Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to a surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) that placed a huge burden on first responders, a new analysis shows.

During the height of the pandemic in New York, there was a “dramatic increase in cardiopulmonary arrests, nearly all presented in non-shockable cardiac rhythms (> 90% fatality rate) and vulnerable patient populations were most affected,” David J. Prezant, MD, chief medical officer, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), said in an interview.

In a news release, Dr. Prezant noted that “relatively few, if any, patients were tested to confirm the presence of COVID-19,” making it impossible to distinguish between cardiac arrests as a result of COVID-19 and those that may have resulted from other health conditions.

“We also can’t rule out the possibility that some people may have died from delays in seeking or receiving treatment for non–COVID-19-related conditions. However, the dramatic increase in cardiac arrests compared to the same period in 2019 strongly indicates that the pandemic was directly or indirectly responsible for that surge in cardiac arrests and deaths,” said Dr. Prezant.

The study was published online June 19 in JAMA Cardiology.

New York City has the largest and busiest EMS system in the United States, serving a population of more than 8.4 million people and responding to more than 1.5 million calls every year.

To gauge the impact of COVID-19 on first responders, Dr. Prezant and colleagues analyzed data for adults with OHCA who received EMS resuscitation from March 1, when the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed in the city, through April 25, when EMS call volume had receded to pre-COVID-19 levels.

Compared with the same period in 2019, the COVID-19 period had an excess of 2,653 patients with OHCA who underwent EMS resuscitation attempts (3,989 in 2020 vs. 1,336 in 2019, P < .001), an incidence rate triple that of 2019 (47.5 vs. 15.9 per 100,000).

On the worst day – Monday, April 6 – OHCAs peaked at 305 cases, an increase of nearly 10-fold compared with the same day in 2019.

Despite the surge in cases, the median response time of available EMS units to OHCAs increased by about 1 minute over 2019, a nonsignificant difference. Although the average time varied, median response time during the COVID-19 period was less than 3 minutes.

A more vulnerable group

Compared with 2019, patients suffering OHCA during the pandemic period were older (mean age 72 vs. 68 years), less likely to be white (20% white vs. 33%) and more likely to have hypertension (54% vs. 46%), diabetes (36% vs. 26%), physical limitations (57% vs. 48%) and cardiac rhythms that don’t respond to defibrillator shocks (92% vs. 81%).

Compared with 2019, the COVID-19 period had substantial reductions in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (18% vs. 35%; P < .001) and sustained ROSC (11% vs. 25%; P < .001). The case fatality rate was 90% in the COVID-19 period vs. 75% a year earlier.

“The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic is not just the number of patients infected, but the large increase in OHCAs and deaths,” Dr. Prezant and colleagues said.

Identifying patients with the greatest risk for OHCA and death during the COVID-19 pandemic “should allow for early, targeted interventions in the outpatient setting that could lead to reductions in out-of-hospital deaths,” they noted.

“Vulnerable patient populations need outreach, telephonic medicine, televideo medicine, home visits, not just temperature monitoring but home O₂ saturation monitoring,” Dr. Prezant said in an interview. “Barriers need to be removed, not just for this pandemic but for the future – no matter what the trigger is.”
 

Unsung heroes

In an Editor’s Note in JAMA Cardiology, Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues said the American people owe a debt of gratitude to first responders for their “heroic work” triaging, resuscitating, and transporting thousands of people affected by COVID-19. 

“Although the typically bustling NYC streets remained eerily deserted, the characteristic cacophony of sounds of the ‘City that Never Sleeps’ was replaced by sirens wailing all hours of the night,” they wrote.

First responders to OHCAs in the COVID-19 era place themselves at extremely high risk, in some cases without optimal personal protective equipment, they pointed out. “Sadly,” many first responders have fallen ill to COVID-19 infection, they added.

As of June 1, 29 EMS workers and volunteers across the United States had died of COVID-19.

They are James Villecco, Gregory Hodge, Tony Thomas, Mike Field, John Redd, Idris Bey, Richard Seaberry, and Sal Mancuso of New York; Israel Tolentino, Reuven Maroth, Liana Sá, Kevin Leiva, Frank Molinari, Robert Weber, Robert Tarrant, Solomon Donald, Scott Geiger, John Farrarella, John Careccia, Bill Nauta, and David Pinto of New Jersey; Kevin Bundy, Robert Zerman, and Jeremy Emerich of Pennsylvania; Paul Cary of Colorado; Paul Novicki of Michigan; David Martin of Mississippi; Billy Birmingham of Missouri; and John “JP” Granger of South Carolina.

“We offer their families, friends, and colleagues our sincerest condolences and honor their memory with our highest respect and gratitude,” Dr. Bonow and colleagues wrote.

This study was supported by the City of New York and the Fire Department of the City of New York. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to a surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) that placed a huge burden on first responders, a new analysis shows.

During the height of the pandemic in New York, there was a “dramatic increase in cardiopulmonary arrests, nearly all presented in non-shockable cardiac rhythms (> 90% fatality rate) and vulnerable patient populations were most affected,” David J. Prezant, MD, chief medical officer, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), said in an interview.

In a news release, Dr. Prezant noted that “relatively few, if any, patients were tested to confirm the presence of COVID-19,” making it impossible to distinguish between cardiac arrests as a result of COVID-19 and those that may have resulted from other health conditions.

“We also can’t rule out the possibility that some people may have died from delays in seeking or receiving treatment for non–COVID-19-related conditions. However, the dramatic increase in cardiac arrests compared to the same period in 2019 strongly indicates that the pandemic was directly or indirectly responsible for that surge in cardiac arrests and deaths,” said Dr. Prezant.

The study was published online June 19 in JAMA Cardiology.

New York City has the largest and busiest EMS system in the United States, serving a population of more than 8.4 million people and responding to more than 1.5 million calls every year.

To gauge the impact of COVID-19 on first responders, Dr. Prezant and colleagues analyzed data for adults with OHCA who received EMS resuscitation from March 1, when the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed in the city, through April 25, when EMS call volume had receded to pre-COVID-19 levels.

Compared with the same period in 2019, the COVID-19 period had an excess of 2,653 patients with OHCA who underwent EMS resuscitation attempts (3,989 in 2020 vs. 1,336 in 2019, P < .001), an incidence rate triple that of 2019 (47.5 vs. 15.9 per 100,000).

On the worst day – Monday, April 6 – OHCAs peaked at 305 cases, an increase of nearly 10-fold compared with the same day in 2019.

Despite the surge in cases, the median response time of available EMS units to OHCAs increased by about 1 minute over 2019, a nonsignificant difference. Although the average time varied, median response time during the COVID-19 period was less than 3 minutes.

A more vulnerable group

Compared with 2019, patients suffering OHCA during the pandemic period were older (mean age 72 vs. 68 years), less likely to be white (20% white vs. 33%) and more likely to have hypertension (54% vs. 46%), diabetes (36% vs. 26%), physical limitations (57% vs. 48%) and cardiac rhythms that don’t respond to defibrillator shocks (92% vs. 81%).

Compared with 2019, the COVID-19 period had substantial reductions in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (18% vs. 35%; P < .001) and sustained ROSC (11% vs. 25%; P < .001). The case fatality rate was 90% in the COVID-19 period vs. 75% a year earlier.

“The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic is not just the number of patients infected, but the large increase in OHCAs and deaths,” Dr. Prezant and colleagues said.

Identifying patients with the greatest risk for OHCA and death during the COVID-19 pandemic “should allow for early, targeted interventions in the outpatient setting that could lead to reductions in out-of-hospital deaths,” they noted.

“Vulnerable patient populations need outreach, telephonic medicine, televideo medicine, home visits, not just temperature monitoring but home O₂ saturation monitoring,” Dr. Prezant said in an interview. “Barriers need to be removed, not just for this pandemic but for the future – no matter what the trigger is.”
 

Unsung heroes

In an Editor’s Note in JAMA Cardiology, Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues said the American people owe a debt of gratitude to first responders for their “heroic work” triaging, resuscitating, and transporting thousands of people affected by COVID-19. 

“Although the typically bustling NYC streets remained eerily deserted, the characteristic cacophony of sounds of the ‘City that Never Sleeps’ was replaced by sirens wailing all hours of the night,” they wrote.

First responders to OHCAs in the COVID-19 era place themselves at extremely high risk, in some cases without optimal personal protective equipment, they pointed out. “Sadly,” many first responders have fallen ill to COVID-19 infection, they added.

As of June 1, 29 EMS workers and volunteers across the United States had died of COVID-19.

They are James Villecco, Gregory Hodge, Tony Thomas, Mike Field, John Redd, Idris Bey, Richard Seaberry, and Sal Mancuso of New York; Israel Tolentino, Reuven Maroth, Liana Sá, Kevin Leiva, Frank Molinari, Robert Weber, Robert Tarrant, Solomon Donald, Scott Geiger, John Farrarella, John Careccia, Bill Nauta, and David Pinto of New Jersey; Kevin Bundy, Robert Zerman, and Jeremy Emerich of Pennsylvania; Paul Cary of Colorado; Paul Novicki of Michigan; David Martin of Mississippi; Billy Birmingham of Missouri; and John “JP” Granger of South Carolina.

“We offer their families, friends, and colleagues our sincerest condolences and honor their memory with our highest respect and gratitude,” Dr. Bonow and colleagues wrote.

This study was supported by the City of New York and the Fire Department of the City of New York. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to a surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) that placed a huge burden on first responders, a new analysis shows.

During the height of the pandemic in New York, there was a “dramatic increase in cardiopulmonary arrests, nearly all presented in non-shockable cardiac rhythms (> 90% fatality rate) and vulnerable patient populations were most affected,” David J. Prezant, MD, chief medical officer, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), said in an interview.

In a news release, Dr. Prezant noted that “relatively few, if any, patients were tested to confirm the presence of COVID-19,” making it impossible to distinguish between cardiac arrests as a result of COVID-19 and those that may have resulted from other health conditions.

“We also can’t rule out the possibility that some people may have died from delays in seeking or receiving treatment for non–COVID-19-related conditions. However, the dramatic increase in cardiac arrests compared to the same period in 2019 strongly indicates that the pandemic was directly or indirectly responsible for that surge in cardiac arrests and deaths,” said Dr. Prezant.

The study was published online June 19 in JAMA Cardiology.

New York City has the largest and busiest EMS system in the United States, serving a population of more than 8.4 million people and responding to more than 1.5 million calls every year.

To gauge the impact of COVID-19 on first responders, Dr. Prezant and colleagues analyzed data for adults with OHCA who received EMS resuscitation from March 1, when the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed in the city, through April 25, when EMS call volume had receded to pre-COVID-19 levels.

Compared with the same period in 2019, the COVID-19 period had an excess of 2,653 patients with OHCA who underwent EMS resuscitation attempts (3,989 in 2020 vs. 1,336 in 2019, P < .001), an incidence rate triple that of 2019 (47.5 vs. 15.9 per 100,000).

On the worst day – Monday, April 6 – OHCAs peaked at 305 cases, an increase of nearly 10-fold compared with the same day in 2019.

Despite the surge in cases, the median response time of available EMS units to OHCAs increased by about 1 minute over 2019, a nonsignificant difference. Although the average time varied, median response time during the COVID-19 period was less than 3 minutes.

A more vulnerable group

Compared with 2019, patients suffering OHCA during the pandemic period were older (mean age 72 vs. 68 years), less likely to be white (20% white vs. 33%) and more likely to have hypertension (54% vs. 46%), diabetes (36% vs. 26%), physical limitations (57% vs. 48%) and cardiac rhythms that don’t respond to defibrillator shocks (92% vs. 81%).

Compared with 2019, the COVID-19 period had substantial reductions in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (18% vs. 35%; P < .001) and sustained ROSC (11% vs. 25%; P < .001). The case fatality rate was 90% in the COVID-19 period vs. 75% a year earlier.

“The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic is not just the number of patients infected, but the large increase in OHCAs and deaths,” Dr. Prezant and colleagues said.

Identifying patients with the greatest risk for OHCA and death during the COVID-19 pandemic “should allow for early, targeted interventions in the outpatient setting that could lead to reductions in out-of-hospital deaths,” they noted.

“Vulnerable patient populations need outreach, telephonic medicine, televideo medicine, home visits, not just temperature monitoring but home O₂ saturation monitoring,” Dr. Prezant said in an interview. “Barriers need to be removed, not just for this pandemic but for the future – no matter what the trigger is.”
 

Unsung heroes

In an Editor’s Note in JAMA Cardiology, Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues said the American people owe a debt of gratitude to first responders for their “heroic work” triaging, resuscitating, and transporting thousands of people affected by COVID-19. 

“Although the typically bustling NYC streets remained eerily deserted, the characteristic cacophony of sounds of the ‘City that Never Sleeps’ was replaced by sirens wailing all hours of the night,” they wrote.

First responders to OHCAs in the COVID-19 era place themselves at extremely high risk, in some cases without optimal personal protective equipment, they pointed out. “Sadly,” many first responders have fallen ill to COVID-19 infection, they added.

As of June 1, 29 EMS workers and volunteers across the United States had died of COVID-19.

They are James Villecco, Gregory Hodge, Tony Thomas, Mike Field, John Redd, Idris Bey, Richard Seaberry, and Sal Mancuso of New York; Israel Tolentino, Reuven Maroth, Liana Sá, Kevin Leiva, Frank Molinari, Robert Weber, Robert Tarrant, Solomon Donald, Scott Geiger, John Farrarella, John Careccia, Bill Nauta, and David Pinto of New Jersey; Kevin Bundy, Robert Zerman, and Jeremy Emerich of Pennsylvania; Paul Cary of Colorado; Paul Novicki of Michigan; David Martin of Mississippi; Billy Birmingham of Missouri; and John “JP” Granger of South Carolina.

“We offer their families, friends, and colleagues our sincerest condolences and honor their memory with our highest respect and gratitude,” Dr. Bonow and colleagues wrote.

This study was supported by the City of New York and the Fire Department of the City of New York. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Despite a lack of financial penalties, the U.S. Veterans Affairs Health Care System has seen a steady 15% reduction in 30-day all-cause readmissions for patients admitted for heart failure, with no concurrent increase in 30-day mortality, a large cohort study suggests.

Unlike the Center for Medicare & Medicaid’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), whose primary objective is reducing payments to hospitals with excess readmissions, the VA’s efforts to reduce readmissions across their system did not include any financial penalties.

“The intervention focused on encouraging participation in transitions of care programs, such as the American College of Cardiology’s Hospital to Home Initiative and the creation of a heart failure provider network that included more than 900 heart failure providers throughout the VA system,” said the study’s lead author Justin T. Parizo, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

The only measuring sticks the VA used were the public reporting of 30-day readmission rates (starting in 2012) and inclusion of those rates into hospitals’ overall star ratings (starting in 2014).  

“The readmissions reductions we saw were similar in magnitude to those seen in patients in CMS fee-for-service categories in the HRRP,” said Dr. Parizo. “And while we had no ability to evaluate causality here, our best guess from what we can see is that there’s been no impact of the readmissions program on mortality,” he added.

Their results were published online June 17 in JAMA Cardiology.

Dr. Parizo and colleagues conducted a cohort study of 304,374 heart failure hospital admissions in 164,566 patients from January 2007 to September 2017. Importantly, he stressed, the researchers were able to do sophisticated risk adjustment for illness trends, something that has been a sticking point in some of the HRRP studies to date.

“We leveraged the robust dataset that the VA provides to adjust for illness severity. Accounting for clinical factors, like blood pressure, weight, creatinine, BNP [B-type natriuretic peptide], and other markers of heart failure severity, but also for changes in coding,” said Dr. Parizo.

Stratification according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) showed similar results both in terms of 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality for those with LVEF of 40% or greater and those with LVEF less than 40%.

In an interview, Dr. Parizo noted that they actually saw a small but significant uptick in mortality in the 2011-2012 period (compared with 2007-2008) that remains unexplained. “By the 2015-2017 period, 30-day death had returned to baseline levels,” he said.

In contrast, the HRRP, which was rolled out in 2012, has also been shown to reduce readmissions but, in most studies, 30-day mortality had gone up.

“The VA has a very robust quality infrastructure and a robust mechanism for prioritizing certain quality-improvement goals and getting them accomplished that I think they are underrecognized for,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, MHS, the director of the Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York.

In an interview, she also noted some concern with the uptick seen in the 2011-2012 period, noting that the increase might be the same signal seen with the HRRP intervention.

“This is around the same time period where other people were writing the HRRP papers that showed an increase in mortality, so that’s something to consider,” she said.

Dr. Horwitz coauthored a study published in 2017 indicating that, on a hospital level (compared with a patient level, the approach most other studies took), reductions in readmissions were only weakly correlated with 30-day mortality rates after discharge.

“So, if you think that a hospital that’s behaving badly and keeping people out of the hospital inappropriately to cut down their readmissions, you’d expect to see increased mortality in that hospital, and in our study there was no correlation whatsoever. So there is still debate as to what is behind the increase in mortality on a patient level with heart failure that we’ve seen in some studies,” she said.

Dr. Horwitz doubts an intervention such as the one undertaken in the VA system – even with its fairly soft-touch “name and shame” component – would work in the non-VA hospital world.

“Those who have been in favor of financial penalties have pointed to the fact that, in general, it’s hard to get health systems to respond without financial alignment, even if it’s not an overt financial incentive,” she said.

“The VA is a unique environment,” she noted. “They have a very strong top-down command control focus where people are kind of used to being told, ‘OK, here are the measures we have to address this year.’ It’s good to see that the system that has worked for them for other outcomes also worked for them for heart failure readmissions too.”

Dr. Parizo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horwitz has worked under contract to Medicare to develop readmission measures. 

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

Despite a lack of financial penalties, the U.S. Veterans Affairs Health Care System has seen a steady 15% reduction in 30-day all-cause readmissions for patients admitted for heart failure, with no concurrent increase in 30-day mortality, a large cohort study suggests.

Unlike the Center for Medicare & Medicaid’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), whose primary objective is reducing payments to hospitals with excess readmissions, the VA’s efforts to reduce readmissions across their system did not include any financial penalties.

“The intervention focused on encouraging participation in transitions of care programs, such as the American College of Cardiology’s Hospital to Home Initiative and the creation of a heart failure provider network that included more than 900 heart failure providers throughout the VA system,” said the study’s lead author Justin T. Parizo, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

The only measuring sticks the VA used were the public reporting of 30-day readmission rates (starting in 2012) and inclusion of those rates into hospitals’ overall star ratings (starting in 2014).  

“The readmissions reductions we saw were similar in magnitude to those seen in patients in CMS fee-for-service categories in the HRRP,” said Dr. Parizo. “And while we had no ability to evaluate causality here, our best guess from what we can see is that there’s been no impact of the readmissions program on mortality,” he added.

Their results were published online June 17 in JAMA Cardiology.

Dr. Parizo and colleagues conducted a cohort study of 304,374 heart failure hospital admissions in 164,566 patients from January 2007 to September 2017. Importantly, he stressed, the researchers were able to do sophisticated risk adjustment for illness trends, something that has been a sticking point in some of the HRRP studies to date.

“We leveraged the robust dataset that the VA provides to adjust for illness severity. Accounting for clinical factors, like blood pressure, weight, creatinine, BNP [B-type natriuretic peptide], and other markers of heart failure severity, but also for changes in coding,” said Dr. Parizo.

Stratification according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) showed similar results both in terms of 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality for those with LVEF of 40% or greater and those with LVEF less than 40%.

In an interview, Dr. Parizo noted that they actually saw a small but significant uptick in mortality in the 2011-2012 period (compared with 2007-2008) that remains unexplained. “By the 2015-2017 period, 30-day death had returned to baseline levels,” he said.

In contrast, the HRRP, which was rolled out in 2012, has also been shown to reduce readmissions but, in most studies, 30-day mortality had gone up.

“The VA has a very robust quality infrastructure and a robust mechanism for prioritizing certain quality-improvement goals and getting them accomplished that I think they are underrecognized for,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, MHS, the director of the Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York.

In an interview, she also noted some concern with the uptick seen in the 2011-2012 period, noting that the increase might be the same signal seen with the HRRP intervention.

“This is around the same time period where other people were writing the HRRP papers that showed an increase in mortality, so that’s something to consider,” she said.

Dr. Horwitz coauthored a study published in 2017 indicating that, on a hospital level (compared with a patient level, the approach most other studies took), reductions in readmissions were only weakly correlated with 30-day mortality rates after discharge.

“So, if you think that a hospital that’s behaving badly and keeping people out of the hospital inappropriately to cut down their readmissions, you’d expect to see increased mortality in that hospital, and in our study there was no correlation whatsoever. So there is still debate as to what is behind the increase in mortality on a patient level with heart failure that we’ve seen in some studies,” she said.

Dr. Horwitz doubts an intervention such as the one undertaken in the VA system – even with its fairly soft-touch “name and shame” component – would work in the non-VA hospital world.

“Those who have been in favor of financial penalties have pointed to the fact that, in general, it’s hard to get health systems to respond without financial alignment, even if it’s not an overt financial incentive,” she said.

“The VA is a unique environment,” she noted. “They have a very strong top-down command control focus where people are kind of used to being told, ‘OK, here are the measures we have to address this year.’ It’s good to see that the system that has worked for them for other outcomes also worked for them for heart failure readmissions too.”

Dr. Parizo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horwitz has worked under contract to Medicare to develop readmission measures. 

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

Despite a lack of financial penalties, the U.S. Veterans Affairs Health Care System has seen a steady 15% reduction in 30-day all-cause readmissions for patients admitted for heart failure, with no concurrent increase in 30-day mortality, a large cohort study suggests.

Unlike the Center for Medicare & Medicaid’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), whose primary objective is reducing payments to hospitals with excess readmissions, the VA’s efforts to reduce readmissions across their system did not include any financial penalties.

“The intervention focused on encouraging participation in transitions of care programs, such as the American College of Cardiology’s Hospital to Home Initiative and the creation of a heart failure provider network that included more than 900 heart failure providers throughout the VA system,” said the study’s lead author Justin T. Parizo, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

The only measuring sticks the VA used were the public reporting of 30-day readmission rates (starting in 2012) and inclusion of those rates into hospitals’ overall star ratings (starting in 2014).  

“The readmissions reductions we saw were similar in magnitude to those seen in patients in CMS fee-for-service categories in the HRRP,” said Dr. Parizo. “And while we had no ability to evaluate causality here, our best guess from what we can see is that there’s been no impact of the readmissions program on mortality,” he added.

Their results were published online June 17 in JAMA Cardiology.

Dr. Parizo and colleagues conducted a cohort study of 304,374 heart failure hospital admissions in 164,566 patients from January 2007 to September 2017. Importantly, he stressed, the researchers were able to do sophisticated risk adjustment for illness trends, something that has been a sticking point in some of the HRRP studies to date.

“We leveraged the robust dataset that the VA provides to adjust for illness severity. Accounting for clinical factors, like blood pressure, weight, creatinine, BNP [B-type natriuretic peptide], and other markers of heart failure severity, but also for changes in coding,” said Dr. Parizo.

Stratification according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) showed similar results both in terms of 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality for those with LVEF of 40% or greater and those with LVEF less than 40%.

In an interview, Dr. Parizo noted that they actually saw a small but significant uptick in mortality in the 2011-2012 period (compared with 2007-2008) that remains unexplained. “By the 2015-2017 period, 30-day death had returned to baseline levels,” he said.

In contrast, the HRRP, which was rolled out in 2012, has also been shown to reduce readmissions but, in most studies, 30-day mortality had gone up.

“The VA has a very robust quality infrastructure and a robust mechanism for prioritizing certain quality-improvement goals and getting them accomplished that I think they are underrecognized for,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, MHS, the director of the Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York.

In an interview, she also noted some concern with the uptick seen in the 2011-2012 period, noting that the increase might be the same signal seen with the HRRP intervention.

“This is around the same time period where other people were writing the HRRP papers that showed an increase in mortality, so that’s something to consider,” she said.

Dr. Horwitz coauthored a study published in 2017 indicating that, on a hospital level (compared with a patient level, the approach most other studies took), reductions in readmissions were only weakly correlated with 30-day mortality rates after discharge.

“So, if you think that a hospital that’s behaving badly and keeping people out of the hospital inappropriately to cut down their readmissions, you’d expect to see increased mortality in that hospital, and in our study there was no correlation whatsoever. So there is still debate as to what is behind the increase in mortality on a patient level with heart failure that we’ve seen in some studies,” she said.

Dr. Horwitz doubts an intervention such as the one undertaken in the VA system – even with its fairly soft-touch “name and shame” component – would work in the non-VA hospital world.

“Those who have been in favor of financial penalties have pointed to the fact that, in general, it’s hard to get health systems to respond without financial alignment, even if it’s not an overt financial incentive,” she said.

“The VA is a unique environment,” she noted. “They have a very strong top-down command control focus where people are kind of used to being told, ‘OK, here are the measures we have to address this year.’ It’s good to see that the system that has worked for them for other outcomes also worked for them for heart failure readmissions too.”

Dr. Parizo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horwitz has worked under contract to Medicare to develop readmission measures. 

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

A pair of new vaccines for adults aged 65 years and older will be available for the 2020-2021 flu season – Fluzone high-dose quadrivalent, which replaces the trivalent Fluzone high-dose and Fluad quadrivalent (Seqirus), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

At a virtual meeting on June 24, the committee voted unanimously to approve the vaccine recommendations for annual influenza immunization of all individuals aged 6 months and older. They also voted to accept some guidance and language changes to the recommendations.

The past flu season was unique in its overlap with the emergence of the COVID-19 coronavirus, which likely contributed to a third peak in reported cases of influenza-like illness at approximately week 14 of last season, said Lisa Grohskopf, MD, of the CDC’s influenza division, who presented data on last year’s activity and the updates for next season.

The CDC estimates that 39,000,000-56,000,000 flu illnesses occurred in the United States from Oct. 1, 2019, to April 4, 2020, said Dr. Grohskopf. Estimates also suggest as many as 740,000 hospitalizations and 62,000 deaths related to the seasonal flu.

Preliminary results of vaccine effectiveness showed 39% overall for the 2019-2020 season, with more substantial protection against influenza B and lower protection against A/H1N1pmd09.

Vaccine safety data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and Vaccine Safety Datalink showed no new safety concerns for any flu vaccine types used last year, Dr. Grohskopf noted.

Based on this information, three components (A/H1N1pdm09, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria) have been updated for the 2020-2021 vaccines, said Dr. Grohskopf. The egg-based influenza vaccines will include hemagglutinin derived from an A/Guangdong-Maonan/SWL1536/2019(H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/2671/2019(H3N2)–like virus and a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and (for quadrivalent vaccines) a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

Nonegg vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an A/Hawaii/70/2019 (H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/45/2019 (H3N2)–like virus, a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

New guidance for next year’s flu season includes a change to the language in the contraindications and precautions table to simply read “Contraindications,” with more details in the text explaining package insert contraindications and ACIP recommendations, Dr. Grohskopf said. In addition, updated guidance clarifies that live-attenuated influenza vaccine quadravalents (LAIV4) should not be used in patients with cochlear implants, active cerebrospinal fluid leaks, and anatomical or functional asplenia, based on ACIP’s review of the latest evidence and the availability of alternative vaccines.

ACIP also updated guidance on the use of antivirals and LAIV4. Based on half-lives, language was added indicating that clinicians should assume interference if antivirals are given within certain intervals of LAIV4, Dr. Grohskopf explained. “Newer antivirals peramivir and baloxavir have longer half-lives than oseltamivir and zanamivir, and insufficient data are available on the use of LAIV4 in the setting of antiviral use.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A pair of new vaccines for adults aged 65 years and older will be available for the 2020-2021 flu season – Fluzone high-dose quadrivalent, which replaces the trivalent Fluzone high-dose and Fluad quadrivalent (Seqirus), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

At a virtual meeting on June 24, the committee voted unanimously to approve the vaccine recommendations for annual influenza immunization of all individuals aged 6 months and older. They also voted to accept some guidance and language changes to the recommendations.

The past flu season was unique in its overlap with the emergence of the COVID-19 coronavirus, which likely contributed to a third peak in reported cases of influenza-like illness at approximately week 14 of last season, said Lisa Grohskopf, MD, of the CDC’s influenza division, who presented data on last year’s activity and the updates for next season.

The CDC estimates that 39,000,000-56,000,000 flu illnesses occurred in the United States from Oct. 1, 2019, to April 4, 2020, said Dr. Grohskopf. Estimates also suggest as many as 740,000 hospitalizations and 62,000 deaths related to the seasonal flu.

Preliminary results of vaccine effectiveness showed 39% overall for the 2019-2020 season, with more substantial protection against influenza B and lower protection against A/H1N1pmd09.

Vaccine safety data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and Vaccine Safety Datalink showed no new safety concerns for any flu vaccine types used last year, Dr. Grohskopf noted.

Based on this information, three components (A/H1N1pdm09, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria) have been updated for the 2020-2021 vaccines, said Dr. Grohskopf. The egg-based influenza vaccines will include hemagglutinin derived from an A/Guangdong-Maonan/SWL1536/2019(H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/2671/2019(H3N2)–like virus and a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and (for quadrivalent vaccines) a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

Nonegg vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an A/Hawaii/70/2019 (H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/45/2019 (H3N2)–like virus, a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

New guidance for next year’s flu season includes a change to the language in the contraindications and precautions table to simply read “Contraindications,” with more details in the text explaining package insert contraindications and ACIP recommendations, Dr. Grohskopf said. In addition, updated guidance clarifies that live-attenuated influenza vaccine quadravalents (LAIV4) should not be used in patients with cochlear implants, active cerebrospinal fluid leaks, and anatomical or functional asplenia, based on ACIP’s review of the latest evidence and the availability of alternative vaccines.

ACIP also updated guidance on the use of antivirals and LAIV4. Based on half-lives, language was added indicating that clinicians should assume interference if antivirals are given within certain intervals of LAIV4, Dr. Grohskopf explained. “Newer antivirals peramivir and baloxavir have longer half-lives than oseltamivir and zanamivir, and insufficient data are available on the use of LAIV4 in the setting of antiviral use.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A pair of new vaccines for adults aged 65 years and older will be available for the 2020-2021 flu season – Fluzone high-dose quadrivalent, which replaces the trivalent Fluzone high-dose and Fluad quadrivalent (Seqirus), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

At a virtual meeting on June 24, the committee voted unanimously to approve the vaccine recommendations for annual influenza immunization of all individuals aged 6 months and older. They also voted to accept some guidance and language changes to the recommendations.

The past flu season was unique in its overlap with the emergence of the COVID-19 coronavirus, which likely contributed to a third peak in reported cases of influenza-like illness at approximately week 14 of last season, said Lisa Grohskopf, MD, of the CDC’s influenza division, who presented data on last year’s activity and the updates for next season.

The CDC estimates that 39,000,000-56,000,000 flu illnesses occurred in the United States from Oct. 1, 2019, to April 4, 2020, said Dr. Grohskopf. Estimates also suggest as many as 740,000 hospitalizations and 62,000 deaths related to the seasonal flu.

Preliminary results of vaccine effectiveness showed 39% overall for the 2019-2020 season, with more substantial protection against influenza B and lower protection against A/H1N1pmd09.

Vaccine safety data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and Vaccine Safety Datalink showed no new safety concerns for any flu vaccine types used last year, Dr. Grohskopf noted.

Based on this information, three components (A/H1N1pdm09, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria) have been updated for the 2020-2021 vaccines, said Dr. Grohskopf. The egg-based influenza vaccines will include hemagglutinin derived from an A/Guangdong-Maonan/SWL1536/2019(H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/2671/2019(H3N2)–like virus and a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and (for quadrivalent vaccines) a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

Nonegg vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an A/Hawaii/70/2019 (H1N1)pdm09–like virus, an A/Hong Kong/45/2019 (H3N2)–like virus, a B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)–like virus, and a B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)–like virus.

New guidance for next year’s flu season includes a change to the language in the contraindications and precautions table to simply read “Contraindications,” with more details in the text explaining package insert contraindications and ACIP recommendations, Dr. Grohskopf said. In addition, updated guidance clarifies that live-attenuated influenza vaccine quadravalents (LAIV4) should not be used in patients with cochlear implants, active cerebrospinal fluid leaks, and anatomical or functional asplenia, based on ACIP’s review of the latest evidence and the availability of alternative vaccines.

ACIP also updated guidance on the use of antivirals and LAIV4. Based on half-lives, language was added indicating that clinicians should assume interference if antivirals are given within certain intervals of LAIV4, Dr. Grohskopf explained. “Newer antivirals peramivir and baloxavir have longer half-lives than oseltamivir and zanamivir, and insufficient data are available on the use of LAIV4 in the setting of antiviral use.”

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Glycemic control among youth with diabetes is no better today than it was in 2002 and in some subgroups it’s worse, despite increased availability of diabetes technology, newer therapies, and more aggressive recommended blood glucose targets, new research finds.

The sobering data from 6,399 participants in the longitudinal SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study were presented June 15 at the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions by Faisal S. Malik, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and Seattle Children’s Research Institute.

“Our finding that current youth and young adults with diabetes are not demonstrating improved glycemic control, compared to earlier cohorts in the SEARCH study was surprising given how the landscape of diabetes management has changed dramatically over the past decade,” Dr. Malik said in an interview.
 

Urgent need to improve glycemic control in youth with diabetes

The SEARCH study, funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the largest and most diverse study of diabetes in youth in the United States. It has over 27,000 participants seen at five study sites in California, Colorado, Ohio, South Carolina, and Washington state.

Among youth with type 1 diabetes in the study, average hemoglobin A1c rose from 8.6% in 2002-2007 (n = 3,451) to 8.8% in 2008-2014 (n = 2,254), and remained at 8.8% in 2014-2019 (n = 1,651).

Among those with type 2 diabetes, A1c levels fluctuated from 8.8% (n = 379) to 8.4% (n = 327) to 8.5% (n = 469) in the three time periods, respectively.

By contrast, in 2014 the ADA recommended an A1c of less than 7.5% for youth of all ages with type 1 diabetes, down from prior less stringent targets.

In 2018, the ADA advised A1c levels below 7% for youth with type 2 diabetes. In both cases, targets may be adjusted based on individual circumstances.

A particularly striking data point was seen among youth who had type 2 diabetes for 10 years or more: average A1c skyrocketed from 7.9% in 2008-2013 to 10.1% in 2014-2019. The numbers were small, 25 patients in the earlier cohort and 149 patients in the later, yet the difference was still significant (P < .01). And in those with type 1 diabetes for 5-9 years, average A1c rose from 8.7% in 2002-2007 (n = 769) to 9.2% in 2014-2019 (n = 654) (P < .01).

“These results suggest that not all youth with diabetes are directly benefiting from the increased availability of diabetes technology, newer therapies, and the use of more aggressive glycemic targets for youth with diabetes over time,” Dr. Malik said.

“Recognizing that lower A1c levels in adolescence and young adulthood is associated with lower risk and rate of microvascular and macrovascular complications, this study further underscores the urgent need for effective treatment strategies to improve glycemic control in youth and young adults with diabetes,” he added.

Asked to comment, David M. Maahs, MD, said in an interview that the type 1 diabetes data are “very consistent” with those found in the T1D Exchange registry study but that both datasets include patients seen at diabetes centers and therefore may not represent the entire population.

“I don’t think there’s reason to think we’re actually doing any better than these data indicate,” said Dr. Maahs, professor of pediatrics and division chief of pediatric endocrinology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Other countries improving, U.S. getting worse

Dr. Maahs contrasted the U.S. situation with that of the English/Welsh National Paediatric Diabetes Audit and some European countries that have improved pediatric diabetes control and outcomes using a population-based approach.

“In the United States we have a disjointed irrational health care system that doesn’t invest in diabetes education and in the basic care and monitoring that children with diabetes need to get better glucose control,” he said.

“We’re not having systematic approaches to it as many European countries have. They have gotten better results over this same time period. In the United States we’re getting worse,” Dr. Maahs observed.

And as far as diabetes technology is concerned, Dr. Maahs said, “there’s more to it than just throwing technology at it. People who are using technology are getting better outcomes, but there are a lot of people who don’t get access to it.”

Indeed, Dr. Malik pointed out, “while the recent SEARCH [type 1 diabetes] cohorts had increased insulin pump use, it’s worth noting that more than half of the participants in the most recent cohort were not using diabetes technology.” And even “fewer participants were likely using continuous glucose monitors during our study period.”
 

Barriers to care, type 1 diabetes is “very labor intensive”

Dr. Malik said that barriers to care include “high cost, alarm fatigue, and encumbrances of wearing a mechanical device [that] continue to present challenges around technology use,” as well as “inequities in the use of these technologies across socioeconomic status, health insurance, and race/ethnicity, which need to be addressed.”

Dr. Maahs did have a recommendation for U.S. primary care physicians who are managing youth with either type of diabetes: a tele-education program called Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes), which uses a train-the-trainer model, rather than direct telehealth, to bring tele-education to primary care providers.

Such programs in diabetes have shown some success, he said.

Type 1 diabetes, Dr. Malik noted, “is very labor intensive. Frequent or constant monitoring of glucose and multiple daily doses of basal and bolus insulin are commonly recommended by type 1 diabetes care providers in the United States.”

“This has led to increasingly burdensome management for children and their caregivers, which often results in suboptimal adherence, suboptimal glycemic control, and greater risk of complications.”

Dr. Malik encourages providers “to engage in person-centered collaborative care as recommended by the ADA, which is guided by shared decision-making in treatment regimen selection, facilitation of obtaining needed medical and psychosocial resources, and shared monitoring of agreed-upon regimen and lifestyle.”

Dr. Malik has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Maahs has reported being on advisory boards for Medtronic, Lilly, and Abbott.

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

Glycemic control among youth with diabetes is no better today than it was in 2002 and in some subgroups it’s worse, despite increased availability of diabetes technology, newer therapies, and more aggressive recommended blood glucose targets, new research finds.

The sobering data from 6,399 participants in the longitudinal SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study were presented June 15 at the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions by Faisal S. Malik, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and Seattle Children’s Research Institute.

“Our finding that current youth and young adults with diabetes are not demonstrating improved glycemic control, compared to earlier cohorts in the SEARCH study was surprising given how the landscape of diabetes management has changed dramatically over the past decade,” Dr. Malik said in an interview.
 

Urgent need to improve glycemic control in youth with diabetes

The SEARCH study, funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the largest and most diverse study of diabetes in youth in the United States. It has over 27,000 participants seen at five study sites in California, Colorado, Ohio, South Carolina, and Washington state.

Among youth with type 1 diabetes in the study, average hemoglobin A1c rose from 8.6% in 2002-2007 (n = 3,451) to 8.8% in 2008-2014 (n = 2,254), and remained at 8.8% in 2014-2019 (n = 1,651).

Among those with type 2 diabetes, A1c levels fluctuated from 8.8% (n = 379) to 8.4% (n = 327) to 8.5% (n = 469) in the three time periods, respectively.

By contrast, in 2014 the ADA recommended an A1c of less than 7.5% for youth of all ages with type 1 diabetes, down from prior less stringent targets.

In 2018, the ADA advised A1c levels below 7% for youth with type 2 diabetes. In both cases, targets may be adjusted based on individual circumstances.

A particularly striking data point was seen among youth who had type 2 diabetes for 10 years or more: average A1c skyrocketed from 7.9% in 2008-2013 to 10.1% in 2014-2019. The numbers were small, 25 patients in the earlier cohort and 149 patients in the later, yet the difference was still significant (P < .01). And in those with type 1 diabetes for 5-9 years, average A1c rose from 8.7% in 2002-2007 (n = 769) to 9.2% in 2014-2019 (n = 654) (P < .01).

“These results suggest that not all youth with diabetes are directly benefiting from the increased availability of diabetes technology, newer therapies, and the use of more aggressive glycemic targets for youth with diabetes over time,” Dr. Malik said.

“Recognizing that lower A1c levels in adolescence and young adulthood is associated with lower risk and rate of microvascular and macrovascular complications, this study further underscores the urgent need for effective treatment strategies to improve glycemic control in youth and young adults with diabetes,” he added.

Asked to comment, David M. Maahs, MD, said in an interview that the type 1 diabetes data are “very consistent” with those found in the T1D Exchange registry study but that both datasets include patients seen at diabetes centers and therefore may not represent the entire population.

“I don’t think there’s reason to think we’re actually doing any better than these data indicate,” said Dr. Maahs, professor of pediatrics and division chief of pediatric endocrinology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Other countries improving, U.S. getting worse

Dr. Maahs contrasted the U.S. situation with that of the English/Welsh National Paediatric Diabetes Audit and some European countries that have improved pediatric diabetes control and outcomes using a population-based approach.

“In the United States we have a disjointed irrational health care system that doesn’t invest in diabetes education and in the basic care and monitoring that children with diabetes need to get better glucose control,” he said.

“We’re not having systematic approaches to it as many European countries have. They have gotten better results over this same time period. In the United States we’re getting worse,” Dr. Maahs observed.

And as far as diabetes technology is concerned, Dr. Maahs said, “there’s more to it than just throwing technology at it. People who are using technology are getting better outcomes, but there are a lot of people who don’t get access to it.”

Indeed, Dr. Malik pointed out, “while the recent SEARCH [type 1 diabetes] cohorts had increased insulin pump use, it’s worth noting that more than half of the participants in the most recent cohort were not using diabetes technology.” And even “fewer participants were likely using continuous glucose monitors during our study period.”
 

Barriers to care, type 1 diabetes is “very labor intensive”

Dr. Malik said that barriers to care include “high cost, alarm fatigue, and encumbrances of wearing a mechanical device [that] continue to present challenges around technology use,” as well as “inequities in the use of these technologies across socioeconomic status, health insurance, and race/ethnicity, which need to be addressed.”

Dr. Maahs did have a recommendation for U.S. primary care physicians who are managing youth with either type of diabetes: a tele-education program called Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes), which uses a train-the-trainer model, rather than direct telehealth, to bring tele-education to primary care providers.

Such programs in diabetes have shown some success, he said.

Type 1 diabetes, Dr. Malik noted, “is very labor intensive. Frequent or constant monitoring of glucose and multiple daily doses of basal and bolus insulin are commonly recommended by type 1 diabetes care providers in the United States.”

“This has led to increasingly burdensome management for children and their caregivers, which often results in suboptimal adherence, suboptimal glycemic control, and greater risk of complications.”

Dr. Malik encourages providers “to engage in person-centered collaborative care as recommended by the ADA, which is guided by shared decision-making in treatment regimen selection, facilitation of obtaining needed medical and psychosocial resources, and shared monitoring of agreed-upon regimen and lifestyle.”

Dr. Malik has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Maahs has reported being on advisory boards for Medtronic, Lilly, and Abbott.

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

Glycemic control among youth with diabetes is no better today than it was in 2002 and in some subgroups it’s worse, despite increased availability of diabetes technology, newer therapies, and more aggressive recommended blood glucose targets, new research finds.

The sobering data from 6,399 participants in the longitudinal SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study were presented June 15 at the virtual American Diabetes Association 80th Scientific Sessions by Faisal S. Malik, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and Seattle Children’s Research Institute.

“Our finding that current youth and young adults with diabetes are not demonstrating improved glycemic control, compared to earlier cohorts in the SEARCH study was surprising given how the landscape of diabetes management has changed dramatically over the past decade,” Dr. Malik said in an interview.
 

Urgent need to improve glycemic control in youth with diabetes

The SEARCH study, funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the largest and most diverse study of diabetes in youth in the United States. It has over 27,000 participants seen at five study sites in California, Colorado, Ohio, South Carolina, and Washington state.

Among youth with type 1 diabetes in the study, average hemoglobin A1c rose from 8.6% in 2002-2007 (n = 3,451) to 8.8% in 2008-2014 (n = 2,254), and remained at 8.8% in 2014-2019 (n = 1,651).

Among those with type 2 diabetes, A1c levels fluctuated from 8.8% (n = 379) to 8.4% (n = 327) to 8.5% (n = 469) in the three time periods, respectively.

By contrast, in 2014 the ADA recommended an A1c of less than 7.5% for youth of all ages with type 1 diabetes, down from prior less stringent targets.

In 2018, the ADA advised A1c levels below 7% for youth with type 2 diabetes. In both cases, targets may be adjusted based on individual circumstances.

A particularly striking data point was seen among youth who had type 2 diabetes for 10 years or more: average A1c skyrocketed from 7.9% in 2008-2013 to 10.1% in 2014-2019. The numbers were small, 25 patients in the earlier cohort and 149 patients in the later, yet the difference was still significant (P < .01). And in those with type 1 diabetes for 5-9 years, average A1c rose from 8.7% in 2002-2007 (n = 769) to 9.2% in 2014-2019 (n = 654) (P < .01).

“These results suggest that not all youth with diabetes are directly benefiting from the increased availability of diabetes technology, newer therapies, and the use of more aggressive glycemic targets for youth with diabetes over time,” Dr. Malik said.

“Recognizing that lower A1c levels in adolescence and young adulthood is associated with lower risk and rate of microvascular and macrovascular complications, this study further underscores the urgent need for effective treatment strategies to improve glycemic control in youth and young adults with diabetes,” he added.

Asked to comment, David M. Maahs, MD, said in an interview that the type 1 diabetes data are “very consistent” with those found in the T1D Exchange registry study but that both datasets include patients seen at diabetes centers and therefore may not represent the entire population.

“I don’t think there’s reason to think we’re actually doing any better than these data indicate,” said Dr. Maahs, professor of pediatrics and division chief of pediatric endocrinology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Other countries improving, U.S. getting worse

Dr. Maahs contrasted the U.S. situation with that of the English/Welsh National Paediatric Diabetes Audit and some European countries that have improved pediatric diabetes control and outcomes using a population-based approach.

“In the United States we have a disjointed irrational health care system that doesn’t invest in diabetes education and in the basic care and monitoring that children with diabetes need to get better glucose control,” he said.

“We’re not having systematic approaches to it as many European countries have. They have gotten better results over this same time period. In the United States we’re getting worse,” Dr. Maahs observed.

And as far as diabetes technology is concerned, Dr. Maahs said, “there’s more to it than just throwing technology at it. People who are using technology are getting better outcomes, but there are a lot of people who don’t get access to it.”

Indeed, Dr. Malik pointed out, “while the recent SEARCH [type 1 diabetes] cohorts had increased insulin pump use, it’s worth noting that more than half of the participants in the most recent cohort were not using diabetes technology.” And even “fewer participants were likely using continuous glucose monitors during our study period.”
 

Barriers to care, type 1 diabetes is “very labor intensive”

Dr. Malik said that barriers to care include “high cost, alarm fatigue, and encumbrances of wearing a mechanical device [that] continue to present challenges around technology use,” as well as “inequities in the use of these technologies across socioeconomic status, health insurance, and race/ethnicity, which need to be addressed.”

Dr. Maahs did have a recommendation for U.S. primary care physicians who are managing youth with either type of diabetes: a tele-education program called Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes), which uses a train-the-trainer model, rather than direct telehealth, to bring tele-education to primary care providers.

Such programs in diabetes have shown some success, he said.

Type 1 diabetes, Dr. Malik noted, “is very labor intensive. Frequent or constant monitoring of glucose and multiple daily doses of basal and bolus insulin are commonly recommended by type 1 diabetes care providers in the United States.”

“This has led to increasingly burdensome management for children and their caregivers, which often results in suboptimal adherence, suboptimal glycemic control, and greater risk of complications.”

Dr. Malik encourages providers “to engage in person-centered collaborative care as recommended by the ADA, which is guided by shared decision-making in treatment regimen selection, facilitation of obtaining needed medical and psychosocial resources, and shared monitoring of agreed-upon regimen and lifestyle.”

Dr. Malik has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Maahs has reported being on advisory boards for Medtronic, Lilly, and Abbott.

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

A model created by the National Cancer Institute predicts that tens of thousands of excess cancer deaths will occur over the next decade as a result of missed screenings, delays in diagnosis, and reductions in oncology care caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“As director of NCI, I am deeply concerned about the potential impacts of delayed diagnoses and deferred or modified treatment plans on cancer incidence and mortality,” said Norman “Ned” Sharpless, MD.

“In the past 3 decades, we have seen steady and strong progress against death and suffering from cancer, thanks to improvements in prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment. I worry that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has put those decades of steady progress at risk and may precipitate reversals of these trends.”

In an editorial published June 19 in Science, Dr. Sharpless highlighted modeling performed by the NCI that predicts an excess of 10,000 deaths from breast and colorectal cancer over the next 10 years.

The number of excess deaths per year would peak in the next year or 2, likely sooner for colorectal than for breast cancer, but “for both cancer types, we believe the pandemic will influence cancer deaths for at least a decade.”

In an interview, Dr. Sharpless pointed out that this analysis is conservative because the researchers only evaluated two types of cancer. They chose breast and colorectal cancer because these are common cancers (accounting for about one-sixth of all cancers) with relatively high screening rates.

“We didn’t model other cancer types, but we have no reason to think that we’re not going to see the same thing with other types of malignancies,” he said. “That is a significant amount of excess mortality.”
 

Delayed diagnosis, modified therapy

One of the effects of the pandemic has been to cause delays in cancer diagnosis. “Routine screening has plummeted and is running at less than 90% in some systems,” Dr. Sharpless said.

“Most cancers are diagnosed when people experience symptoms and go see their doctors, and those symptomatic screening events are also not happening,” he continued. “Fear of contracting the coronavirus in health care settings has dissuaded people from visits.”

In some cases, a delay in diagnosis will allow the cancer to progress to a more advanced stage. “The earlier the diagnosis, the better, and if the stages are more advanced, patients will not do as well for virtually every kind of cancer,” he said.

In addition to delays in diagnosis, treatments are being postponed or modified for patients recently diagnosed with cancer. Because of delays and reductions in curative therapies, patients may be receiving less than optimal care.

“We are seeing a lot of nonstandard care,” said Dr. Sharpless. “All of these things add up to increased cancer morbidity and mortality.”

He also pointed out that the term “elective” is confusing and problematic. “It doesn’t mean that it’s not needed, just that it’s not an emergency and doesn’t need to be done today,” said Dr. Sharpless. “But if we’re talking about chemotherapy and surgery, we don’t think they can be delayed for too long – maybe a week, but not for several months.”

Dr. Sharpless feels that overall it is time for cancer care to resume as much as possible, because “ignoring cancer for too long is an untenable choice and may turn one public health crisis into another.”

“If we act now, we can make up for lost time,” he wrote in the editorial. “Clearly, postponing procedures and deferring care due to the pandemic was prudent at one time, but now that we have made it through the initial shock of the pandemic, I believe it is time to resume robust cancer care.”

Through their network of cancer centers, researchers with the NCI can develop innovative solutions that allow screening and treatment to move forward while maintaining safety. “We need to make patients feel safe, and we have to answer important questions quickly,” he said.
 

Impact of COVID-19 on cancer care

The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health care systems worldwide and has created major challenges for clinicians who are caring for patients with cancer.

As previously reported, hospitals reprioritized resources for an impending onslaught of COVID-19 patients. Services and procedures deemed to be nonessential were canceled or delayed, including surgeries and imaging.

In a survey conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, half of the 1219 respondents reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving. The services most frequently affected included in-person provider visits (50%), supportive services (20%), and imaging procedures to monitor tumor growth (20%).

In addition, 8% reported that their treatment, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, had been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the United Kingdom, Cancer Research UK estimated that because of the disruption to cancer services, 2.4 million people did not undergo cancer screening or further testing or did not receive cancer treatment and that tens of thousands of cases have gone undiagnosed.

Similarly, a survey by Macmillan Cancer Support showed that almost half (45%) of cancer patients have experienced delays or cancellations of cancer treatments, or their treatments have been altered as a result of coronavirus, leaving many living in fear. Calling cancer “the forgotten C” of the pandemic, it warned of a potential cancer “time bomb” when, as the number of deaths from COVID-19 falls, cancer returns as the leading cause of death in the United Kingdom.

Last month, a report also predicted that there will be an excess of cancer deaths in both the United States and United Kingdom because of patients not accessing health care services.

The authors calculated that there will be 6270 excess deaths among cancer patients 1 year from now in England and 33,890 excess deaths among cancer patients older than 40 years in the United States.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A model created by the National Cancer Institute predicts that tens of thousands of excess cancer deaths will occur over the next decade as a result of missed screenings, delays in diagnosis, and reductions in oncology care caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“As director of NCI, I am deeply concerned about the potential impacts of delayed diagnoses and deferred or modified treatment plans on cancer incidence and mortality,” said Norman “Ned” Sharpless, MD.

“In the past 3 decades, we have seen steady and strong progress against death and suffering from cancer, thanks to improvements in prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment. I worry that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has put those decades of steady progress at risk and may precipitate reversals of these trends.”

In an editorial published June 19 in Science, Dr. Sharpless highlighted modeling performed by the NCI that predicts an excess of 10,000 deaths from breast and colorectal cancer over the next 10 years.

The number of excess deaths per year would peak in the next year or 2, likely sooner for colorectal than for breast cancer, but “for both cancer types, we believe the pandemic will influence cancer deaths for at least a decade.”

In an interview, Dr. Sharpless pointed out that this analysis is conservative because the researchers only evaluated two types of cancer. They chose breast and colorectal cancer because these are common cancers (accounting for about one-sixth of all cancers) with relatively high screening rates.

“We didn’t model other cancer types, but we have no reason to think that we’re not going to see the same thing with other types of malignancies,” he said. “That is a significant amount of excess mortality.”
 

Delayed diagnosis, modified therapy

One of the effects of the pandemic has been to cause delays in cancer diagnosis. “Routine screening has plummeted and is running at less than 90% in some systems,” Dr. Sharpless said.

“Most cancers are diagnosed when people experience symptoms and go see their doctors, and those symptomatic screening events are also not happening,” he continued. “Fear of contracting the coronavirus in health care settings has dissuaded people from visits.”

In some cases, a delay in diagnosis will allow the cancer to progress to a more advanced stage. “The earlier the diagnosis, the better, and if the stages are more advanced, patients will not do as well for virtually every kind of cancer,” he said.

In addition to delays in diagnosis, treatments are being postponed or modified for patients recently diagnosed with cancer. Because of delays and reductions in curative therapies, patients may be receiving less than optimal care.

“We are seeing a lot of nonstandard care,” said Dr. Sharpless. “All of these things add up to increased cancer morbidity and mortality.”

He also pointed out that the term “elective” is confusing and problematic. “It doesn’t mean that it’s not needed, just that it’s not an emergency and doesn’t need to be done today,” said Dr. Sharpless. “But if we’re talking about chemotherapy and surgery, we don’t think they can be delayed for too long – maybe a week, but not for several months.”

Dr. Sharpless feels that overall it is time for cancer care to resume as much as possible, because “ignoring cancer for too long is an untenable choice and may turn one public health crisis into another.”

“If we act now, we can make up for lost time,” he wrote in the editorial. “Clearly, postponing procedures and deferring care due to the pandemic was prudent at one time, but now that we have made it through the initial shock of the pandemic, I believe it is time to resume robust cancer care.”

Through their network of cancer centers, researchers with the NCI can develop innovative solutions that allow screening and treatment to move forward while maintaining safety. “We need to make patients feel safe, and we have to answer important questions quickly,” he said.
 

Impact of COVID-19 on cancer care

The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health care systems worldwide and has created major challenges for clinicians who are caring for patients with cancer.

As previously reported, hospitals reprioritized resources for an impending onslaught of COVID-19 patients. Services and procedures deemed to be nonessential were canceled or delayed, including surgeries and imaging.

In a survey conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, half of the 1219 respondents reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving. The services most frequently affected included in-person provider visits (50%), supportive services (20%), and imaging procedures to monitor tumor growth (20%).

In addition, 8% reported that their treatment, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, had been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the United Kingdom, Cancer Research UK estimated that because of the disruption to cancer services, 2.4 million people did not undergo cancer screening or further testing or did not receive cancer treatment and that tens of thousands of cases have gone undiagnosed.

Similarly, a survey by Macmillan Cancer Support showed that almost half (45%) of cancer patients have experienced delays or cancellations of cancer treatments, or their treatments have been altered as a result of coronavirus, leaving many living in fear. Calling cancer “the forgotten C” of the pandemic, it warned of a potential cancer “time bomb” when, as the number of deaths from COVID-19 falls, cancer returns as the leading cause of death in the United Kingdom.

Last month, a report also predicted that there will be an excess of cancer deaths in both the United States and United Kingdom because of patients not accessing health care services.

The authors calculated that there will be 6270 excess deaths among cancer patients 1 year from now in England and 33,890 excess deaths among cancer patients older than 40 years in the United States.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A model created by the National Cancer Institute predicts that tens of thousands of excess cancer deaths will occur over the next decade as a result of missed screenings, delays in diagnosis, and reductions in oncology care caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“As director of NCI, I am deeply concerned about the potential impacts of delayed diagnoses and deferred or modified treatment plans on cancer incidence and mortality,” said Norman “Ned” Sharpless, MD.

“In the past 3 decades, we have seen steady and strong progress against death and suffering from cancer, thanks to improvements in prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment. I worry that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has put those decades of steady progress at risk and may precipitate reversals of these trends.”

In an editorial published June 19 in Science, Dr. Sharpless highlighted modeling performed by the NCI that predicts an excess of 10,000 deaths from breast and colorectal cancer over the next 10 years.

The number of excess deaths per year would peak in the next year or 2, likely sooner for colorectal than for breast cancer, but “for both cancer types, we believe the pandemic will influence cancer deaths for at least a decade.”

In an interview, Dr. Sharpless pointed out that this analysis is conservative because the researchers only evaluated two types of cancer. They chose breast and colorectal cancer because these are common cancers (accounting for about one-sixth of all cancers) with relatively high screening rates.

“We didn’t model other cancer types, but we have no reason to think that we’re not going to see the same thing with other types of malignancies,” he said. “That is a significant amount of excess mortality.”
 

Delayed diagnosis, modified therapy

One of the effects of the pandemic has been to cause delays in cancer diagnosis. “Routine screening has plummeted and is running at less than 90% in some systems,” Dr. Sharpless said.

“Most cancers are diagnosed when people experience symptoms and go see their doctors, and those symptomatic screening events are also not happening,” he continued. “Fear of contracting the coronavirus in health care settings has dissuaded people from visits.”

In some cases, a delay in diagnosis will allow the cancer to progress to a more advanced stage. “The earlier the diagnosis, the better, and if the stages are more advanced, patients will not do as well for virtually every kind of cancer,” he said.

In addition to delays in diagnosis, treatments are being postponed or modified for patients recently diagnosed with cancer. Because of delays and reductions in curative therapies, patients may be receiving less than optimal care.

“We are seeing a lot of nonstandard care,” said Dr. Sharpless. “All of these things add up to increased cancer morbidity and mortality.”

He also pointed out that the term “elective” is confusing and problematic. “It doesn’t mean that it’s not needed, just that it’s not an emergency and doesn’t need to be done today,” said Dr. Sharpless. “But if we’re talking about chemotherapy and surgery, we don’t think they can be delayed for too long – maybe a week, but not for several months.”

Dr. Sharpless feels that overall it is time for cancer care to resume as much as possible, because “ignoring cancer for too long is an untenable choice and may turn one public health crisis into another.”

“If we act now, we can make up for lost time,” he wrote in the editorial. “Clearly, postponing procedures and deferring care due to the pandemic was prudent at one time, but now that we have made it through the initial shock of the pandemic, I believe it is time to resume robust cancer care.”

Through their network of cancer centers, researchers with the NCI can develop innovative solutions that allow screening and treatment to move forward while maintaining safety. “We need to make patients feel safe, and we have to answer important questions quickly,” he said.
 

Impact of COVID-19 on cancer care

The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health care systems worldwide and has created major challenges for clinicians who are caring for patients with cancer.

As previously reported, hospitals reprioritized resources for an impending onslaught of COVID-19 patients. Services and procedures deemed to be nonessential were canceled or delayed, including surgeries and imaging.

In a survey conducted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, half of the 1219 respondents reported changes, delays, or disruptions to the care they were receiving. The services most frequently affected included in-person provider visits (50%), supportive services (20%), and imaging procedures to monitor tumor growth (20%).

In addition, 8% reported that their treatment, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, had been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the United Kingdom, Cancer Research UK estimated that because of the disruption to cancer services, 2.4 million people did not undergo cancer screening or further testing or did not receive cancer treatment and that tens of thousands of cases have gone undiagnosed.

Similarly, a survey by Macmillan Cancer Support showed that almost half (45%) of cancer patients have experienced delays or cancellations of cancer treatments, or their treatments have been altered as a result of coronavirus, leaving many living in fear. Calling cancer “the forgotten C” of the pandemic, it warned of a potential cancer “time bomb” when, as the number of deaths from COVID-19 falls, cancer returns as the leading cause of death in the United Kingdom.

Last month, a report also predicted that there will be an excess of cancer deaths in both the United States and United Kingdom because of patients not accessing health care services.

The authors calculated that there will be 6270 excess deaths among cancer patients 1 year from now in England and 33,890 excess deaths among cancer patients older than 40 years in the United States.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine has been added to the Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program for individuals aged 2 years and older.

No changes to the current meningococcal vaccination recommendations were made. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 14-0 to include MenACWY-TT as an option for vaccination against meningococcal serogroups A, C, W, and Y in the VFC program. The vote took place in a virtual meeting held on June 24.

The currently available MenACWY vaccines in the United States are MenACWY-D (Menactra), MenACWY-CRW (Menveo), and MenACWY-TT (MedQuadfi), with MenACWY-TT approved by the Food and Drug Administration in April 2020.

Meningococcal vaccination is currently recommended for adolescents, with one dose at age 11 or 12 years and a booster at age 16 years, as well as individuals aged 2 months and older at increased risk for meningococcal disease, according to Lucy McNamara, PhD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

Dr. McNamara presented considerations from the Meningococcal Work Group, which determined that the inclusion of MenACWY-TT “is of public health importance given recent vaccine licensure and to support security of vaccine supply.”

The Work Group reviewed 10 studies (phase 2 or 3) of MenACWY-TT that included data on short-term immune response, persistence of immune response, immune interference because of coadministration with other routine adolescent vaccines, and incidence of serious adverse events. Overall, the data showed noninferiority of MenACWY-TT, compared with other available products, in terms of response rates, as well as higher levels of immune response in some studies. Serious adverse events were similar, and none determined to be associated with the vaccines.

ACIP member Paul Hunter, MD, of the University of Milwaukee, Wisc., expressed some concerns about pain or side effects for the new vaccine and Tdap when given together. However, a study of coadministration of MedACWY-TT and Tdap, compared with Tdap alone, showed no impact on geometric mean titer ratios.

Overall, the Work Group concluded that “desirable effects outweigh undesirable effects” and that the data favor the inclusion of MenACWY-TT as an option for meningococcal vaccination.

The committee members and Dr. McNamara had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A new quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine has been added to the Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program for individuals aged 2 years and older.

No changes to the current meningococcal vaccination recommendations were made. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 14-0 to include MenACWY-TT as an option for vaccination against meningococcal serogroups A, C, W, and Y in the VFC program. The vote took place in a virtual meeting held on June 24.

The currently available MenACWY vaccines in the United States are MenACWY-D (Menactra), MenACWY-CRW (Menveo), and MenACWY-TT (MedQuadfi), with MenACWY-TT approved by the Food and Drug Administration in April 2020.

Meningococcal vaccination is currently recommended for adolescents, with one dose at age 11 or 12 years and a booster at age 16 years, as well as individuals aged 2 months and older at increased risk for meningococcal disease, according to Lucy McNamara, PhD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

Dr. McNamara presented considerations from the Meningococcal Work Group, which determined that the inclusion of MenACWY-TT “is of public health importance given recent vaccine licensure and to support security of vaccine supply.”

The Work Group reviewed 10 studies (phase 2 or 3) of MenACWY-TT that included data on short-term immune response, persistence of immune response, immune interference because of coadministration with other routine adolescent vaccines, and incidence of serious adverse events. Overall, the data showed noninferiority of MenACWY-TT, compared with other available products, in terms of response rates, as well as higher levels of immune response in some studies. Serious adverse events were similar, and none determined to be associated with the vaccines.

ACIP member Paul Hunter, MD, of the University of Milwaukee, Wisc., expressed some concerns about pain or side effects for the new vaccine and Tdap when given together. However, a study of coadministration of MedACWY-TT and Tdap, compared with Tdap alone, showed no impact on geometric mean titer ratios.

Overall, the Work Group concluded that “desirable effects outweigh undesirable effects” and that the data favor the inclusion of MenACWY-TT as an option for meningococcal vaccination.

The committee members and Dr. McNamara had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A new quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine has been added to the Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program for individuals aged 2 years and older.

No changes to the current meningococcal vaccination recommendations were made. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 14-0 to include MenACWY-TT as an option for vaccination against meningococcal serogroups A, C, W, and Y in the VFC program. The vote took place in a virtual meeting held on June 24.

The currently available MenACWY vaccines in the United States are MenACWY-D (Menactra), MenACWY-CRW (Menveo), and MenACWY-TT (MedQuadfi), with MenACWY-TT approved by the Food and Drug Administration in April 2020.

Meningococcal vaccination is currently recommended for adolescents, with one dose at age 11 or 12 years and a booster at age 16 years, as well as individuals aged 2 months and older at increased risk for meningococcal disease, according to Lucy McNamara, PhD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

Dr. McNamara presented considerations from the Meningococcal Work Group, which determined that the inclusion of MenACWY-TT “is of public health importance given recent vaccine licensure and to support security of vaccine supply.”

The Work Group reviewed 10 studies (phase 2 or 3) of MenACWY-TT that included data on short-term immune response, persistence of immune response, immune interference because of coadministration with other routine adolescent vaccines, and incidence of serious adverse events. Overall, the data showed noninferiority of MenACWY-TT, compared with other available products, in terms of response rates, as well as higher levels of immune response in some studies. Serious adverse events were similar, and none determined to be associated with the vaccines.

ACIP member Paul Hunter, MD, of the University of Milwaukee, Wisc., expressed some concerns about pain or side effects for the new vaccine and Tdap when given together. However, a study of coadministration of MedACWY-TT and Tdap, compared with Tdap alone, showed no impact on geometric mean titer ratios.

Overall, the Work Group concluded that “desirable effects outweigh undesirable effects” and that the data favor the inclusion of MenACWY-TT as an option for meningococcal vaccination.

The committee members and Dr. McNamara had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with COVID-19 develop a distinct subset of pancreatitis hallmarked by duodenal and periduodenal inflammation, according to a recent case series.

Although all five patients presented with multiple predictive markers of severe pancreatitis, the subsequent clinical pathway “was much more benign than anticipated,” reported lead author Peter Szatmary, MB, BChir, PhD, of the University of Liverpool (England) and colleagues. Still, they noted prolonged hospital stays because of persistent inflammation and poor diabetic control.

“As the global pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 continues, nuances of the disease it precipitates in humans continue to emerge,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “[A] group from Wuhan reported a series of 9 patients with purported pancreatic injury in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but did not provide robust evidence for pancreatitis relying on mild hyperamylasemia alone.”

For the present series, Dr. Szatmary and colleagues restricted diagnosis of pancreatitis to international consensus guidelines, which require “abdominal pain consistent with pancreatitis, serum amylase/lipase greater than three times the upper limit of normal, and characteristic findings on cross-sectional imaging.”

From middle of March to late April, the investigators identified 35 patients with acute pancreatitis at Royal Liverpool (England) University Hospital, 25 of whom tested negative for SARS-CoV-2, which resulted in study exclusion. An additional five patients were excluded from the series as another etiology for pancreatitis was clearly present, such as gallstones.

“The remaining 5 patients, all with SARS-CoV-2, presented atypically yet homogenously with a distinct metabolic-pancreatitis phenotype,” the investigators wrote.

All five patients were obese or overweight young men with a median body mass index of 30 kg/m² and age of 42 years. On presentation, all patients had elevated, but nondiagnostic, levels of amylase (median, 149 U/L). Contrast-enhanced abdominal CT revealed moderate to severe hepatic steatosis (less than 104 HU), which rapidly regressed within a week among patients who underwent repeat imaging.

“The pattern of pancreatic inflammation was similarly unusual in these patients,” the investigators wrote, going on to describe “mild pancreatic edema without significant pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis, with distinct duodenal/periduodenal inflammation involving the second and third part of the duodenum.”

According to Dr. Szatmary and colleagues, these findings were “accompanied by a profound systemic inflammatory response,” including 1-2 criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome that increased to 2-4 criteria within 48 hours. During hospitalization, patients also exhibited a “dramatic elevation” of C-reactive protein, from a median of 31 mg/L upon admission to 485 mg/L within 48 hours.

Although these markers predicted severe disease, all cases followed a clinical course similar to “a typical attack of moderate pancreatitis,” the investigators wrote.

All patients were treated with IV fluids, four out of five received broad-spectrum IV antibiotics for pneumonitis, three out of five received fibrate and/or insulin therapy, and two out of five received pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy. No patients required corticosteroids, organ support, or respiratory support beyond low-flow oxygen. Median hospital stay was 14 days.

“We ... propose the combination of male sex, abdominal pain, metabolic stress, and CT-findings of predominantly pancreatico-duodenal inflammation with steatosis represent a distinct subset of pancreatitis in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2,” the investigators wrote.

They suggested that the endocrine pancreas may be “particularly vulnerable to this infection,” citing prolonged hospital stays because of poor diabetic control.

“[T]ransient dyslipidemias and impaired glucose tolerance may be common in SARS-CoV-2 patients and warrant further investigation,” they concluded.

Oscar J. Hines, MD, chief of the division of general surgery at UCLA Medical Center and leader in the field of pancreatitis management, said that the case series has a limited impact.

“The findings are unlikely to change practice and only call attention for physicians to the possibility of pancreatitis in COVID-positive patients,” Dr. Hines said.

The investigators reported grants from NIHR, Wellcome Trust, Mylan, and others.

SOURCE: Szatmary P et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jun 1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.069.

Patients with COVID-19 develop a distinct subset of pancreatitis hallmarked by duodenal and periduodenal inflammation, according to a recent case series.

Although all five patients presented with multiple predictive markers of severe pancreatitis, the subsequent clinical pathway “was much more benign than anticipated,” reported lead author Peter Szatmary, MB, BChir, PhD, of the University of Liverpool (England) and colleagues. Still, they noted prolonged hospital stays because of persistent inflammation and poor diabetic control.

“As the global pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 continues, nuances of the disease it precipitates in humans continue to emerge,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “[A] group from Wuhan reported a series of 9 patients with purported pancreatic injury in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but did not provide robust evidence for pancreatitis relying on mild hyperamylasemia alone.”

For the present series, Dr. Szatmary and colleagues restricted diagnosis of pancreatitis to international consensus guidelines, which require “abdominal pain consistent with pancreatitis, serum amylase/lipase greater than three times the upper limit of normal, and characteristic findings on cross-sectional imaging.”

From middle of March to late April, the investigators identified 35 patients with acute pancreatitis at Royal Liverpool (England) University Hospital, 25 of whom tested negative for SARS-CoV-2, which resulted in study exclusion. An additional five patients were excluded from the series as another etiology for pancreatitis was clearly present, such as gallstones.

“The remaining 5 patients, all with SARS-CoV-2, presented atypically yet homogenously with a distinct metabolic-pancreatitis phenotype,” the investigators wrote.

All five patients were obese or overweight young men with a median body mass index of 30 kg/m² and age of 42 years. On presentation, all patients had elevated, but nondiagnostic, levels of amylase (median, 149 U/L). Contrast-enhanced abdominal CT revealed moderate to severe hepatic steatosis (less than 104 HU), which rapidly regressed within a week among patients who underwent repeat imaging.

“The pattern of pancreatic inflammation was similarly unusual in these patients,” the investigators wrote, going on to describe “mild pancreatic edema without significant pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis, with distinct duodenal/periduodenal inflammation involving the second and third part of the duodenum.”

According to Dr. Szatmary and colleagues, these findings were “accompanied by a profound systemic inflammatory response,” including 1-2 criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome that increased to 2-4 criteria within 48 hours. During hospitalization, patients also exhibited a “dramatic elevation” of C-reactive protein, from a median of 31 mg/L upon admission to 485 mg/L within 48 hours.

Although these markers predicted severe disease, all cases followed a clinical course similar to “a typical attack of moderate pancreatitis,” the investigators wrote.

All patients were treated with IV fluids, four out of five received broad-spectrum IV antibiotics for pneumonitis, three out of five received fibrate and/or insulin therapy, and two out of five received pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy. No patients required corticosteroids, organ support, or respiratory support beyond low-flow oxygen. Median hospital stay was 14 days.

“We ... propose the combination of male sex, abdominal pain, metabolic stress, and CT-findings of predominantly pancreatico-duodenal inflammation with steatosis represent a distinct subset of pancreatitis in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2,” the investigators wrote.

They suggested that the endocrine pancreas may be “particularly vulnerable to this infection,” citing prolonged hospital stays because of poor diabetic control.

“[T]ransient dyslipidemias and impaired glucose tolerance may be common in SARS-CoV-2 patients and warrant further investigation,” they concluded.

Oscar J. Hines, MD, chief of the division of general surgery at UCLA Medical Center and leader in the field of pancreatitis management, said that the case series has a limited impact.

“The findings are unlikely to change practice and only call attention for physicians to the possibility of pancreatitis in COVID-positive patients,” Dr. Hines said.

The investigators reported grants from NIHR, Wellcome Trust, Mylan, and others.

SOURCE: Szatmary P et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jun 1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.069.

Patients with COVID-19 develop a distinct subset of pancreatitis hallmarked by duodenal and periduodenal inflammation, according to a recent case series.

Although all five patients presented with multiple predictive markers of severe pancreatitis, the subsequent clinical pathway “was much more benign than anticipated,” reported lead author Peter Szatmary, MB, BChir, PhD, of the University of Liverpool (England) and colleagues. Still, they noted prolonged hospital stays because of persistent inflammation and poor diabetic control.

“As the global pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 continues, nuances of the disease it precipitates in humans continue to emerge,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “[A] group from Wuhan reported a series of 9 patients with purported pancreatic injury in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but did not provide robust evidence for pancreatitis relying on mild hyperamylasemia alone.”

For the present series, Dr. Szatmary and colleagues restricted diagnosis of pancreatitis to international consensus guidelines, which require “abdominal pain consistent with pancreatitis, serum amylase/lipase greater than three times the upper limit of normal, and characteristic findings on cross-sectional imaging.”

From middle of March to late April, the investigators identified 35 patients with acute pancreatitis at Royal Liverpool (England) University Hospital, 25 of whom tested negative for SARS-CoV-2, which resulted in study exclusion. An additional five patients were excluded from the series as another etiology for pancreatitis was clearly present, such as gallstones.

“The remaining 5 patients, all with SARS-CoV-2, presented atypically yet homogenously with a distinct metabolic-pancreatitis phenotype,” the investigators wrote.

All five patients were obese or overweight young men with a median body mass index of 30 kg/m² and age of 42 years. On presentation, all patients had elevated, but nondiagnostic, levels of amylase (median, 149 U/L). Contrast-enhanced abdominal CT revealed moderate to severe hepatic steatosis (less than 104 HU), which rapidly regressed within a week among patients who underwent repeat imaging.

“The pattern of pancreatic inflammation was similarly unusual in these patients,” the investigators wrote, going on to describe “mild pancreatic edema without significant pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis, with distinct duodenal/periduodenal inflammation involving the second and third part of the duodenum.”

According to Dr. Szatmary and colleagues, these findings were “accompanied by a profound systemic inflammatory response,” including 1-2 criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome that increased to 2-4 criteria within 48 hours. During hospitalization, patients also exhibited a “dramatic elevation” of C-reactive protein, from a median of 31 mg/L upon admission to 485 mg/L within 48 hours.

Although these markers predicted severe disease, all cases followed a clinical course similar to “a typical attack of moderate pancreatitis,” the investigators wrote.

All patients were treated with IV fluids, four out of five received broad-spectrum IV antibiotics for pneumonitis, three out of five received fibrate and/or insulin therapy, and two out of five received pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy. No patients required corticosteroids, organ support, or respiratory support beyond low-flow oxygen. Median hospital stay was 14 days.

“We ... propose the combination of male sex, abdominal pain, metabolic stress, and CT-findings of predominantly pancreatico-duodenal inflammation with steatosis represent a distinct subset of pancreatitis in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2,” the investigators wrote.

They suggested that the endocrine pancreas may be “particularly vulnerable to this infection,” citing prolonged hospital stays because of poor diabetic control.

“[T]ransient dyslipidemias and impaired glucose tolerance may be common in SARS-CoV-2 patients and warrant further investigation,” they concluded.

Oscar J. Hines, MD, chief of the division of general surgery at UCLA Medical Center and leader in the field of pancreatitis management, said that the case series has a limited impact.

“The findings are unlikely to change practice and only call attention for physicians to the possibility of pancreatitis in COVID-positive patients,” Dr. Hines said.

The investigators reported grants from NIHR, Wellcome Trust, Mylan, and others.

SOURCE: Szatmary P et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jun 1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.069.

The first official U.S. case of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) associated with COVID-19 has been reported by neurologists from Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh, further supporting a link between the virus and neurologic complications, including GBS.

Physicians in China reported the first case of COVID-19 that initially presented as acute GBS. The patient was a 61-year-old woman returning home from Wuhan during the pandemic.

Subsequently, physicians in Italy reported five cases of GBS in association with COVID-19.

The first U.S. case is described in the June issue of the Journal of Clinical Neuromuscular Disease.

Like cases from China and Italy, the U.S. patient’s symptoms of GBS reportedly occurred within days of being infected with SARS-CoV-2. “This onset is similar to a case report of acute Zika virus infection with concurrent GBS suggesting a parainfectious complication,” first author Sandeep Rana, MD, and colleagues noted.

The 54-year-old man was transferred to Allegheny General Hospital after developing ascending limb weakness and numbness that followed symptoms of a respiratory infection. Two weeks earlier, he initially developed rhinorrhea, odynophagia, fevers, chills, and night sweats. The man reported that his wife had tested positive for COVID-19 and that his symptoms started soon after her illness. The man also tested positive for COVID-19.

His deficits were characterized by quadriparesis and areflexia, burning dysesthesias, mild ophthalmoparesis, and dysautonomia. He did not have the loss of smell and taste documented in other COVID-19 patients. He briefly required mechanical ventilation and was successfully weaned after receiving a course of intravenous immunoglobulin.

Compared with other cases reported in the literature, the unique clinical features in the U.S. case are urinary retention secondary to dysautonomia and ocular symptoms of diplopia. These highlight the variability in the clinical presentation of GBS associated with COVID-19, the researchers noted.

They added that, with the Pittsburgh patient, electrophysiological findings were typical of demyelinating polyneuropathy seen in patients with GBS. The case series from Italy suggests that axonal variants could be as common in COVID-19–associated GBS.

“Although the number of documented cases internationally is notably small to date, it’s not completely surprising that a COVID-19 diagnosis may lead to a patient developing GBS. The increase of inflammation and inflammatory cells caused by the infection may trigger an irregular immune response that leads to the hallmark symptoms of this neurological disorder,” Dr. Rana said in a news release.

“Since GBS can significantly affect the respiratory system and other vital organs being pushed into overdrive during a COVID-19 immune response, it will be critically important to further investigate and understand this potential connection,” he added.

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

The first official U.S. case of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) associated with COVID-19 has been reported by neurologists from Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh, further supporting a link between the virus and neurologic complications, including GBS.

Physicians in China reported the first case of COVID-19 that initially presented as acute GBS. The patient was a 61-year-old woman returning home from Wuhan during the pandemic.

Subsequently, physicians in Italy reported five cases of GBS in association with COVID-19.

The first U.S. case is described in the June issue of the Journal of Clinical Neuromuscular Disease.

Like cases from China and Italy, the U.S. patient’s symptoms of GBS reportedly occurred within days of being infected with SARS-CoV-2. “This onset is similar to a case report of acute Zika virus infection with concurrent GBS suggesting a parainfectious complication,” first author Sandeep Rana, MD, and colleagues noted.

The 54-year-old man was transferred to Allegheny General Hospital after developing ascending limb weakness and numbness that followed symptoms of a respiratory infection. Two weeks earlier, he initially developed rhinorrhea, odynophagia, fevers, chills, and night sweats. The man reported that his wife had tested positive for COVID-19 and that his symptoms started soon after her illness. The man also tested positive for COVID-19.

His deficits were characterized by quadriparesis and areflexia, burning dysesthesias, mild ophthalmoparesis, and dysautonomia. He did not have the loss of smell and taste documented in other COVID-19 patients. He briefly required mechanical ventilation and was successfully weaned after receiving a course of intravenous immunoglobulin.

Compared with other cases reported in the literature, the unique clinical features in the U.S. case are urinary retention secondary to dysautonomia and ocular symptoms of diplopia. These highlight the variability in the clinical presentation of GBS associated with COVID-19, the researchers noted.

They added that, with the Pittsburgh patient, electrophysiological findings were typical of demyelinating polyneuropathy seen in patients with GBS. The case series from Italy suggests that axonal variants could be as common in COVID-19–associated GBS.

“Although the number of documented cases internationally is notably small to date, it’s not completely surprising that a COVID-19 diagnosis may lead to a patient developing GBS. The increase of inflammation and inflammatory cells caused by the infection may trigger an irregular immune response that leads to the hallmark symptoms of this neurological disorder,” Dr. Rana said in a news release.

“Since GBS can significantly affect the respiratory system and other vital organs being pushed into overdrive during a COVID-19 immune response, it will be critically important to further investigate and understand this potential connection,” he added.

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

The first official U.S. case of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) associated with COVID-19 has been reported by neurologists from Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh, further supporting a link between the virus and neurologic complications, including GBS.

Physicians in China reported the first case of COVID-19 that initially presented as acute GBS. The patient was a 61-year-old woman returning home from Wuhan during the pandemic.

Subsequently, physicians in Italy reported five cases of GBS in association with COVID-19.

The first U.S. case is described in the June issue of the Journal of Clinical Neuromuscular Disease.

Like cases from China and Italy, the U.S. patient’s symptoms of GBS reportedly occurred within days of being infected with SARS-CoV-2. “This onset is similar to a case report of acute Zika virus infection with concurrent GBS suggesting a parainfectious complication,” first author Sandeep Rana, MD, and colleagues noted.

The 54-year-old man was transferred to Allegheny General Hospital after developing ascending limb weakness and numbness that followed symptoms of a respiratory infection. Two weeks earlier, he initially developed rhinorrhea, odynophagia, fevers, chills, and night sweats. The man reported that his wife had tested positive for COVID-19 and that his symptoms started soon after her illness. The man also tested positive for COVID-19.

His deficits were characterized by quadriparesis and areflexia, burning dysesthesias, mild ophthalmoparesis, and dysautonomia. He did not have the loss of smell and taste documented in other COVID-19 patients. He briefly required mechanical ventilation and was successfully weaned after receiving a course of intravenous immunoglobulin.

Compared with other cases reported in the literature, the unique clinical features in the U.S. case are urinary retention secondary to dysautonomia and ocular symptoms of diplopia. These highlight the variability in the clinical presentation of GBS associated with COVID-19, the researchers noted.

They added that, with the Pittsburgh patient, electrophysiological findings were typical of demyelinating polyneuropathy seen in patients with GBS. The case series from Italy suggests that axonal variants could be as common in COVID-19–associated GBS.

“Although the number of documented cases internationally is notably small to date, it’s not completely surprising that a COVID-19 diagnosis may lead to a patient developing GBS. The increase of inflammation and inflammatory cells caused by the infection may trigger an irregular immune response that leads to the hallmark symptoms of this neurological disorder,” Dr. Rana said in a news release.

“Since GBS can significantly affect the respiratory system and other vital organs being pushed into overdrive during a COVID-19 immune response, it will be critically important to further investigate and understand this potential connection,” he added.

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

Across the globe, there are marked differences in how countries responded to the COVID-19 outbreak, with varying degrees of success in limiting the spread of the virus. Some countries learned important lessons from previous outbreaks, including SARS and MERS, and put policies in place that contributed to lower infection and death rates from COVID-19 in these countries. Others struggled to respond appropriately to the outbreak.

The United States and most of the world was not affected significantly by SARS and MERS. Hence there is a need for different perspectives and observations on lessons that can be learned from this outbreak to help develop effective strategies and policies for the future. It also makes sense to focus intently on the demographic most affected by COVID-19 – the elderly.

Medical care, for the most part, is governed by protocols that clearly detail processes to be followed for the prevention and treatment of disease. Caring for older patients requires going above and beyond the protocols. That is one of the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic – a wake-up call for a more proactive approach for at-risk patients, in this case everyone over the age of 60 years.

In this context, it is important for medical outreach to continue with the senior population long after the pandemic has run its course. Many seniors, particularly those susceptible to other illnesses or exhibiting ongoing issues, would benefit from a consistent and preplanned pattern of contacts by medical professionals and agencies that work with the aging population. These proactive follow-ups can facilitate prevention and treatment and, at the same time, reduce costs that would otherwise increase when health care is reactive.
 

Lessons in infectious disease containment

As COVID-19 spread globally, there were contrasting responses from individual countries in their efforts to contain the disease. Unfortunately, Italy suffered from its decision to lock down only specific regions of the country initially. The leadership in Italy may have ignored the advice of medical experts and been caught off guard by the intensity of the spread of COVID-19. In fact, they might not have taken strict actions right away because they did not want their responses to be viewed as an overreaction to the disease.

The government decided to shut down areas where the infection rates were high (“red zones”) rather than implement restrictions nationally. This may have inadvertently increased the spread as Italians vacated those “red zones” for other areas of the country not yet affected by COVID-19. Italy’s decentralized health care system also played a part in the effects of the disease, with some regions demonstrating more success in slowing the reach of the disease. According to an article in the Harvard Business Review, the neighboring regions of Lombardy and Veneto applied similar approaches to social distancing and retail closures. Veneto was more proactive, and its response to the outbreak was multipronged, including putting a “strong emphasis on home diagnosis and care” and “specific efforts to monitor and protect health care and other essential workers.” These measures most likely contributed to a slowdown of the spread of the disease in Veneto’s health care facilities, which lessened the load on medical providers.¹

Conversely, Taiwan implemented proactive measures swiftly after learning about COVID-19. Taiwan was impacted adversely by the SARS outbreak in 2003 and, afterward, revised their medical policies and procedures to respond quickly to future infectious disease crises. In the beginning, little was known about COVID-19 or how it spread. However, Taiwan’s swift public health response to COVID-19 included early travel restrictions, patient screening, and quarantining of symptomatic patients. The government emphasized education and created real-time digital updates and alerts sent to their citizens, as well as partnering with media to broadcast crucial proactive health information and quickly disproving false information related to COVID-19. They coordinated with organizations throughout the country to increase supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE).²

Although countries and even cities within a country differ in terms of population demographics, health resources, government policies, and cultural practices, initial success stories have some similarities, including the following:

• Early travel restrictions from countries with positive cases, with some circumstances requiring compulsory quarantine periods and testing before entry.
• Extensive testing and proactive tracing of symptomatic cases early. Contacts of people testing positive were also tested, irrespective of being symptomatic or asymptomatic. If testing kits were unavailable, the contacts were self-quarantined.
• Emphasis on avoiding overburdening hospitals by having the public health infrastructure to divert people exhibiting symptoms, including using public health hotlines to send patients to dedicated testing sites and drive-through testing, rather than have patients presenting to emergency rooms and hospitals. This approach protected medical staff from exposure and allowed the focus to remain on treating severe symptomatic patients.

The vastly different response to the COVID-19 outbreak in these two countries illuminates the need for better preparation in the United States. At the onset of this outbreak, emergency room medical professionals, hospitalists, and outpatient primary care providers did not know how to screen for or treat this virus. Additionally, there was limited information on the most effective contact protocols for medical professionals, patients, and visitors. Finally, the lack of PPE and COVID-19 test kits hindered the U.S. response. Once the country is on the road to recovery from COVID-19, it is imperative to set the groundwork to prepare for future outbreaks and create mechanisms to quickly identify vulnerable populations when outbreaks occur.
 

Senior care in future infectious disease outbreaks

How can medical providers translate lessons learned from this outbreak into improving the quality of care for seniors? The National Institute on Aging (NIA) maintains a website with information about healthy aging. Seniors and their caregivers can use this website to learn more about chronic diseases, lifestyle modifications, disease prevention, and mental health.

In times of a pandemic, this website provides consistent and accurate information and education. One recommendation for reaching the elderly population during future outbreaks is for NIA to develop and implement strategies to increase the use of the website, including adding more audio and visual interfaces and developing a mobile app. Other recommendations for improving the quality of care for seniors include the following:

1. Identify which populations may be most affected when future outbreaks occur.

2. Consider nontraditional platforms, including social media, for communicating with the general population and for medical providers worldwide to learn from each other about new diseases, including the signs, symptoms, and treatment plans. Some medical professionals created specific WhatsApp groups to communicate, and the World Health Organization sent updated information about COVID-19 to anyone who texted them via WhatsApp.³

3. Create a checklist of signs and symptoms related to current infectious diseases and assess every vulnerable patient.

4. Share these guidelines with medical facilities that treat these populations, such as senior care, assisted living and rehabilitation facilities, hospitals, and outpatient treatment centers. Teach the staff at these medical facilities how to screen patients for signs and symptoms of the disease.

5. Implement social isolation strategies, travel and visitor restrictions, and testing and screening as soon as possible at these medical facilities.

6. Recognize that these strategies may affect the psychological and emotional well-being of seniors, increasing their risk for depression and anxiety and negatively affecting their immunity and mental health. Additionally, the use of PPE, either by the medical providers or the patient, may cause anxiety in seniors and those with mild cognitive impairment.

7. Encourage these medical facilities to improve coping strategies with older patients, such as incorporating communication technology that helps seniors stay connected with their families, and participating in physical and mental exercise, as well as religious activities.

8. Ask these medical facilities to create isolation or quarantine rooms for infected seniors.

9. Work with family members to proactively report to medical professionals any symptoms noticed in their senior relatives. Educate seniors to report symptoms earlier.

10. Offer incentives for medical professionals to conduct on-site testing in primary care offices or senior care facilities instead of sending patients to hospital emergency rooms for evaluation. This will only be effective if there are enough test kits available.

11. Urge insurance companies and Medicare to allow additional medical visits for screening vulnerable populations. Encourage the use of telemedicine in place of in-office visits (preferably billed at the same rate as an in-office visit) where appropriate, especially with nonambulatory patients or those with transportation issues. Many insurance companies, including Medicare, approved COVID-19–related coverage of telemedicine in place of office visits to limit the spread of the disease.

12. Provide community health care and integration and better coordination of local, state, and national health care.

13. Hold regular epidemic and pandemic preparedness exercises in every hospital, nursing home, and assisted living facility.

Proactive health care outreach

It is easier to identify the signs and symptoms of already identified infectious diseases as opposed to a novel one like COVID-19. The United States faced a steep learning curve with COVID-19. Hospitalists and other medical professionals were not able to learn about COVID-19 in a journal. At first, they did not know how to screen patients coming into the ER, how to protect staff, or what the treatment plan was for this new disease. As a result, the medical system experienced disorder and confusion. Investing in community health care and better coordination of local, state, and national health care resources is a priority.

The senior citizen population appears to be most vulnerable to this virus and may be just as vulnerable in future outbreaks. Yet the insights gained from this pandemic can lead to a more comprehensive outreach to senior patients and increased screenings for comorbidities and future contagious diseases. An emphasis on proactive health care and outreach for seniors, with a focus on identifying and treating comorbid conditions, improves the medical care system overall and may prevent or slow future community outbreaks.
 

Dr. Kasarla is a hospitalist with APOGEE Physicians at Wise Surgical at Parkway in Fort Worth, Tex. He did his internal medicine residency at Mercy Hospital & Medical Center, Chicago. Readers can contact him at [email protected]. Dr. Devireddy is a family physician at Positive Health Medical Center, Kingston, Jamaica. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Pisano GP et al. Lessons from Italy’s response to coronavirus. Harvard Business Review. 2020 Mar 27. https://hbr.org/2020/03/lessons-from-italys-response-to-coronavirus.

2. Tu C. Lessons from Taiwan’s experience with COVID-19. New Atlanticist. 2020 Apr 7. https://atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/lessons-from-taiwans-experience-with-covid-19/.

3. Newman LH. WhatsApp is at the center of coronavirus response. WIRED. 2020 Mar 20. https://www.wired.com/story/whatsapp-coronavirus-who-information-app/.

Across the globe, there are marked differences in how countries responded to the COVID-19 outbreak, with varying degrees of success in limiting the spread of the virus. Some countries learned important lessons from previous outbreaks, including SARS and MERS, and put policies in place that contributed to lower infection and death rates from COVID-19 in these countries. Others struggled to respond appropriately to the outbreak.

The United States and most of the world was not affected significantly by SARS and MERS. Hence there is a need for different perspectives and observations on lessons that can be learned from this outbreak to help develop effective strategies and policies for the future. It also makes sense to focus intently on the demographic most affected by COVID-19 – the elderly.

Medical care, for the most part, is governed by protocols that clearly detail processes to be followed for the prevention and treatment of disease. Caring for older patients requires going above and beyond the protocols. That is one of the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic – a wake-up call for a more proactive approach for at-risk patients, in this case everyone over the age of 60 years.

In this context, it is important for medical outreach to continue with the senior population long after the pandemic has run its course. Many seniors, particularly those susceptible to other illnesses or exhibiting ongoing issues, would benefit from a consistent and preplanned pattern of contacts by medical professionals and agencies that work with the aging population. These proactive follow-ups can facilitate prevention and treatment and, at the same time, reduce costs that would otherwise increase when health care is reactive.
 

Lessons in infectious disease containment

As COVID-19 spread globally, there were contrasting responses from individual countries in their efforts to contain the disease. Unfortunately, Italy suffered from its decision to lock down only specific regions of the country initially. The leadership in Italy may have ignored the advice of medical experts and been caught off guard by the intensity of the spread of COVID-19. In fact, they might not have taken strict actions right away because they did not want their responses to be viewed as an overreaction to the disease.

The government decided to shut down areas where the infection rates were high (“red zones”) rather than implement restrictions nationally. This may have inadvertently increased the spread as Italians vacated those “red zones” for other areas of the country not yet affected by COVID-19. Italy’s decentralized health care system also played a part in the effects of the disease, with some regions demonstrating more success in slowing the reach of the disease. According to an article in the Harvard Business Review, the neighboring regions of Lombardy and Veneto applied similar approaches to social distancing and retail closures. Veneto was more proactive, and its response to the outbreak was multipronged, including putting a “strong emphasis on home diagnosis and care” and “specific efforts to monitor and protect health care and other essential workers.” These measures most likely contributed to a slowdown of the spread of the disease in Veneto’s health care facilities, which lessened the load on medical providers.¹

Conversely, Taiwan implemented proactive measures swiftly after learning about COVID-19. Taiwan was impacted adversely by the SARS outbreak in 2003 and, afterward, revised their medical policies and procedures to respond quickly to future infectious disease crises. In the beginning, little was known about COVID-19 or how it spread. However, Taiwan’s swift public health response to COVID-19 included early travel restrictions, patient screening, and quarantining of symptomatic patients. The government emphasized education and created real-time digital updates and alerts sent to their citizens, as well as partnering with media to broadcast crucial proactive health information and quickly disproving false information related to COVID-19. They coordinated with organizations throughout the country to increase supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE).²

Although countries and even cities within a country differ in terms of population demographics, health resources, government policies, and cultural practices, initial success stories have some similarities, including the following:

• Early travel restrictions from countries with positive cases, with some circumstances requiring compulsory quarantine periods and testing before entry.
• Extensive testing and proactive tracing of symptomatic cases early. Contacts of people testing positive were also tested, irrespective of being symptomatic or asymptomatic. If testing kits were unavailable, the contacts were self-quarantined.
• Emphasis on avoiding overburdening hospitals by having the public health infrastructure to divert people exhibiting symptoms, including using public health hotlines to send patients to dedicated testing sites and drive-through testing, rather than have patients presenting to emergency rooms and hospitals. This approach protected medical staff from exposure and allowed the focus to remain on treating severe symptomatic patients.

The vastly different response to the COVID-19 outbreak in these two countries illuminates the need for better preparation in the United States. At the onset of this outbreak, emergency room medical professionals, hospitalists, and outpatient primary care providers did not know how to screen for or treat this virus. Additionally, there was limited information on the most effective contact protocols for medical professionals, patients, and visitors. Finally, the lack of PPE and COVID-19 test kits hindered the U.S. response. Once the country is on the road to recovery from COVID-19, it is imperative to set the groundwork to prepare for future outbreaks and create mechanisms to quickly identify vulnerable populations when outbreaks occur.
 

Senior care in future infectious disease outbreaks

How can medical providers translate lessons learned from this outbreak into improving the quality of care for seniors? The National Institute on Aging (NIA) maintains a website with information about healthy aging. Seniors and their caregivers can use this website to learn more about chronic diseases, lifestyle modifications, disease prevention, and mental health.

In times of a pandemic, this website provides consistent and accurate information and education. One recommendation for reaching the elderly population during future outbreaks is for NIA to develop and implement strategies to increase the use of the website, including adding more audio and visual interfaces and developing a mobile app. Other recommendations for improving the quality of care for seniors include the following:

1. Identify which populations may be most affected when future outbreaks occur.

2. Consider nontraditional platforms, including social media, for communicating with the general population and for medical providers worldwide to learn from each other about new diseases, including the signs, symptoms, and treatment plans. Some medical professionals created specific WhatsApp groups to communicate, and the World Health Organization sent updated information about COVID-19 to anyone who texted them via WhatsApp.³

3. Create a checklist of signs and symptoms related to current infectious diseases and assess every vulnerable patient.

4. Share these guidelines with medical facilities that treat these populations, such as senior care, assisted living and rehabilitation facilities, hospitals, and outpatient treatment centers. Teach the staff at these medical facilities how to screen patients for signs and symptoms of the disease.

5. Implement social isolation strategies, travel and visitor restrictions, and testing and screening as soon as possible at these medical facilities.

6. Recognize that these strategies may affect the psychological and emotional well-being of seniors, increasing their risk for depression and anxiety and negatively affecting their immunity and mental health. Additionally, the use of PPE, either by the medical providers or the patient, may cause anxiety in seniors and those with mild cognitive impairment.

7. Encourage these medical facilities to improve coping strategies with older patients, such as incorporating communication technology that helps seniors stay connected with their families, and participating in physical and mental exercise, as well as religious activities.

8. Ask these medical facilities to create isolation or quarantine rooms for infected seniors.

9. Work with family members to proactively report to medical professionals any symptoms noticed in their senior relatives. Educate seniors to report symptoms earlier.

10. Offer incentives for medical professionals to conduct on-site testing in primary care offices or senior care facilities instead of sending patients to hospital emergency rooms for evaluation. This will only be effective if there are enough test kits available.

11. Urge insurance companies and Medicare to allow additional medical visits for screening vulnerable populations. Encourage the use of telemedicine in place of in-office visits (preferably billed at the same rate as an in-office visit) where appropriate, especially with nonambulatory patients or those with transportation issues. Many insurance companies, including Medicare, approved COVID-19–related coverage of telemedicine in place of office visits to limit the spread of the disease.

12. Provide community health care and integration and better coordination of local, state, and national health care.

13. Hold regular epidemic and pandemic preparedness exercises in every hospital, nursing home, and assisted living facility.

Proactive health care outreach

It is easier to identify the signs and symptoms of already identified infectious diseases as opposed to a novel one like COVID-19. The United States faced a steep learning curve with COVID-19. Hospitalists and other medical professionals were not able to learn about COVID-19 in a journal. At first, they did not know how to screen patients coming into the ER, how to protect staff, or what the treatment plan was for this new disease. As a result, the medical system experienced disorder and confusion. Investing in community health care and better coordination of local, state, and national health care resources is a priority.

The senior citizen population appears to be most vulnerable to this virus and may be just as vulnerable in future outbreaks. Yet the insights gained from this pandemic can lead to a more comprehensive outreach to senior patients and increased screenings for comorbidities and future contagious diseases. An emphasis on proactive health care and outreach for seniors, with a focus on identifying and treating comorbid conditions, improves the medical care system overall and may prevent or slow future community outbreaks.
 

Dr. Kasarla is a hospitalist with APOGEE Physicians at Wise Surgical at Parkway in Fort Worth, Tex. He did his internal medicine residency at Mercy Hospital & Medical Center, Chicago. Readers can contact him at [email protected]. Dr. Devireddy is a family physician at Positive Health Medical Center, Kingston, Jamaica. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Pisano GP et al. Lessons from Italy’s response to coronavirus. Harvard Business Review. 2020 Mar 27. https://hbr.org/2020/03/lessons-from-italys-response-to-coronavirus.

2. Tu C. Lessons from Taiwan’s experience with COVID-19. New Atlanticist. 2020 Apr 7. https://atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/lessons-from-taiwans-experience-with-covid-19/.

3. Newman LH. WhatsApp is at the center of coronavirus response. WIRED. 2020 Mar 20. https://www.wired.com/story/whatsapp-coronavirus-who-information-app/.

Across the globe, there are marked differences in how countries responded to the COVID-19 outbreak, with varying degrees of success in limiting the spread of the virus. Some countries learned important lessons from previous outbreaks, including SARS and MERS, and put policies in place that contributed to lower infection and death rates from COVID-19 in these countries. Others struggled to respond appropriately to the outbreak.

The United States and most of the world was not affected significantly by SARS and MERS. Hence there is a need for different perspectives and observations on lessons that can be learned from this outbreak to help develop effective strategies and policies for the future. It also makes sense to focus intently on the demographic most affected by COVID-19 – the elderly.

Medical care, for the most part, is governed by protocols that clearly detail processes to be followed for the prevention and treatment of disease. Caring for older patients requires going above and beyond the protocols. That is one of the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic – a wake-up call for a more proactive approach for at-risk patients, in this case everyone over the age of 60 years.

In this context, it is important for medical outreach to continue with the senior population long after the pandemic has run its course. Many seniors, particularly those susceptible to other illnesses or exhibiting ongoing issues, would benefit from a consistent and preplanned pattern of contacts by medical professionals and agencies that work with the aging population. These proactive follow-ups can facilitate prevention and treatment and, at the same time, reduce costs that would otherwise increase when health care is reactive.
 

Lessons in infectious disease containment

As COVID-19 spread globally, there were contrasting responses from individual countries in their efforts to contain the disease. Unfortunately, Italy suffered from its decision to lock down only specific regions of the country initially. The leadership in Italy may have ignored the advice of medical experts and been caught off guard by the intensity of the spread of COVID-19. In fact, they might not have taken strict actions right away because they did not want their responses to be viewed as an overreaction to the disease.

The government decided to shut down areas where the infection rates were high (“red zones”) rather than implement restrictions nationally. This may have inadvertently increased the spread as Italians vacated those “red zones” for other areas of the country not yet affected by COVID-19. Italy’s decentralized health care system also played a part in the effects of the disease, with some regions demonstrating more success in slowing the reach of the disease. According to an article in the Harvard Business Review, the neighboring regions of Lombardy and Veneto applied similar approaches to social distancing and retail closures. Veneto was more proactive, and its response to the outbreak was multipronged, including putting a “strong emphasis on home diagnosis and care” and “specific efforts to monitor and protect health care and other essential workers.” These measures most likely contributed to a slowdown of the spread of the disease in Veneto’s health care facilities, which lessened the load on medical providers.¹

Conversely, Taiwan implemented proactive measures swiftly after learning about COVID-19. Taiwan was impacted adversely by the SARS outbreak in 2003 and, afterward, revised their medical policies and procedures to respond quickly to future infectious disease crises. In the beginning, little was known about COVID-19 or how it spread. However, Taiwan’s swift public health response to COVID-19 included early travel restrictions, patient screening, and quarantining of symptomatic patients. The government emphasized education and created real-time digital updates and alerts sent to their citizens, as well as partnering with media to broadcast crucial proactive health information and quickly disproving false information related to COVID-19. They coordinated with organizations throughout the country to increase supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE).²

Although countries and even cities within a country differ in terms of population demographics, health resources, government policies, and cultural practices, initial success stories have some similarities, including the following:

• Early travel restrictions from countries with positive cases, with some circumstances requiring compulsory quarantine periods and testing before entry.
• Extensive testing and proactive tracing of symptomatic cases early. Contacts of people testing positive were also tested, irrespective of being symptomatic or asymptomatic. If testing kits were unavailable, the contacts were self-quarantined.
• Emphasis on avoiding overburdening hospitals by having the public health infrastructure to divert people exhibiting symptoms, including using public health hotlines to send patients to dedicated testing sites and drive-through testing, rather than have patients presenting to emergency rooms and hospitals. This approach protected medical staff from exposure and allowed the focus to remain on treating severe symptomatic patients.

The vastly different response to the COVID-19 outbreak in these two countries illuminates the need for better preparation in the United States. At the onset of this outbreak, emergency room medical professionals, hospitalists, and outpatient primary care providers did not know how to screen for or treat this virus. Additionally, there was limited information on the most effective contact protocols for medical professionals, patients, and visitors. Finally, the lack of PPE and COVID-19 test kits hindered the U.S. response. Once the country is on the road to recovery from COVID-19, it is imperative to set the groundwork to prepare for future outbreaks and create mechanisms to quickly identify vulnerable populations when outbreaks occur.
 

Senior care in future infectious disease outbreaks

How can medical providers translate lessons learned from this outbreak into improving the quality of care for seniors? The National Institute on Aging (NIA) maintains a website with information about healthy aging. Seniors and their caregivers can use this website to learn more about chronic diseases, lifestyle modifications, disease prevention, and mental health.

In times of a pandemic, this website provides consistent and accurate information and education. One recommendation for reaching the elderly population during future outbreaks is for NIA to develop and implement strategies to increase the use of the website, including adding more audio and visual interfaces and developing a mobile app. Other recommendations for improving the quality of care for seniors include the following:

1. Identify which populations may be most affected when future outbreaks occur.

2. Consider nontraditional platforms, including social media, for communicating with the general population and for medical providers worldwide to learn from each other about new diseases, including the signs, symptoms, and treatment plans. Some medical professionals created specific WhatsApp groups to communicate, and the World Health Organization sent updated information about COVID-19 to anyone who texted them via WhatsApp.³

3. Create a checklist of signs and symptoms related to current infectious diseases and assess every vulnerable patient.

4. Share these guidelines with medical facilities that treat these populations, such as senior care, assisted living and rehabilitation facilities, hospitals, and outpatient treatment centers. Teach the staff at these medical facilities how to screen patients for signs and symptoms of the disease.

5. Implement social isolation strategies, travel and visitor restrictions, and testing and screening as soon as possible at these medical facilities.

6. Recognize that these strategies may affect the psychological and emotional well-being of seniors, increasing their risk for depression and anxiety and negatively affecting their immunity and mental health. Additionally, the use of PPE, either by the medical providers or the patient, may cause anxiety in seniors and those with mild cognitive impairment.

7. Encourage these medical facilities to improve coping strategies with older patients, such as incorporating communication technology that helps seniors stay connected with their families, and participating in physical and mental exercise, as well as religious activities.

8. Ask these medical facilities to create isolation or quarantine rooms for infected seniors.

9. Work with family members to proactively report to medical professionals any symptoms noticed in their senior relatives. Educate seniors to report symptoms earlier.

10. Offer incentives for medical professionals to conduct on-site testing in primary care offices or senior care facilities instead of sending patients to hospital emergency rooms for evaluation. This will only be effective if there are enough test kits available.

11. Urge insurance companies and Medicare to allow additional medical visits for screening vulnerable populations. Encourage the use of telemedicine in place of in-office visits (preferably billed at the same rate as an in-office visit) where appropriate, especially with nonambulatory patients or those with transportation issues. Many insurance companies, including Medicare, approved COVID-19–related coverage of telemedicine in place of office visits to limit the spread of the disease.

12. Provide community health care and integration and better coordination of local, state, and national health care.

13. Hold regular epidemic and pandemic preparedness exercises in every hospital, nursing home, and assisted living facility.

Proactive health care outreach

It is easier to identify the signs and symptoms of already identified infectious diseases as opposed to a novel one like COVID-19. The United States faced a steep learning curve with COVID-19. Hospitalists and other medical professionals were not able to learn about COVID-19 in a journal. At first, they did not know how to screen patients coming into the ER, how to protect staff, or what the treatment plan was for this new disease. As a result, the medical system experienced disorder and confusion. Investing in community health care and better coordination of local, state, and national health care resources is a priority.

The senior citizen population appears to be most vulnerable to this virus and may be just as vulnerable in future outbreaks. Yet the insights gained from this pandemic can lead to a more comprehensive outreach to senior patients and increased screenings for comorbidities and future contagious diseases. An emphasis on proactive health care and outreach for seniors, with a focus on identifying and treating comorbid conditions, improves the medical care system overall and may prevent or slow future community outbreaks.
 

Dr. Kasarla is a hospitalist with APOGEE Physicians at Wise Surgical at Parkway in Fort Worth, Tex. He did his internal medicine residency at Mercy Hospital & Medical Center, Chicago. Readers can contact him at [email protected]. Dr. Devireddy is a family physician at Positive Health Medical Center, Kingston, Jamaica. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Pisano GP et al. Lessons from Italy’s response to coronavirus. Harvard Business Review. 2020 Mar 27. https://hbr.org/2020/03/lessons-from-italys-response-to-coronavirus.

2. Tu C. Lessons from Taiwan’s experience with COVID-19. New Atlanticist. 2020 Apr 7. https://atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/lessons-from-taiwans-experience-with-covid-19/.

3. Newman LH. WhatsApp is at the center of coronavirus response. WIRED. 2020 Mar 20. https://www.wired.com/story/whatsapp-coronavirus-who-information-app/.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid uptake of telehealth nationwide in primary care and specialty practices. Over the last few months many practices have actually performed more telehealth visits than traditional in-person visits. The use of telehealth, which had been increasing slowly for the last few years, accelerated rapidly during the pandemic. Long term, telehealth has the potential to increase access to primary care and specialists, and make follow-up easier for many patients, changing how health care is delivered to millions of patients throughout the world.

verbaska_studio/Getty Images

What physicians may not consider until their medical care comes into question, however, is the impact this rapid surge in telehealth could have upon their potential liability. Since telehealth will be a regular part of our practices from now on, it is important for clinicians to recognize how telehealth visits are viewed in a legal arena.

As is often the case with technological advances, the law needs time to adapt. Will a health care provider treating a patient using telemedicine be held to the same standard of care applicable to an in-person encounter? Stated differently, will consideration be given to the obvious limitations imposed by a telemedicine exam?
 

Standard of care in medical malpractice cases

The central question in most medical malpractice cases is whether the provider complied with the generally accepted standard of care when evaluating, diagnosing, or treating a patient. This standard typically takes into consideration the provider’s particular specialty as well as all the circumstances surrounding the encounter.¹ Medical providers, not state legislators, usually define the standard of care for medical professionals. In malpractice cases, medical experts explain the applicable standard of care to the jury and guide its determination of whether, in the particular case, the standard of care was met. In this way, the law has long recognized that the medical profession itself is best suited to establish the appropriate standards of care under any particular set of circumstances. This standard of care is often referred to as the “reasonable professional under the circumstances” standard of care.

Telemedicine standard of care

Despite the fact that the complex and often nebulous concept of standard of care has been traditionally left to the medical experts to define, state legislators and regulators throughout the nation have chosen to weigh in on this issue in the context of telemedicine. Most states with telemedicine regulations have followed the model policy adopted by the Federation of State Medical Boards in April 2014 which states that “[t]reatment and consultation recommendations made in an online setting … will be held to the same standards of appropriate practice as those in traditional (in-person) settings.”² States that have adopted this model policy have effectively created a “legal fiction” requiring a jury to ignore the fact that the care was provided virtually by telemedicine technologies and instead assume that the physician treated the patient in person, i.e, applying an “in-person” standard of care. Hawaii appears to be the lone notable exception. Its telemedicine law recognizes that an in-person standard of care should not be applied if there was not a face-to-face visit.³

Proponents of the in-person telemedicine standard claim that it is necessary to ensure patient safety, thus justifying the “legal fiction.” Holding the provider to the in-person standard, it is argued, forces the physician to err on the side of caution and require an actual in-person encounter to ensure the advantages of sight, touch, and sense of things are fully available.⁴ This discourages the use of telemedicine and deprives the population of its many benefits.

Telemedicine can overcome geographical barriers, increase clinical support, improve health outcomes, reduce health care costs, encourage patient input, reduce travel, and foster continuity of care. The pandemic, which has significantly limited the ability of providers to see patients in person, only underscores the benefits of telemedicine.

The legislatively imposed in-person telemedicine standard of care should be replaced with the “reasonable professional under the circumstances” standard in order to fairly judge physicians’ care and promote overall population health. The “reasonable professional under the circumstances” standard has applied to physicians and other health care professionals outside of telemedicine for decades, and it has served the medical community and public well. It is unfortunate that legislators felt the need to weigh in and define a distinctly different standard of care for telemedicine than for the rest of medicine, as this may present unforeseen obstacles to the use of telemedicine.

The in-person telemedicine standard of care remains a significant barrier for long-term telemedicine. Eliminating this legal fiction has the potential to further expand physicians’ use of telemedicine and fulfill its promise of improving access to care and improving population health.

Mr. Horner (partner), Mr. Milewski (partner), and Mr. Gajer (associate) are attorneys with White and Williams. They specialize in defending health care providers in medical malpractice lawsuits and other health care–related matters. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community Medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow Dr. Skolnik, and feel free to submit questions to him on Twitter: @neilskolnik. The authors have no financial conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Cowan v. Doering, 111 N.J. 451-62,.1988.

2. Model Policy For The Appropriate Use Of Telemedicine Technologies In The Practice Of Medicine. State Medical Boards Appropriate Regulation of Telemedicine. April 2014..

3. Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 453-1.3(c).

4. Kaspar BJ. Iowa Law Review. 2014 Jan;99:839-59.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid uptake of telehealth nationwide in primary care and specialty practices. Over the last few months many practices have actually performed more telehealth visits than traditional in-person visits. The use of telehealth, which had been increasing slowly for the last few years, accelerated rapidly during the pandemic. Long term, telehealth has the potential to increase access to primary care and specialists, and make follow-up easier for many patients, changing how health care is delivered to millions of patients throughout the world.

verbaska_studio/Getty Images

What physicians may not consider until their medical care comes into question, however, is the impact this rapid surge in telehealth could have upon their potential liability. Since telehealth will be a regular part of our practices from now on, it is important for clinicians to recognize how telehealth visits are viewed in a legal arena.

As is often the case with technological advances, the law needs time to adapt. Will a health care provider treating a patient using telemedicine be held to the same standard of care applicable to an in-person encounter? Stated differently, will consideration be given to the obvious limitations imposed by a telemedicine exam?
 

Standard of care in medical malpractice cases

The central question in most medical malpractice cases is whether the provider complied with the generally accepted standard of care when evaluating, diagnosing, or treating a patient. This standard typically takes into consideration the provider’s particular specialty as well as all the circumstances surrounding the encounter.¹ Medical providers, not state legislators, usually define the standard of care for medical professionals. In malpractice cases, medical experts explain the applicable standard of care to the jury and guide its determination of whether, in the particular case, the standard of care was met. In this way, the law has long recognized that the medical profession itself is best suited to establish the appropriate standards of care under any particular set of circumstances. This standard of care is often referred to as the “reasonable professional under the circumstances” standard of care.

Telemedicine standard of care

Despite the fact that the complex and often nebulous concept of standard of care has been traditionally left to the medical experts to define, state legislators and regulators throughout the nation have chosen to weigh in on this issue in the context of telemedicine. Most states with telemedicine regulations have followed the model policy adopted by the Federation of State Medical Boards in April 2014 which states that “[t]reatment and consultation recommendations made in an online setting … will be held to the same standards of appropriate practice as those in traditional (in-person) settings.”² States that have adopted this model policy have effectively created a “legal fiction” requiring a jury to ignore the fact that the care was provided virtually by telemedicine technologies and instead assume that the physician treated the patient in person, i.e, applying an “in-person” standard of care. Hawaii appears to be the lone notable exception. Its telemedicine law recognizes that an in-person standard of care should not be applied if there was not a face-to-face visit.³

Proponents of the in-person telemedicine standard claim that it is necessary to ensure patient safety, thus justifying the “legal fiction.” Holding the provider to the in-person standard, it is argued, forces the physician to err on the side of caution and require an actual in-person encounter to ensure the advantages of sight, touch, and sense of things are fully available.⁴ This discourages the use of telemedicine and deprives the population of its many benefits.

Telemedicine can overcome geographical barriers, increase clinical support, improve health outcomes, reduce health care costs, encourage patient input, reduce travel, and foster continuity of care. The pandemic, which has significantly limited the ability of providers to see patients in person, only underscores the benefits of telemedicine.

The legislatively imposed in-person telemedicine standard of care should be replaced with the “reasonable professional under the circumstances” standard in order to fairly judge physicians’ care and promote overall population health. The “reasonable professional under the circumstances” standard has applied to physicians and other health care professionals outside of telemedicine for decades, and it has served the medical community and public well. It is unfortunate that legislators felt the need to weigh in and define a distinctly different standard of care for telemedicine than for the rest of medicine, as this may present unforeseen obstacles to the use of telemedicine.

The in-person telemedicine standard of care remains a significant barrier for long-term telemedicine. Eliminating this legal fiction has the potential to further expand physicians’ use of telemedicine and fulfill its promise of improving access to care and improving population health.

Mr. Horner (partner), Mr. Milewski (partner), and Mr. Gajer (associate) are attorneys with White and Williams. They specialize in defending health care providers in medical malpractice lawsuits and other health care–related matters. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community Medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow Dr. Skolnik, and feel free to submit questions to him on Twitter: @neilskolnik. The authors have no financial conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Cowan v. Doering, 111 N.J. 451-62,.1988.

2. Model Policy For The Appropriate Use Of Telemedicine Technologies In The Practice Of Medicine. State Medical Boards Appropriate Regulation of Telemedicine. April 2014..

3. Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 453-1.3(c).

4. Kaspar BJ. Iowa Law Review. 2014 Jan;99:839-59.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid uptake of telehealth nationwide in primary care and specialty practices. Over the last few months many practices have actually performed more telehealth visits than traditional in-person visits. The use of telehealth, which had been increasing slowly for the last few years, accelerated rapidly during the pandemic. Long term, telehealth has the potential to increase access to primary care and specialists, and make follow-up easier for many patients, changing how health care is delivered to millions of patients throughout the world.

verbaska_studio/Getty Images

What physicians may not consider until their medical care comes into question, however, is the impact this rapid surge in telehealth could have upon their potential liability. Since telehealth will be a regular part of our practices from now on, it is important for clinicians to recognize how telehealth visits are viewed in a legal arena.

As is often the case with technological advances, the law needs time to adapt. Will a health care provider treating a patient using telemedicine be held to the same standard of care applicable to an in-person encounter? Stated differently, will consideration be given to the obvious limitations imposed by a telemedicine exam?
 

Standard of care in medical malpractice cases

The central question in most medical malpractice cases is whether the provider complied with the generally accepted standard of care when evaluating, diagnosing, or treating a patient. This standard typically takes into consideration the provider’s particular specialty as well as all the circumstances surrounding the encounter.¹ Medical providers, not state legislators, usually define the standard of care for medical professionals. In malpractice cases, medical experts explain the applicable standard of care to the jury and guide its determination of whether, in the particular case, the standard of care was met. In this way, the law has long recognized that the medical profession itself is best suited to establish the appropriate standards of care under any particular set of circumstances. This standard of care is often referred to as the “reasonable professional under the circumstances” standard of care.

Telemedicine standard of care

Despite the fact that the complex and often nebulous concept of standard of care has been traditionally left to the medical experts to define, state legislators and regulators throughout the nation have chosen to weigh in on this issue in the context of telemedicine. Most states with telemedicine regulations have followed the model policy adopted by the Federation of State Medical Boards in April 2014 which states that “[t]reatment and consultation recommendations made in an online setting … will be held to the same standards of appropriate practice as those in traditional (in-person) settings.”² States that have adopted this model policy have effectively created a “legal fiction” requiring a jury to ignore the fact that the care was provided virtually by telemedicine technologies and instead assume that the physician treated the patient in person, i.e, applying an “in-person” standard of care. Hawaii appears to be the lone notable exception. Its telemedicine law recognizes that an in-person standard of care should not be applied if there was not a face-to-face visit.³

Proponents of the in-person telemedicine standard claim that it is necessary to ensure patient safety, thus justifying the “legal fiction.” Holding the provider to the in-person standard, it is argued, forces the physician to err on the side of caution and require an actual in-person encounter to ensure the advantages of sight, touch, and sense of things are fully available.⁴ This discourages the use of telemedicine and deprives the population of its many benefits.

Telemedicine can overcome geographical barriers, increase clinical support, improve health outcomes, reduce health care costs, encourage patient input, reduce travel, and foster continuity of care. The pandemic, which has significantly limited the ability of providers to see patients in person, only underscores the benefits of telemedicine.

The legislatively imposed in-person telemedicine standard of care should be replaced with the “reasonable professional under the circumstances” standard in order to fairly judge physicians’ care and promote overall population health. The “reasonable professional under the circumstances” standard has applied to physicians and other health care professionals outside of telemedicine for decades, and it has served the medical community and public well. It is unfortunate that legislators felt the need to weigh in and define a distinctly different standard of care for telemedicine than for the rest of medicine, as this may present unforeseen obstacles to the use of telemedicine.

The in-person telemedicine standard of care remains a significant barrier for long-term telemedicine. Eliminating this legal fiction has the potential to further expand physicians’ use of telemedicine and fulfill its promise of improving access to care and improving population health.

Mr. Horner (partner), Mr. Milewski (partner), and Mr. Gajer (associate) are attorneys with White and Williams. They specialize in defending health care providers in medical malpractice lawsuits and other health care–related matters. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community Medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow Dr. Skolnik, and feel free to submit questions to him on Twitter: @neilskolnik. The authors have no financial conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Cowan v. Doering, 111 N.J. 451-62,.1988.

2. Model Policy For The Appropriate Use Of Telemedicine Technologies In The Practice Of Medicine. State Medical Boards Appropriate Regulation of Telemedicine. April 2014..

3. Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 453-1.3(c).

4. Kaspar BJ. Iowa Law Review. 2014 Jan;99:839-59.