover the head and upper body of patients and allow providers to reach through holes to intubate.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 1 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for “protective barrier enclosures ... to prevent [health care provider] exposure to pathogenic biological airborne particulates by providing an extra layer of barrier protection in addition to personal protective equipment [PPE].”

Others refer to them as “intubation boxes.” A search of GoFundMe campaigns showed hundreds of campaigns for intubation boxes.

Dr. Simpson and colleagues used an in-situ simulation model to evaluate laryngoscopist exposure to airborne particles sized 0.3-5.0 mcm using five aerosol containment devices (aerosol box, sealed box with suction, sealed box without suction, vertical drapes, and horizontal drapes) compared with no aerosol containment device.

Nebulized saline was used in an aerosol-generating model for 300 seconds, at which point the devices were removed to gauge particle spread for another 60 seconds.

Compared with no device use, the sealed intubation box with suction resulted in a decreased exposure for particle sizes of 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.5 mcm – but not 5.0 mcm – over all time periods (P = .003 for all time periods, which ranged from 30 to 360 seconds).

Conversely, the aerosol box, compared with no device use, showed an increase in 1.0, 2.5, and 5.0 mcm airborne-particle exposure at 300 seconds (P = .002, 0.008, and .002, respectively). Compared with no device use, neither horizontal nor vertical drapes showed any difference in any particle size exposure at any time.

The researchers used seven volunteers who took turns acting as the patient or the intubator. As each of the seven volunteers did all six trials (the five interventions plus no intervention), the study generated 42 sets of results.
 

More evidence passive boxes are ineffective

Plastic surgeon Dave Turer, MD, MS, who is also an electrical and biomedical engineer, and some emergency physician colleagues had doubts about these boxes early on and wrote about the need for thorough testing.

He told this news organization, “I find it kind of infuriating that if you search for ‘intubation box’ there are all these companies making claims that are totally unsubstantiated.”

A desperate need to stop the virus is leading to unacceptable practices, he said.

His team at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania tested commercially available boxes using white vapor to simulate patients› exhaled breath and found the vapor billowed into the surrounding environment.

He said Simpson and colleagues had similar findings: The boxes didn’t contain the patients’ breaths and may even increase the stream heading toward intubators.

Dr. Turer said his team has designed a different kind of box, without armholes for the intubators, and with active airflow and filtering and have submitted their design and research to the FDA for an EUA.

The FDA’s current EUA is for boxes “that are no different from a face shield or a splash shield,” Dr. Turer said, adding that “they specifically state that they are not designed or intended to contain aerosol.”

He said while this study is a good start, his team’s findings will help demonstrate why the common passive boxes should not be used.

One of the most prevalent designs, he pointed out, was one by Taiwanese anesthesiologist Hsien Yung Lai that was widely circulated in March.

David W. Kaczka, MD, PhD, associate professor of anesthesia, biomedical engineering, and radiology at University of Iowa in Iowa City, is one of the researchers who modified that design and made prototypes. He said in an interview he thinks the study conclusion by Simpson et al is “not as dismal as the authors are making it out to be.”

He pointed to the relative success of the sealed box with suction. His team’s adapted model added a suction port to generate a negative pressure field around the patient.

The biggest critique he had of the study, Dr. Kaczka said, was a lack of a true control group.

“They tested all their conditions with nebulized saline,” he pointed out. “I think a more appropriately designed study would have also looked at a group where no saline was being nebulized and see what the particle counts were afterwards. It’s not clear how the device would distinguish between a particle coming from a saline nebulizer vs. coming from a simulated patient vs. coming from the laryngoscopist.”

He also noted that what comes out of a patient is not going to be saline and will have different density and viscosity.

That said, the study by Dr. Simpson and colleagues highlights the need to take a hard look at these boxes with more research, he said, adding, “I think there’s some hope there.”

He noted that a letter to the editor by Boston researchers, published online April 3 in the New England Journal of Medicine, describes how they used fluorescent dye forced from a balloon to simulate a patient’s cough to see whether an aerosol box protected intubators.

That letter concludes, “We suggest that our ad hoc barrier enclosure provided a modicum of additional protection and could be considered to be an adjunct to standard PPE.”

The Anaesthesia findings come as a second global wave becomes more likely as does awareness of the potential of airborne droplets to spread the virus.

Scientists from 32 countries warned the World Health Organization that the spread of COVID-19 through airborne droplets may have been severely underestimated.

On Wednesday, the World Health Organization formally acknowledged evidence regarding potential spread of the virus through these droplets and on Thursday issued an updated brief.

Intellectual property surrounding the device invented by Dr. Turer’s team is owned by UPMC. Dr. Chan and Dr. Kaczka have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sachin Dave, MD, an internist in Greenwood, Ind., never thought he’d tell his patients to avoid coming into the office. But these days, he must balance the need for face-to-face visits with the risk for COVID-19 transmission. Although he connects with most patients by telehealth, some patients still demand in-office care.

“My older patients actually insist on coming to see me in person,” said Dr. Dave, who is part of Indiana Internal Medicine Consultants, a large group practice near Indianapolis. “I have to tell them it’s not safe.”

It’s a minor hitch as his practice ramps up again – but one of those things you can’t overlook, he said. “We need to educate our patients and communicate the risk to them.”

As practices across the United States start reopening, physicians frequently hit bumps in the road, according to Kerin Bashaw, senior vice president of patient safety and risk management for the Doctors Company, a physician-owned malpractice insurer. “It’s about minimizing risk.”

As practices increase patient volume, physicians are juggling a desire for a return to patient care and increased revenue with a need to maximize patient and staff safety. Avoiding some of these common snags may help make the transition smoother.
 

1. Unclear or nonexistent polices and protocols

Some physicians know what general rules they want to follow, but they haven’t conveyed them in a readily available document. Although you and your staff may have a sense of what they are, patients may be less aware of how mandatory you consider them. It’s important to develop a formal framework that you will follow and to make sure patients and staff know it.

Dr. Dave and colleagues have stringent safety protocols in place for the small percentage of patients he does feel a need to be seen in person. Masks are mandatory for staff and patients. The waiting room is set up for social distancing. If it begins getting crowded, patients are asked to wait in their cars until an exam room is ready.

“I’m not going to see a patient who refuses to put a mask on, because when I put a mask on, I’m trying to protect my patients,” said Dr. Dave. He makes it clear that he expects the same from his patients; they must wear a mask to protect his staff and himself.

“I am going to let them in with the caveat that they don’t have qualms about wearing a mask. If they have qualms about wearing a mask, then I have qualms about seeing them in person,” he said.

Be sure that all patients understand and will adhere to your protocols before they come to the office. Patients should be triaged over the phone before arriving, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. (Remember that refusing assessment or care could lead to issues of patient abandonment.)

When you don’t really have a framework to follow, you don’t really know what the structure is going to be and how your practice is going to provide care. The question is, how do you build a framework for right now? said Ron Holder, chief operations officer of the Medical Group Management Association. “The first step is do no harm.”
 

2. Trying to see too many patients too soon

On average, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% decrease in patient volume since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, according to the MGMA. It’s natural that many want to ramp up immediately and go back to their prior patient volume. But they need to take it slow and ensure that the correct safety protocols are in place, Mr. Holder said.

For example, telehealth is still reimbursable at parity, so physicians should keep taking advantage of that. MGMA’s practice reopening checklist has links to additional resources and considerations.

Some doctors want to see an overload of patients and want to get back to how they practiced before the pandemic, says orthopedic surgeon Charles Ruotolo, MD, president of Total Orthopedics and Sports Medicine in Massapequa, N.Y., and chairman of the department of orthopedics, Nassau University Medical Center, East Meadow, N.Y., “but at the same time, you know we still have to limit how many people are coming into the office.”

It’s not fair if some doctors in your practice are seeing 45 patients daily as they did previously whereas others are seeing half that many, he explained. “We must remain cognizant and constantly review schedules and remember we have to still keep the numbers down.”

“COVID is not going to be completely over in our lifetime,” says Evan Levine, MD, a cardiologist in Ridgefield, Conn. Taking advantage of technologies is one way to reduce risk.

He predicts that the demand will continue to increase as patients become more comfortable with virtual visits. Using Bluetooth and WiFi devices to assess patients is no longer futuristic and can help reduce the number of people in the waiting room, according to Dr. Levine, a solo practitioner and author of “What Your Doctor Won’t (or Can’t) Tell You.” “That’s a very good thing, especially as we look to fall and to flu season.”
 

3. Undercommunicating with patients and staff

Don’t assume patients know that you’ve opened back up and are seeing people in the office, Mr. Holder said. Update your practice website, send letters or newsletters to patients’ homes, maintain telephone and email contact, and post signs at the facility explaining your reopening process. The CDC has an excellent phone script that practices can adapt. Everyone should know what to expect and what’s expected of them.

He advised overcommunicating – more than you think is necessary – to your staff and patients. Tell them about the extra steps you’re taking. Let them know that their safety and health are the most important thing and that you are taking all these extra measures to make sure that they feel comfortable.

Keep staff appraised of policy changes. Stress what you’re doing to ensure the safety of your team members. “Even though you could be doing all those things, if you’re not communicating, then no one knows it,” said Mr. Holder.

He predicted the practices that emerge stronger from this crisis will be those with great patient education that have built up a lot of goodwill. Patients should know they can go to this practice’s patient portal as a trusted resource about COVID-19 and safety-related measures. This approach will pay dividends over the long term.
 

4. Giving inadequate staff training and holding too-high expectations

Staff members are scared, really scared, Ms. Bashaw said. Some may not return because they’re unsure what to expect; others may have to stay home to care for children or older relatives. Clear guidance on what is being done to ensure everyone’s safety, what is expected from staff, and flexibility with scheduling can help address these issues.

Most practices’ staff are not used to donning and removing personal protective equipment, and they’re not used to wearing masks when working with patients. Expect some mistakes.

“We had a scenario where a provider was in a room with an older patient, and the provider pulled his mask down so the patient could hear him better. He then kept the mask down while giving the patient an injection. When the family found out, they were very upset,” Ms. Bashaw related. “It was done with good intentions, to improve communication, but it’s a slip-up that could have found him liable if she became ill.”

Dr. Ruotolo had to implement new policies throughout his practice’s multiple locations in the New York metro area. They encompassed everything from staggering appointments and staff to establishing designated employee eating areas so front desk staff weren’t taking their masks off to snack.

Having specific guidelines for staff helps reassure patients that safety protocols are being adhered to. “Patients want to see we’re all doing the right thing,” he said.

Have those policies clearly written so everyone’s on the same page, Dr. Ruotolo advised. Also make sure staff knows what the rules are for patients.

Dr. Ruotolo’s reception staff hand every patient a disinfectant wipe when they arrive. They are asked to wipe down the check-in kiosk before and after using it. Assistants know not to cut corners when disinfecting exam rooms, equipment, or tables. “It’s the little things you have to think about, and make sure it’s reiterated with your staff so they’re doing it.”

If your practice isn’t back up to full staffing volume, it’s a good idea to cross train staff members so some jobs overlap, suggests Mr. Holder. Although smaller practices may already do this, at larger practices, staff members’ roles may be more specific. “You may be able to pull employees from other positions in the practice, but it’s a good idea to have some redundancy.”
 

5. Neglecting to document everything – even more so than before

The standard of care is changing every day, and so are the regulations, says Ms. Bashaw. Many physicians who work in larger practices or for health systems don’t take advantage of internal risk management departments, which can help them keep tabs on all of these changes.

Writing down simple protocols and having a consistent work flow are extremely important right now. What have you told staff and patients? Are they comfortable with how you’re minimizing their risk? Physicians can find a seven-page checklist that helps practitioners organize and methodically go through reopening process at the Doctors Company website.

Implementing state and local statutes or public health requirements and keeping track of when things stop and start can be complex, says Ms. Bashaw. Take a look at your pre–COVID-19 policies and procedures, and make sure you’re on top of the current standards for your office, including staff education. The most important step is connecting with your local public health authority and taking direction from them.

Ms. Bashaw strongly encouraged physicians to conduct huddles with their staff; it’s an evidence-based leadership practice that’s important from a medical malpractice perspective. Review the day’s game plan, then conduct a debriefing at the end of the day.

Discuss what worked well, what didn’t, and what tomorrow looks like. And be sure to document it all. “A standard routine and debrief gets everyone on the same page and shows due diligence,” she said.

Keep an administrative file so 2 years down the road, you remember what you did and when. That way, if there’s a problem or a breach or the standard isn’t adhered to, it’s documented in the file. Note what happened and when and what was done to mitigate it or what corrective action was taken.

All practices need to stay on top of regulatory changes. Smaller practices don’t have full-time staff dedicated to monitoring what’s happening in Washington. Associations such as the MGMA can help target what’s important and actionable.
 

6. Forgetting about your own and your staff’s physical and mental health

Physicians need to be worried about burnout and mental health problems from their team members, their colleagues, their patients, and themselves, according to Mr. Holder.

“There’s a mental exhaustion that is just pervasive in the world and the United States right now about all this COVID stuff and stress, not to mention all the other things that are going on,” he said.

That’s going to carry over, so physicians must make sure there’s a positive culture at the practice, where everyone’s taking care of and watching out for each other.

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

Sachin Dave, MD, an internist in Greenwood, Ind., never thought he’d tell his patients to avoid coming into the office. But these days, he must balance the need for face-to-face visits with the risk for COVID-19 transmission. Although he connects with most patients by telehealth, some patients still demand in-office care.

“My older patients actually insist on coming to see me in person,” said Dr. Dave, who is part of Indiana Internal Medicine Consultants, a large group practice near Indianapolis. “I have to tell them it’s not safe.”

It’s a minor hitch as his practice ramps up again – but one of those things you can’t overlook, he said. “We need to educate our patients and communicate the risk to them.”

As practices across the United States start reopening, physicians frequently hit bumps in the road, according to Kerin Bashaw, senior vice president of patient safety and risk management for the Doctors Company, a physician-owned malpractice insurer. “It’s about minimizing risk.”

As practices increase patient volume, physicians are juggling a desire for a return to patient care and increased revenue with a need to maximize patient and staff safety. Avoiding some of these common snags may help make the transition smoother.
 

1. Unclear or nonexistent polices and protocols

Some physicians know what general rules they want to follow, but they haven’t conveyed them in a readily available document. Although you and your staff may have a sense of what they are, patients may be less aware of how mandatory you consider them. It’s important to develop a formal framework that you will follow and to make sure patients and staff know it.

Dr. Dave and colleagues have stringent safety protocols in place for the small percentage of patients he does feel a need to be seen in person. Masks are mandatory for staff and patients. The waiting room is set up for social distancing. If it begins getting crowded, patients are asked to wait in their cars until an exam room is ready.

“I’m not going to see a patient who refuses to put a mask on, because when I put a mask on, I’m trying to protect my patients,” said Dr. Dave. He makes it clear that he expects the same from his patients; they must wear a mask to protect his staff and himself.

“I am going to let them in with the caveat that they don’t have qualms about wearing a mask. If they have qualms about wearing a mask, then I have qualms about seeing them in person,” he said.

Be sure that all patients understand and will adhere to your protocols before they come to the office. Patients should be triaged over the phone before arriving, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. (Remember that refusing assessment or care could lead to issues of patient abandonment.)

When you don’t really have a framework to follow, you don’t really know what the structure is going to be and how your practice is going to provide care. The question is, how do you build a framework for right now? said Ron Holder, chief operations officer of the Medical Group Management Association. “The first step is do no harm.”
 

2. Trying to see too many patients too soon

On average, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% decrease in patient volume since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, according to the MGMA. It’s natural that many want to ramp up immediately and go back to their prior patient volume. But they need to take it slow and ensure that the correct safety protocols are in place, Mr. Holder said.

For example, telehealth is still reimbursable at parity, so physicians should keep taking advantage of that. MGMA’s practice reopening checklist has links to additional resources and considerations.

Some doctors want to see an overload of patients and want to get back to how they practiced before the pandemic, says orthopedic surgeon Charles Ruotolo, MD, president of Total Orthopedics and Sports Medicine in Massapequa, N.Y., and chairman of the department of orthopedics, Nassau University Medical Center, East Meadow, N.Y., “but at the same time, you know we still have to limit how many people are coming into the office.”

It’s not fair if some doctors in your practice are seeing 45 patients daily as they did previously whereas others are seeing half that many, he explained. “We must remain cognizant and constantly review schedules and remember we have to still keep the numbers down.”

“COVID is not going to be completely over in our lifetime,” says Evan Levine, MD, a cardiologist in Ridgefield, Conn. Taking advantage of technologies is one way to reduce risk.

He predicts that the demand will continue to increase as patients become more comfortable with virtual visits. Using Bluetooth and WiFi devices to assess patients is no longer futuristic and can help reduce the number of people in the waiting room, according to Dr. Levine, a solo practitioner and author of “What Your Doctor Won’t (or Can’t) Tell You.” “That’s a very good thing, especially as we look to fall and to flu season.”
 

3. Undercommunicating with patients and staff

Don’t assume patients know that you’ve opened back up and are seeing people in the office, Mr. Holder said. Update your practice website, send letters or newsletters to patients’ homes, maintain telephone and email contact, and post signs at the facility explaining your reopening process. The CDC has an excellent phone script that practices can adapt. Everyone should know what to expect and what’s expected of them.

He advised overcommunicating – more than you think is necessary – to your staff and patients. Tell them about the extra steps you’re taking. Let them know that their safety and health are the most important thing and that you are taking all these extra measures to make sure that they feel comfortable.

Keep staff appraised of policy changes. Stress what you’re doing to ensure the safety of your team members. “Even though you could be doing all those things, if you’re not communicating, then no one knows it,” said Mr. Holder.

He predicted the practices that emerge stronger from this crisis will be those with great patient education that have built up a lot of goodwill. Patients should know they can go to this practice’s patient portal as a trusted resource about COVID-19 and safety-related measures. This approach will pay dividends over the long term.
 

4. Giving inadequate staff training and holding too-high expectations

Staff members are scared, really scared, Ms. Bashaw said. Some may not return because they’re unsure what to expect; others may have to stay home to care for children or older relatives. Clear guidance on what is being done to ensure everyone’s safety, what is expected from staff, and flexibility with scheduling can help address these issues.

Most practices’ staff are not used to donning and removing personal protective equipment, and they’re not used to wearing masks when working with patients. Expect some mistakes.

“We had a scenario where a provider was in a room with an older patient, and the provider pulled his mask down so the patient could hear him better. He then kept the mask down while giving the patient an injection. When the family found out, they were very upset,” Ms. Bashaw related. “It was done with good intentions, to improve communication, but it’s a slip-up that could have found him liable if she became ill.”

Dr. Ruotolo had to implement new policies throughout his practice’s multiple locations in the New York metro area. They encompassed everything from staggering appointments and staff to establishing designated employee eating areas so front desk staff weren’t taking their masks off to snack.

Having specific guidelines for staff helps reassure patients that safety protocols are being adhered to. “Patients want to see we’re all doing the right thing,” he said.

Have those policies clearly written so everyone’s on the same page, Dr. Ruotolo advised. Also make sure staff knows what the rules are for patients.

Dr. Ruotolo’s reception staff hand every patient a disinfectant wipe when they arrive. They are asked to wipe down the check-in kiosk before and after using it. Assistants know not to cut corners when disinfecting exam rooms, equipment, or tables. “It’s the little things you have to think about, and make sure it’s reiterated with your staff so they’re doing it.”

If your practice isn’t back up to full staffing volume, it’s a good idea to cross train staff members so some jobs overlap, suggests Mr. Holder. Although smaller practices may already do this, at larger practices, staff members’ roles may be more specific. “You may be able to pull employees from other positions in the practice, but it’s a good idea to have some redundancy.”
 

5. Neglecting to document everything – even more so than before

The standard of care is changing every day, and so are the regulations, says Ms. Bashaw. Many physicians who work in larger practices or for health systems don’t take advantage of internal risk management departments, which can help them keep tabs on all of these changes.

Writing down simple protocols and having a consistent work flow are extremely important right now. What have you told staff and patients? Are they comfortable with how you’re minimizing their risk? Physicians can find a seven-page checklist that helps practitioners organize and methodically go through reopening process at the Doctors Company website.

Implementing state and local statutes or public health requirements and keeping track of when things stop and start can be complex, says Ms. Bashaw. Take a look at your pre–COVID-19 policies and procedures, and make sure you’re on top of the current standards for your office, including staff education. The most important step is connecting with your local public health authority and taking direction from them.

Ms. Bashaw strongly encouraged physicians to conduct huddles with their staff; it’s an evidence-based leadership practice that’s important from a medical malpractice perspective. Review the day’s game plan, then conduct a debriefing at the end of the day.

Discuss what worked well, what didn’t, and what tomorrow looks like. And be sure to document it all. “A standard routine and debrief gets everyone on the same page and shows due diligence,” she said.

Keep an administrative file so 2 years down the road, you remember what you did and when. That way, if there’s a problem or a breach or the standard isn’t adhered to, it’s documented in the file. Note what happened and when and what was done to mitigate it or what corrective action was taken.

All practices need to stay on top of regulatory changes. Smaller practices don’t have full-time staff dedicated to monitoring what’s happening in Washington. Associations such as the MGMA can help target what’s important and actionable.
 

6. Forgetting about your own and your staff’s physical and mental health

Physicians need to be worried about burnout and mental health problems from their team members, their colleagues, their patients, and themselves, according to Mr. Holder.

“There’s a mental exhaustion that is just pervasive in the world and the United States right now about all this COVID stuff and stress, not to mention all the other things that are going on,” he said.

That’s going to carry over, so physicians must make sure there’s a positive culture at the practice, where everyone’s taking care of and watching out for each other.

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

Sachin Dave, MD, an internist in Greenwood, Ind., never thought he’d tell his patients to avoid coming into the office. But these days, he must balance the need for face-to-face visits with the risk for COVID-19 transmission. Although he connects with most patients by telehealth, some patients still demand in-office care.

“My older patients actually insist on coming to see me in person,” said Dr. Dave, who is part of Indiana Internal Medicine Consultants, a large group practice near Indianapolis. “I have to tell them it’s not safe.”

It’s a minor hitch as his practice ramps up again – but one of those things you can’t overlook, he said. “We need to educate our patients and communicate the risk to them.”

As practices across the United States start reopening, physicians frequently hit bumps in the road, according to Kerin Bashaw, senior vice president of patient safety and risk management for the Doctors Company, a physician-owned malpractice insurer. “It’s about minimizing risk.”

As practices increase patient volume, physicians are juggling a desire for a return to patient care and increased revenue with a need to maximize patient and staff safety. Avoiding some of these common snags may help make the transition smoother.
 

1. Unclear or nonexistent polices and protocols

Some physicians know what general rules they want to follow, but they haven’t conveyed them in a readily available document. Although you and your staff may have a sense of what they are, patients may be less aware of how mandatory you consider them. It’s important to develop a formal framework that you will follow and to make sure patients and staff know it.

Dr. Dave and colleagues have stringent safety protocols in place for the small percentage of patients he does feel a need to be seen in person. Masks are mandatory for staff and patients. The waiting room is set up for social distancing. If it begins getting crowded, patients are asked to wait in their cars until an exam room is ready.

“I’m not going to see a patient who refuses to put a mask on, because when I put a mask on, I’m trying to protect my patients,” said Dr. Dave. He makes it clear that he expects the same from his patients; they must wear a mask to protect his staff and himself.

“I am going to let them in with the caveat that they don’t have qualms about wearing a mask. If they have qualms about wearing a mask, then I have qualms about seeing them in person,” he said.

Be sure that all patients understand and will adhere to your protocols before they come to the office. Patients should be triaged over the phone before arriving, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. (Remember that refusing assessment or care could lead to issues of patient abandonment.)

When you don’t really have a framework to follow, you don’t really know what the structure is going to be and how your practice is going to provide care. The question is, how do you build a framework for right now? said Ron Holder, chief operations officer of the Medical Group Management Association. “The first step is do no harm.”
 

2. Trying to see too many patients too soon

On average, practices have reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% decrease in patient volume since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, according to the MGMA. It’s natural that many want to ramp up immediately and go back to their prior patient volume. But they need to take it slow and ensure that the correct safety protocols are in place, Mr. Holder said.

For example, telehealth is still reimbursable at parity, so physicians should keep taking advantage of that. MGMA’s practice reopening checklist has links to additional resources and considerations.

Some doctors want to see an overload of patients and want to get back to how they practiced before the pandemic, says orthopedic surgeon Charles Ruotolo, MD, president of Total Orthopedics and Sports Medicine in Massapequa, N.Y., and chairman of the department of orthopedics, Nassau University Medical Center, East Meadow, N.Y., “but at the same time, you know we still have to limit how many people are coming into the office.”

It’s not fair if some doctors in your practice are seeing 45 patients daily as they did previously whereas others are seeing half that many, he explained. “We must remain cognizant and constantly review schedules and remember we have to still keep the numbers down.”

“COVID is not going to be completely over in our lifetime,” says Evan Levine, MD, a cardiologist in Ridgefield, Conn. Taking advantage of technologies is one way to reduce risk.

He predicts that the demand will continue to increase as patients become more comfortable with virtual visits. Using Bluetooth and WiFi devices to assess patients is no longer futuristic and can help reduce the number of people in the waiting room, according to Dr. Levine, a solo practitioner and author of “What Your Doctor Won’t (or Can’t) Tell You.” “That’s a very good thing, especially as we look to fall and to flu season.”
 

3. Undercommunicating with patients and staff

Don’t assume patients know that you’ve opened back up and are seeing people in the office, Mr. Holder said. Update your practice website, send letters or newsletters to patients’ homes, maintain telephone and email contact, and post signs at the facility explaining your reopening process. The CDC has an excellent phone script that practices can adapt. Everyone should know what to expect and what’s expected of them.

He advised overcommunicating – more than you think is necessary – to your staff and patients. Tell them about the extra steps you’re taking. Let them know that their safety and health are the most important thing and that you are taking all these extra measures to make sure that they feel comfortable.

Keep staff appraised of policy changes. Stress what you’re doing to ensure the safety of your team members. “Even though you could be doing all those things, if you’re not communicating, then no one knows it,” said Mr. Holder.

He predicted the practices that emerge stronger from this crisis will be those with great patient education that have built up a lot of goodwill. Patients should know they can go to this practice’s patient portal as a trusted resource about COVID-19 and safety-related measures. This approach will pay dividends over the long term.
 

4. Giving inadequate staff training and holding too-high expectations

Staff members are scared, really scared, Ms. Bashaw said. Some may not return because they’re unsure what to expect; others may have to stay home to care for children or older relatives. Clear guidance on what is being done to ensure everyone’s safety, what is expected from staff, and flexibility with scheduling can help address these issues.

Most practices’ staff are not used to donning and removing personal protective equipment, and they’re not used to wearing masks when working with patients. Expect some mistakes.

“We had a scenario where a provider was in a room with an older patient, and the provider pulled his mask down so the patient could hear him better. He then kept the mask down while giving the patient an injection. When the family found out, they were very upset,” Ms. Bashaw related. “It was done with good intentions, to improve communication, but it’s a slip-up that could have found him liable if she became ill.”

Dr. Ruotolo had to implement new policies throughout his practice’s multiple locations in the New York metro area. They encompassed everything from staggering appointments and staff to establishing designated employee eating areas so front desk staff weren’t taking their masks off to snack.

Having specific guidelines for staff helps reassure patients that safety protocols are being adhered to. “Patients want to see we’re all doing the right thing,” he said.

Have those policies clearly written so everyone’s on the same page, Dr. Ruotolo advised. Also make sure staff knows what the rules are for patients.

Dr. Ruotolo’s reception staff hand every patient a disinfectant wipe when they arrive. They are asked to wipe down the check-in kiosk before and after using it. Assistants know not to cut corners when disinfecting exam rooms, equipment, or tables. “It’s the little things you have to think about, and make sure it’s reiterated with your staff so they’re doing it.”

If your practice isn’t back up to full staffing volume, it’s a good idea to cross train staff members so some jobs overlap, suggests Mr. Holder. Although smaller practices may already do this, at larger practices, staff members’ roles may be more specific. “You may be able to pull employees from other positions in the practice, but it’s a good idea to have some redundancy.”
 

5. Neglecting to document everything – even more so than before

The standard of care is changing every day, and so are the regulations, says Ms. Bashaw. Many physicians who work in larger practices or for health systems don’t take advantage of internal risk management departments, which can help them keep tabs on all of these changes.

Writing down simple protocols and having a consistent work flow are extremely important right now. What have you told staff and patients? Are they comfortable with how you’re minimizing their risk? Physicians can find a seven-page checklist that helps practitioners organize and methodically go through reopening process at the Doctors Company website.

Implementing state and local statutes or public health requirements and keeping track of when things stop and start can be complex, says Ms. Bashaw. Take a look at your pre–COVID-19 policies and procedures, and make sure you’re on top of the current standards for your office, including staff education. The most important step is connecting with your local public health authority and taking direction from them.

Ms. Bashaw strongly encouraged physicians to conduct huddles with their staff; it’s an evidence-based leadership practice that’s important from a medical malpractice perspective. Review the day’s game plan, then conduct a debriefing at the end of the day.

Discuss what worked well, what didn’t, and what tomorrow looks like. And be sure to document it all. “A standard routine and debrief gets everyone on the same page and shows due diligence,” she said.

Keep an administrative file so 2 years down the road, you remember what you did and when. That way, if there’s a problem or a breach or the standard isn’t adhered to, it’s documented in the file. Note what happened and when and what was done to mitigate it or what corrective action was taken.

All practices need to stay on top of regulatory changes. Smaller practices don’t have full-time staff dedicated to monitoring what’s happening in Washington. Associations such as the MGMA can help target what’s important and actionable.
 

6. Forgetting about your own and your staff’s physical and mental health

Physicians need to be worried about burnout and mental health problems from their team members, their colleagues, their patients, and themselves, according to Mr. Holder.

“There’s a mental exhaustion that is just pervasive in the world and the United States right now about all this COVID stuff and stress, not to mention all the other things that are going on,” he said.

That’s going to carry over, so physicians must make sure there’s a positive culture at the practice, where everyone’s taking care of and watching out for each other.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the defining moments in history for this generation’s health care leaders. In 2019, most of us wrongly assumed that this virus would be similar to the past viral epidemics and pandemics such as 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome–CoV in Asia, 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome–CoV in Saudi Arabia, and 2014-2016 Ebola in West Africa. Moreover, we understood that the 50% fatality rate of Ebola, a single-stranded RNA virus, was deadly on the continent of Africa, but its transmission was through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids. Hence, the infectivity of Ebola to the general public was lower than SARS-CoV-2, which is spread by respiratory droplets and contact routes in addition to being the virus that causes COVID-19.¹ Many of us did not expect that SARS-CoV-2, a single-stranded RNA virus consisting of 32 kilobytes, would reach the shores of the United States from the Hubei province of China, the northern Lombardy region of Italy, or other initial hotspots. We could not imagine its effects would be so devastating from an economic and medical perspective. Until it did.

The first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 was on Jan. 20, 2020 in Snohomish County, Wash., and the first known death from COVID-19 occurred on Feb. 6, 2020 in Santa Clara County, Calif.^2,3 Since then, the United States has lost over 135,000 people from COVID-19 with death(s) reported in every state and the highest number of overall deaths of any country in the world.⁴ At the beginning of 2020, at our institution, Wake Forest Baptist Health System in Winston-Salem, N.C., we began preparing for the wave, surge, or tsunami of inpatients that was coming. Plans were afoot to increase our staff, even perhaps by hiring out-of-state physicians and nurses if needed, and every possible bed was considered within the system. It was not an if, but rather a when, as to the arrival of COVID-19.

Epidemiologists and biostatisticians developed predictive COVID-19 models so that health care leaders could plan accordingly, especially those patients that required critical care or inpatient medical care. These predictive models have been used across the globe and can be categorized into three groups: Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered, Agent-Based, and Curve Fitting Extrapolation.⁵ Our original predictions were based on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model from Washington state (Curve Fitting Extrapolation). It creates projections from COVID-19 mortality data and assumes a 3% infection rate. Other health systems in our region used the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics–University of Pennsylvania model. It pins its suppositions on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regional infection rates, and hospital market shares. Lastly, the agent-based mode, such as the Global Epidemic and Mobility Project, takes simulated populations and forecasts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 anchoring on the interplay of individuals and groups. The assumptions are created secondary to the interactions of people, time, health care interventions, and public health policies.

Based on these predictive simulations, health systems have spent countless hours of planning and have utilized resources for the anticipated needs related to beds, ventilators, supplies, and staffing. Frontline staff were retrained how to don and doff personal protective equipment. Our teams were ready if we saw a wave of 250, a surge of 500, or a tsunami of 750 COVID-19 inpatients. We were prepared to run into the fire fully knowing the personal risks and consequences.

But, as yet, the tsunami in North Carolina has never come. On April 21, 2020, the COVID-19 mortality data in North Carolina peaked at 34 deaths, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,510 as of July 13, 2020.⁶ A surge did not hit our institutional shores at Wake Forest Baptist Health. As we looked through the proverbial back window and hear about the tsunami in Houston, Texas, we are very thankful that the tsunami turned out to be a small wave so far in North Carolina. We are grateful that there were fewer deaths than expected. The dust is settling now and the question, spoken or unspoken, is: “How could we be so wrong with our predictions?”

Models have strengths and weaknesses and none are perfect.⁷ There is an old aphorism in statistics that is often attributed to George Box that says: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”⁸ Predictions and projections are good, but not perfect. Our measurements and tests should not only be accurate, but also be as precise as possible.⁹ Moreover, the assumptions we make should be on solid ground. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there may have been undercounts and delays in reporting. The assumptions of the effects of social distancing may have been inaccurate. Just as important, the lack of early testing in our pandemic and the relatively limited testing currently available provide challenges not only in attributing past deaths to COVID-19, but also with planning and public health measures. To be fair, the tsunami that turned out to be a small wave in North Carolina may be caused by the strong leadership from politicians, public health officials, and health system leaders for their stay-at-home decree and vigorous public health measures in our state.

Some of the health systems in the United States have created “reemergence plans” to care for those patients who have stayed at home for the past several months. Elective surgeries and procedures have begun in different regions of the United States and will likely continue reopening into the late summer. Nevertheless, challenges and opportunities continue to abound during these difficult times of COVID-19. The tsunamis or surges will continue to occur in the United States and the premature reopening of some of the public places and businesses have not helped our collective efforts. In addition, the personal costs have been and will be immeasurable. Many of us have lost loved ones, been laid off, or face mental health crises because of the social isolation and false news.

COVID-19 is here to stay and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Health care providers have been literally risking their lives to serve the public and we will continue to do so. Hitting the target of needed inpatient beds and critical care beds is critically important and is tough without accurate data. We simply have inadequate and unreliable data of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence rates in the communities that we serve. More available testing would allow frontline health care providers and health care leaders to match hospital demand to supply, at individual hospitals and within the health care system. Moreover, contact tracing capabilities would give us the opportunity to isolate individuals and extinguish population-based hotspots.

We may have seen the first wave, but other waves of COVID-19 in North Carolina are sure to come. Since the partial reopening of North Carolina on May 8, 2020, coupled with pockets of nonadherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we expect a second wave sooner rather than later. Interestingly, daily new lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Carolina have been on the rise, with the highest one-day total occurring on June 12, 2020 with 1,768 cases reported.⁶ As a result, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, placed a temporary pause on the Phase 2 reopening plan and mandated masks in public on June 24, 2020. It is unclear whether these intermittent daily spikes in lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are a foreshadowing of our next wave, surge, or tsunami, or just an anomaly. Only time will tell, but as Jim Kim, MD, PhD, has stated so well, there is still time for social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.¹⁰ There is still time for us, for our loved ones, for our hospital systems, and for our public health system.

Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Lippert is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Mr. Payne is the associate vice president of Wake Forest Baptist Health. He is responsible for engineering, facilities planning & design as well as environmental health and safety departments. Dr. Pariyadath is comedical director of the Patient Flow Operations Center which facilitates patient placement throughout the Wake Forest Baptist Health system. He is also the associate medical director for the adult emergency department. Dr. Sunkara is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. He is the medical director for hospital medicine units and the newly established PUI unit.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Julie Freischlag, MD; Kevin High, MD, MS; Gary Rosenthal, MD; Wayne Meredith, MD;Russ Howerton, MD; Mike Waid, Andrea Fernandez, MD; Brian Hiestand, MD; the Wake Forest Baptist Health System COVID-19 task force, the Operations Center, and the countless frontline staff at all five hospitals within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.

References

1. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020 June 30. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.

2. Holshue et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 929-36.

3. Fuller T, Baker M. Coronavirus death in California came weeks before first known U.S. death. New York Times. 2020 Apr 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-first-united-states-death.html.

4. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map. Accessed 2020 May 28.

5. Michaud J et al. COVID-19 models: Can they tell us what we want to know? 2020 April 16. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-policy-watch/covid-19-models.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed 2020 June 30.

7. Jewell N et al. Caution warranted: Using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model for predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1-3.

8. Box G. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;71:791-9.

9. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-34.

10. Kim J. It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus. The New Yorker. 2020 Apr 20. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/its-not-too-late-to-go-on-offense-against-the-coronavirus.

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the defining moments in history for this generation’s health care leaders. In 2019, most of us wrongly assumed that this virus would be similar to the past viral epidemics and pandemics such as 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome–CoV in Asia, 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome–CoV in Saudi Arabia, and 2014-2016 Ebola in West Africa. Moreover, we understood that the 50% fatality rate of Ebola, a single-stranded RNA virus, was deadly on the continent of Africa, but its transmission was through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids. Hence, the infectivity of Ebola to the general public was lower than SARS-CoV-2, which is spread by respiratory droplets and contact routes in addition to being the virus that causes COVID-19.¹ Many of us did not expect that SARS-CoV-2, a single-stranded RNA virus consisting of 32 kilobytes, would reach the shores of the United States from the Hubei province of China, the northern Lombardy region of Italy, or other initial hotspots. We could not imagine its effects would be so devastating from an economic and medical perspective. Until it did.

The first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 was on Jan. 20, 2020 in Snohomish County, Wash., and the first known death from COVID-19 occurred on Feb. 6, 2020 in Santa Clara County, Calif.^2,3 Since then, the United States has lost over 135,000 people from COVID-19 with death(s) reported in every state and the highest number of overall deaths of any country in the world.⁴ At the beginning of 2020, at our institution, Wake Forest Baptist Health System in Winston-Salem, N.C., we began preparing for the wave, surge, or tsunami of inpatients that was coming. Plans were afoot to increase our staff, even perhaps by hiring out-of-state physicians and nurses if needed, and every possible bed was considered within the system. It was not an if, but rather a when, as to the arrival of COVID-19.

Epidemiologists and biostatisticians developed predictive COVID-19 models so that health care leaders could plan accordingly, especially those patients that required critical care or inpatient medical care. These predictive models have been used across the globe and can be categorized into three groups: Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered, Agent-Based, and Curve Fitting Extrapolation.⁵ Our original predictions were based on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model from Washington state (Curve Fitting Extrapolation). It creates projections from COVID-19 mortality data and assumes a 3% infection rate. Other health systems in our region used the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics–University of Pennsylvania model. It pins its suppositions on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regional infection rates, and hospital market shares. Lastly, the agent-based mode, such as the Global Epidemic and Mobility Project, takes simulated populations and forecasts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 anchoring on the interplay of individuals and groups. The assumptions are created secondary to the interactions of people, time, health care interventions, and public health policies.

Based on these predictive simulations, health systems have spent countless hours of planning and have utilized resources for the anticipated needs related to beds, ventilators, supplies, and staffing. Frontline staff were retrained how to don and doff personal protective equipment. Our teams were ready if we saw a wave of 250, a surge of 500, or a tsunami of 750 COVID-19 inpatients. We were prepared to run into the fire fully knowing the personal risks and consequences.

But, as yet, the tsunami in North Carolina has never come. On April 21, 2020, the COVID-19 mortality data in North Carolina peaked at 34 deaths, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,510 as of July 13, 2020.⁶ A surge did not hit our institutional shores at Wake Forest Baptist Health. As we looked through the proverbial back window and hear about the tsunami in Houston, Texas, we are very thankful that the tsunami turned out to be a small wave so far in North Carolina. We are grateful that there were fewer deaths than expected. The dust is settling now and the question, spoken or unspoken, is: “How could we be so wrong with our predictions?”

Models have strengths and weaknesses and none are perfect.⁷ There is an old aphorism in statistics that is often attributed to George Box that says: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”⁸ Predictions and projections are good, but not perfect. Our measurements and tests should not only be accurate, but also be as precise as possible.⁹ Moreover, the assumptions we make should be on solid ground. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there may have been undercounts and delays in reporting. The assumptions of the effects of social distancing may have been inaccurate. Just as important, the lack of early testing in our pandemic and the relatively limited testing currently available provide challenges not only in attributing past deaths to COVID-19, but also with planning and public health measures. To be fair, the tsunami that turned out to be a small wave in North Carolina may be caused by the strong leadership from politicians, public health officials, and health system leaders for their stay-at-home decree and vigorous public health measures in our state.

Some of the health systems in the United States have created “reemergence plans” to care for those patients who have stayed at home for the past several months. Elective surgeries and procedures have begun in different regions of the United States and will likely continue reopening into the late summer. Nevertheless, challenges and opportunities continue to abound during these difficult times of COVID-19. The tsunamis or surges will continue to occur in the United States and the premature reopening of some of the public places and businesses have not helped our collective efforts. In addition, the personal costs have been and will be immeasurable. Many of us have lost loved ones, been laid off, or face mental health crises because of the social isolation and false news.

COVID-19 is here to stay and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Health care providers have been literally risking their lives to serve the public and we will continue to do so. Hitting the target of needed inpatient beds and critical care beds is critically important and is tough without accurate data. We simply have inadequate and unreliable data of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence rates in the communities that we serve. More available testing would allow frontline health care providers and health care leaders to match hospital demand to supply, at individual hospitals and within the health care system. Moreover, contact tracing capabilities would give us the opportunity to isolate individuals and extinguish population-based hotspots.

We may have seen the first wave, but other waves of COVID-19 in North Carolina are sure to come. Since the partial reopening of North Carolina on May 8, 2020, coupled with pockets of nonadherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we expect a second wave sooner rather than later. Interestingly, daily new lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Carolina have been on the rise, with the highest one-day total occurring on June 12, 2020 with 1,768 cases reported.⁶ As a result, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, placed a temporary pause on the Phase 2 reopening plan and mandated masks in public on June 24, 2020. It is unclear whether these intermittent daily spikes in lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are a foreshadowing of our next wave, surge, or tsunami, or just an anomaly. Only time will tell, but as Jim Kim, MD, PhD, has stated so well, there is still time for social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.¹⁰ There is still time for us, for our loved ones, for our hospital systems, and for our public health system.

Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Lippert is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Mr. Payne is the associate vice president of Wake Forest Baptist Health. He is responsible for engineering, facilities planning & design as well as environmental health and safety departments. Dr. Pariyadath is comedical director of the Patient Flow Operations Center which facilitates patient placement throughout the Wake Forest Baptist Health system. He is also the associate medical director for the adult emergency department. Dr. Sunkara is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. He is the medical director for hospital medicine units and the newly established PUI unit.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Julie Freischlag, MD; Kevin High, MD, MS; Gary Rosenthal, MD; Wayne Meredith, MD;Russ Howerton, MD; Mike Waid, Andrea Fernandez, MD; Brian Hiestand, MD; the Wake Forest Baptist Health System COVID-19 task force, the Operations Center, and the countless frontline staff at all five hospitals within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.

References

1. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020 June 30. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.

2. Holshue et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 929-36.

3. Fuller T, Baker M. Coronavirus death in California came weeks before first known U.S. death. New York Times. 2020 Apr 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-first-united-states-death.html.

4. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map. Accessed 2020 May 28.

5. Michaud J et al. COVID-19 models: Can they tell us what we want to know? 2020 April 16. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-policy-watch/covid-19-models.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed 2020 June 30.

7. Jewell N et al. Caution warranted: Using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model for predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1-3.

8. Box G. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;71:791-9.

9. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-34.

10. Kim J. It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus. The New Yorker. 2020 Apr 20. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/its-not-too-late-to-go-on-offense-against-the-coronavirus.

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the defining moments in history for this generation’s health care leaders. In 2019, most of us wrongly assumed that this virus would be similar to the past viral epidemics and pandemics such as 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome–CoV in Asia, 2009 H1N1 influenza in the United States, 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome–CoV in Saudi Arabia, and 2014-2016 Ebola in West Africa. Moreover, we understood that the 50% fatality rate of Ebola, a single-stranded RNA virus, was deadly on the continent of Africa, but its transmission was through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids. Hence, the infectivity of Ebola to the general public was lower than SARS-CoV-2, which is spread by respiratory droplets and contact routes in addition to being the virus that causes COVID-19.¹ Many of us did not expect that SARS-CoV-2, a single-stranded RNA virus consisting of 32 kilobytes, would reach the shores of the United States from the Hubei province of China, the northern Lombardy region of Italy, or other initial hotspots. We could not imagine its effects would be so devastating from an economic and medical perspective. Until it did.

The first reported case of SARS-CoV-2 was on Jan. 20, 2020 in Snohomish County, Wash., and the first known death from COVID-19 occurred on Feb. 6, 2020 in Santa Clara County, Calif.^2,3 Since then, the United States has lost over 135,000 people from COVID-19 with death(s) reported in every state and the highest number of overall deaths of any country in the world.⁴ At the beginning of 2020, at our institution, Wake Forest Baptist Health System in Winston-Salem, N.C., we began preparing for the wave, surge, or tsunami of inpatients that was coming. Plans were afoot to increase our staff, even perhaps by hiring out-of-state physicians and nurses if needed, and every possible bed was considered within the system. It was not an if, but rather a when, as to the arrival of COVID-19.

Epidemiologists and biostatisticians developed predictive COVID-19 models so that health care leaders could plan accordingly, especially those patients that required critical care or inpatient medical care. These predictive models have been used across the globe and can be categorized into three groups: Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered, Agent-Based, and Curve Fitting Extrapolation.⁵ Our original predictions were based on the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model from Washington state (Curve Fitting Extrapolation). It creates projections from COVID-19 mortality data and assumes a 3% infection rate. Other health systems in our region used the COVID-19 Hospital Impact Model for Epidemics–University of Pennsylvania model. It pins its suppositions on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, regional infection rates, and hospital market shares. Lastly, the agent-based mode, such as the Global Epidemic and Mobility Project, takes simulated populations and forecasts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 anchoring on the interplay of individuals and groups. The assumptions are created secondary to the interactions of people, time, health care interventions, and public health policies.

Based on these predictive simulations, health systems have spent countless hours of planning and have utilized resources for the anticipated needs related to beds, ventilators, supplies, and staffing. Frontline staff were retrained how to don and doff personal protective equipment. Our teams were ready if we saw a wave of 250, a surge of 500, or a tsunami of 750 COVID-19 inpatients. We were prepared to run into the fire fully knowing the personal risks and consequences.

But, as yet, the tsunami in North Carolina has never come. On April 21, 2020, the COVID-19 mortality data in North Carolina peaked at 34 deaths, with the total number of deaths standing at 1,510 as of July 13, 2020.⁶ A surge did not hit our institutional shores at Wake Forest Baptist Health. As we looked through the proverbial back window and hear about the tsunami in Houston, Texas, we are very thankful that the tsunami turned out to be a small wave so far in North Carolina. We are grateful that there were fewer deaths than expected. The dust is settling now and the question, spoken or unspoken, is: “How could we be so wrong with our predictions?”

Models have strengths and weaknesses and none are perfect.⁷ There is an old aphorism in statistics that is often attributed to George Box that says: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”⁸ Predictions and projections are good, but not perfect. Our measurements and tests should not only be accurate, but also be as precise as possible.⁹ Moreover, the assumptions we make should be on solid ground. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there may have been undercounts and delays in reporting. The assumptions of the effects of social distancing may have been inaccurate. Just as important, the lack of early testing in our pandemic and the relatively limited testing currently available provide challenges not only in attributing past deaths to COVID-19, but also with planning and public health measures. To be fair, the tsunami that turned out to be a small wave in North Carolina may be caused by the strong leadership from politicians, public health officials, and health system leaders for their stay-at-home decree and vigorous public health measures in our state.

Some of the health systems in the United States have created “reemergence plans” to care for those patients who have stayed at home for the past several months. Elective surgeries and procedures have begun in different regions of the United States and will likely continue reopening into the late summer. Nevertheless, challenges and opportunities continue to abound during these difficult times of COVID-19. The tsunamis or surges will continue to occur in the United States and the premature reopening of some of the public places and businesses have not helped our collective efforts. In addition, the personal costs have been and will be immeasurable. Many of us have lost loved ones, been laid off, or face mental health crises because of the social isolation and false news.

COVID-19 is here to stay and will be with us for the foreseeable future. Health care providers have been literally risking their lives to serve the public and we will continue to do so. Hitting the target of needed inpatient beds and critical care beds is critically important and is tough without accurate data. We simply have inadequate and unreliable data of COVID-19 incidence and prevalence rates in the communities that we serve. More available testing would allow frontline health care providers and health care leaders to match hospital demand to supply, at individual hospitals and within the health care system. Moreover, contact tracing capabilities would give us the opportunity to isolate individuals and extinguish population-based hotspots.

We may have seen the first wave, but other waves of COVID-19 in North Carolina are sure to come. Since the partial reopening of North Carolina on May 8, 2020, coupled with pockets of nonadherence to social distancing and mask wearing, we expect a second wave sooner rather than later. Interestingly, daily new lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in North Carolina have been on the rise, with the highest one-day total occurring on June 12, 2020 with 1,768 cases reported.⁶ As a result, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, placed a temporary pause on the Phase 2 reopening plan and mandated masks in public on June 24, 2020. It is unclear whether these intermittent daily spikes in lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases are a foreshadowing of our next wave, surge, or tsunami, or just an anomaly. Only time will tell, but as Jim Kim, MD, PhD, has stated so well, there is still time for social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.¹⁰ There is still time for us, for our loved ones, for our hospital systems, and for our public health system.

Dr. Huang is the executive medical director and service line director of general medicine and hospital medicine within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System and associate professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Dr. Lippert is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. Mr. Payne is the associate vice president of Wake Forest Baptist Health. He is responsible for engineering, facilities planning & design as well as environmental health and safety departments. Dr. Pariyadath is comedical director of the Patient Flow Operations Center which facilitates patient placement throughout the Wake Forest Baptist Health system. He is also the associate medical director for the adult emergency department. Dr. Sunkara is assistant professor of internal medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine. He is the medical director for hospital medicine units and the newly established PUI unit.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Julie Freischlag, MD; Kevin High, MD, MS; Gary Rosenthal, MD; Wayne Meredith, MD;Russ Howerton, MD; Mike Waid, Andrea Fernandez, MD; Brian Hiestand, MD; the Wake Forest Baptist Health System COVID-19 task force, the Operations Center, and the countless frontline staff at all five hospitals within the Wake Forest Baptist Health System.

References

1. World Health Organization. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020 June 30. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations.

2. Holshue et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 929-36.

3. Fuller T, Baker M. Coronavirus death in California came weeks before first known U.S. death. New York Times. 2020 Apr 22. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/coronavirus-first-united-states-death.html.

4. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map. Accessed 2020 May 28.

5. Michaud J et al. COVID-19 models: Can they tell us what we want to know? 2020 April 16. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-policy-watch/covid-19-models.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed 2020 June 30.

7. Jewell N et al. Caution warranted: Using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Model for predicting the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1-3.

8. Box G. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1972;71:791-9.

9. Shapiro DE. The interpretation of diagnostic tests. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:113-34.

10. Kim J. It is not too late to go on the offense against the coronavirus. The New Yorker. 2020 Apr 20. https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/its-not-too-late-to-go-on-offense-against-the-coronavirus.

A combined analysis of 10 prospective trials, intended to shed light on racial disparities in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes, saw sharply higher risks of death and myocardial infarction (MI) for Blacks compared with Whites.

The burden of comorbidities, including diabetes, was greater for Hispanics and Blacks, compared with Whites, but only in Blacks were PCI outcomes significantly worse even after controlling for such conditions and other baseline risk factors.

The analysis based on more than 22,000 patients was published July 6 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions,with lead author Mordechai Golomb, MD, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York.

In the study based on patient-level data from the different trials, the adjusted risk of MI after PCI was increased 45% at 1 year and 55% after 5 years for Blacks, compared with Whites. Their risk of death at 1 year was doubled, and their risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was up by 28% at 5 years.

“Improving health care and outcomes for minorities is essential, and we are hopeful that our work may help direct these efforts, senior author Gregg W. Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“But this won’t happen without active, concerted efforts to promote change and opportunity, a task for government, regulators, payers, hospital administrators, physicians, and all health care providers,” he said. “Understanding patient outcomes according to race and ethnicity is essential to optimize health for all patients,” but “most prior studies in this regard have looked at population-based data.”

In contrast, the current study used hospital source records – which are considered more accurate than administrative databases – and event coding reports, Dr. Stone said, plus angiographic core laboratory analyses for all patients, which allows “an independent assessment of the extent and type of coronary artery disease and procedural outcomes.”

The analysis “demonstrated that even when upfront treatments are presumably similar [across racial groups] in a clinical trial setting, longitudinal outcomes still differ by race,” Michael Nanna, MD, said in an interview.

The “troubling” results “highlight the persistence of racial disparities in health care and the need to renew our focus on closing these gaps [and] is yet another call to action for clinicians, researchers, and the health care system at large,” said Dr. Nanna, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and lead author on an editorial accompanying the published analysis.

Of the 10 randomized controlled trials included in the study, which encompassed 22,638 patients, 9 were stent comparisons and 1 compared antithrombotic regimens in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), the authors noted. The median follow-up was about 1,100 days.

White patients made up 90.9% of the combined cohort, Black patients comprised 4.1%, Hispanics 2.1%, and Asians 1.8% – figures that “confirm the well-known fact that minority groups are underrepresented in clinical trials,” Dr. Stone said.

There were notable demographic and clinical differences at baseline between the four groups.

For example, Black patients tended to be younger than White, Hispanic, and Asian patients. Black and Hispanic patients were also less likely to be male, compared with White patients.

Both Black and Hispanic patients had more comorbidities than Whites did at baseline, the authors observe. For example, Black and Hispanic patients had a greater body mass index, compared with Whites, whereas it was lower for Asians; and they had more diabetes and more hypertension than Whites (P < .0001 for all differences). Hispanics were more likely to have ACS at baseline, compared with Whites, and less likely to have stable coronary artery disease (CAD) (P < .0001 for all differences). Similar proportions of Blacks and of Whites had stable CAD (about 32% of each) and ACS (about 68% in both cases). Rates of hyperlipidemia and stable CAD were greater and rates of ACS was lower in Asians than the other three race groups (P < .0001 for each difference). In adjusted analysis, the risk of MACE at 5 years was significantly increased for Blacks, compared with Whites (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.57; P = .01). The same applied to MI (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.15-2.09; P = .004). At 1 year, Blacks showed higher risks for death (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.26-3.36; P = .004) and for MI (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10; P = .045), compared with Whites.

No significant increases in risk for outcomes at 1 and 5 years were seen for Hispanics or Asians, compared with Whites.

Covariates in the analyses included age, sex, body mass index, diabetes, current smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, history of MI or coronary revascularization, clinical CAD presentation, category of stent, and race stratified by study.

Even with underlying genotypic differences between Blacks and Whites, much of the difference in risk for outcomes “should have been accounted for when the researchers adjusted for these clinical phenotypes,” the editorial notes.

Some of the difference in risk must have derived from uncontrolled-for variables, and “[b]eyond genetics, it is clear that race is also a surrogate for other socioeconomic factors that influence both medical care and patient outcomes,” the editorialists wrote.

The adjusted analysis, noted Golomb et al, suggests “that for Hispanic patients, the excess risk for adverse clinical outcomes may have been attributable to a higher prevalence of risk factors. In contrast, the excess risk for adverse clinical outcomes for Black patients persisted even after adjustment for baseline risk factors.”

As such, they agreed: “The observed increased risk may be explained by differences that are not fully captured in traditional cardiovascular risk factor assessment, including socioeconomic differences and education, treatment compliance rates, and yet-to-be-elucidated genetic differences and/or other factors.”

Dr. Stone said that such socioeconomic considerations may include reduced access to care and insurance coverage; lack of preventive care, disease awareness, and education; delayed presentation; and varying levels of provided care.

“Possible genetic or environmental-related differences in the development and progression of atherosclerosis and other disease processes” may also be involved.

“Achieving representative proportions of minorities in clinical trials is essential but has proved challenging,” Dr. Stone said. “We must ensure that adequate numbers of hospitals and providers that are serving these patients participate in multicenter trials, and trust has to be developed so that minority populations have confidence to enroll in studies.”

Dr. Stone reported holding equity options in Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, the Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestro Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, the MedFocus family of funds, and Valfix and receiving consulting fees from Valfix, TherOx, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore Ablative Solutions, Miracor, Neovasc, W-Wave, Abiomed, and others. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Nanna reports no relevant financial relationships; other coauthor disclosures are provided with the editorial.

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

A combined analysis of 10 prospective trials, intended to shed light on racial disparities in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes, saw sharply higher risks of death and myocardial infarction (MI) for Blacks compared with Whites.

The burden of comorbidities, including diabetes, was greater for Hispanics and Blacks, compared with Whites, but only in Blacks were PCI outcomes significantly worse even after controlling for such conditions and other baseline risk factors.

The analysis based on more than 22,000 patients was published July 6 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions,with lead author Mordechai Golomb, MD, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York.

In the study based on patient-level data from the different trials, the adjusted risk of MI after PCI was increased 45% at 1 year and 55% after 5 years for Blacks, compared with Whites. Their risk of death at 1 year was doubled, and their risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was up by 28% at 5 years.

“Improving health care and outcomes for minorities is essential, and we are hopeful that our work may help direct these efforts, senior author Gregg W. Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“But this won’t happen without active, concerted efforts to promote change and opportunity, a task for government, regulators, payers, hospital administrators, physicians, and all health care providers,” he said. “Understanding patient outcomes according to race and ethnicity is essential to optimize health for all patients,” but “most prior studies in this regard have looked at population-based data.”

In contrast, the current study used hospital source records – which are considered more accurate than administrative databases – and event coding reports, Dr. Stone said, plus angiographic core laboratory analyses for all patients, which allows “an independent assessment of the extent and type of coronary artery disease and procedural outcomes.”

The analysis “demonstrated that even when upfront treatments are presumably similar [across racial groups] in a clinical trial setting, longitudinal outcomes still differ by race,” Michael Nanna, MD, said in an interview.

The “troubling” results “highlight the persistence of racial disparities in health care and the need to renew our focus on closing these gaps [and] is yet another call to action for clinicians, researchers, and the health care system at large,” said Dr. Nanna, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and lead author on an editorial accompanying the published analysis.

Of the 10 randomized controlled trials included in the study, which encompassed 22,638 patients, 9 were stent comparisons and 1 compared antithrombotic regimens in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), the authors noted. The median follow-up was about 1,100 days.

White patients made up 90.9% of the combined cohort, Black patients comprised 4.1%, Hispanics 2.1%, and Asians 1.8% – figures that “confirm the well-known fact that minority groups are underrepresented in clinical trials,” Dr. Stone said.

There were notable demographic and clinical differences at baseline between the four groups.

For example, Black patients tended to be younger than White, Hispanic, and Asian patients. Black and Hispanic patients were also less likely to be male, compared with White patients.

Both Black and Hispanic patients had more comorbidities than Whites did at baseline, the authors observe. For example, Black and Hispanic patients had a greater body mass index, compared with Whites, whereas it was lower for Asians; and they had more diabetes and more hypertension than Whites (P < .0001 for all differences). Hispanics were more likely to have ACS at baseline, compared with Whites, and less likely to have stable coronary artery disease (CAD) (P < .0001 for all differences). Similar proportions of Blacks and of Whites had stable CAD (about 32% of each) and ACS (about 68% in both cases). Rates of hyperlipidemia and stable CAD were greater and rates of ACS was lower in Asians than the other three race groups (P < .0001 for each difference). In adjusted analysis, the risk of MACE at 5 years was significantly increased for Blacks, compared with Whites (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.57; P = .01). The same applied to MI (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.15-2.09; P = .004). At 1 year, Blacks showed higher risks for death (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.26-3.36; P = .004) and for MI (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10; P = .045), compared with Whites.

No significant increases in risk for outcomes at 1 and 5 years were seen for Hispanics or Asians, compared with Whites.

Covariates in the analyses included age, sex, body mass index, diabetes, current smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, history of MI or coronary revascularization, clinical CAD presentation, category of stent, and race stratified by study.

Even with underlying genotypic differences between Blacks and Whites, much of the difference in risk for outcomes “should have been accounted for when the researchers adjusted for these clinical phenotypes,” the editorial notes.

Some of the difference in risk must have derived from uncontrolled-for variables, and “[b]eyond genetics, it is clear that race is also a surrogate for other socioeconomic factors that influence both medical care and patient outcomes,” the editorialists wrote.

The adjusted analysis, noted Golomb et al, suggests “that for Hispanic patients, the excess risk for adverse clinical outcomes may have been attributable to a higher prevalence of risk factors. In contrast, the excess risk for adverse clinical outcomes for Black patients persisted even after adjustment for baseline risk factors.”

As such, they agreed: “The observed increased risk may be explained by differences that are not fully captured in traditional cardiovascular risk factor assessment, including socioeconomic differences and education, treatment compliance rates, and yet-to-be-elucidated genetic differences and/or other factors.”

Dr. Stone said that such socioeconomic considerations may include reduced access to care and insurance coverage; lack of preventive care, disease awareness, and education; delayed presentation; and varying levels of provided care.

“Possible genetic or environmental-related differences in the development and progression of atherosclerosis and other disease processes” may also be involved.

“Achieving representative proportions of minorities in clinical trials is essential but has proved challenging,” Dr. Stone said. “We must ensure that adequate numbers of hospitals and providers that are serving these patients participate in multicenter trials, and trust has to be developed so that minority populations have confidence to enroll in studies.”

Dr. Stone reported holding equity options in Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, the Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestro Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, the MedFocus family of funds, and Valfix and receiving consulting fees from Valfix, TherOx, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore Ablative Solutions, Miracor, Neovasc, W-Wave, Abiomed, and others. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Nanna reports no relevant financial relationships; other coauthor disclosures are provided with the editorial.

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

A combined analysis of 10 prospective trials, intended to shed light on racial disparities in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes, saw sharply higher risks of death and myocardial infarction (MI) for Blacks compared with Whites.

The burden of comorbidities, including diabetes, was greater for Hispanics and Blacks, compared with Whites, but only in Blacks were PCI outcomes significantly worse even after controlling for such conditions and other baseline risk factors.

The analysis based on more than 22,000 patients was published July 6 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions,with lead author Mordechai Golomb, MD, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York.

In the study based on patient-level data from the different trials, the adjusted risk of MI after PCI was increased 45% at 1 year and 55% after 5 years for Blacks, compared with Whites. Their risk of death at 1 year was doubled, and their risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was up by 28% at 5 years.

“Improving health care and outcomes for minorities is essential, and we are hopeful that our work may help direct these efforts, senior author Gregg W. Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“But this won’t happen without active, concerted efforts to promote change and opportunity, a task for government, regulators, payers, hospital administrators, physicians, and all health care providers,” he said. “Understanding patient outcomes according to race and ethnicity is essential to optimize health for all patients,” but “most prior studies in this regard have looked at population-based data.”

In contrast, the current study used hospital source records – which are considered more accurate than administrative databases – and event coding reports, Dr. Stone said, plus angiographic core laboratory analyses for all patients, which allows “an independent assessment of the extent and type of coronary artery disease and procedural outcomes.”

The analysis “demonstrated that even when upfront treatments are presumably similar [across racial groups] in a clinical trial setting, longitudinal outcomes still differ by race,” Michael Nanna, MD, said in an interview.

The “troubling” results “highlight the persistence of racial disparities in health care and the need to renew our focus on closing these gaps [and] is yet another call to action for clinicians, researchers, and the health care system at large,” said Dr. Nanna, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and lead author on an editorial accompanying the published analysis.

Of the 10 randomized controlled trials included in the study, which encompassed 22,638 patients, 9 were stent comparisons and 1 compared antithrombotic regimens in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), the authors noted. The median follow-up was about 1,100 days.

White patients made up 90.9% of the combined cohort, Black patients comprised 4.1%, Hispanics 2.1%, and Asians 1.8% – figures that “confirm the well-known fact that minority groups are underrepresented in clinical trials,” Dr. Stone said.

There were notable demographic and clinical differences at baseline between the four groups.

For example, Black patients tended to be younger than White, Hispanic, and Asian patients. Black and Hispanic patients were also less likely to be male, compared with White patients.

Both Black and Hispanic patients had more comorbidities than Whites did at baseline, the authors observe. For example, Black and Hispanic patients had a greater body mass index, compared with Whites, whereas it was lower for Asians; and they had more diabetes and more hypertension than Whites (P < .0001 for all differences). Hispanics were more likely to have ACS at baseline, compared with Whites, and less likely to have stable coronary artery disease (CAD) (P < .0001 for all differences). Similar proportions of Blacks and of Whites had stable CAD (about 32% of each) and ACS (about 68% in both cases). Rates of hyperlipidemia and stable CAD were greater and rates of ACS was lower in Asians than the other three race groups (P < .0001 for each difference). In adjusted analysis, the risk of MACE at 5 years was significantly increased for Blacks, compared with Whites (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.57; P = .01). The same applied to MI (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.15-2.09; P = .004). At 1 year, Blacks showed higher risks for death (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.26-3.36; P = .004) and for MI (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10; P = .045), compared with Whites.

No significant increases in risk for outcomes at 1 and 5 years were seen for Hispanics or Asians, compared with Whites.

Covariates in the analyses included age, sex, body mass index, diabetes, current smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, history of MI or coronary revascularization, clinical CAD presentation, category of stent, and race stratified by study.

Even with underlying genotypic differences between Blacks and Whites, much of the difference in risk for outcomes “should have been accounted for when the researchers adjusted for these clinical phenotypes,” the editorial notes.

Some of the difference in risk must have derived from uncontrolled-for variables, and “[b]eyond genetics, it is clear that race is also a surrogate for other socioeconomic factors that influence both medical care and patient outcomes,” the editorialists wrote.

The adjusted analysis, noted Golomb et al, suggests “that for Hispanic patients, the excess risk for adverse clinical outcomes may have been attributable to a higher prevalence of risk factors. In contrast, the excess risk for adverse clinical outcomes for Black patients persisted even after adjustment for baseline risk factors.”

As such, they agreed: “The observed increased risk may be explained by differences that are not fully captured in traditional cardiovascular risk factor assessment, including socioeconomic differences and education, treatment compliance rates, and yet-to-be-elucidated genetic differences and/or other factors.”

Dr. Stone said that such socioeconomic considerations may include reduced access to care and insurance coverage; lack of preventive care, disease awareness, and education; delayed presentation; and varying levels of provided care.

“Possible genetic or environmental-related differences in the development and progression of atherosclerosis and other disease processes” may also be involved.

“Achieving representative proportions of minorities in clinical trials is essential but has proved challenging,” Dr. Stone said. “We must ensure that adequate numbers of hospitals and providers that are serving these patients participate in multicenter trials, and trust has to be developed so that minority populations have confidence to enroll in studies.”

Dr. Stone reported holding equity options in Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, the Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestro Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, the MedFocus family of funds, and Valfix and receiving consulting fees from Valfix, TherOx, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore Ablative Solutions, Miracor, Neovasc, W-Wave, Abiomed, and others. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Nanna reports no relevant financial relationships; other coauthor disclosures are provided with the editorial.

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

An inexpensive two-drug regimen of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi, Gilead Sciences) plus daclatasvir (Daklinza, Bristol-Myers Squibb) taken for 14 days significantly reduced time to recovery from COVID-19 and improved survival in people hospitalized with severe disease, research from an open-label Iranian study shows.

And the good news is that the treatment combination “already has a well-established safety profile in the treatment of hepatitis C,” said investigator Andrew Hill, PhD, from the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.

But although the results look promising, they are preliminary, he cautioned. The combination could follow the path of ritonavir plus lopinavir (Kaletra, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals) or hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil, Sanofi Pharmaceuticals), which showed promise early but did not perform as hoped in large randomized controlled trials.

“We need to remember that conducting research amidst a pandemic with overwhelmed hospitals is a clear challenge, and we cannot be sure of success,” he added.

Three Trials, 176 Patients

Data collected during a four-site trial of the combination treatment in Tehran during an early spike in cases in Iran were presented at the Virtual COVID-19 Conference 2020 by Hannah Wentzel, a masters student in public health at Imperial College London and a member of Hill’s team.

All 66 study participants were diagnosed with moderate to severe COVID-19 and were treated with standard care, which consisted of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily with or without the combination of lopinavir plus ritonavir 250 mg twice daily.

The 33 patients randomized to the treatment group also received the combination of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir 460 mg once daily. These patients were slightly younger and more likely to be men than were those in the standard-care group, but the differences were not significant.

All participants were treated for 14 days, and then the researchers assessed fever, respiration rate, and blood oxygen saturation.

More patients in the treatment group than in the standard-care group had recovered at 14 days (88% vs 67%), but the difference was not significant.

However, median time to clinical recovery, which took into account death as a competing risk, was significantly faster in the treatment group than in the standard-care group (6 vs 11 days; P = .041).

The researchers then pooled their Tehran data with those from two other trials of the sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir combination conducted in Iran: one in the city of Sari with 48 patients and one in the city of Abadan with 62 patients.

A meta-analysis showed that clinical recovery in 14 days was 14% better in the treatment group than in the control group in the Sari study, 32% better in the Tehran study, and 82% better in the Abadan study. However, in a sensitivity analysis, because “the trial in Abadan was not properly randomized,” only the improvements in the Sari and Tehran studies were significant, Wentzel reported.

The meta-analysis also showed that patients in the treatment groups were 70% more likely than those in the standard-care groups to survive.

However, the treatment regimens in the standard-care groups of the three studies were all different, reflecting evolving national treatment guidelines in Iran at the time. And SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were not measured in any of the trials, so the effects of the different drugs on the virus itself could not be assessed.

Still, overall, “sofosbuvir and daclatasvir is associated with faster discharge from hospital and improved survival,” Wentzel said.

These findings are hopeful, “provocative, and encouraging,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and he echoed Hill’s call to “get these kinds of studies into randomized controlled trials.”

But he cautioned that more data are needed before the sofosbuvir and daclatasvir combination can be added to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, which clinicians who might be under-resourced and overwhelmed with spikes in COVID-19 cases rely on.

Results from three double-blind randomized controlled trials – one each in Iran, Egypt, and South Africa – with an estimated cumulative enrollment of about 2,000 patients, are expected in October, Hill reported.

“Having gone through feeling so desperate to help people and try new things, it’s really important to do these trials,” said Kristen Marks, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

“You get tempted to just kind of throw anything at people. And I think we really have to have science to guide us,” she told Medscape Medical News.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An inexpensive two-drug regimen of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi, Gilead Sciences) plus daclatasvir (Daklinza, Bristol-Myers Squibb) taken for 14 days significantly reduced time to recovery from COVID-19 and improved survival in people hospitalized with severe disease, research from an open-label Iranian study shows.

And the good news is that the treatment combination “already has a well-established safety profile in the treatment of hepatitis C,” said investigator Andrew Hill, PhD, from the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.

But although the results look promising, they are preliminary, he cautioned. The combination could follow the path of ritonavir plus lopinavir (Kaletra, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals) or hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil, Sanofi Pharmaceuticals), which showed promise early but did not perform as hoped in large randomized controlled trials.

“We need to remember that conducting research amidst a pandemic with overwhelmed hospitals is a clear challenge, and we cannot be sure of success,” he added.

Three Trials, 176 Patients

Data collected during a four-site trial of the combination treatment in Tehran during an early spike in cases in Iran were presented at the Virtual COVID-19 Conference 2020 by Hannah Wentzel, a masters student in public health at Imperial College London and a member of Hill’s team.

All 66 study participants were diagnosed with moderate to severe COVID-19 and were treated with standard care, which consisted of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily with or without the combination of lopinavir plus ritonavir 250 mg twice daily.

The 33 patients randomized to the treatment group also received the combination of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir 460 mg once daily. These patients were slightly younger and more likely to be men than were those in the standard-care group, but the differences were not significant.

All participants were treated for 14 days, and then the researchers assessed fever, respiration rate, and blood oxygen saturation.

More patients in the treatment group than in the standard-care group had recovered at 14 days (88% vs 67%), but the difference was not significant.

However, median time to clinical recovery, which took into account death as a competing risk, was significantly faster in the treatment group than in the standard-care group (6 vs 11 days; P = .041).

The researchers then pooled their Tehran data with those from two other trials of the sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir combination conducted in Iran: one in the city of Sari with 48 patients and one in the city of Abadan with 62 patients.

A meta-analysis showed that clinical recovery in 14 days was 14% better in the treatment group than in the control group in the Sari study, 32% better in the Tehran study, and 82% better in the Abadan study. However, in a sensitivity analysis, because “the trial in Abadan was not properly randomized,” only the improvements in the Sari and Tehran studies were significant, Wentzel reported.

The meta-analysis also showed that patients in the treatment groups were 70% more likely than those in the standard-care groups to survive.

However, the treatment regimens in the standard-care groups of the three studies were all different, reflecting evolving national treatment guidelines in Iran at the time. And SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were not measured in any of the trials, so the effects of the different drugs on the virus itself could not be assessed.

Still, overall, “sofosbuvir and daclatasvir is associated with faster discharge from hospital and improved survival,” Wentzel said.

These findings are hopeful, “provocative, and encouraging,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and he echoed Hill’s call to “get these kinds of studies into randomized controlled trials.”

But he cautioned that more data are needed before the sofosbuvir and daclatasvir combination can be added to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, which clinicians who might be under-resourced and overwhelmed with spikes in COVID-19 cases rely on.

Results from three double-blind randomized controlled trials – one each in Iran, Egypt, and South Africa – with an estimated cumulative enrollment of about 2,000 patients, are expected in October, Hill reported.

“Having gone through feeling so desperate to help people and try new things, it’s really important to do these trials,” said Kristen Marks, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

“You get tempted to just kind of throw anything at people. And I think we really have to have science to guide us,” she told Medscape Medical News.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An inexpensive two-drug regimen of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi, Gilead Sciences) plus daclatasvir (Daklinza, Bristol-Myers Squibb) taken for 14 days significantly reduced time to recovery from COVID-19 and improved survival in people hospitalized with severe disease, research from an open-label Iranian study shows.

And the good news is that the treatment combination “already has a well-established safety profile in the treatment of hepatitis C,” said investigator Andrew Hill, PhD, from the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom.

But although the results look promising, they are preliminary, he cautioned. The combination could follow the path of ritonavir plus lopinavir (Kaletra, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals) or hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil, Sanofi Pharmaceuticals), which showed promise early but did not perform as hoped in large randomized controlled trials.

“We need to remember that conducting research amidst a pandemic with overwhelmed hospitals is a clear challenge, and we cannot be sure of success,” he added.

Three Trials, 176 Patients

Data collected during a four-site trial of the combination treatment in Tehran during an early spike in cases in Iran were presented at the Virtual COVID-19 Conference 2020 by Hannah Wentzel, a masters student in public health at Imperial College London and a member of Hill’s team.

All 66 study participants were diagnosed with moderate to severe COVID-19 and were treated with standard care, which consisted of hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily with or without the combination of lopinavir plus ritonavir 250 mg twice daily.

The 33 patients randomized to the treatment group also received the combination of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir 460 mg once daily. These patients were slightly younger and more likely to be men than were those in the standard-care group, but the differences were not significant.

All participants were treated for 14 days, and then the researchers assessed fever, respiration rate, and blood oxygen saturation.

More patients in the treatment group than in the standard-care group had recovered at 14 days (88% vs 67%), but the difference was not significant.

However, median time to clinical recovery, which took into account death as a competing risk, was significantly faster in the treatment group than in the standard-care group (6 vs 11 days; P = .041).

The researchers then pooled their Tehran data with those from two other trials of the sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir combination conducted in Iran: one in the city of Sari with 48 patients and one in the city of Abadan with 62 patients.

A meta-analysis showed that clinical recovery in 14 days was 14% better in the treatment group than in the control group in the Sari study, 32% better in the Tehran study, and 82% better in the Abadan study. However, in a sensitivity analysis, because “the trial in Abadan was not properly randomized,” only the improvements in the Sari and Tehran studies were significant, Wentzel reported.

The meta-analysis also showed that patients in the treatment groups were 70% more likely than those in the standard-care groups to survive.

However, the treatment regimens in the standard-care groups of the three studies were all different, reflecting evolving national treatment guidelines in Iran at the time. And SARS-CoV-2 viral loads were not measured in any of the trials, so the effects of the different drugs on the virus itself could not be assessed.

Still, overall, “sofosbuvir and daclatasvir is associated with faster discharge from hospital and improved survival,” Wentzel said.

These findings are hopeful, “provocative, and encouraging,” said Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and he echoed Hill’s call to “get these kinds of studies into randomized controlled trials.”

But he cautioned that more data are needed before the sofosbuvir and daclatasvir combination can be added to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines, which clinicians who might be under-resourced and overwhelmed with spikes in COVID-19 cases rely on.

Results from three double-blind randomized controlled trials – one each in Iran, Egypt, and South Africa – with an estimated cumulative enrollment of about 2,000 patients, are expected in October, Hill reported.

“Having gone through feeling so desperate to help people and try new things, it’s really important to do these trials,” said Kristen Marks, MD, from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

“You get tempted to just kind of throw anything at people. And I think we really have to have science to guide us,” she told Medscape Medical News.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

Six medical societies from across the globe are emphasizing the importance of individuals obtaining the daily recommended dose of vitamin D, especially given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor time.

The statement, “Joint Guidance on Vitamin D in the Era of COVID-19,” is supported by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, among others.

They felt the need to clarify the recommendations for clinicians. Central to the guidance is the recommendation to directly expose the skin to sunlight for 15-30 minutes per day, while taking care to avoid sunburn.

The statement noted that “vitamin D is very safe when taken at reasonable dosages and is important for musculoskeletal health. Levels are likely to decline as individuals reduce outside activity (sun exposure) during the pandemic.”

It added that “most older and younger adults can safely take 400-1000 IU daily to keep vitamin D levels within the optimal range as recommended by [the US] Institute of Medicine guidelines.”

The statement also noted that the scientific evidence clearly supports the benefits that vitamin D (in combination with calcium intake) plays in building a strong skeleton and preventing bone loss.

Other societies supporting the statement are the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

What role for vitamin D in COVID-19?

Over recent months, the role of vitamin D in relation to prevention of COVID-19 has been the subject of intense debate. Now, these societies have joined forces and endorsed evidence-based guidance to clarify the issue around obtaining the daily recommended dosage of vitamin D.

During the pandemic, orders to stay at home meant individuals were likely to spend less time outdoors and have less opportunity to draw their vitamin D directly from sunlight, which is its main source, other than a limited number of foods or as a dietary supplement, the societies explained.

However, they acknowledged that the role of vitamin D in COVID-19 remains unclear.

“The current data do not provide any evidence that vitamin D supplementation will help prevent or treat COVID-19 infection; however, our guidance does not preclude further study of the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19,” the joint statement said.

Research to date suggests that vitamin D may play a role in enhancing the immune response, and given prior work demonstrating a role for the activated form of vitamin D – 1,25(OH)2D – in immune responses, “further research into vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 disease is warranted,” it added. “Trials to date have been observational and there have been no randomized, controlled trials from which firm conclusions about causal relationships can be drawn. Observational studies suggest associations between low vitamin D concentrations and higher rates of COVID-19 infection.”

Medscape Medical News previously reported on the existing observational data regarding vitamin D in COVID-19. A recent rapid evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence failed to find any evidence that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk or severity of COVID-19.

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

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.