Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

As COVID-19 case levels plateau in some regions, 16 North American cardiovascular societies have released a framework for reintroducing cardiovascular services disrupted by the pandemic.

The consensus document outlines a phased approach to restarting invasive cardiovascular (CV) procedures and diagnostic tests that aims to reduce patient and health care provider exposure to the coronavirus and still provide essential care. It also emphasizes some of the ethical considerations in patient selection and the need for a collaborative approach.

“The key message in our document is we need a new unprecedented collaboration with public health officials so that we can carefully monitor the situation and we’re aware of what’s happening with the penetrance of the pandemic in the community, but they’re aware of the morbidity and mortality that’s occurring on our ever-growing waiting list,” lead author David A. Wood, MD, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The recommendations were jointly published May 4 in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology , the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, and are endorsed by, among others, the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology (ACC), and Canadian Cardiovascular Society.

The guidance comes as hospitals are facing revenue shortfalls because of canceled elective procedures and resource-intensive COVID-19 cases, prompting some healthcare systems to furlough, lay off, or even fire staff.

“It’s obvious that volumes are down between 40% and 60%,” said Wood, director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Vancouver General Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, Canada. “Part of that is that some areas have restricted case volumes totally appropriately and it’s partly because patients are very afraid of coming to the hospital and, unfortunately, are having bad events at home. And some are dying.”

The new report features a detailed table outlining three different response levels: reintroduction of some services (level 2); reintroduction of most services (level 1); and regular services (level 0). It covers a range of services from transthoracic echocardiography and exercise testing with imaging to care for acute coronary syndrome and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

“We’ve learned that we can very quickly turn off the tap and go to doing only 10% of our normal volumes, whether that’s surgery, cath lab, EP, diagnostic tests,” Wood said. “It’s much more difficult to thoughtfully turn the tap part way back on or restart the engine … you don’t just go from 0 to 100 [mph]. You go from 0 to 30 to 60 then maybe to 80 [mph].”

The document also includes eight guiding principles such as:
 

• The expectation that response levels will be different between regions, and even within a given region.
• A “transparent collaborative plan” for COVID-19 testing and personal protective equipment (PPE) must be in place before restarting cases.
• A less invasive test or alternate imaging modality should be considered, if both tests have similar efficacy.
• In general, a minimally invasive procedure with a shorter length of stay is preferable, if both strategies have similar efficacy and safety.

Although previous reports on cath lab considerations during the pandemic or restarting elective surgeries peg various actions to specific thresholds or time intervals, the language here is noticeably and intentionally broad.

Instead of stating when cardiovascular services should resume, for example, the experts say it’s appropriate to put the guidance document into place if there’s a “sustained reduction” in the rate of new COVID-19 admissions and deaths in the relevant geographic region for a “prespecified time interval.”

As for when or how frequently patients and healthcare providers should be tested for COVID-19, the document encourages “routine screening of all patients prior to any cardiovascular procedure or test.”

Overly prescriptive language in previous documents wasn’t felt to be that helpful, whereas language like “selective” cases and “some” or “most” cardiovascular procedures gives clinicians, health systems, and policy makers flexibility when moving between response levels, Wood explained.

“Different regions might be at different levels based on principles of public health as far as the penetrance of the pandemic in that community, as well as how can you actually do the physical distancing in your hospital or ambulatory clinic. Because, I tell you, that is the Achilles heel,” he said. “Our run rates are going to be determined by testing, the availability of PPE, but also how we’re going to use our existing infrastructure and maintain physical distancing.”

That may mean using telehealth for initial visits, having clinics open earlier in the morning or on weekends, or doing partial volumes for surgery or in the cath lab so patients can be staggered and recover at different times and in different areas of the hospital. “These are very granular, specific infrastructure things that we’ve never really had to consider before,” Wood observed.

The document also had to be flexible and nimble enough to respond to a potential rebound of COVID-19 cases, which in newly released models are projected to rise sharply to 200,000 cases a day and be accompanied by some 3,000 deaths each day by June 1.

“This is my own personal opinion but I think it’s foolish to think that we are going to be able to come back to 100% of the cases we were doing before, even with testing, PPE, and all of that until we have a vaccine,” he said.

Similar to decisions made in preparation for the initial COVID-19 surge, the consensus document outlines the need for ethical considerations when turning the tap back on. This means prioritizing procedures and tests that are likely to benefit more people and to a greater degree, and ensuring that patients are treated fairly and consistently, regardless of their ethnicity, perceived social worth, or ability to pay, said coauthor and ACC President Athena Poppas, MD, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island.

“It’s an ethical tenet that exists in a lot of places but it’s usually not overtly called out,” Poppas told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “It’s not rationing care; I think people jump to that but it’s actually the opposite of rationing care. It’s about being thoughtful about prioritizing patients.”

“There’s a variety of data that should help in the prioritization, not only how much hospital resources are utilized, that’s on one side, but there’s also the patient risk of delaying or doing a procedure, and then the societal risk,” she said.

Susheel Kodali, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who recently published recommendations on restructuring structural heart disease practice during the pandemic, said the document is timely as centers, including his own, are trying to restart some outpatient visits, as early as next week.

“They made a point about talking about cohesive partnerships with regional public health officials and I think that’s great. The question is how does that happen,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “In New York, we’re not allowed to do elective cases but what’s considered elective is not so clearly defined. An AS [aortic stenosis] patient that had a syncopal episode 2 weeks ago, is that considered elective or is that semi-urgent? I think that’s one of the challenges and that’s where these partnerships would be useful.”

Other challenges include the need for regional partnerships to better align hospitals, which in the New York area means half a dozen large healthcare systems, and to coordinate care between hospital departments – all of which will be scheduling imaging and OR time for their own backlog of hernia, knee, or hip surgeries.

Finally, there’s the need for a lot of conversation with the patient and their family about returning to a hospital amid a deadly pandemic.

“I had a patient today and the daughter was very concerned about bringing her in,” Kodali said. “She’s in class IV heart failure but her [daughter’s] big concern was: who is she going to be exposed to when she gets the echo? What kind of protection is there for her? Is the tech wearing a mask?

“It’s not just the health care providers that have to have the comfort, but it’s the patients and their families who have to feel comfortable bringing their loved ones here for treatment,” he said. “Because everyone is concerned about the environment.”

Wood reports receiving unrestricted grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular and serving as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Poppas reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Kodali reports consultant (honoraria) from Admedus, Meril Life Sciences, JenaValve, and Abbott Vascular; SAB (equity) from Dura Biotech, MicroInterventional Devices, Thubrikar Aortic Valve, Supira, and Admedus; and institutional funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and JenaValve.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As COVID-19 case levels plateau in some regions, 16 North American cardiovascular societies have released a framework for reintroducing cardiovascular services disrupted by the pandemic.

The consensus document outlines a phased approach to restarting invasive cardiovascular (CV) procedures and diagnostic tests that aims to reduce patient and health care provider exposure to the coronavirus and still provide essential care. It also emphasizes some of the ethical considerations in patient selection and the need for a collaborative approach.

“The key message in our document is we need a new unprecedented collaboration with public health officials so that we can carefully monitor the situation and we’re aware of what’s happening with the penetrance of the pandemic in the community, but they’re aware of the morbidity and mortality that’s occurring on our ever-growing waiting list,” lead author David A. Wood, MD, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The recommendations were jointly published May 4 in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology , the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, and are endorsed by, among others, the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology (ACC), and Canadian Cardiovascular Society.

The guidance comes as hospitals are facing revenue shortfalls because of canceled elective procedures and resource-intensive COVID-19 cases, prompting some healthcare systems to furlough, lay off, or even fire staff.

“It’s obvious that volumes are down between 40% and 60%,” said Wood, director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Vancouver General Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, Canada. “Part of that is that some areas have restricted case volumes totally appropriately and it’s partly because patients are very afraid of coming to the hospital and, unfortunately, are having bad events at home. And some are dying.”

The new report features a detailed table outlining three different response levels: reintroduction of some services (level 2); reintroduction of most services (level 1); and regular services (level 0). It covers a range of services from transthoracic echocardiography and exercise testing with imaging to care for acute coronary syndrome and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

“We’ve learned that we can very quickly turn off the tap and go to doing only 10% of our normal volumes, whether that’s surgery, cath lab, EP, diagnostic tests,” Wood said. “It’s much more difficult to thoughtfully turn the tap part way back on or restart the engine … you don’t just go from 0 to 100 [mph]. You go from 0 to 30 to 60 then maybe to 80 [mph].”

The document also includes eight guiding principles such as:
 

• The expectation that response levels will be different between regions, and even within a given region.
• A “transparent collaborative plan” for COVID-19 testing and personal protective equipment (PPE) must be in place before restarting cases.
• A less invasive test or alternate imaging modality should be considered, if both tests have similar efficacy.
• In general, a minimally invasive procedure with a shorter length of stay is preferable, if both strategies have similar efficacy and safety.

Although previous reports on cath lab considerations during the pandemic or restarting elective surgeries peg various actions to specific thresholds or time intervals, the language here is noticeably and intentionally broad.

Instead of stating when cardiovascular services should resume, for example, the experts say it’s appropriate to put the guidance document into place if there’s a “sustained reduction” in the rate of new COVID-19 admissions and deaths in the relevant geographic region for a “prespecified time interval.”

As for when or how frequently patients and healthcare providers should be tested for COVID-19, the document encourages “routine screening of all patients prior to any cardiovascular procedure or test.”

Overly prescriptive language in previous documents wasn’t felt to be that helpful, whereas language like “selective” cases and “some” or “most” cardiovascular procedures gives clinicians, health systems, and policy makers flexibility when moving between response levels, Wood explained.

“Different regions might be at different levels based on principles of public health as far as the penetrance of the pandemic in that community, as well as how can you actually do the physical distancing in your hospital or ambulatory clinic. Because, I tell you, that is the Achilles heel,” he said. “Our run rates are going to be determined by testing, the availability of PPE, but also how we’re going to use our existing infrastructure and maintain physical distancing.”

That may mean using telehealth for initial visits, having clinics open earlier in the morning or on weekends, or doing partial volumes for surgery or in the cath lab so patients can be staggered and recover at different times and in different areas of the hospital. “These are very granular, specific infrastructure things that we’ve never really had to consider before,” Wood observed.

The document also had to be flexible and nimble enough to respond to a potential rebound of COVID-19 cases, which in newly released models are projected to rise sharply to 200,000 cases a day and be accompanied by some 3,000 deaths each day by June 1.

“This is my own personal opinion but I think it’s foolish to think that we are going to be able to come back to 100% of the cases we were doing before, even with testing, PPE, and all of that until we have a vaccine,” he said.

Similar to decisions made in preparation for the initial COVID-19 surge, the consensus document outlines the need for ethical considerations when turning the tap back on. This means prioritizing procedures and tests that are likely to benefit more people and to a greater degree, and ensuring that patients are treated fairly and consistently, regardless of their ethnicity, perceived social worth, or ability to pay, said coauthor and ACC President Athena Poppas, MD, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island.

“It’s an ethical tenet that exists in a lot of places but it’s usually not overtly called out,” Poppas told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “It’s not rationing care; I think people jump to that but it’s actually the opposite of rationing care. It’s about being thoughtful about prioritizing patients.”

“There’s a variety of data that should help in the prioritization, not only how much hospital resources are utilized, that’s on one side, but there’s also the patient risk of delaying or doing a procedure, and then the societal risk,” she said.

Susheel Kodali, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who recently published recommendations on restructuring structural heart disease practice during the pandemic, said the document is timely as centers, including his own, are trying to restart some outpatient visits, as early as next week.

“They made a point about talking about cohesive partnerships with regional public health officials and I think that’s great. The question is how does that happen,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “In New York, we’re not allowed to do elective cases but what’s considered elective is not so clearly defined. An AS [aortic stenosis] patient that had a syncopal episode 2 weeks ago, is that considered elective or is that semi-urgent? I think that’s one of the challenges and that’s where these partnerships would be useful.”

Other challenges include the need for regional partnerships to better align hospitals, which in the New York area means half a dozen large healthcare systems, and to coordinate care between hospital departments – all of which will be scheduling imaging and OR time for their own backlog of hernia, knee, or hip surgeries.

Finally, there’s the need for a lot of conversation with the patient and their family about returning to a hospital amid a deadly pandemic.

“I had a patient today and the daughter was very concerned about bringing her in,” Kodali said. “She’s in class IV heart failure but her [daughter’s] big concern was: who is she going to be exposed to when she gets the echo? What kind of protection is there for her? Is the tech wearing a mask?

“It’s not just the health care providers that have to have the comfort, but it’s the patients and their families who have to feel comfortable bringing their loved ones here for treatment,” he said. “Because everyone is concerned about the environment.”

Wood reports receiving unrestricted grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular and serving as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Poppas reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Kodali reports consultant (honoraria) from Admedus, Meril Life Sciences, JenaValve, and Abbott Vascular; SAB (equity) from Dura Biotech, MicroInterventional Devices, Thubrikar Aortic Valve, Supira, and Admedus; and institutional funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and JenaValve.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As COVID-19 case levels plateau in some regions, 16 North American cardiovascular societies have released a framework for reintroducing cardiovascular services disrupted by the pandemic.

The consensus document outlines a phased approach to restarting invasive cardiovascular (CV) procedures and diagnostic tests that aims to reduce patient and health care provider exposure to the coronavirus and still provide essential care. It also emphasizes some of the ethical considerations in patient selection and the need for a collaborative approach.

“The key message in our document is we need a new unprecedented collaboration with public health officials so that we can carefully monitor the situation and we’re aware of what’s happening with the penetrance of the pandemic in the community, but they’re aware of the morbidity and mortality that’s occurring on our ever-growing waiting list,” lead author David A. Wood, MD, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The recommendations were jointly published May 4 in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology , the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, and are endorsed by, among others, the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology (ACC), and Canadian Cardiovascular Society.

The guidance comes as hospitals are facing revenue shortfalls because of canceled elective procedures and resource-intensive COVID-19 cases, prompting some healthcare systems to furlough, lay off, or even fire staff.

“It’s obvious that volumes are down between 40% and 60%,” said Wood, director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Vancouver General Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, Canada. “Part of that is that some areas have restricted case volumes totally appropriately and it’s partly because patients are very afraid of coming to the hospital and, unfortunately, are having bad events at home. And some are dying.”

The new report features a detailed table outlining three different response levels: reintroduction of some services (level 2); reintroduction of most services (level 1); and regular services (level 0). It covers a range of services from transthoracic echocardiography and exercise testing with imaging to care for acute coronary syndrome and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

“We’ve learned that we can very quickly turn off the tap and go to doing only 10% of our normal volumes, whether that’s surgery, cath lab, EP, diagnostic tests,” Wood said. “It’s much more difficult to thoughtfully turn the tap part way back on or restart the engine … you don’t just go from 0 to 100 [mph]. You go from 0 to 30 to 60 then maybe to 80 [mph].”

The document also includes eight guiding principles such as:
 

• The expectation that response levels will be different between regions, and even within a given region.
• A “transparent collaborative plan” for COVID-19 testing and personal protective equipment (PPE) must be in place before restarting cases.
• A less invasive test or alternate imaging modality should be considered, if both tests have similar efficacy.
• In general, a minimally invasive procedure with a shorter length of stay is preferable, if both strategies have similar efficacy and safety.

Although previous reports on cath lab considerations during the pandemic or restarting elective surgeries peg various actions to specific thresholds or time intervals, the language here is noticeably and intentionally broad.

Instead of stating when cardiovascular services should resume, for example, the experts say it’s appropriate to put the guidance document into place if there’s a “sustained reduction” in the rate of new COVID-19 admissions and deaths in the relevant geographic region for a “prespecified time interval.”

As for when or how frequently patients and healthcare providers should be tested for COVID-19, the document encourages “routine screening of all patients prior to any cardiovascular procedure or test.”

Overly prescriptive language in previous documents wasn’t felt to be that helpful, whereas language like “selective” cases and “some” or “most” cardiovascular procedures gives clinicians, health systems, and policy makers flexibility when moving between response levels, Wood explained.

“Different regions might be at different levels based on principles of public health as far as the penetrance of the pandemic in that community, as well as how can you actually do the physical distancing in your hospital or ambulatory clinic. Because, I tell you, that is the Achilles heel,” he said. “Our run rates are going to be determined by testing, the availability of PPE, but also how we’re going to use our existing infrastructure and maintain physical distancing.”

That may mean using telehealth for initial visits, having clinics open earlier in the morning or on weekends, or doing partial volumes for surgery or in the cath lab so patients can be staggered and recover at different times and in different areas of the hospital. “These are very granular, specific infrastructure things that we’ve never really had to consider before,” Wood observed.

The document also had to be flexible and nimble enough to respond to a potential rebound of COVID-19 cases, which in newly released models are projected to rise sharply to 200,000 cases a day and be accompanied by some 3,000 deaths each day by June 1.

“This is my own personal opinion but I think it’s foolish to think that we are going to be able to come back to 100% of the cases we were doing before, even with testing, PPE, and all of that until we have a vaccine,” he said.

Similar to decisions made in preparation for the initial COVID-19 surge, the consensus document outlines the need for ethical considerations when turning the tap back on. This means prioritizing procedures and tests that are likely to benefit more people and to a greater degree, and ensuring that patients are treated fairly and consistently, regardless of their ethnicity, perceived social worth, or ability to pay, said coauthor and ACC President Athena Poppas, MD, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island.

“It’s an ethical tenet that exists in a lot of places but it’s usually not overtly called out,” Poppas told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “It’s not rationing care; I think people jump to that but it’s actually the opposite of rationing care. It’s about being thoughtful about prioritizing patients.”

“There’s a variety of data that should help in the prioritization, not only how much hospital resources are utilized, that’s on one side, but there’s also the patient risk of delaying or doing a procedure, and then the societal risk,” she said.

Susheel Kodali, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who recently published recommendations on restructuring structural heart disease practice during the pandemic, said the document is timely as centers, including his own, are trying to restart some outpatient visits, as early as next week.

“They made a point about talking about cohesive partnerships with regional public health officials and I think that’s great. The question is how does that happen,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “In New York, we’re not allowed to do elective cases but what’s considered elective is not so clearly defined. An AS [aortic stenosis] patient that had a syncopal episode 2 weeks ago, is that considered elective or is that semi-urgent? I think that’s one of the challenges and that’s where these partnerships would be useful.”

Other challenges include the need for regional partnerships to better align hospitals, which in the New York area means half a dozen large healthcare systems, and to coordinate care between hospital departments – all of which will be scheduling imaging and OR time for their own backlog of hernia, knee, or hip surgeries.

Finally, there’s the need for a lot of conversation with the patient and their family about returning to a hospital amid a deadly pandemic.

“I had a patient today and the daughter was very concerned about bringing her in,” Kodali said. “She’s in class IV heart failure but her [daughter’s] big concern was: who is she going to be exposed to when she gets the echo? What kind of protection is there for her? Is the tech wearing a mask?

“It’s not just the health care providers that have to have the comfort, but it’s the patients and their families who have to feel comfortable bringing their loved ones here for treatment,” he said. “Because everyone is concerned about the environment.”

Wood reports receiving unrestricted grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular and serving as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Poppas reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Kodali reports consultant (honoraria) from Admedus, Meril Life Sciences, JenaValve, and Abbott Vascular; SAB (equity) from Dura Biotech, MicroInterventional Devices, Thubrikar Aortic Valve, Supira, and Admedus; and institutional funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and JenaValve.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The meteoric rise in the number of test-positive and clinical cases of COVID-19 because of infection with the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) in states and cities across the United States has added urgency to the efforts to develop protocols for hospital triage, admission, labor and delivery management, and other aspects of obstetrical care.

Emerging data suggest that, while SARS-CoV-2 is less lethal overall than the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) proved to be, it is significantly more contagious. Although a severe disease, the limited worldwide data so far available (as of early May) do not indicate that pregnant women are at greater risk of severe disease, compared with the general population. However, there remains a critical need for data on maternal and perinatal outcomes in women infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Multiple physiological changes in pregnancy, from reduced cell-based immune competence to changes in respiratory tract and pulmonary function – e.g., edema of the respiratory tract, increases in secretions and oxygen consumption, elevation of the diaphragm, and decrease in functional residual capacity – have historically contributed to worse obstetric outcomes in pregnant women who have had viral pneumonias. Furthermore, limited published experience with COVID-19 in China suggests worse perinatal outcomes in some affected pregnancies, including prematurity and perinatal death.

With evolution of the pandemic and accumulation of experience, it is expected that data-driven guidelines on assessment and management of infected pregnant women will contribute to improved maternal and perinatal outcomes. What is clear now, however, is that, without protecting the health of obstetricians and other health care workers, urgently needed gains in patient outcomes will not be realized.

Here are my recommendations, based on a currently limited body of literature on COVID-19 and other communicable viral respiratory disorders, as well my experience in the greater Detroit area, a COVID-19 hot spot.
 

Preparing for hospital evaluation and admission

The obstetric triage or labor and delivery (L&D) unit should be notified prior to the arrival of a patient suspected of or known to be infected with the virus. This will minimize staff exposure and allow sufficient time to prepare appropriate accommodations, equipment, and supplies for the patient’s care. Hospital infection control should be promptly notified by L&D of the expected arrival of such a patient. Placement ideally should be in a negative-pressure room, which allows outside air to flow into the room but prevents contaminated air from escaping. In the absence of a negative-pressure room, an infection isolation area should be utilized.

The patient and one accompanying support individual should wear either medical-grade masks brought from home or supplied upon entry to the hospital or homemade masks or bandanas. This will reduce the risk of viral transmission to hospital workers and other individuals encountered in the hospital prior to arriving in L&D. An ideal setup is to have separate entry areas, access corridors, and elevators for patients known or suspected to have COVID-19 infection. The patient and visitor should be expeditiously escorted to the prepared area for evaluation. Patients who are not known or suspected to be infected ideally should be tested.
 

Screening of patients & support individuals

Proper screening of patients and support individuals is critical to protecting both patients and staff in the L&D unit. This should include an expanded questionnaire that asks about disturbances of smell and taste and GI symptoms like loss of appetite – not only the more commonly queried symptoms of fever, shortness of breath, coughing, and exposure to someone who may have been ill.

Recent studies regarding presenting symptoms cast significant doubt, in fact, on the validity of patients with “asymptomatic COVID-19.” Over 15% of patients with confirmed infection in one published case series had solely GI symptoms and almost all had some digestive symptoms, for example, and almost 90% in another study had absent or reduced sense of smell and/or taste.^1,2 In fact, the use of the term “paucisymptomatic” rather than “asymptomatic” may be most appropriate.

Support individuals also should undergo temperature screening, ideally with laser noncontact thermometers on entry to the hospital or triage.
 

Visitor policy

The number of visitors/support individuals should be kept to a minimum to reduce transmission risk. The actual number will be determined by hospital or state policy, but up to one visitor in the labor room appears reasonable. Very strong individual justification should be required to exceed this threshold! The visitor should not only be screened for an expanded list of symptoms, but they also should be queried for underlying illnesses (e.g., diabetes, cardiovascular disease, significant lung disease, undergoing cancer therapy) as well as for age over 65 years, each of which increase the chances of severe COVID-19 disease should infection occur. The visitor should be informed of such risks and, especially when accompanying a patient with known or suspected COVID-19, provided the option of voluntarily revoking their visitor status. A visitor with known or suspected COVID-19 infection based on testing or screening should not be allowed into the L&D unit.

In addition, institutions may be considered to have obligations to the visitor/support person beyond screening. These include instructions in proper mask usage, hand washing, and limiting the touching of surfaces to lower infection risk.

“Visitor relays” where one visitor replaces another should be strongly discouraged. Visitors should similarly not be allowed to wander around the hospital (to use phones, for instance); transiting back and forth to obtain food and coffee should be kept to a strict minimum. For visitors accompanying COVID-19–-infected women, “visitor’s plates” provided by the hospital at reasonable cost is a much-preferred arrangement for obtaining meals during the course of the hospital stay. In addition, visitors should be sent out of the room during the performance of aerosolizing procedures.
 

Labor and delivery management

The successful management of patients with COVID-19 requires a rigorous infection control protocol informed by guidelines from national entities, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and by state health departments when available.

Strict limits on the number of obstetricians and other health care workers (HCWs) entering the patient’s room should be enforced and documented to minimize risk to the HCWs attending to patients who have a positive diagnosis or who are under investigation. Only in cases of demonstrable clinical benefit should repeat visits by the same or additional HCWs be permitted. Conventional and electronic tablets present an excellent opportunity for patient follow-up visits without room entry. In our institution, this has been successfully piloted in nonpregnant patients. Obstetricians and others caring for obstetrical patients – especially those who are infected or under investigation for infection – should always wear a properly fitted N95 mask.

Because patients with COVID-19 may have or go on to develop a constellation of organ abnormalities (e.g., cardiovascular, renal, pulmonary), it is vital that a standardized panel of baseline laboratory studies be developed for pregnant patients. This will minimize the need for repeated blood draws and other testing which may increase HCW exposure.

A negative screen based on nonreport of symptoms, lack of temperature elevation, and reported nonexposure to individuals with COVID-19 symptoms still has limitations in terms of disease detection. A recent report from a tertiary care hospital in New York City found that close to one-third of pregnant patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted over a 2-week period had no viral symptoms or instructive history on initial admission.³ This is consistent with our clinical experience. Most importantly, therefore, routine quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing should be performed on all patients admitted to the L&D unit.

Given the reported variability in the accuracy of polymerase chain reaction testing induced by variable effectiveness of sampling techniques, stage of infection, and inherent test accuracy issues, symptomatic patients with a negative test should first obtain clearance from infectious disease specialists before isolation precautions are discontinued. Repeat testing in 24 hours, including testing of multiple sites, may subsequently yield a positive result in persistently symptomatic patients.
 

Intrapartum management

As much as possible, standard obstetric indications should guide the timing and route of delivery. In the case of a COVID-19–positive patient or a patient under investigation, nonobstetric factors may bear heavily on decision making, and management flexibility is of great value. For example, in cases of severe or critical disease status, evidence suggests that early delivery regardless of gestational age can improve maternal oxygenation; this supports the liberal use of C-sections in these circumstances. In addition, shortening labor length as well as duration of hospitalization may be expected to reduce the risk of transmission to HCWs, other staff, and other patients.

High rates of cesarean delivery unsurprisingly have been reported thus far: One review of 108 case reports and series of test-positive COVID-19 pregnancies found a 92% C-section rate, and another review and meta-analysis of studies of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 during pregnancy similarly found that the majority of patients – 84% across all coronavirus infections and 91% in COVID-19 pregnancies – were delivered by C-section.4,5 Given these high rates of cesarean deliveries, the early placement of neuraxial anesthesia while the patient is stable appears to be prudent and obviates the need for intubation, the latter of which is associated with increased aerosol generation and increased virus transmission risk.

Strict protocols for the optimal protection of staff should be observed, including proper personal protective equipment (PPE) protection. Protocols have been detailed in various guidelines and publications; they include the wearing of shoe covers, gowns, N95 masks, goggles, face shields, and two layers of gloves.

For institutions that currently do not offer routine COVID-19 testing to pregnant patients – especially those in areas of outbreaks – N95 masks and eye protection should still be provided to all HCWs involved in the intrapartum management of untested asymptomatic patients, particularly those in the active phase of labor. This protection is justified given the limitations of symptom- and history-based screening and the not-uncommon experience of the patient with a negative screen who subsequently develops the clinical syndrome.

Obstetric management of labor requires close patient contact that potentially elevates the risk of contamination and infection. During the active stage of labor, patient shouting, rapid mouth breathing, and other behaviors inherent to labor all increase the risk of aerosolization of oronasal secretions. In addition, nasal-prong oxygen administration is believed to independently increase the risk of aerosolization of secretions. The casual practice of nasal oxygen application should thus be discontinued and, where felt to be absolutely necessary, a mask should be worn on top of the prongs.

Regarding operative delivery, each participating obstetric surgeon should observe guidelines and recommendations of governing national organizations and professional groups – including the American College of Surgeons – regarding the safe conduct of operations on patients with COVID-19. Written guidelines should be tailored as needed to the performance of C-sections and readily available in L&D. Drills and simulations are generally valuable, and expertise and support should always be available in the labor room to assist with donning and doffing of PPE.
 

Postpartum care

Expeditious separation of the COVID-19–positive mother from her infant is recommended, including avoidance of delayed cord clamping because of insufficient evidence of benefit to the infant. Insufficient evidence exists to support vertical transmission, but the possibility of maternal-infant transmission is clinically accepted based on small case reports of infection in a neonate at 30 hours of life and in infants of mothers with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.6,7 Accordingly, it is recommended that the benefit of early infant separation should be discussed with the mother. If approved, the infant should be kept in a separate isolation area and observed.

There is no evidence of breast milk transmission of the virus. For those electing to breastfeed, the patient should be provided with a breast pump to express and store the milk for subsequent bottle feeding. For mothers who elect to room in with the infant, a separation distance of 6 feet is recommended with an intervening barrier curtain. For COVID-19–positive mothers who elect breastfeeding, meticulous hand and face washing, continuous wearing of a mask, and cleansing of the breast prior to feeding needs to be maintained.

Restrictive visiting policies of no more than one visitor should be maintained. For severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19, it has been suggested that no visitors be allowed. As with other hospitalizations of COVID-19 patients, the HCW contact should be kept at a justifiable minimum to reduce the risk of transmission.
 

Protecting the obstetrician and other HCWs

Protecting the health of obstetricians and other HCWs is central to any successful strategy to fight the COVID-19 epidemic. For the individual obstetrician, careful attention to national and local hospital guidelines is required as these are rapidly evolving.

Physicians and their leadership must maintain an ongoing dialogue with hospital leadership to continually upgrade and optimize infection prevention and control measures, and to uphold best practices. The experience in Wuhan, China, illustrates the effectiveness of the proper use of PPE along with population control measures to reduce infections in HCWs. Prior to understanding the mechanism of virus transmission and using protective equipment, infection rates of 3%-29% were reported among HCWs. With the meticulous utilization of mitigation strategies and population control measures – including consistent use of PPE – the rate of infection of HCWs reportedly fell to zero.

In outpatient offices, all staff and HCWs should wear masks at all times and engage in social distancing and in frequent hand sanitization. Patients should be strongly encouraged to wear masks during office visits and on all other occasions when they will be in physical proximity to other individuals outside of the home.

Reports from epidemic areas describe transmission from household sources as a significant cause of HCW infection. The information emphasizes the need for ongoing vigilance and attention to sanitization measures even when at home with one’s family. An additional benefit is reduced risk of transmission from HCWs to family members.

Dr. Bahado-Singh is professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Oakland University, Rochester, Mich., and health system chair for obstetrics and gynecology at Beaumont Health System.

References

1. Luo S et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.03.043.

2. Lechien JR et al. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-05965-1.

3. Breslin N et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020 Apr 9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100118.

4. Zaigham M, Andersson O. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13867.

5. Di Mascio D et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100107.

6. Ital J. Pediatr 2020;46(1) doi: 10.1186/s13052-020-0820-x. 

7. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020;149(2):130-6. 

*This article was updated 5/6/2020. 

The meteoric rise in the number of test-positive and clinical cases of COVID-19 because of infection with the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) in states and cities across the United States has added urgency to the efforts to develop protocols for hospital triage, admission, labor and delivery management, and other aspects of obstetrical care.

Emerging data suggest that, while SARS-CoV-2 is less lethal overall than the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) proved to be, it is significantly more contagious. Although a severe disease, the limited worldwide data so far available (as of early May) do not indicate that pregnant women are at greater risk of severe disease, compared with the general population. However, there remains a critical need for data on maternal and perinatal outcomes in women infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Multiple physiological changes in pregnancy, from reduced cell-based immune competence to changes in respiratory tract and pulmonary function – e.g., edema of the respiratory tract, increases in secretions and oxygen consumption, elevation of the diaphragm, and decrease in functional residual capacity – have historically contributed to worse obstetric outcomes in pregnant women who have had viral pneumonias. Furthermore, limited published experience with COVID-19 in China suggests worse perinatal outcomes in some affected pregnancies, including prematurity and perinatal death.

With evolution of the pandemic and accumulation of experience, it is expected that data-driven guidelines on assessment and management of infected pregnant women will contribute to improved maternal and perinatal outcomes. What is clear now, however, is that, without protecting the health of obstetricians and other health care workers, urgently needed gains in patient outcomes will not be realized.

Here are my recommendations, based on a currently limited body of literature on COVID-19 and other communicable viral respiratory disorders, as well my experience in the greater Detroit area, a COVID-19 hot spot.
 

Preparing for hospital evaluation and admission

The obstetric triage or labor and delivery (L&D) unit should be notified prior to the arrival of a patient suspected of or known to be infected with the virus. This will minimize staff exposure and allow sufficient time to prepare appropriate accommodations, equipment, and supplies for the patient’s care. Hospital infection control should be promptly notified by L&D of the expected arrival of such a patient. Placement ideally should be in a negative-pressure room, which allows outside air to flow into the room but prevents contaminated air from escaping. In the absence of a negative-pressure room, an infection isolation area should be utilized.

The patient and one accompanying support individual should wear either medical-grade masks brought from home or supplied upon entry to the hospital or homemade masks or bandanas. This will reduce the risk of viral transmission to hospital workers and other individuals encountered in the hospital prior to arriving in L&D. An ideal setup is to have separate entry areas, access corridors, and elevators for patients known or suspected to have COVID-19 infection. The patient and visitor should be expeditiously escorted to the prepared area for evaluation. Patients who are not known or suspected to be infected ideally should be tested.
 

Screening of patients & support individuals

Proper screening of patients and support individuals is critical to protecting both patients and staff in the L&D unit. This should include an expanded questionnaire that asks about disturbances of smell and taste and GI symptoms like loss of appetite – not only the more commonly queried symptoms of fever, shortness of breath, coughing, and exposure to someone who may have been ill.

Recent studies regarding presenting symptoms cast significant doubt, in fact, on the validity of patients with “asymptomatic COVID-19.” Over 15% of patients with confirmed infection in one published case series had solely GI symptoms and almost all had some digestive symptoms, for example, and almost 90% in another study had absent or reduced sense of smell and/or taste.^1,2 In fact, the use of the term “paucisymptomatic” rather than “asymptomatic” may be most appropriate.

Support individuals also should undergo temperature screening, ideally with laser noncontact thermometers on entry to the hospital or triage.
 

Visitor policy

The number of visitors/support individuals should be kept to a minimum to reduce transmission risk. The actual number will be determined by hospital or state policy, but up to one visitor in the labor room appears reasonable. Very strong individual justification should be required to exceed this threshold! The visitor should not only be screened for an expanded list of symptoms, but they also should be queried for underlying illnesses (e.g., diabetes, cardiovascular disease, significant lung disease, undergoing cancer therapy) as well as for age over 65 years, each of which increase the chances of severe COVID-19 disease should infection occur. The visitor should be informed of such risks and, especially when accompanying a patient with known or suspected COVID-19, provided the option of voluntarily revoking their visitor status. A visitor with known or suspected COVID-19 infection based on testing or screening should not be allowed into the L&D unit.

In addition, institutions may be considered to have obligations to the visitor/support person beyond screening. These include instructions in proper mask usage, hand washing, and limiting the touching of surfaces to lower infection risk.

“Visitor relays” where one visitor replaces another should be strongly discouraged. Visitors should similarly not be allowed to wander around the hospital (to use phones, for instance); transiting back and forth to obtain food and coffee should be kept to a strict minimum. For visitors accompanying COVID-19–-infected women, “visitor’s plates” provided by the hospital at reasonable cost is a much-preferred arrangement for obtaining meals during the course of the hospital stay. In addition, visitors should be sent out of the room during the performance of aerosolizing procedures.
 

Labor and delivery management

The successful management of patients with COVID-19 requires a rigorous infection control protocol informed by guidelines from national entities, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and by state health departments when available.

Strict limits on the number of obstetricians and other health care workers (HCWs) entering the patient’s room should be enforced and documented to minimize risk to the HCWs attending to patients who have a positive diagnosis or who are under investigation. Only in cases of demonstrable clinical benefit should repeat visits by the same or additional HCWs be permitted. Conventional and electronic tablets present an excellent opportunity for patient follow-up visits without room entry. In our institution, this has been successfully piloted in nonpregnant patients. Obstetricians and others caring for obstetrical patients – especially those who are infected or under investigation for infection – should always wear a properly fitted N95 mask.

Because patients with COVID-19 may have or go on to develop a constellation of organ abnormalities (e.g., cardiovascular, renal, pulmonary), it is vital that a standardized panel of baseline laboratory studies be developed for pregnant patients. This will minimize the need for repeated blood draws and other testing which may increase HCW exposure.

A negative screen based on nonreport of symptoms, lack of temperature elevation, and reported nonexposure to individuals with COVID-19 symptoms still has limitations in terms of disease detection. A recent report from a tertiary care hospital in New York City found that close to one-third of pregnant patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted over a 2-week period had no viral symptoms or instructive history on initial admission.³ This is consistent with our clinical experience. Most importantly, therefore, routine quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing should be performed on all patients admitted to the L&D unit.

Given the reported variability in the accuracy of polymerase chain reaction testing induced by variable effectiveness of sampling techniques, stage of infection, and inherent test accuracy issues, symptomatic patients with a negative test should first obtain clearance from infectious disease specialists before isolation precautions are discontinued. Repeat testing in 24 hours, including testing of multiple sites, may subsequently yield a positive result in persistently symptomatic patients.
 

Intrapartum management

As much as possible, standard obstetric indications should guide the timing and route of delivery. In the case of a COVID-19–positive patient or a patient under investigation, nonobstetric factors may bear heavily on decision making, and management flexibility is of great value. For example, in cases of severe or critical disease status, evidence suggests that early delivery regardless of gestational age can improve maternal oxygenation; this supports the liberal use of C-sections in these circumstances. In addition, shortening labor length as well as duration of hospitalization may be expected to reduce the risk of transmission to HCWs, other staff, and other patients.

High rates of cesarean delivery unsurprisingly have been reported thus far: One review of 108 case reports and series of test-positive COVID-19 pregnancies found a 92% C-section rate, and another review and meta-analysis of studies of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 during pregnancy similarly found that the majority of patients – 84% across all coronavirus infections and 91% in COVID-19 pregnancies – were delivered by C-section.4,5 Given these high rates of cesarean deliveries, the early placement of neuraxial anesthesia while the patient is stable appears to be prudent and obviates the need for intubation, the latter of which is associated with increased aerosol generation and increased virus transmission risk.

Strict protocols for the optimal protection of staff should be observed, including proper personal protective equipment (PPE) protection. Protocols have been detailed in various guidelines and publications; they include the wearing of shoe covers, gowns, N95 masks, goggles, face shields, and two layers of gloves.

For institutions that currently do not offer routine COVID-19 testing to pregnant patients – especially those in areas of outbreaks – N95 masks and eye protection should still be provided to all HCWs involved in the intrapartum management of untested asymptomatic patients, particularly those in the active phase of labor. This protection is justified given the limitations of symptom- and history-based screening and the not-uncommon experience of the patient with a negative screen who subsequently develops the clinical syndrome.

Obstetric management of labor requires close patient contact that potentially elevates the risk of contamination and infection. During the active stage of labor, patient shouting, rapid mouth breathing, and other behaviors inherent to labor all increase the risk of aerosolization of oronasal secretions. In addition, nasal-prong oxygen administration is believed to independently increase the risk of aerosolization of secretions. The casual practice of nasal oxygen application should thus be discontinued and, where felt to be absolutely necessary, a mask should be worn on top of the prongs.

Regarding operative delivery, each participating obstetric surgeon should observe guidelines and recommendations of governing national organizations and professional groups – including the American College of Surgeons – regarding the safe conduct of operations on patients with COVID-19. Written guidelines should be tailored as needed to the performance of C-sections and readily available in L&D. Drills and simulations are generally valuable, and expertise and support should always be available in the labor room to assist with donning and doffing of PPE.
 

Postpartum care

Expeditious separation of the COVID-19–positive mother from her infant is recommended, including avoidance of delayed cord clamping because of insufficient evidence of benefit to the infant. Insufficient evidence exists to support vertical transmission, but the possibility of maternal-infant transmission is clinically accepted based on small case reports of infection in a neonate at 30 hours of life and in infants of mothers with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.6,7 Accordingly, it is recommended that the benefit of early infant separation should be discussed with the mother. If approved, the infant should be kept in a separate isolation area and observed.

There is no evidence of breast milk transmission of the virus. For those electing to breastfeed, the patient should be provided with a breast pump to express and store the milk for subsequent bottle feeding. For mothers who elect to room in with the infant, a separation distance of 6 feet is recommended with an intervening barrier curtain. For COVID-19–positive mothers who elect breastfeeding, meticulous hand and face washing, continuous wearing of a mask, and cleansing of the breast prior to feeding needs to be maintained.

Restrictive visiting policies of no more than one visitor should be maintained. For severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19, it has been suggested that no visitors be allowed. As with other hospitalizations of COVID-19 patients, the HCW contact should be kept at a justifiable minimum to reduce the risk of transmission.
 

Protecting the obstetrician and other HCWs

Protecting the health of obstetricians and other HCWs is central to any successful strategy to fight the COVID-19 epidemic. For the individual obstetrician, careful attention to national and local hospital guidelines is required as these are rapidly evolving.

Physicians and their leadership must maintain an ongoing dialogue with hospital leadership to continually upgrade and optimize infection prevention and control measures, and to uphold best practices. The experience in Wuhan, China, illustrates the effectiveness of the proper use of PPE along with population control measures to reduce infections in HCWs. Prior to understanding the mechanism of virus transmission and using protective equipment, infection rates of 3%-29% were reported among HCWs. With the meticulous utilization of mitigation strategies and population control measures – including consistent use of PPE – the rate of infection of HCWs reportedly fell to zero.

In outpatient offices, all staff and HCWs should wear masks at all times and engage in social distancing and in frequent hand sanitization. Patients should be strongly encouraged to wear masks during office visits and on all other occasions when they will be in physical proximity to other individuals outside of the home.

Reports from epidemic areas describe transmission from household sources as a significant cause of HCW infection. The information emphasizes the need for ongoing vigilance and attention to sanitization measures even when at home with one’s family. An additional benefit is reduced risk of transmission from HCWs to family members.

Dr. Bahado-Singh is professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Oakland University, Rochester, Mich., and health system chair for obstetrics and gynecology at Beaumont Health System.

References

1. Luo S et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.03.043.

2. Lechien JR et al. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-05965-1.

3. Breslin N et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020 Apr 9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100118.

4. Zaigham M, Andersson O. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13867.

5. Di Mascio D et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100107.

6. Ital J. Pediatr 2020;46(1) doi: 10.1186/s13052-020-0820-x. 

7. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020;149(2):130-6. 

*This article was updated 5/6/2020. 

The meteoric rise in the number of test-positive and clinical cases of COVID-19 because of infection with the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) in states and cities across the United States has added urgency to the efforts to develop protocols for hospital triage, admission, labor and delivery management, and other aspects of obstetrical care.

Emerging data suggest that, while SARS-CoV-2 is less lethal overall than the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) proved to be, it is significantly more contagious. Although a severe disease, the limited worldwide data so far available (as of early May) do not indicate that pregnant women are at greater risk of severe disease, compared with the general population. However, there remains a critical need for data on maternal and perinatal outcomes in women infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Multiple physiological changes in pregnancy, from reduced cell-based immune competence to changes in respiratory tract and pulmonary function – e.g., edema of the respiratory tract, increases in secretions and oxygen consumption, elevation of the diaphragm, and decrease in functional residual capacity – have historically contributed to worse obstetric outcomes in pregnant women who have had viral pneumonias. Furthermore, limited published experience with COVID-19 in China suggests worse perinatal outcomes in some affected pregnancies, including prematurity and perinatal death.

With evolution of the pandemic and accumulation of experience, it is expected that data-driven guidelines on assessment and management of infected pregnant women will contribute to improved maternal and perinatal outcomes. What is clear now, however, is that, without protecting the health of obstetricians and other health care workers, urgently needed gains in patient outcomes will not be realized.

Here are my recommendations, based on a currently limited body of literature on COVID-19 and other communicable viral respiratory disorders, as well my experience in the greater Detroit area, a COVID-19 hot spot.
 

Preparing for hospital evaluation and admission

The obstetric triage or labor and delivery (L&D) unit should be notified prior to the arrival of a patient suspected of or known to be infected with the virus. This will minimize staff exposure and allow sufficient time to prepare appropriate accommodations, equipment, and supplies for the patient’s care. Hospital infection control should be promptly notified by L&D of the expected arrival of such a patient. Placement ideally should be in a negative-pressure room, which allows outside air to flow into the room but prevents contaminated air from escaping. In the absence of a negative-pressure room, an infection isolation area should be utilized.

The patient and one accompanying support individual should wear either medical-grade masks brought from home or supplied upon entry to the hospital or homemade masks or bandanas. This will reduce the risk of viral transmission to hospital workers and other individuals encountered in the hospital prior to arriving in L&D. An ideal setup is to have separate entry areas, access corridors, and elevators for patients known or suspected to have COVID-19 infection. The patient and visitor should be expeditiously escorted to the prepared area for evaluation. Patients who are not known or suspected to be infected ideally should be tested.
 

Screening of patients & support individuals

Proper screening of patients and support individuals is critical to protecting both patients and staff in the L&D unit. This should include an expanded questionnaire that asks about disturbances of smell and taste and GI symptoms like loss of appetite – not only the more commonly queried symptoms of fever, shortness of breath, coughing, and exposure to someone who may have been ill.

Recent studies regarding presenting symptoms cast significant doubt, in fact, on the validity of patients with “asymptomatic COVID-19.” Over 15% of patients with confirmed infection in one published case series had solely GI symptoms and almost all had some digestive symptoms, for example, and almost 90% in another study had absent or reduced sense of smell and/or taste.^1,2 In fact, the use of the term “paucisymptomatic” rather than “asymptomatic” may be most appropriate.

Support individuals also should undergo temperature screening, ideally with laser noncontact thermometers on entry to the hospital or triage.
 

Visitor policy

The number of visitors/support individuals should be kept to a minimum to reduce transmission risk. The actual number will be determined by hospital or state policy, but up to one visitor in the labor room appears reasonable. Very strong individual justification should be required to exceed this threshold! The visitor should not only be screened for an expanded list of symptoms, but they also should be queried for underlying illnesses (e.g., diabetes, cardiovascular disease, significant lung disease, undergoing cancer therapy) as well as for age over 65 years, each of which increase the chances of severe COVID-19 disease should infection occur. The visitor should be informed of such risks and, especially when accompanying a patient with known or suspected COVID-19, provided the option of voluntarily revoking their visitor status. A visitor with known or suspected COVID-19 infection based on testing or screening should not be allowed into the L&D unit.

In addition, institutions may be considered to have obligations to the visitor/support person beyond screening. These include instructions in proper mask usage, hand washing, and limiting the touching of surfaces to lower infection risk.

“Visitor relays” where one visitor replaces another should be strongly discouraged. Visitors should similarly not be allowed to wander around the hospital (to use phones, for instance); transiting back and forth to obtain food and coffee should be kept to a strict minimum. For visitors accompanying COVID-19–-infected women, “visitor’s plates” provided by the hospital at reasonable cost is a much-preferred arrangement for obtaining meals during the course of the hospital stay. In addition, visitors should be sent out of the room during the performance of aerosolizing procedures.
 

Labor and delivery management

The successful management of patients with COVID-19 requires a rigorous infection control protocol informed by guidelines from national entities, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and by state health departments when available.

Strict limits on the number of obstetricians and other health care workers (HCWs) entering the patient’s room should be enforced and documented to minimize risk to the HCWs attending to patients who have a positive diagnosis or who are under investigation. Only in cases of demonstrable clinical benefit should repeat visits by the same or additional HCWs be permitted. Conventional and electronic tablets present an excellent opportunity for patient follow-up visits without room entry. In our institution, this has been successfully piloted in nonpregnant patients. Obstetricians and others caring for obstetrical patients – especially those who are infected or under investigation for infection – should always wear a properly fitted N95 mask.

Because patients with COVID-19 may have or go on to develop a constellation of organ abnormalities (e.g., cardiovascular, renal, pulmonary), it is vital that a standardized panel of baseline laboratory studies be developed for pregnant patients. This will minimize the need for repeated blood draws and other testing which may increase HCW exposure.

A negative screen based on nonreport of symptoms, lack of temperature elevation, and reported nonexposure to individuals with COVID-19 symptoms still has limitations in terms of disease detection. A recent report from a tertiary care hospital in New York City found that close to one-third of pregnant patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted over a 2-week period had no viral symptoms or instructive history on initial admission.³ This is consistent with our clinical experience. Most importantly, therefore, routine quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing should be performed on all patients admitted to the L&D unit.

Given the reported variability in the accuracy of polymerase chain reaction testing induced by variable effectiveness of sampling techniques, stage of infection, and inherent test accuracy issues, symptomatic patients with a negative test should first obtain clearance from infectious disease specialists before isolation precautions are discontinued. Repeat testing in 24 hours, including testing of multiple sites, may subsequently yield a positive result in persistently symptomatic patients.
 

Intrapartum management

As much as possible, standard obstetric indications should guide the timing and route of delivery. In the case of a COVID-19–positive patient or a patient under investigation, nonobstetric factors may bear heavily on decision making, and management flexibility is of great value. For example, in cases of severe or critical disease status, evidence suggests that early delivery regardless of gestational age can improve maternal oxygenation; this supports the liberal use of C-sections in these circumstances. In addition, shortening labor length as well as duration of hospitalization may be expected to reduce the risk of transmission to HCWs, other staff, and other patients.

High rates of cesarean delivery unsurprisingly have been reported thus far: One review of 108 case reports and series of test-positive COVID-19 pregnancies found a 92% C-section rate, and another review and meta-analysis of studies of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 during pregnancy similarly found that the majority of patients – 84% across all coronavirus infections and 91% in COVID-19 pregnancies – were delivered by C-section.4,5 Given these high rates of cesarean deliveries, the early placement of neuraxial anesthesia while the patient is stable appears to be prudent and obviates the need for intubation, the latter of which is associated with increased aerosol generation and increased virus transmission risk.

Strict protocols for the optimal protection of staff should be observed, including proper personal protective equipment (PPE) protection. Protocols have been detailed in various guidelines and publications; they include the wearing of shoe covers, gowns, N95 masks, goggles, face shields, and two layers of gloves.

For institutions that currently do not offer routine COVID-19 testing to pregnant patients – especially those in areas of outbreaks – N95 masks and eye protection should still be provided to all HCWs involved in the intrapartum management of untested asymptomatic patients, particularly those in the active phase of labor. This protection is justified given the limitations of symptom- and history-based screening and the not-uncommon experience of the patient with a negative screen who subsequently develops the clinical syndrome.

Obstetric management of labor requires close patient contact that potentially elevates the risk of contamination and infection. During the active stage of labor, patient shouting, rapid mouth breathing, and other behaviors inherent to labor all increase the risk of aerosolization of oronasal secretions. In addition, nasal-prong oxygen administration is believed to independently increase the risk of aerosolization of secretions. The casual practice of nasal oxygen application should thus be discontinued and, where felt to be absolutely necessary, a mask should be worn on top of the prongs.

Regarding operative delivery, each participating obstetric surgeon should observe guidelines and recommendations of governing national organizations and professional groups – including the American College of Surgeons – regarding the safe conduct of operations on patients with COVID-19. Written guidelines should be tailored as needed to the performance of C-sections and readily available in L&D. Drills and simulations are generally valuable, and expertise and support should always be available in the labor room to assist with donning and doffing of PPE.
 

Postpartum care

Expeditious separation of the COVID-19–positive mother from her infant is recommended, including avoidance of delayed cord clamping because of insufficient evidence of benefit to the infant. Insufficient evidence exists to support vertical transmission, but the possibility of maternal-infant transmission is clinically accepted based on small case reports of infection in a neonate at 30 hours of life and in infants of mothers with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.6,7 Accordingly, it is recommended that the benefit of early infant separation should be discussed with the mother. If approved, the infant should be kept in a separate isolation area and observed.

There is no evidence of breast milk transmission of the virus. For those electing to breastfeed, the patient should be provided with a breast pump to express and store the milk for subsequent bottle feeding. For mothers who elect to room in with the infant, a separation distance of 6 feet is recommended with an intervening barrier curtain. For COVID-19–positive mothers who elect breastfeeding, meticulous hand and face washing, continuous wearing of a mask, and cleansing of the breast prior to feeding needs to be maintained.

Restrictive visiting policies of no more than one visitor should be maintained. For severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19, it has been suggested that no visitors be allowed. As with other hospitalizations of COVID-19 patients, the HCW contact should be kept at a justifiable minimum to reduce the risk of transmission.
 

Protecting the obstetrician and other HCWs

Protecting the health of obstetricians and other HCWs is central to any successful strategy to fight the COVID-19 epidemic. For the individual obstetrician, careful attention to national and local hospital guidelines is required as these are rapidly evolving.

Physicians and their leadership must maintain an ongoing dialogue with hospital leadership to continually upgrade and optimize infection prevention and control measures, and to uphold best practices. The experience in Wuhan, China, illustrates the effectiveness of the proper use of PPE along with population control measures to reduce infections in HCWs. Prior to understanding the mechanism of virus transmission and using protective equipment, infection rates of 3%-29% were reported among HCWs. With the meticulous utilization of mitigation strategies and population control measures – including consistent use of PPE – the rate of infection of HCWs reportedly fell to zero.

In outpatient offices, all staff and HCWs should wear masks at all times and engage in social distancing and in frequent hand sanitization. Patients should be strongly encouraged to wear masks during office visits and on all other occasions when they will be in physical proximity to other individuals outside of the home.

Reports from epidemic areas describe transmission from household sources as a significant cause of HCW infection. The information emphasizes the need for ongoing vigilance and attention to sanitization measures even when at home with one’s family. An additional benefit is reduced risk of transmission from HCWs to family members.

Dr. Bahado-Singh is professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Oakland University, Rochester, Mich., and health system chair for obstetrics and gynecology at Beaumont Health System.

References

1. Luo S et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Mar 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.03.043.

2. Lechien JR et al. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-05965-1.

3. Breslin N et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020 Apr 9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100118.

4. Zaigham M, Andersson O. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13867.

5. Di Mascio D et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100107.

6. Ital J. Pediatr 2020;46(1) doi: 10.1186/s13052-020-0820-x. 

7. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020;149(2):130-6. 

*This article was updated 5/6/2020. 

The identification of the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and emergence of the associated infectious respiratory disease, COVID-19, in late 2019 catapulted the citizens of the world, especially those in the health care professions, into an era of considerable uncertainty. At this moment in human history, calm reassurance – founded in fact and evidence – seems its greatest need. Much of the focus within the biomedical community has been on containment, prevention, and treatment of this highly contagious and, for some, extremely virulent disease.

However, for ob.gyns on the front lines of the COVID-19 fight, there is the additional challenge of caring for at least two patients simultaneously: the mother and her unborn baby. Studies in mother-baby dyads, while being published at an incredible pace, are still quite scarce. In addition, published reports are limited by the small sample size of the patient population (many are single-case reports), lack of uniformity in the timing and types of clinical samples collected, testing delays, and varying isolation protocols in cases where the mother has confirmed SARS-CoV-2.

Five months into a pandemic that has swept the world, we still know very little about COVID-19 infection in the general population, let alone the obstetric one. We do not know if having and resolving COVID-19 infection provides any long-term protection against future disease. We do not know if vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs. We do not know if maternal infection confers any immunologic benefit to the neonate. The list goes on.

What we do know is that taking extra precautions works. Use of personal protective equipment saves health care practitioner and patient lives. Prohibiting or restricting visitors to only one person in hospitals reduces risk of transmission to vulnerable patients. Shifting to fewer in-office prenatal consults decreases a pregnant woman’s potential exposure to the virus.

Additionally, we know that leading with compassion is vital to easing patient – and practitioner – anxiety and stress. Most importantly, we know that people are extraordinarily resilient, especially when it comes to safeguarding the health of their families.

To address some of the major concerns that many ob.gyns. have regarding their risk of coronavirus exposure when caring for patients, we have invited Ray Bahado-Singh, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Oakland University, Rochester, Mich., and health system chair for obstetrics and gynecology at Beaumont Health System, who works in a suburb of Detroit, one of our nation’s COVID-19 hot spots.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland School of Medicine as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].

The identification of the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and emergence of the associated infectious respiratory disease, COVID-19, in late 2019 catapulted the citizens of the world, especially those in the health care professions, into an era of considerable uncertainty. At this moment in human history, calm reassurance – founded in fact and evidence – seems its greatest need. Much of the focus within the biomedical community has been on containment, prevention, and treatment of this highly contagious and, for some, extremely virulent disease.

However, for ob.gyns on the front lines of the COVID-19 fight, there is the additional challenge of caring for at least two patients simultaneously: the mother and her unborn baby. Studies in mother-baby dyads, while being published at an incredible pace, are still quite scarce. In addition, published reports are limited by the small sample size of the patient population (many are single-case reports), lack of uniformity in the timing and types of clinical samples collected, testing delays, and varying isolation protocols in cases where the mother has confirmed SARS-CoV-2.

Five months into a pandemic that has swept the world, we still know very little about COVID-19 infection in the general population, let alone the obstetric one. We do not know if having and resolving COVID-19 infection provides any long-term protection against future disease. We do not know if vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs. We do not know if maternal infection confers any immunologic benefit to the neonate. The list goes on.

What we do know is that taking extra precautions works. Use of personal protective equipment saves health care practitioner and patient lives. Prohibiting or restricting visitors to only one person in hospitals reduces risk of transmission to vulnerable patients. Shifting to fewer in-office prenatal consults decreases a pregnant woman’s potential exposure to the virus.

Additionally, we know that leading with compassion is vital to easing patient – and practitioner – anxiety and stress. Most importantly, we know that people are extraordinarily resilient, especially when it comes to safeguarding the health of their families.

To address some of the major concerns that many ob.gyns. have regarding their risk of coronavirus exposure when caring for patients, we have invited Ray Bahado-Singh, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Oakland University, Rochester, Mich., and health system chair for obstetrics and gynecology at Beaumont Health System, who works in a suburb of Detroit, one of our nation’s COVID-19 hot spots.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland School of Medicine as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].

The identification of the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and emergence of the associated infectious respiratory disease, COVID-19, in late 2019 catapulted the citizens of the world, especially those in the health care professions, into an era of considerable uncertainty. At this moment in human history, calm reassurance – founded in fact and evidence – seems its greatest need. Much of the focus within the biomedical community has been on containment, prevention, and treatment of this highly contagious and, for some, extremely virulent disease.

However, for ob.gyns on the front lines of the COVID-19 fight, there is the additional challenge of caring for at least two patients simultaneously: the mother and her unborn baby. Studies in mother-baby dyads, while being published at an incredible pace, are still quite scarce. In addition, published reports are limited by the small sample size of the patient population (many are single-case reports), lack of uniformity in the timing and types of clinical samples collected, testing delays, and varying isolation protocols in cases where the mother has confirmed SARS-CoV-2.

Five months into a pandemic that has swept the world, we still know very little about COVID-19 infection in the general population, let alone the obstetric one. We do not know if having and resolving COVID-19 infection provides any long-term protection against future disease. We do not know if vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs. We do not know if maternal infection confers any immunologic benefit to the neonate. The list goes on.

What we do know is that taking extra precautions works. Use of personal protective equipment saves health care practitioner and patient lives. Prohibiting or restricting visitors to only one person in hospitals reduces risk of transmission to vulnerable patients. Shifting to fewer in-office prenatal consults decreases a pregnant woman’s potential exposure to the virus.

Additionally, we know that leading with compassion is vital to easing patient – and practitioner – anxiety and stress. Most importantly, we know that people are extraordinarily resilient, especially when it comes to safeguarding the health of their families.

To address some of the major concerns that many ob.gyns. have regarding their risk of coronavirus exposure when caring for patients, we have invited Ray Bahado-Singh, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Oakland University, Rochester, Mich., and health system chair for obstetrics and gynecology at Beaumont Health System, who works in a suburb of Detroit, one of our nation’s COVID-19 hot spots.

Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland School of Medicine as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].

A majority of adults are reluctant to visit health care providers unless the visit is related to COVID-19, according to survey conducted at the end of April.

When asked how likely they were to visit a variety of health care settings for treatment not related to the coronavirus, 62% of respondents said it was unlikely that they would go to a hospital, 64% wouldn’t go to a specialist, and 65% would avoid walk-in clinics, digital media company Morning Consult reported May 4.

The only setting with less than a majority on the unlikely-to-visit side was primary physicians, who managed to combine a 39% likely vote with a 13% undecided/no-opinion tally, Morning Consult said after surveying 2,201 adults on April 29-30 (margin of error, ±2 percentage points).

As to when they might feel comfortable making such an in-person visit with their primary physician, 24% of respondents said they would willing to go in the next month, 14% said 2 months, 18% said 3 months, 13% said 6 months, and 10% said more than 6 months, the Morning Consult data show.

“Hospitals, despite being overburdened in recent weeks in coronavirus hot spots such as New York City, have reported dips in revenue as a result of potential patients opting against receiving elective surgeries out of fear of contracting COVID-19,” Morning Consult wrote, and these poll results suggest that “health care companies could continue to feel the pinch as long as the coronavirus lingers.”
 

[email protected]

A majority of adults are reluctant to visit health care providers unless the visit is related to COVID-19, according to survey conducted at the end of April.

When asked how likely they were to visit a variety of health care settings for treatment not related to the coronavirus, 62% of respondents said it was unlikely that they would go to a hospital, 64% wouldn’t go to a specialist, and 65% would avoid walk-in clinics, digital media company Morning Consult reported May 4.

The only setting with less than a majority on the unlikely-to-visit side was primary physicians, who managed to combine a 39% likely vote with a 13% undecided/no-opinion tally, Morning Consult said after surveying 2,201 adults on April 29-30 (margin of error, ±2 percentage points).

As to when they might feel comfortable making such an in-person visit with their primary physician, 24% of respondents said they would willing to go in the next month, 14% said 2 months, 18% said 3 months, 13% said 6 months, and 10% said more than 6 months, the Morning Consult data show.

“Hospitals, despite being overburdened in recent weeks in coronavirus hot spots such as New York City, have reported dips in revenue as a result of potential patients opting against receiving elective surgeries out of fear of contracting COVID-19,” Morning Consult wrote, and these poll results suggest that “health care companies could continue to feel the pinch as long as the coronavirus lingers.”
 

[email protected]

A majority of adults are reluctant to visit health care providers unless the visit is related to COVID-19, according to survey conducted at the end of April.

When asked how likely they were to visit a variety of health care settings for treatment not related to the coronavirus, 62% of respondents said it was unlikely that they would go to a hospital, 64% wouldn’t go to a specialist, and 65% would avoid walk-in clinics, digital media company Morning Consult reported May 4.

The only setting with less than a majority on the unlikely-to-visit side was primary physicians, who managed to combine a 39% likely vote with a 13% undecided/no-opinion tally, Morning Consult said after surveying 2,201 adults on April 29-30 (margin of error, ±2 percentage points).

As to when they might feel comfortable making such an in-person visit with their primary physician, 24% of respondents said they would willing to go in the next month, 14% said 2 months, 18% said 3 months, 13% said 6 months, and 10% said more than 6 months, the Morning Consult data show.

“Hospitals, despite being overburdened in recent weeks in coronavirus hot spots such as New York City, have reported dips in revenue as a result of potential patients opting against receiving elective surgeries out of fear of contracting COVID-19,” Morning Consult wrote, and these poll results suggest that “health care companies could continue to feel the pinch as long as the coronavirus lingers.”
 

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the VentFree Respiratory Muscle Stimulator in order to potentially reduce the number of days adult patients, including those with COVID-19, require mechanical ventilation, according to a press release from Liberate Medical.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

In comparison with mechanical ventilation, which is invasive and commonly weakens the breathing muscles, the VentFree system uses noninvasive neuromuscular electrical stimulation to contract the abdominal wall muscles in synchrony with exhalation during mechanical ventilation, according to the press release. This allows patients to begin treatment during the early stages of ventilation while they are sedated and to continue until they are weaned off of ventilation.

A pair of pilot randomized, controlled studies, completed in Europe and Australia, showed that VentFree helped to reduce ventilation duration and ICU length of stay, compared with placebo stimulation. The FDA granted VentFree Breakthrough Device status in 2019.

“We are grateful to the FDA for recognizing the potential of VentFree and feel privileged to have the opportunity to help patients on mechanical ventilation during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Angus McLachlan PhD, cofounder and CEO of Liberate Medical, said in the press release.

VentFree has been authorized for use only for the duration of the current COVID-19 emergency, as it has not yet been approved or cleared for usage by primary care providers.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the VentFree Respiratory Muscle Stimulator in order to potentially reduce the number of days adult patients, including those with COVID-19, require mechanical ventilation, according to a press release from Liberate Medical.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

In comparison with mechanical ventilation, which is invasive and commonly weakens the breathing muscles, the VentFree system uses noninvasive neuromuscular electrical stimulation to contract the abdominal wall muscles in synchrony with exhalation during mechanical ventilation, according to the press release. This allows patients to begin treatment during the early stages of ventilation while they are sedated and to continue until they are weaned off of ventilation.

A pair of pilot randomized, controlled studies, completed in Europe and Australia, showed that VentFree helped to reduce ventilation duration and ICU length of stay, compared with placebo stimulation. The FDA granted VentFree Breakthrough Device status in 2019.

“We are grateful to the FDA for recognizing the potential of VentFree and feel privileged to have the opportunity to help patients on mechanical ventilation during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Angus McLachlan PhD, cofounder and CEO of Liberate Medical, said in the press release.

VentFree has been authorized for use only for the duration of the current COVID-19 emergency, as it has not yet been approved or cleared for usage by primary care providers.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the VentFree Respiratory Muscle Stimulator in order to potentially reduce the number of days adult patients, including those with COVID-19, require mechanical ventilation, according to a press release from Liberate Medical.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

In comparison with mechanical ventilation, which is invasive and commonly weakens the breathing muscles, the VentFree system uses noninvasive neuromuscular electrical stimulation to contract the abdominal wall muscles in synchrony with exhalation during mechanical ventilation, according to the press release. This allows patients to begin treatment during the early stages of ventilation while they are sedated and to continue until they are weaned off of ventilation.

A pair of pilot randomized, controlled studies, completed in Europe and Australia, showed that VentFree helped to reduce ventilation duration and ICU length of stay, compared with placebo stimulation. The FDA granted VentFree Breakthrough Device status in 2019.

“We are grateful to the FDA for recognizing the potential of VentFree and feel privileged to have the opportunity to help patients on mechanical ventilation during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Angus McLachlan PhD, cofounder and CEO of Liberate Medical, said in the press release.

VentFree has been authorized for use only for the duration of the current COVID-19 emergency, as it has not yet been approved or cleared for usage by primary care providers.

[email protected]

COVID-19 patients with cancer had double the fatality rate of COVID-19 patients without cancer treated in an urban New York hospital system, according to data from a retrospective study.

The case fatality rate was 28% (61/218) among cancer patients with COVID-19 and 14% (149/1,090) among matched noncancer patients with COVID-19 treated during the same time period in the same hospital system.

Vikas Mehta, MD, of Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and colleagues reported these results in Cancer Discovery.

“As New York has emerged as the current epicenter of the pandemic, we sought to investigate the risk posed by COVID-19 to our cancer population,” the authors wrote.

They identified 218 cancer patients treated for COVID-19 in the Montefiore Health System between March 18 and April 8, 2020. Three-quarters of patients had solid tumors, and 25% had hematologic malignancies. Most patients were adults (98.6%), their median age was 69 years (range, 10-92 years), and 58% were men.

In all, 28% of the cancer patients (61/218) died from COVID-19, including 25% (41/164) of those with solid tumors and 37% (20/54) of those with hematologic malignancies.

Deaths by cancer type

Among the 164 patients with solid tumors, case fatality rates were as follows:

• Pancreatic – 67% (2/3)
• Lung – 55% (6/11)
• Colorectal – 38% (8/21)
• Upper gastrointestinal – 38% (3/8)
• Gynecologic – 38% (5/13)
• Skin – 33% (1/3)
• Hepatobiliary – 29% (2/7)
• Bone/soft tissue – 20% (1/5)
• Genitourinary – 15% (7/46)
• Breast – 14% (4/28)
• Neurologic – 13% (1/8)
• Head and neck – 13% (1/8).

None of the three patients with neuroendocrine tumors died.

Among the 54 patients with hematologic malignancies, case fatality rates were as follows:

• Chronic myeloid leukemia – 100% (1/1)
• Hodgkin lymphoma – 60% (3/5)
• Myelodysplastic syndromes – 60% (3/5)
• Multiple myeloma – 38% (5/13)
• Non-Hodgkin lymphoma – 33% (5/15)
• Chronic lymphocytic leukemia – 33% (1/3)
• Myeloproliferative neoplasms – 29% (2/7).

None of the four patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia died, and there was one patient with acute myeloid leukemia who did not die.

Factors associated with increased mortality

The researchers compared the 218 cancer patients with COVID-19 with 1,090 age- and sex-matched noncancer patients with COVID-19 treated in the Montefiore Health System between March 18 and April 8, 2020.

Case fatality rates in cancer patients with COVID-19 were significantly increased in all age groups, but older age was associated with higher mortality.

“We observed case fatality rates were elevated in all age cohorts in cancer patients and achieved statistical significance in the age groups 45-64 and in patients older than 75 years of age,” the authors reported.

Other factors significantly associated with higher mortality in a multivariable analysis included the presence of multiple comorbidities; the need for ICU support; and increased levels of d-dimer, lactate, and lactate dehydrogenase.

Additional factors, such as socioeconomic and health disparities, may also be significant predictors of mortality, according to the authors. They noted that this cohort largely consisted of patients from a socioeconomically underprivileged community where mortality because of COVID-19 is reportedly higher.
 

Proactive strategies moving forward

“We have been addressing the significant burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on our vulnerable cancer patients through a variety of ways,” said study author Balazs Halmos, MD, of Montefiore Medical Center.

The center set up a separate infusion unit exclusively for COVID-positive patients and established separate inpatient areas. Dr. Halmos and colleagues are also providing telemedicine, virtual supportive care services, telephonic counseling, and bilingual peer-support programs.

“Many questions remain as we continue to establish new practices for our cancer patients,” Dr. Halmos said. “We will find answers to these questions as we continue to focus on adaptation and not acceptance in response to the COVID crisis. Our patients deserve nothing less.”

The Albert Einstein Cancer Center supported this study. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Mehta V et al. Cancer Discov. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0516.

COVID-19 patients with cancer had double the fatality rate of COVID-19 patients without cancer treated in an urban New York hospital system, according to data from a retrospective study.

The case fatality rate was 28% (61/218) among cancer patients with COVID-19 and 14% (149/1,090) among matched noncancer patients with COVID-19 treated during the same time period in the same hospital system.

Vikas Mehta, MD, of Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and colleagues reported these results in Cancer Discovery.

“As New York has emerged as the current epicenter of the pandemic, we sought to investigate the risk posed by COVID-19 to our cancer population,” the authors wrote.

They identified 218 cancer patients treated for COVID-19 in the Montefiore Health System between March 18 and April 8, 2020. Three-quarters of patients had solid tumors, and 25% had hematologic malignancies. Most patients were adults (98.6%), their median age was 69 years (range, 10-92 years), and 58% were men.

In all, 28% of the cancer patients (61/218) died from COVID-19, including 25% (41/164) of those with solid tumors and 37% (20/54) of those with hematologic malignancies.

Deaths by cancer type

Among the 164 patients with solid tumors, case fatality rates were as follows:

• Pancreatic – 67% (2/3)
• Lung – 55% (6/11)
• Colorectal – 38% (8/21)
• Upper gastrointestinal – 38% (3/8)
• Gynecologic – 38% (5/13)
• Skin – 33% (1/3)
• Hepatobiliary – 29% (2/7)
• Bone/soft tissue – 20% (1/5)
• Genitourinary – 15% (7/46)
• Breast – 14% (4/28)
• Neurologic – 13% (1/8)
• Head and neck – 13% (1/8).

None of the three patients with neuroendocrine tumors died.

Among the 54 patients with hematologic malignancies, case fatality rates were as follows:

• Chronic myeloid leukemia – 100% (1/1)
• Hodgkin lymphoma – 60% (3/5)
• Myelodysplastic syndromes – 60% (3/5)
• Multiple myeloma – 38% (5/13)
• Non-Hodgkin lymphoma – 33% (5/15)
• Chronic lymphocytic leukemia – 33% (1/3)
• Myeloproliferative neoplasms – 29% (2/7).

None of the four patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia died, and there was one patient with acute myeloid leukemia who did not die.

Factors associated with increased mortality

The researchers compared the 218 cancer patients with COVID-19 with 1,090 age- and sex-matched noncancer patients with COVID-19 treated in the Montefiore Health System between March 18 and April 8, 2020.

Case fatality rates in cancer patients with COVID-19 were significantly increased in all age groups, but older age was associated with higher mortality.

“We observed case fatality rates were elevated in all age cohorts in cancer patients and achieved statistical significance in the age groups 45-64 and in patients older than 75 years of age,” the authors reported.

Other factors significantly associated with higher mortality in a multivariable analysis included the presence of multiple comorbidities; the need for ICU support; and increased levels of d-dimer, lactate, and lactate dehydrogenase.

Additional factors, such as socioeconomic and health disparities, may also be significant predictors of mortality, according to the authors. They noted that this cohort largely consisted of patients from a socioeconomically underprivileged community where mortality because of COVID-19 is reportedly higher.
 

Proactive strategies moving forward

“We have been addressing the significant burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on our vulnerable cancer patients through a variety of ways,” said study author Balazs Halmos, MD, of Montefiore Medical Center.

The center set up a separate infusion unit exclusively for COVID-positive patients and established separate inpatient areas. Dr. Halmos and colleagues are also providing telemedicine, virtual supportive care services, telephonic counseling, and bilingual peer-support programs.

“Many questions remain as we continue to establish new practices for our cancer patients,” Dr. Halmos said. “We will find answers to these questions as we continue to focus on adaptation and not acceptance in response to the COVID crisis. Our patients deserve nothing less.”

The Albert Einstein Cancer Center supported this study. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Mehta V et al. Cancer Discov. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0516.

COVID-19 patients with cancer had double the fatality rate of COVID-19 patients without cancer treated in an urban New York hospital system, according to data from a retrospective study.

The case fatality rate was 28% (61/218) among cancer patients with COVID-19 and 14% (149/1,090) among matched noncancer patients with COVID-19 treated during the same time period in the same hospital system.

Vikas Mehta, MD, of Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and colleagues reported these results in Cancer Discovery.

“As New York has emerged as the current epicenter of the pandemic, we sought to investigate the risk posed by COVID-19 to our cancer population,” the authors wrote.

They identified 218 cancer patients treated for COVID-19 in the Montefiore Health System between March 18 and April 8, 2020. Three-quarters of patients had solid tumors, and 25% had hematologic malignancies. Most patients were adults (98.6%), their median age was 69 years (range, 10-92 years), and 58% were men.

In all, 28% of the cancer patients (61/218) died from COVID-19, including 25% (41/164) of those with solid tumors and 37% (20/54) of those with hematologic malignancies.

Deaths by cancer type

Among the 164 patients with solid tumors, case fatality rates were as follows:

• Pancreatic – 67% (2/3)
• Lung – 55% (6/11)
• Colorectal – 38% (8/21)
• Upper gastrointestinal – 38% (3/8)
• Gynecologic – 38% (5/13)
• Skin – 33% (1/3)
• Hepatobiliary – 29% (2/7)
• Bone/soft tissue – 20% (1/5)
• Genitourinary – 15% (7/46)
• Breast – 14% (4/28)
• Neurologic – 13% (1/8)
• Head and neck – 13% (1/8).

None of the three patients with neuroendocrine tumors died.

Among the 54 patients with hematologic malignancies, case fatality rates were as follows:

• Chronic myeloid leukemia – 100% (1/1)
• Hodgkin lymphoma – 60% (3/5)
• Myelodysplastic syndromes – 60% (3/5)
• Multiple myeloma – 38% (5/13)
• Non-Hodgkin lymphoma – 33% (5/15)
• Chronic lymphocytic leukemia – 33% (1/3)
• Myeloproliferative neoplasms – 29% (2/7).

None of the four patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia died, and there was one patient with acute myeloid leukemia who did not die.

Factors associated with increased mortality

The researchers compared the 218 cancer patients with COVID-19 with 1,090 age- and sex-matched noncancer patients with COVID-19 treated in the Montefiore Health System between March 18 and April 8, 2020.

Case fatality rates in cancer patients with COVID-19 were significantly increased in all age groups, but older age was associated with higher mortality.

“We observed case fatality rates were elevated in all age cohorts in cancer patients and achieved statistical significance in the age groups 45-64 and in patients older than 75 years of age,” the authors reported.

Other factors significantly associated with higher mortality in a multivariable analysis included the presence of multiple comorbidities; the need for ICU support; and increased levels of d-dimer, lactate, and lactate dehydrogenase.

Additional factors, such as socioeconomic and health disparities, may also be significant predictors of mortality, according to the authors. They noted that this cohort largely consisted of patients from a socioeconomically underprivileged community where mortality because of COVID-19 is reportedly higher.
 

Proactive strategies moving forward

“We have been addressing the significant burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on our vulnerable cancer patients through a variety of ways,” said study author Balazs Halmos, MD, of Montefiore Medical Center.

The center set up a separate infusion unit exclusively for COVID-positive patients and established separate inpatient areas. Dr. Halmos and colleagues are also providing telemedicine, virtual supportive care services, telephonic counseling, and bilingual peer-support programs.

“Many questions remain as we continue to establish new practices for our cancer patients,” Dr. Halmos said. “We will find answers to these questions as we continue to focus on adaptation and not acceptance in response to the COVID crisis. Our patients deserve nothing less.”

The Albert Einstein Cancer Center supported this study. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Mehta V et al. Cancer Discov. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0516.

Like many in the health care field, I have found it hard to watch the news over these past couple of months when it seems that almost every story is about COVID-19 or its repercussions. Luckily, I have two young daughters who “encourage” me to listen to the Frozen 2 soundtrack instead of putting on the evening news when I get home from work. Still, news manages to seep through my defenses. As I scrolled through some headlines recently, I learned of the death of musician Adam Schlesinger from COVID-19. He wasn’t a household name, but his death still hit me in unexpected ways.

I started internship in late June 2005, in a city (Portland, Ore.) about as different from my previous home (Dallas) as any two places can possibly be. I think the day before internship started still ranks as the most nervous of my life. I’m not sure how I slept at all that night, but somehow I did and arrived at the Portland Veterans Affairs Hospital the following morning to start my new career.

And then … nothing happened. Early on that first day, the electronic medical records crashed, and no patients were admitted during our time on “short call.” My upper level resident took care of the one or two established patients on the team (both discharged), so I ended the day with records that would not be broken during the remainder of my residency: 0 notes written, 0 patients seen. Perhaps the most successful first day that any intern, anywhere has ever had, although it prepared me quite poorly for all the subsequent days.

Since I had some time on my hands, I made the 20-minute walk to one of my new hometown’s record stores where Fountains of Wayne (FOW) was playing an acoustic in-store set. Their album from a few years prior, “Welcome Interstate Managers,” was in heavy rotation when I made the drive from Dallas to Portland. It was (and is) a great album for long drives – melodic, catchy, and (mostly) up-tempo. Adam and the band’s singer, Chris Collingwood, played several songs that night on the store’s stage. Then they headed out to the next city, and I headed back home and on to many far-busier days of residency.

We would cross paths again a decade later. I moved back to Texas and became a hospitalist. It turns out that, if you have enough hospitalists of a certain age and if enough of those hospitalists have unearned confidence in their musical ability, then a covers band will undoubtedly be formed. And so, it happened here in San Antonio. We were not selective in our song choices – we played songs from every decade of the last 50 years, bands as popular as the Beatles and as indie as the Rentals. And we played some FOW.

Our band (which will go nameless here so that our YouTube recordings are more difficult to find) played a grand total of one gig during our years of intermittent practicing. That one gig was my wedding rehearsal dinner and the penultimate song we played was “Stacy’s Mom,” which is notable for being both FOW’s biggest hit and a completely inappropriate song to play at a wedding rehearsal dinner. The crowd was probably around the same size as the one that had seen Adam and Chris play in Portland 10 years prior. I don’t think the applause we received was quite as genuine or deserved, though.

After Adam and Chris played their gig, there was an autograph session and I took home a signed poster. Last year, I decided to take it out of storage and hang it in my office. The date of the show and the first day of my physician career, a date now nearly 15 years ago, is written in psychedelic typography at the bottom. The store that I went to that day is no longer there, a victim of progress like so many other record stores across the country. Another location of the same store is still open in Portland. I hope that it and all the other small book and music stores across the country can survive this current crisis, but I know that many will not.

So, here’s to you Adam, and to all the others who have lost their lives to this terrible illness. As a small token of remembrance, I’ll be playing some Fountains of Wayne on the drive home tonight. It’s not quite the same as playing it on a cross-country drive, but hopefully, we will all be able to do that again soon.

Dr. Sehgal is a clinical associate professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at the South Texas Veterans Health Care System and UT-Health San Antonio. He is a member of the editorial advisory board for The Hospitalist.

Like many in the health care field, I have found it hard to watch the news over these past couple of months when it seems that almost every story is about COVID-19 or its repercussions. Luckily, I have two young daughters who “encourage” me to listen to the Frozen 2 soundtrack instead of putting on the evening news when I get home from work. Still, news manages to seep through my defenses. As I scrolled through some headlines recently, I learned of the death of musician Adam Schlesinger from COVID-19. He wasn’t a household name, but his death still hit me in unexpected ways.

I started internship in late June 2005, in a city (Portland, Ore.) about as different from my previous home (Dallas) as any two places can possibly be. I think the day before internship started still ranks as the most nervous of my life. I’m not sure how I slept at all that night, but somehow I did and arrived at the Portland Veterans Affairs Hospital the following morning to start my new career.

And then … nothing happened. Early on that first day, the electronic medical records crashed, and no patients were admitted during our time on “short call.” My upper level resident took care of the one or two established patients on the team (both discharged), so I ended the day with records that would not be broken during the remainder of my residency: 0 notes written, 0 patients seen. Perhaps the most successful first day that any intern, anywhere has ever had, although it prepared me quite poorly for all the subsequent days.

Since I had some time on my hands, I made the 20-minute walk to one of my new hometown’s record stores where Fountains of Wayne (FOW) was playing an acoustic in-store set. Their album from a few years prior, “Welcome Interstate Managers,” was in heavy rotation when I made the drive from Dallas to Portland. It was (and is) a great album for long drives – melodic, catchy, and (mostly) up-tempo. Adam and the band’s singer, Chris Collingwood, played several songs that night on the store’s stage. Then they headed out to the next city, and I headed back home and on to many far-busier days of residency.

We would cross paths again a decade later. I moved back to Texas and became a hospitalist. It turns out that, if you have enough hospitalists of a certain age and if enough of those hospitalists have unearned confidence in their musical ability, then a covers band will undoubtedly be formed. And so, it happened here in San Antonio. We were not selective in our song choices – we played songs from every decade of the last 50 years, bands as popular as the Beatles and as indie as the Rentals. And we played some FOW.

Our band (which will go nameless here so that our YouTube recordings are more difficult to find) played a grand total of one gig during our years of intermittent practicing. That one gig was my wedding rehearsal dinner and the penultimate song we played was “Stacy’s Mom,” which is notable for being both FOW’s biggest hit and a completely inappropriate song to play at a wedding rehearsal dinner. The crowd was probably around the same size as the one that had seen Adam and Chris play in Portland 10 years prior. I don’t think the applause we received was quite as genuine or deserved, though.

After Adam and Chris played their gig, there was an autograph session and I took home a signed poster. Last year, I decided to take it out of storage and hang it in my office. The date of the show and the first day of my physician career, a date now nearly 15 years ago, is written in psychedelic typography at the bottom. The store that I went to that day is no longer there, a victim of progress like so many other record stores across the country. Another location of the same store is still open in Portland. I hope that it and all the other small book and music stores across the country can survive this current crisis, but I know that many will not.

So, here’s to you Adam, and to all the others who have lost their lives to this terrible illness. As a small token of remembrance, I’ll be playing some Fountains of Wayne on the drive home tonight. It’s not quite the same as playing it on a cross-country drive, but hopefully, we will all be able to do that again soon.

Dr. Sehgal is a clinical associate professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at the South Texas Veterans Health Care System and UT-Health San Antonio. He is a member of the editorial advisory board for The Hospitalist.

Like many in the health care field, I have found it hard to watch the news over these past couple of months when it seems that almost every story is about COVID-19 or its repercussions. Luckily, I have two young daughters who “encourage” me to listen to the Frozen 2 soundtrack instead of putting on the evening news when I get home from work. Still, news manages to seep through my defenses. As I scrolled through some headlines recently, I learned of the death of musician Adam Schlesinger from COVID-19. He wasn’t a household name, but his death still hit me in unexpected ways.

I started internship in late June 2005, in a city (Portland, Ore.) about as different from my previous home (Dallas) as any two places can possibly be. I think the day before internship started still ranks as the most nervous of my life. I’m not sure how I slept at all that night, but somehow I did and arrived at the Portland Veterans Affairs Hospital the following morning to start my new career.

And then … nothing happened. Early on that first day, the electronic medical records crashed, and no patients were admitted during our time on “short call.” My upper level resident took care of the one or two established patients on the team (both discharged), so I ended the day with records that would not be broken during the remainder of my residency: 0 notes written, 0 patients seen. Perhaps the most successful first day that any intern, anywhere has ever had, although it prepared me quite poorly for all the subsequent days.

Since I had some time on my hands, I made the 20-minute walk to one of my new hometown’s record stores where Fountains of Wayne (FOW) was playing an acoustic in-store set. Their album from a few years prior, “Welcome Interstate Managers,” was in heavy rotation when I made the drive from Dallas to Portland. It was (and is) a great album for long drives – melodic, catchy, and (mostly) up-tempo. Adam and the band’s singer, Chris Collingwood, played several songs that night on the store’s stage. Then they headed out to the next city, and I headed back home and on to many far-busier days of residency.

We would cross paths again a decade later. I moved back to Texas and became a hospitalist. It turns out that, if you have enough hospitalists of a certain age and if enough of those hospitalists have unearned confidence in their musical ability, then a covers band will undoubtedly be formed. And so, it happened here in San Antonio. We were not selective in our song choices – we played songs from every decade of the last 50 years, bands as popular as the Beatles and as indie as the Rentals. And we played some FOW.

Our band (which will go nameless here so that our YouTube recordings are more difficult to find) played a grand total of one gig during our years of intermittent practicing. That one gig was my wedding rehearsal dinner and the penultimate song we played was “Stacy’s Mom,” which is notable for being both FOW’s biggest hit and a completely inappropriate song to play at a wedding rehearsal dinner. The crowd was probably around the same size as the one that had seen Adam and Chris play in Portland 10 years prior. I don’t think the applause we received was quite as genuine or deserved, though.

After Adam and Chris played their gig, there was an autograph session and I took home a signed poster. Last year, I decided to take it out of storage and hang it in my office. The date of the show and the first day of my physician career, a date now nearly 15 years ago, is written in psychedelic typography at the bottom. The store that I went to that day is no longer there, a victim of progress like so many other record stores across the country. Another location of the same store is still open in Portland. I hope that it and all the other small book and music stores across the country can survive this current crisis, but I know that many will not.

So, here’s to you Adam, and to all the others who have lost their lives to this terrible illness. As a small token of remembrance, I’ll be playing some Fountains of Wayne on the drive home tonight. It’s not quite the same as playing it on a cross-country drive, but hopefully, we will all be able to do that again soon.

Dr. Sehgal is a clinical associate professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at the South Texas Veterans Health Care System and UT-Health San Antonio. He is a member of the editorial advisory board for The Hospitalist.

Delivering a goodbye monologue to an elderly patient, I said: “Tomorrow, my colleague Dr. XYZ, who is an excellent physician, will be here in my place, and I will leave a detailed sign out for them.” I was on the last day of a 7-day-long block on hospital medicine service. Typically, when I say goodbye, some patients respond “thank you, enjoy your time,” some don’t care, and some show disappointment at the transition. This patient became uneasy, choking back tears, and said: “But, I don’t want a new doctor. You know me well. ... They don’t even allow my family in the hospital.”

That expression of anxiety, of having to build rapport with a new provider, concerns about continuity of care, and missing support of family members were not alien to me. As I instinctively took a step toward him to offer a comforting hug, an unsolicited voice in my head said, “social distancing.” I steered back, handing him a box of tissues. I continued: “You have come a long way, and things are looking good from here,” providing more details before I left the room. There was a change in my practice that week. I didn’t shake hands with my patients; I didn’t sit on any unassigned chair; I had no family members in the room asking me questions or supporting my patients. I was trying to show empathy or a smile behind a mask and protective eyewear. The business card with photograph had become more critical than ever for patients to “see” their doctor.

Moving from room to room and examining patients, it felt like the coronavirus was changing the practice of medicine beyond concerns of virus transmission, losing a patient, or putting in extra hours. I realized I was missing so-called “nonverbal communication” amid social distancing: facial expressions, social touch, and the support of family or friends to motivate or destress patients. With no visitors and curbed health care staff entries into patient’s rooms, social distancing was amounting to social isolation. My protective gear and social distancing seemed to be reducing my perceived empathy with patients, and the ability to build a good patient-physician relationship.

Amid alarms, beeps, and buzzes, patients were not only missing their families but also the familiar faces of their physicians. I needed to raise my game while embracing the “new normal” of health care. Cut to the next 13 patients: I paid more attention to voice, tone, and posture. I called patient families from the bedside instead of the office. I translated my emotions with words, loud and clear, replacing “your renal function looks better” (said without a smile) with “I am happy to see your renal function better.”

Through years of practice, I felt prepared to deal with feelings of denial, grief, anxiety, and much more, but the emotions arising as a result of this pandemic were unique. “I knew my mother was old, and this day would come,” said one of the inconsolable family members of a critically ill patient. “However, I wished to be at her side that day, not like this.” I spend my days listening to patient and family concerns about unemployment with quarantine, fears of spreading the disease to loved ones, and the possibility of medications not working.

After a long day, I went back to that first elderly patient to see if he was comfortable with the transition of care. I did a video conference with his daughter, and repeated my goodbyes. The patient smiled and said: “Doc, you deserve a break.” That day I learned about the challenges of good clinical rounding in coronavirus times, and how to overcome them. For “millennial” physicians, it is our first pandemic, and we are learning from it every day.

Driving home through empty streets, I concluded that my answers to the clinical questions asked by patients and families lean heavily on ever-changing data, and the treatments offered have yet to prove their mettle. As a result, I will continue to focus as much on the time-tested fundamentals of clinical practice: communication and empathy. I cannot allow the social distancing and the mask to hide my compassion, or take away from patient satisfaction. Shifting gears, I turned on my car radio, using music to reset my mind before attending to my now-homeschooling kids.

Dr. Saigal is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

References

1. Wong CK et al. Effect of facemasks on empathy and relational continuity: A randomised controlled trial in primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:200.

2. Little P et al. Randomised controlled trial of a brief intervention targeting predominantly nonverbal communication in general practice consultations. Br J Gen Pract. 2015;65(635):e351-6.

3. Varghese A. A doctor’s touch. TEDGlobal 2011. 2011 Jul. https://www.ted.com/talks/abraham_verghese_a_doctor_s_touch?language=en

Delivering a goodbye monologue to an elderly patient, I said: “Tomorrow, my colleague Dr. XYZ, who is an excellent physician, will be here in my place, and I will leave a detailed sign out for them.” I was on the last day of a 7-day-long block on hospital medicine service. Typically, when I say goodbye, some patients respond “thank you, enjoy your time,” some don’t care, and some show disappointment at the transition. This patient became uneasy, choking back tears, and said: “But, I don’t want a new doctor. You know me well. ... They don’t even allow my family in the hospital.”

That expression of anxiety, of having to build rapport with a new provider, concerns about continuity of care, and missing support of family members were not alien to me. As I instinctively took a step toward him to offer a comforting hug, an unsolicited voice in my head said, “social distancing.” I steered back, handing him a box of tissues. I continued: “You have come a long way, and things are looking good from here,” providing more details before I left the room. There was a change in my practice that week. I didn’t shake hands with my patients; I didn’t sit on any unassigned chair; I had no family members in the room asking me questions or supporting my patients. I was trying to show empathy or a smile behind a mask and protective eyewear. The business card with photograph had become more critical than ever for patients to “see” their doctor.

Moving from room to room and examining patients, it felt like the coronavirus was changing the practice of medicine beyond concerns of virus transmission, losing a patient, or putting in extra hours. I realized I was missing so-called “nonverbal communication” amid social distancing: facial expressions, social touch, and the support of family or friends to motivate or destress patients. With no visitors and curbed health care staff entries into patient’s rooms, social distancing was amounting to social isolation. My protective gear and social distancing seemed to be reducing my perceived empathy with patients, and the ability to build a good patient-physician relationship.

Amid alarms, beeps, and buzzes, patients were not only missing their families but also the familiar faces of their physicians. I needed to raise my game while embracing the “new normal” of health care. Cut to the next 13 patients: I paid more attention to voice, tone, and posture. I called patient families from the bedside instead of the office. I translated my emotions with words, loud and clear, replacing “your renal function looks better” (said without a smile) with “I am happy to see your renal function better.”

Through years of practice, I felt prepared to deal with feelings of denial, grief, anxiety, and much more, but the emotions arising as a result of this pandemic were unique. “I knew my mother was old, and this day would come,” said one of the inconsolable family members of a critically ill patient. “However, I wished to be at her side that day, not like this.” I spend my days listening to patient and family concerns about unemployment with quarantine, fears of spreading the disease to loved ones, and the possibility of medications not working.

After a long day, I went back to that first elderly patient to see if he was comfortable with the transition of care. I did a video conference with his daughter, and repeated my goodbyes. The patient smiled and said: “Doc, you deserve a break.” That day I learned about the challenges of good clinical rounding in coronavirus times, and how to overcome them. For “millennial” physicians, it is our first pandemic, and we are learning from it every day.

Driving home through empty streets, I concluded that my answers to the clinical questions asked by patients and families lean heavily on ever-changing data, and the treatments offered have yet to prove their mettle. As a result, I will continue to focus as much on the time-tested fundamentals of clinical practice: communication and empathy. I cannot allow the social distancing and the mask to hide my compassion, or take away from patient satisfaction. Shifting gears, I turned on my car radio, using music to reset my mind before attending to my now-homeschooling kids.

Dr. Saigal is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

References

1. Wong CK et al. Effect of facemasks on empathy and relational continuity: A randomised controlled trial in primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:200.

2. Little P et al. Randomised controlled trial of a brief intervention targeting predominantly nonverbal communication in general practice consultations. Br J Gen Pract. 2015;65(635):e351-6.

3. Varghese A. A doctor’s touch. TEDGlobal 2011. 2011 Jul. https://www.ted.com/talks/abraham_verghese_a_doctor_s_touch?language=en

Delivering a goodbye monologue to an elderly patient, I said: “Tomorrow, my colleague Dr. XYZ, who is an excellent physician, will be here in my place, and I will leave a detailed sign out for them.” I was on the last day of a 7-day-long block on hospital medicine service. Typically, when I say goodbye, some patients respond “thank you, enjoy your time,” some don’t care, and some show disappointment at the transition. This patient became uneasy, choking back tears, and said: “But, I don’t want a new doctor. You know me well. ... They don’t even allow my family in the hospital.”

That expression of anxiety, of having to build rapport with a new provider, concerns about continuity of care, and missing support of family members were not alien to me. As I instinctively took a step toward him to offer a comforting hug, an unsolicited voice in my head said, “social distancing.” I steered back, handing him a box of tissues. I continued: “You have come a long way, and things are looking good from here,” providing more details before I left the room. There was a change in my practice that week. I didn’t shake hands with my patients; I didn’t sit on any unassigned chair; I had no family members in the room asking me questions or supporting my patients. I was trying to show empathy or a smile behind a mask and protective eyewear. The business card with photograph had become more critical than ever for patients to “see” their doctor.

Moving from room to room and examining patients, it felt like the coronavirus was changing the practice of medicine beyond concerns of virus transmission, losing a patient, or putting in extra hours. I realized I was missing so-called “nonverbal communication” amid social distancing: facial expressions, social touch, and the support of family or friends to motivate or destress patients. With no visitors and curbed health care staff entries into patient’s rooms, social distancing was amounting to social isolation. My protective gear and social distancing seemed to be reducing my perceived empathy with patients, and the ability to build a good patient-physician relationship.

Amid alarms, beeps, and buzzes, patients were not only missing their families but also the familiar faces of their physicians. I needed to raise my game while embracing the “new normal” of health care. Cut to the next 13 patients: I paid more attention to voice, tone, and posture. I called patient families from the bedside instead of the office. I translated my emotions with words, loud and clear, replacing “your renal function looks better” (said without a smile) with “I am happy to see your renal function better.”

Through years of practice, I felt prepared to deal with feelings of denial, grief, anxiety, and much more, but the emotions arising as a result of this pandemic were unique. “I knew my mother was old, and this day would come,” said one of the inconsolable family members of a critically ill patient. “However, I wished to be at her side that day, not like this.” I spend my days listening to patient and family concerns about unemployment with quarantine, fears of spreading the disease to loved ones, and the possibility of medications not working.

After a long day, I went back to that first elderly patient to see if he was comfortable with the transition of care. I did a video conference with his daughter, and repeated my goodbyes. The patient smiled and said: “Doc, you deserve a break.” That day I learned about the challenges of good clinical rounding in coronavirus times, and how to overcome them. For “millennial” physicians, it is our first pandemic, and we are learning from it every day.

Driving home through empty streets, I concluded that my answers to the clinical questions asked by patients and families lean heavily on ever-changing data, and the treatments offered have yet to prove their mettle. As a result, I will continue to focus as much on the time-tested fundamentals of clinical practice: communication and empathy. I cannot allow the social distancing and the mask to hide my compassion, or take away from patient satisfaction. Shifting gears, I turned on my car radio, using music to reset my mind before attending to my now-homeschooling kids.

Dr. Saigal is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

References

1. Wong CK et al. Effect of facemasks on empathy and relational continuity: A randomised controlled trial in primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:200.

2. Little P et al. Randomised controlled trial of a brief intervention targeting predominantly nonverbal communication in general practice consultations. Br J Gen Pract. 2015;65(635):e351-6.

3. Varghese A. A doctor’s touch. TEDGlobal 2011. 2011 Jul. https://www.ted.com/talks/abraham_verghese_a_doctor_s_touch?language=en

Two case reports published simultaneously in JAMA Dermatology prompted an accompanying editorial calling for dermatologists to actively participate in the characterization and management of skin complications associated with COVID-19 infection.

It is not yet clear from these or other case reports which, if any, skin eruptions accompanying COVID-19 infections are caused by the virus, but the authors of the editorial, led by Lauren M. Madigan, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, urged dermatologists to lead efforts to find out.

“To fully characterize skin manifestations, it may be necessary for dermatologists to evaluate these patients directly; comprehensive evaluation could reveal important morphologic clues, such as the subtle purpuric nature of skin lesions or the characteristic mucosal or ophthalmologic features of COVID-19,” the authors of the editorial stated.

So far, the patterns of skin symptoms, which have been identified in up to 20% of COVID-19–infected patients in some series, have been heterogeneous as demonstrated in the two published case reports.

In one case, a papulosquamous and erythematous periumbilical patch that appeared on the trunk in an elderly patient 1 day after hospital admission for acute respiratory distress rapidly evolved into a digitate papulosquamous eruption involving the upper arms, shoulder, and back. It was described as “clinically reminiscent” of pityriasis rosea by the authors, from the divisions of dermatology and venereology, pathology, intensive care, and the virology laboratory, of the Hôpital Cochin, Paris.

In the other, pruritic erythematous macules, papules, and petechiae affecting the buttocks, popliteal fossae, anterior thighs, and lower abdomen appeared 3 days after the onset of fever in a 48-year-old man hospitalized in Madrid. A biopsy demonstrated a superficial perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate with red cell extravasation and focal papillary edema, “along with focal parakeratosis and isolated dyskeratotic cells,” according to the authors of this report, from the department of dermatology at Ramon y Cajal University, Madrid.

It was unclear whether COVID-19 directly caused either skin eruption. In the patient with the digitate papulosquamous eruption, no virus could be isolated from the skin. Based on high levels of proinflammatory cytokines, it was hypothesized that the rash might have been secondary to an immune response. The rash resolved within a week, but the patient subsequently died of the infection.

In the second case, the petechial lesions, which developed before any treatment was initiated, were said to resemble those associated with other viruses, such as parvovirus B19. This led the investigators to speculate that SARS-CoV-2 “could affect the skin in a similar way,” even though other potential etiologies could not be excluded. Treated with a topical steroid and an oral antihistamine, the skin lesions resolved after 5 days. This patient was discharged after recovering from the respiratory illness after 12 days.

Like previously reported cutaneous eruptions associated with COVID-19 infection, these cases “raise more questions than they provide answers,” wrote the authors of the editorial, but the limited information currently available was the basis for encouraging dermatologists to get involved.

To participate, dermatologists need not necessarily be affiliated with an academic center, according to one of the editorial coauthors, Kanade Shinkai, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. She noted that any health professional is invited to submit cases of COVID-19–associated dermatoses to a registry set up by the American Academy of Dermatology.

It is hoped that cases captured in this registry will create sufficient data to allow clinically relevant patterns and etiologies to be characterized.

The need for data is clear to those on the front lines. Kirsten Lo Sicco, MD, associate director of the skin and cancer unit at New York University, reported that her center is already set up to collect data systematically. “At NYU, we are currently working on standardizing laboratory and histopathology work up for COVID-19 patients who present with various skin eruptions.”

The goal, she added, is “to better determine COVID-19 pathophysiology, systemic associations, patient outcomes, and potential therapeutics.”

NYU Langone Health

“Presumably, many of the eruptions seen in the setting of COVID-19 infection are related,” Dr. Lo Sicco explained in an interview. However, skin complications of infection “may overlap with or be a result of other etiologies as well.”

While better testing for COVID-19 and more lesion biopsies will play a critical role in differentiating etiologies, “we must not overcall COVID-19–related skin eruptions and potentially overlook other diagnoses,” Dr. Lo Sicco said.

In recounting some challenges from the NYU experience so far, Dr. Lo Sicco described the difficulty of differentiating COVID-19–related skin eruptions from skin eruptions caused by treatments, such as antibiotics and antivirals, when the presentation is delayed.

“This is where collaboration with our dermatopathologists becomes important. Drug eruptions, viral exanthems, urticarial eruptions, vasculopathy, and vasculitis can all be differentiated on dermpath,” she said.

One early obstacle to the skin biopsies essential for these types of studies was the limited supply of personal protective equipment at many centers, including hospitals in New York. Biopsies could not be safely performed if supplies of masks and gowns were limited.

Recent evidence suggests that some of the more common morphologies, such as purpuric eruptions, livedo reticularis, and retiform purpura, are linked to the vasculopathy associated with COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Lo Sicco, but this invites a new set of questions.

One is whether vasculopathies can be prevented with prophylactic anticoagulation. Many hospitalized COVID-19 patients are already receiving therapeutic anticoagulation, but Dr. Lo Sicco questioned whether prophylactic anticoagulation might improve prognosis for outpatients, such as those discharged or those never hospitalized. This is a strategy now being investigated.

Ultimately, she agreed with the thrust of the JAMA Dermatology editorial.

“Dermatologists are vital to determine if various morphologies, such as urticarial, vesicular, purpuric, or papulosquamous lesions, have any specific systemic implications or relate to differences in patient outcomes,” she said.

These are exactly the types of issues being actively investigated at her center.

Neither the authors of the case reports nor of the editorial reported any conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCEs: Madigan LM et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 30. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1438; Diaz-Guimaraens B et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1741; Sanchez A et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1704.

Two case reports published simultaneously in JAMA Dermatology prompted an accompanying editorial calling for dermatologists to actively participate in the characterization and management of skin complications associated with COVID-19 infection.

It is not yet clear from these or other case reports which, if any, skin eruptions accompanying COVID-19 infections are caused by the virus, but the authors of the editorial, led by Lauren M. Madigan, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, urged dermatologists to lead efforts to find out.

“To fully characterize skin manifestations, it may be necessary for dermatologists to evaluate these patients directly; comprehensive evaluation could reveal important morphologic clues, such as the subtle purpuric nature of skin lesions or the characteristic mucosal or ophthalmologic features of COVID-19,” the authors of the editorial stated.

So far, the patterns of skin symptoms, which have been identified in up to 20% of COVID-19–infected patients in some series, have been heterogeneous as demonstrated in the two published case reports.

In one case, a papulosquamous and erythematous periumbilical patch that appeared on the trunk in an elderly patient 1 day after hospital admission for acute respiratory distress rapidly evolved into a digitate papulosquamous eruption involving the upper arms, shoulder, and back. It was described as “clinically reminiscent” of pityriasis rosea by the authors, from the divisions of dermatology and venereology, pathology, intensive care, and the virology laboratory, of the Hôpital Cochin, Paris.

In the other, pruritic erythematous macules, papules, and petechiae affecting the buttocks, popliteal fossae, anterior thighs, and lower abdomen appeared 3 days after the onset of fever in a 48-year-old man hospitalized in Madrid. A biopsy demonstrated a superficial perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate with red cell extravasation and focal papillary edema, “along with focal parakeratosis and isolated dyskeratotic cells,” according to the authors of this report, from the department of dermatology at Ramon y Cajal University, Madrid.

It was unclear whether COVID-19 directly caused either skin eruption. In the patient with the digitate papulosquamous eruption, no virus could be isolated from the skin. Based on high levels of proinflammatory cytokines, it was hypothesized that the rash might have been secondary to an immune response. The rash resolved within a week, but the patient subsequently died of the infection.

In the second case, the petechial lesions, which developed before any treatment was initiated, were said to resemble those associated with other viruses, such as parvovirus B19. This led the investigators to speculate that SARS-CoV-2 “could affect the skin in a similar way,” even though other potential etiologies could not be excluded. Treated with a topical steroid and an oral antihistamine, the skin lesions resolved after 5 days. This patient was discharged after recovering from the respiratory illness after 12 days.

Like previously reported cutaneous eruptions associated with COVID-19 infection, these cases “raise more questions than they provide answers,” wrote the authors of the editorial, but the limited information currently available was the basis for encouraging dermatologists to get involved.

To participate, dermatologists need not necessarily be affiliated with an academic center, according to one of the editorial coauthors, Kanade Shinkai, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. She noted that any health professional is invited to submit cases of COVID-19–associated dermatoses to a registry set up by the American Academy of Dermatology.

It is hoped that cases captured in this registry will create sufficient data to allow clinically relevant patterns and etiologies to be characterized.

The need for data is clear to those on the front lines. Kirsten Lo Sicco, MD, associate director of the skin and cancer unit at New York University, reported that her center is already set up to collect data systematically. “At NYU, we are currently working on standardizing laboratory and histopathology work up for COVID-19 patients who present with various skin eruptions.”

The goal, she added, is “to better determine COVID-19 pathophysiology, systemic associations, patient outcomes, and potential therapeutics.”

NYU Langone Health

“Presumably, many of the eruptions seen in the setting of COVID-19 infection are related,” Dr. Lo Sicco explained in an interview. However, skin complications of infection “may overlap with or be a result of other etiologies as well.”

While better testing for COVID-19 and more lesion biopsies will play a critical role in differentiating etiologies, “we must not overcall COVID-19–related skin eruptions and potentially overlook other diagnoses,” Dr. Lo Sicco said.

In recounting some challenges from the NYU experience so far, Dr. Lo Sicco described the difficulty of differentiating COVID-19–related skin eruptions from skin eruptions caused by treatments, such as antibiotics and antivirals, when the presentation is delayed.

“This is where collaboration with our dermatopathologists becomes important. Drug eruptions, viral exanthems, urticarial eruptions, vasculopathy, and vasculitis can all be differentiated on dermpath,” she said.

One early obstacle to the skin biopsies essential for these types of studies was the limited supply of personal protective equipment at many centers, including hospitals in New York. Biopsies could not be safely performed if supplies of masks and gowns were limited.

Recent evidence suggests that some of the more common morphologies, such as purpuric eruptions, livedo reticularis, and retiform purpura, are linked to the vasculopathy associated with COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Lo Sicco, but this invites a new set of questions.

One is whether vasculopathies can be prevented with prophylactic anticoagulation. Many hospitalized COVID-19 patients are already receiving therapeutic anticoagulation, but Dr. Lo Sicco questioned whether prophylactic anticoagulation might improve prognosis for outpatients, such as those discharged or those never hospitalized. This is a strategy now being investigated.

Ultimately, she agreed with the thrust of the JAMA Dermatology editorial.

“Dermatologists are vital to determine if various morphologies, such as urticarial, vesicular, purpuric, or papulosquamous lesions, have any specific systemic implications or relate to differences in patient outcomes,” she said.

These are exactly the types of issues being actively investigated at her center.

Neither the authors of the case reports nor of the editorial reported any conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCEs: Madigan LM et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 30. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1438; Diaz-Guimaraens B et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1741; Sanchez A et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1704.

Two case reports published simultaneously in JAMA Dermatology prompted an accompanying editorial calling for dermatologists to actively participate in the characterization and management of skin complications associated with COVID-19 infection.

It is not yet clear from these or other case reports which, if any, skin eruptions accompanying COVID-19 infections are caused by the virus, but the authors of the editorial, led by Lauren M. Madigan, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, urged dermatologists to lead efforts to find out.

“To fully characterize skin manifestations, it may be necessary for dermatologists to evaluate these patients directly; comprehensive evaluation could reveal important morphologic clues, such as the subtle purpuric nature of skin lesions or the characteristic mucosal or ophthalmologic features of COVID-19,” the authors of the editorial stated.

So far, the patterns of skin symptoms, which have been identified in up to 20% of COVID-19–infected patients in some series, have been heterogeneous as demonstrated in the two published case reports.

In one case, a papulosquamous and erythematous periumbilical patch that appeared on the trunk in an elderly patient 1 day after hospital admission for acute respiratory distress rapidly evolved into a digitate papulosquamous eruption involving the upper arms, shoulder, and back. It was described as “clinically reminiscent” of pityriasis rosea by the authors, from the divisions of dermatology and venereology, pathology, intensive care, and the virology laboratory, of the Hôpital Cochin, Paris.

In the other, pruritic erythematous macules, papules, and petechiae affecting the buttocks, popliteal fossae, anterior thighs, and lower abdomen appeared 3 days after the onset of fever in a 48-year-old man hospitalized in Madrid. A biopsy demonstrated a superficial perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate with red cell extravasation and focal papillary edema, “along with focal parakeratosis and isolated dyskeratotic cells,” according to the authors of this report, from the department of dermatology at Ramon y Cajal University, Madrid.

It was unclear whether COVID-19 directly caused either skin eruption. In the patient with the digitate papulosquamous eruption, no virus could be isolated from the skin. Based on high levels of proinflammatory cytokines, it was hypothesized that the rash might have been secondary to an immune response. The rash resolved within a week, but the patient subsequently died of the infection.

In the second case, the petechial lesions, which developed before any treatment was initiated, were said to resemble those associated with other viruses, such as parvovirus B19. This led the investigators to speculate that SARS-CoV-2 “could affect the skin in a similar way,” even though other potential etiologies could not be excluded. Treated with a topical steroid and an oral antihistamine, the skin lesions resolved after 5 days. This patient was discharged after recovering from the respiratory illness after 12 days.

Like previously reported cutaneous eruptions associated with COVID-19 infection, these cases “raise more questions than they provide answers,” wrote the authors of the editorial, but the limited information currently available was the basis for encouraging dermatologists to get involved.

To participate, dermatologists need not necessarily be affiliated with an academic center, according to one of the editorial coauthors, Kanade Shinkai, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. She noted that any health professional is invited to submit cases of COVID-19–associated dermatoses to a registry set up by the American Academy of Dermatology.

It is hoped that cases captured in this registry will create sufficient data to allow clinically relevant patterns and etiologies to be characterized.

The need for data is clear to those on the front lines. Kirsten Lo Sicco, MD, associate director of the skin and cancer unit at New York University, reported that her center is already set up to collect data systematically. “At NYU, we are currently working on standardizing laboratory and histopathology work up for COVID-19 patients who present with various skin eruptions.”

The goal, she added, is “to better determine COVID-19 pathophysiology, systemic associations, patient outcomes, and potential therapeutics.”

NYU Langone Health

“Presumably, many of the eruptions seen in the setting of COVID-19 infection are related,” Dr. Lo Sicco explained in an interview. However, skin complications of infection “may overlap with or be a result of other etiologies as well.”

While better testing for COVID-19 and more lesion biopsies will play a critical role in differentiating etiologies, “we must not overcall COVID-19–related skin eruptions and potentially overlook other diagnoses,” Dr. Lo Sicco said.

In recounting some challenges from the NYU experience so far, Dr. Lo Sicco described the difficulty of differentiating COVID-19–related skin eruptions from skin eruptions caused by treatments, such as antibiotics and antivirals, when the presentation is delayed.

“This is where collaboration with our dermatopathologists becomes important. Drug eruptions, viral exanthems, urticarial eruptions, vasculopathy, and vasculitis can all be differentiated on dermpath,” she said.

One early obstacle to the skin biopsies essential for these types of studies was the limited supply of personal protective equipment at many centers, including hospitals in New York. Biopsies could not be safely performed if supplies of masks and gowns were limited.

Recent evidence suggests that some of the more common morphologies, such as purpuric eruptions, livedo reticularis, and retiform purpura, are linked to the vasculopathy associated with COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Lo Sicco, but this invites a new set of questions.

One is whether vasculopathies can be prevented with prophylactic anticoagulation. Many hospitalized COVID-19 patients are already receiving therapeutic anticoagulation, but Dr. Lo Sicco questioned whether prophylactic anticoagulation might improve prognosis for outpatients, such as those discharged or those never hospitalized. This is a strategy now being investigated.

Ultimately, she agreed with the thrust of the JAMA Dermatology editorial.

“Dermatologists are vital to determine if various morphologies, such as urticarial, vesicular, purpuric, or papulosquamous lesions, have any specific systemic implications or relate to differences in patient outcomes,” she said.

These are exactly the types of issues being actively investigated at her center.

Neither the authors of the case reports nor of the editorial reported any conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCEs: Madigan LM et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 30. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1438; Diaz-Guimaraens B et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1741; Sanchez A et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 30. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1704.

As alcohol-related death and disease rates rise, framing alcohol use disorder as a treatable disease with neurobiologic underpinnings might help reduce the stigma that many patients endure, according to George F. Koob, PhD, director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).

“Alcohol misuse and alcohol use disorder (AUD) have not gone away during the opioid crisis, and [they have] not gone away during the current (COVID-19) pandemic,” Dr. Koob said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event.

There are at least 14 million individuals in the United States with AUD now, compared with 2 million with opioid use disorder, Dr. Koob said.

Clinicians should strive to reduce stigma related to AUD, he said, and reinforce the understanding that these millions of individuals have a treatable chronic condition – just like hypertension or diabetes are treatable chronic conditions.

However, framing AUD as a treatable chronic condition is just one of many issues that need to be addressed, he said, adding that rates of screening and referral for AUD need to be increased among patients with other mental health conditions.

Psychiatrists can play a key role in reducing that screening and treatment gap, though concerningly, data suggest fewer than half of psychiatric patients with substance use disorders (SUDs) are being diagnosed or treated, said Andrew J. Saxon, MD, director of the Center of Excellence in Substance Abuse Treatment and Education (CESATE) VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle.

Only about 9% of psychiatrist office visits from 2012 to 2015 involved a substance use disorder diagnosis or prescribed medication, whereas at least 20% of adults with mental health conditions also have an SUD, according to authors of a recent study in Psychiatric Services (2018 Jan 16. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201700457).

Better efforts are needed to improve training or somehow better incentivize psychiatrists to screen for alcohol use disorder and make sure patients get treatment for addiction, Dr. Saxon said in an interview.

“What we have is a lack of subspecialists in addiction psychiatry,” said Dr. Saxon, former director of the addiction psychiatry residency program at the University of Washington. “That becomes self-perpetuating, because we don’t have the knowledge experts to train the residents, and therefore, the residency programs don’t provide a rich enough experience.”
 

Changes in alcohol-related deaths

A new report (Alcoholism Clin Exper Res. 2020 Jan;44[1]:178-87) highlights the gravity of the AUD problem, showing that alcohol-related deaths have doubled over the past few decades, Dr. Koob said in his presentation.

Among individuals 16 years of age or older, the number of alcohol-related deaths in the United States rose from 35,914 in 1999 to 72,558 (or about 2.6% of all U.S. deaths) in 2017, according to that report, which was based on U.S. mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics. The largest increase was seen in non-Hispanic white females, according to the investigators.

Alcohol is playing a more prominent role in “deaths of despair,” said Dr. Koob, noting that it contributes to about one-quarter of suicides and up to 20% of drug overdoses. “Probably even more salient is that half of liver disease in the United States is now caused by alcohol,” he added.

Misuse of alcohol is correlated with poor mental health, an observation that Dr. Koob said was particularly relevant to the current COVID-19 pandemic, he said, since alcohol is commonly used to cope with stress and symptoms of mental health conditions.

“In the end, it makes the prognosis worse,” he said.
 

Addressing AUD stigma

A better understanding of the neurobiology of addiction may reduce the stigma associated with AUD, helping reframe the issue as a “health condition, rather than as a moral failing,” Dr. Koob said.

Stigma remains a major barrier to AUD treatment, he added, explaining that factors contributing to stigma include shame patients may feel for what they perceive as a personal failure, and lack of knowledge about treatment options.

Separating AUD treatment from primary care exacerbates that problem, perpetuating the sense that AUD is somehow a “different” kind of issue, he said.

Health care clinicians in primary care can help alleviate the stigma by engaging in screening and offering referral to treatment, he said, adding that the NIAAA offers a navigator website designed to help individuals negotiate the process of choosing a treatment approach for AUD.

Language matters, according to Dr. Koob, who suggested using nonstigmatizing “person-first” terminology to refer to affected individuals not as alcoholics, but as “persons with AUD.”

Challenges ahead for AUD

There’s still a lot of work to be done to understand differences in alcohol pathology between men and women, especially as gaps narrow between the sexes for AUD incidence, early-onset drinking, frequency and intensity of drinking, and self-reported consequences, Dr. Koob said.

Age differences are also important to study. On one hand, older individuals appear to be more sensitive to the effects of alcohol, he said, because of metabolism changes, neurocognitive decline, and “inflamm-aging,” or the chronic and low level inflammatory state associated with aging.

Adolescents are also an increased-risk population of research interest, since brain wiring connections are “particularly sensitive” to alcohol in the teen years, potentially setting up changes in vulnerability to AUD that last into adulthood.

Other challenges include the unmet need for better and more individualized AUD treatments, the issue of alcohol tolerance, which Dr. Koob said has been “ignored for many years” by researchers, the contribution of pain to AUD, and the way that dysregulated sleep contributes to AUD, and vice versa.

Research likewise remains “challenging” regarding conditions that are frequently found in conjunction with AUD, such as major depressive episodes, anxiety disorders, and posttraumatic stress disorder: “These are all areas that we’re intensely interested in as comorbidities with AUD,” Dr. Koob said.

Dr. Koob reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Koob GF. APA 2020, Abstract.

As alcohol-related death and disease rates rise, framing alcohol use disorder as a treatable disease with neurobiologic underpinnings might help reduce the stigma that many patients endure, according to George F. Koob, PhD, director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).

“Alcohol misuse and alcohol use disorder (AUD) have not gone away during the opioid crisis, and [they have] not gone away during the current (COVID-19) pandemic,” Dr. Koob said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event.

There are at least 14 million individuals in the United States with AUD now, compared with 2 million with opioid use disorder, Dr. Koob said.

Clinicians should strive to reduce stigma related to AUD, he said, and reinforce the understanding that these millions of individuals have a treatable chronic condition – just like hypertension or diabetes are treatable chronic conditions.

However, framing AUD as a treatable chronic condition is just one of many issues that need to be addressed, he said, adding that rates of screening and referral for AUD need to be increased among patients with other mental health conditions.

Psychiatrists can play a key role in reducing that screening and treatment gap, though concerningly, data suggest fewer than half of psychiatric patients with substance use disorders (SUDs) are being diagnosed or treated, said Andrew J. Saxon, MD, director of the Center of Excellence in Substance Abuse Treatment and Education (CESATE) VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle.

Only about 9% of psychiatrist office visits from 2012 to 2015 involved a substance use disorder diagnosis or prescribed medication, whereas at least 20% of adults with mental health conditions also have an SUD, according to authors of a recent study in Psychiatric Services (2018 Jan 16. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201700457).

Better efforts are needed to improve training or somehow better incentivize psychiatrists to screen for alcohol use disorder and make sure patients get treatment for addiction, Dr. Saxon said in an interview.

“What we have is a lack of subspecialists in addiction psychiatry,” said Dr. Saxon, former director of the addiction psychiatry residency program at the University of Washington. “That becomes self-perpetuating, because we don’t have the knowledge experts to train the residents, and therefore, the residency programs don’t provide a rich enough experience.”
 

Changes in alcohol-related deaths

A new report (Alcoholism Clin Exper Res. 2020 Jan;44[1]:178-87) highlights the gravity of the AUD problem, showing that alcohol-related deaths have doubled over the past few decades, Dr. Koob said in his presentation.

Among individuals 16 years of age or older, the number of alcohol-related deaths in the United States rose from 35,914 in 1999 to 72,558 (or about 2.6% of all U.S. deaths) in 2017, according to that report, which was based on U.S. mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics. The largest increase was seen in non-Hispanic white females, according to the investigators.

Alcohol is playing a more prominent role in “deaths of despair,” said Dr. Koob, noting that it contributes to about one-quarter of suicides and up to 20% of drug overdoses. “Probably even more salient is that half of liver disease in the United States is now caused by alcohol,” he added.

Misuse of alcohol is correlated with poor mental health, an observation that Dr. Koob said was particularly relevant to the current COVID-19 pandemic, he said, since alcohol is commonly used to cope with stress and symptoms of mental health conditions.

“In the end, it makes the prognosis worse,” he said.
 

Addressing AUD stigma

A better understanding of the neurobiology of addiction may reduce the stigma associated with AUD, helping reframe the issue as a “health condition, rather than as a moral failing,” Dr. Koob said.

Stigma remains a major barrier to AUD treatment, he added, explaining that factors contributing to stigma include shame patients may feel for what they perceive as a personal failure, and lack of knowledge about treatment options.

Separating AUD treatment from primary care exacerbates that problem, perpetuating the sense that AUD is somehow a “different” kind of issue, he said.

Health care clinicians in primary care can help alleviate the stigma by engaging in screening and offering referral to treatment, he said, adding that the NIAAA offers a navigator website designed to help individuals negotiate the process of choosing a treatment approach for AUD.

Language matters, according to Dr. Koob, who suggested using nonstigmatizing “person-first” terminology to refer to affected individuals not as alcoholics, but as “persons with AUD.”

Challenges ahead for AUD

There’s still a lot of work to be done to understand differences in alcohol pathology between men and women, especially as gaps narrow between the sexes for AUD incidence, early-onset drinking, frequency and intensity of drinking, and self-reported consequences, Dr. Koob said.

Age differences are also important to study. On one hand, older individuals appear to be more sensitive to the effects of alcohol, he said, because of metabolism changes, neurocognitive decline, and “inflamm-aging,” or the chronic and low level inflammatory state associated with aging.

Adolescents are also an increased-risk population of research interest, since brain wiring connections are “particularly sensitive” to alcohol in the teen years, potentially setting up changes in vulnerability to AUD that last into adulthood.

Other challenges include the unmet need for better and more individualized AUD treatments, the issue of alcohol tolerance, which Dr. Koob said has been “ignored for many years” by researchers, the contribution of pain to AUD, and the way that dysregulated sleep contributes to AUD, and vice versa.

Research likewise remains “challenging” regarding conditions that are frequently found in conjunction with AUD, such as major depressive episodes, anxiety disorders, and posttraumatic stress disorder: “These are all areas that we’re intensely interested in as comorbidities with AUD,” Dr. Koob said.

Dr. Koob reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Koob GF. APA 2020, Abstract.

As alcohol-related death and disease rates rise, framing alcohol use disorder as a treatable disease with neurobiologic underpinnings might help reduce the stigma that many patients endure, according to George F. Koob, PhD, director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).

“Alcohol misuse and alcohol use disorder (AUD) have not gone away during the opioid crisis, and [they have] not gone away during the current (COVID-19) pandemic,” Dr. Koob said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event.

There are at least 14 million individuals in the United States with AUD now, compared with 2 million with opioid use disorder, Dr. Koob said.

Clinicians should strive to reduce stigma related to AUD, he said, and reinforce the understanding that these millions of individuals have a treatable chronic condition – just like hypertension or diabetes are treatable chronic conditions.

However, framing AUD as a treatable chronic condition is just one of many issues that need to be addressed, he said, adding that rates of screening and referral for AUD need to be increased among patients with other mental health conditions.

Psychiatrists can play a key role in reducing that screening and treatment gap, though concerningly, data suggest fewer than half of psychiatric patients with substance use disorders (SUDs) are being diagnosed or treated, said Andrew J. Saxon, MD, director of the Center of Excellence in Substance Abuse Treatment and Education (CESATE) VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle.

Only about 9% of psychiatrist office visits from 2012 to 2015 involved a substance use disorder diagnosis or prescribed medication, whereas at least 20% of adults with mental health conditions also have an SUD, according to authors of a recent study in Psychiatric Services (2018 Jan 16. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201700457).

Better efforts are needed to improve training or somehow better incentivize psychiatrists to screen for alcohol use disorder and make sure patients get treatment for addiction, Dr. Saxon said in an interview.

“What we have is a lack of subspecialists in addiction psychiatry,” said Dr. Saxon, former director of the addiction psychiatry residency program at the University of Washington. “That becomes self-perpetuating, because we don’t have the knowledge experts to train the residents, and therefore, the residency programs don’t provide a rich enough experience.”
 

Changes in alcohol-related deaths

A new report (Alcoholism Clin Exper Res. 2020 Jan;44[1]:178-87) highlights the gravity of the AUD problem, showing that alcohol-related deaths have doubled over the past few decades, Dr. Koob said in his presentation.

Among individuals 16 years of age or older, the number of alcohol-related deaths in the United States rose from 35,914 in 1999 to 72,558 (or about 2.6% of all U.S. deaths) in 2017, according to that report, which was based on U.S. mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics. The largest increase was seen in non-Hispanic white females, according to the investigators.

Alcohol is playing a more prominent role in “deaths of despair,” said Dr. Koob, noting that it contributes to about one-quarter of suicides and up to 20% of drug overdoses. “Probably even more salient is that half of liver disease in the United States is now caused by alcohol,” he added.

Misuse of alcohol is correlated with poor mental health, an observation that Dr. Koob said was particularly relevant to the current COVID-19 pandemic, he said, since alcohol is commonly used to cope with stress and symptoms of mental health conditions.

“In the end, it makes the prognosis worse,” he said.
 

Addressing AUD stigma

A better understanding of the neurobiology of addiction may reduce the stigma associated with AUD, helping reframe the issue as a “health condition, rather than as a moral failing,” Dr. Koob said.

Stigma remains a major barrier to AUD treatment, he added, explaining that factors contributing to stigma include shame patients may feel for what they perceive as a personal failure, and lack of knowledge about treatment options.

Separating AUD treatment from primary care exacerbates that problem, perpetuating the sense that AUD is somehow a “different” kind of issue, he said.

Health care clinicians in primary care can help alleviate the stigma by engaging in screening and offering referral to treatment, he said, adding that the NIAAA offers a navigator website designed to help individuals negotiate the process of choosing a treatment approach for AUD.

Language matters, according to Dr. Koob, who suggested using nonstigmatizing “person-first” terminology to refer to affected individuals not as alcoholics, but as “persons with AUD.”

Challenges ahead for AUD

There’s still a lot of work to be done to understand differences in alcohol pathology between men and women, especially as gaps narrow between the sexes for AUD incidence, early-onset drinking, frequency and intensity of drinking, and self-reported consequences, Dr. Koob said.

Age differences are also important to study. On one hand, older individuals appear to be more sensitive to the effects of alcohol, he said, because of metabolism changes, neurocognitive decline, and “inflamm-aging,” or the chronic and low level inflammatory state associated with aging.

Adolescents are also an increased-risk population of research interest, since brain wiring connections are “particularly sensitive” to alcohol in the teen years, potentially setting up changes in vulnerability to AUD that last into adulthood.

Other challenges include the unmet need for better and more individualized AUD treatments, the issue of alcohol tolerance, which Dr. Koob said has been “ignored for many years” by researchers, the contribution of pain to AUD, and the way that dysregulated sleep contributes to AUD, and vice versa.

Research likewise remains “challenging” regarding conditions that are frequently found in conjunction with AUD, such as major depressive episodes, anxiety disorders, and posttraumatic stress disorder: “These are all areas that we’re intensely interested in as comorbidities with AUD,” Dr. Koob said.

Dr. Koob reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Koob GF. APA 2020, Abstract.