A 62-year-old man with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) presented to the Emergency Department with 3 days of progressive generalized weakness, anorexia, and nonbloody diarrhea. He denied fever, chills, nausea, vomiting, cough, shortness of breath, or abdominal pain. He had no sick contacts.

One diagnostic approach for patients with cancer who present with new symptoms is to consider diagnoses both related and unrelated to the cancer. Cancer-related diagnoses can include the broad categories of complications related to the tumor itself (such as mass effect), paraneoplastic phenomena, or treatment-related complications (such as infection from immunosuppression or chemotherapy toxicity).

For this patient with metastatic NSCLC, weakness, anorexia, and diarrhea are unlikely to be related to mass effect unless the patient has peritoneal metastases (an uncommon complication of NSCLC) with carcinomatosis-associated diarrhea.

Paraneoplastic phenomena, such as hypercalcemia or hyponatremia from the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH), are common with NSCLC and could both lead to weakness and anorexia. Hematologic consequences of NSCLC (or its treatment) include anemia, thrombosis, and thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA), though diarrhea, in the absence of abdominal pain or hematochezia, would be unexpected.

Weakness, anorexia, and diarrhea may also be symptoms of chemotherapy toxicity or an infection resulting from immunosuppression. It would be important to know what specific treatment the patient has received. Chemotherapy commonly causes neutropenia and predisposes to rapidly progressive infections, while immunotherapies have other toxicities. Diarrhea is a common toxicity of the checkpoint inhibitors and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors that are frequently used to treat metastatic NSCLC. Checkpoint inhibitors also are known to cause a wide range of autoimmune phenomena including colitis.

Finally, the patient’s symptoms may be unrelated to the cancer. Weakness, anorexia, and nonbloody diarrhea could be signs of viral or bacterial gastroenteritis or Clostridioides difficile colitis particularly with frequent healthcare contact or antimicrobial use.

Two days prior, he had been diagnosed with nonsevere Clostridioides difficile colitis in an acute care clinic. He was started on oral metronidazole, but his diarrhea worsened over the next day and was accompanied by weakness and anorexia. Additional past medical history included untreated hepatitis C infection, chronic kidney disease stage 3, seizure disorder, and left lung NSCLC (adenocarcinoma). The lung cancer was diagnosed 8 months prior when he had presented with hemoptysis and 3 months of progressive constitutional symptoms. Imaging at that time revealed metastases to the contralateral lung and regional lymph nodes, as well as vertebrae, ribs, and pelvis. He had no abdominal metastases. He was initially treated with carboplatin and paclitaxel. After a partial response to initial chemotherapy, he developed peripheral neuropathy and was switched to gemcitabine 12 weeks ago. He received five cycles of gemcitabine over 10 weeks. He was last administered gemcitabine 2 weeks prior. He had not received any additional chemotherapy or immunotherapy. He had a 40 pack-year history of smoking, but quit when diagnosed with cancer. He did not drink alcohol. He had no recent travel or sick contacts. He was not on any medications. He was homeless but staying with family members in the area. Additional review of systems was negative for recent bleeding, bruising, hemoptysis, melena, hematochezia, or hematuria.

Recent treatment with gemcitabine could contribute to the presentation in a number of ways. First, gemcitabine is associated with myelosuppression and neutropenia that could predispose him to infectious colitis. Second, gemcitabine is known to cause anemia, anorexia, diarrhea, and fatigue. Third, gemcitabine may also cause renal injury that can contribute to worsening anemia. He may be at greater risk of anemia and renal toxicity because of preexisting chronic kidney disease. Finally, gemcitabine can rarely cause TMA with characteristics that mimic the hemolytic-uremic syndrome with microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, mild thrombocytopenia, and severe acute kidney injury (AKI).

In addition, worsening infectious colitis could certainly explain his presenting symptoms. At this point, local mass effect seems unlikely despite his metastatic disease. Lastly, it should be noted that, in an immunosuppressed cancer patient, multiple problems could be present at the same time. Laboratory testing should evaluate for hypercalcemia, SIADH, hematologic indexes, and renal function. If initial laboratory evaluation is unrevealing, abdominal imaging may be needed to assess for carcinomatosis, complications from colitis, typhlitis, abscess, or perforation.

On physical examination, the patient appeared fatigued. His temperature was 36.8°C, blood pressure 158/72 mm Hg, pulse 88 beats per minute, respiratory rate 16 breaths per minute, and oxygen saturation was 96% while breathing ambient air. There was neither scleral icterus nor conjunctival injection but he had mild conjunctival pallor. Cardiovascular and lung examinations were normal. Abdominal exam revealed normal bowel sounds without tenderness or organomegaly. He had no supraclavicular, axillary, or inguinal lymphadenopathy. He was alert and oriented. Cranial nerves II through XII were intact. He had decreased muscle bulk in his extremities without focal weakness. Gait and reflexes were not tested.

Initial laboratory testing revealed a white blood cell count of 5.5 K/mm³, hemoglobin of 5 g/dL (hemoglobin 1 month prior was 10.1 g/dL), and platelet count of 20 K/mm³ (platelet count 1 month prior was 246 K/mm³). Creatinine was 3.9 mg/dL (compared with a baseline of 1.8 mg/dL), and blood urea nitrogen was 39 mg/dL. His sodium was 137 mEq/L, potassium 4.2 mEq/L, chloride 105 mEq/L, bicarbonate 22 mEq/L, and thyroid stimulating hormone 0.9 mU/L. His total protein was 4.9 g/dL, albumin 2.1 g/dL, alkaline phosphatase 60 IU/L, alanine aminotransferase 17 IU/L, aspartate aminotransferase 60 IU/L, direct bilirubin 0.2 mg/dL, and total bilirubin 0.5 mg/dL. A chest x-ray showed no infiltrates.

The patient’s laboratory tests reveal several important new findings, including severe acute on chronic anemia, acute thrombocytopenia, and AKI, without clinical evidence of acute blood loss. These changes could be parts of a syndrome or multiple independent disorders. The most urgent priority is to evaluate for TMAs, many of which are fatal if not diagnosed and treated expeditiously. This includes thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), disseminated intravascular hemolysis (DIC), and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS). A manual review of a peripheral blood smear is required to evaluate for fragmented red blood cells (schistocytes). Thereafter, ancillary testing to confirm intravascular hemolysis would include measuring free plasma hemoglobin and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Additionally, in intravascular hemolysis, haptoglobin should be depleted and urinalysis should show heme-positive urine without RBCs. In this case the patient’s normal bilirubin studies argue against hemolysis; however, elevated bilirubin is variably present in hemolytic anemias depending on the liver’s ability to conjugate and excrete bilirubin, the relative degree of RBC turnover, and type of hemolysis. Patients with intravascular hemolysis lose hemoglobin directly into the urine leaving relatively little hemoglobin to be incorporated into bile once it has reached the reticuloendothelial system. This results in relatively normal bilirubin levels. More specific indicators of intravascular hemolysis include pink colored plasma on visual inspection (commonly done in the blood bank as part of assessing for hemolytic transfusion reactions), measuring plasma free hemoglobin, or by detecting hemoglobin in the urine.

If microangiopathic hemolytic anemia (MAHA) is excluded, then other causes of these laboratory abnormalities should be considered. Bleeding is the most common cause for anemia, and thrombocytopenia predisposes patients to bleeding. However, there is no evidence of bleeding in this patient, and such a rapid acute anemia is unlikely to be caused by occult blood loss alone. Concurrent anemia and thrombocytopenia could be evidence of bone marrow toxicity from chemotherapy or neoplastic infiltration. With marrow infiltration, there are typically signs on the peripheral smear of leukoerythroblastosis, with circulating nucleated red blood cells and early myeloid forms. Concurrent immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) and autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA), or Evans’ Syndrome, should also be considered. AIHA would be suggested by spherocytes on the peripheral smear, elevated LDH and a positive direct antibody test (DAT).

Regarding the AKI, the patient has diarrhea, which could lead to prerenal azotemia and acute tubular necrosis. A formal urinalysis would evaluate for prerenal and intrinsic kidney disease. TMA can cause intrinsic kidney injury with a benign urinary sediment. The blood urea nitrogen-to-creatinine ratio is not elevated, but in a patient with malnutrition this may not indicate prerenal azotemia. In summary, to differentiate potential TMAs from other causes, the patient needs a blood smear, coagulation studies, and an evaluation for hemolysis, including a urinalysis for free heme and any evidence of intrinsic kidney disease.

Urinalysis showed amber-colored, dilute urine with no white blood cells, red blood cells, protein, or casts. It was positive for blood and negative for bilirubin and hemosiderin. LDH was 1,382 IU/L (reference range 135-225 IU/L), and haptoglobin was unmeasurably low. His ferritin was 2,267 ng/mL, serum iron was 57 mcg/dL, total iron-binding capacity was 241 mcg/dL, and transferrin was 162 mcg/dL. Reticulocyte count was 6% (reticulocyte index of 0.86). Vitamin B12 level was normal. DAT was negative; INR and aPTT were normal. Fibrinogen was 287 mg/dL (reference range 200-400 mg/dL), and D-dimer was 5,095 ng/mL (reference range 0-229 ng/mL).

The urinalysis shows no active sediment to suggest vasculitis or glomerulonephritis. The kidney injury could be the result of renal toxicity from free hemoglobin or as part of TMA caused by microvascular thrombosis. The dilute urine makes prerenal azotemia less likely.

There is clearly acute intravascular hemolysis occurring as evidenced by hemoglobinuria, very high LDH, and undetectable serum haptoglobin. The hemolysis is acute because chronic intravascular hemolysis would lead to positive urine hemosiderin via deposition in the renal tubules. Autoimmune hemolytic anemia is much less likely, but not ruled out, by a negative DAT.

This syndrome can be further refined from acute anemia to acute anemia with likely nonimmune intravascular hemolysis, acute thrombocytopenia, and AKI with hemoglobinuria and a bland urinary sediment. At this point, intravascular hemolysis and kidney injury could be part of a unifying diagnosis. However, this does not account for the patient’s thrombocytopenia, and TMA remains the best explanation for the constellation of findings. Review of the peripheral blood smear is urgent because evidence of MAHA would prompt urgent plasma exchange based on presumptive diagnosis of acquired TTP to later be confirmed with ADAMTS13 activity testing. Most TMAs are treated with supportive care only; TTP and aHUS have specific interventions that change the natural history of the disease (plasma exchange and anticomplement therapy, respectively). Given both the deadly natural history and opportunity to intervene with plasma exchange, patients with TMA should be treated with urgent plasma exchange until ADAMTS13 deficiency is confirmed or refuted. One TMA that can be excluded at this point is DIC. DIC in its acute and chronic forms nearly universally causes MAHA, thrombocytopenia, and consumptive coagulopathy including hypofibrinogenemia.

If MAHA is excluded, then other causes of intravascular hemolysis should be considered, along with causes of thrombocytopenia that might be occurring concurrently. Intravascular hemolysis can be further differentiated by etiologies primarily related to the RBC or whether the RBC is the innocent bystander amidst a systemic illness. RBC disorders include syndromes affecting RBC fragility like hereditary spherocytosis or RBC enzymopathies (G6PD deficiency), but these do not cause thrombocytopenia. One exception is an acquired membrane defect, paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), in which RBCs and other blood cells become susceptible to complement-mediated lysis. Testing for PNH by peripheral blood flow cytometry should be considered if the blood film lacks schistocytes. Systemic disorders that cause intravascular hemolysis include severe burns (heat damage to RBCs), RBC trauma from “march hemoglobinuria” or mechanical heart valves, immune (antibody-mediated) hemolysis from Rh immune globulin administration, cold agglutinin disease or ABO mismatched transfusion, and infections including the intraerythrocyte parasites malaria, Bartonellosis, and Babesiosis, as well as organisms that induce RBC fragility such as Leishmaniasis, Clostridium perfringens, and Haemophilus influenzae B.

On review of additional history, the patient had not recently received blood products. He had received heparin during prior hospitalizations, but had no prior history of thrombosis. He had no history of tick exposure. Peripheral blood smear was obtained and reviewed by a hematopathologist. It showed no schistocytes or spherocytes, but demonstrated pyropoikilocytosis.

The blood smear helps narrow the differential further. The lack of schistocytes makes TMA far less likely and so plasma exchange is not urgently indicated. The differential still includes drug-­induced TMA (gemcitabine being a well-known cause for TMA) and cancer-associated TMA could still cause these findings, but plasma exchange does not improve outcomes. Acquired (immune) TTP is very unlikely unless the patient did not improve with supportive care or developed neurologic symptoms. Similarly, atypical (complement-driven) HUS would only be considered if renal failure did not improve with supportive care.

The blood smear does show a surprising finding of pyropoikilocytosis. Pyropoikilocytosis refers to changes in RBC shape (poikilocytosis) typically seen with thermal injury or rare RBC membrane structural defects. Hereditary pyropoikilocytosis, a very rare disease, is characterized by chronic hyperproliferative, compensated anemia, and occasional hemolytic crises. These crises are associated with splenomegaly, reticulocytosis, and elevated bilirubin with jaundice. As the patient has no history of similar episodes, the blood smear changes are not due to a hereditary cause and obviously not due to thermal injury (ie, severe burns). Pyropoikilocytosis has been rarely reported in drug-induced TMA and in severe bacterial bloodstream infections (most commonly Gram-negative bacilli). This patient has received gemcitabine (a known cause of drug-induced TMA) and has a recently diagnosed infection (C difficile colitis), either of which could be linked to this rare blood smear finding. Both of these syndromes would be treated with supportive care plus avoidance of future gemcitabine.

Transfusion of packed RBCs is indicated given his profound anemia and symptoms of fatigue. One should obtain further testing for cold agglutinins, PNH, and echocardiography to exclude endocarditis. If he were to become critically ill, anuric, or encephalopathic, then one could consider plasma exchange for treatment of TMA and hemoglobin-mediated AKI. Pyropoikilocytosis should be considered the result of drug-induced TMA, severe C difficile colitis, or an occult infection.

The patient was transfused packed RBCs. Because of a concern for an acute TMA such as TTP, both a hematopathologist and the consulting hematology/oncology team reviewed the peripheral blood morphology emergently. He was given aggressive fluid resuscitation and received 3 L of IV lactated ringers’ solution. An echocardiogram did not show valvular abnormalities. A renal biopsy was contraindicated because of the severe thrombocytopenia.

Given the recently confirmed C difficile colitis along with the findings of pyropoikilocytosis on the peripheral smear, toxin-mediated intravascular hemolysis from systemic C difficile infection became the leading diagnosis. Positing that the C difficile colitis was inadequately treated with oral metronidazole, aggressive treatment for C difficile was initiated with oral vancomycin in addition to intravenous metronidazole. Intravenous metronidazole was included given his elevated creatinine, presence of severe colitis on imaging, and concern he may be at risk for translocation of colonic C difficile or exotoxin into the bloodstream.

Over the course of the next 3 days, the patient’s platelet count normalized and his hemoglobin, creatinine, and symptoms of fatigue improved. Blood cultures remained negative. The patient’s rapid improvement with antibiotics supported our final diagnosis of toxin-mediated hemolysis caused by a systemic C difficile infection. On follow-up testing after hospital discharge, hemoglobin had returned to prior baseline and there was no recurrent hemolysis. Gemcitabine was considered to be a possible cause of his hemolytic anemia and was not continued in further treatment for his NSCLC.

When evaluating patients with cancer who present with fatigue, hospitalists should consider a broad list of potential causes. The differential should include etiologies directly related to the malignancy, paraneoplastic phenomena, treatment-related complications, and diseases unrelated to cancer. In addition, as the number of medications used for cancer proliferates, hospitalists must take a detailed history of the agents used and be aware of major side effects. Using this information, hospitalists may undertake a targeted approach to diagnostics while searching for a cause of fatigue.

When lab testing reveals profound anemia, hospitalists must consider syndromes that may require emergent management. Anemia can be caused by decreased RBC production, and acute anemia in the absence of clear blood loss suggests hemolysis. Moreover, the combination of elevated LDH and low haptoglobin is quite specific of hemolytic anemia.^1,2 Once hemolytic anemia is identified, DIC and TMA syndromes (such as TTP) need to be considered. The combination of hemolytic anemia and AKI may indicate a medical emergency and should prompt hospitalists to obtain an urgent peripheral blood smear to help narrow the differential.³

The absence of schistocytes on a blood smear does not rule out TTP or HUS, but does argue strongly against these diagnoses.^4,5 Of note, consultation with a hematopathologist and hematology subspecialist should be done to ensure appropriate and timely review of the peripheral blood smear.

In this case, the blood smear led to a very rare finding of pyropoikilocytosis. The unexpected result should prompt a broader review of the medical history particularly as it relates to the patient’s broader symptoms and laboratory abnormalities. Acquired pyropoikilocytosis is a very specific finding known to be associated only with hyperthermal injury (seen in burn patients), drug-induced TMA, and bacterial bloodstream infections, mainly Gram-negative toxins and Clostridioidal infections.^6-8 In this case, both drug-induced TMA and C difficile infection were considered.

Gemcitabine-induced TMA can occur with either short or long term use of the medication and can be difficult to distinguish from TTP. While both TTP and gemcitabine-induced TMA can cause thrombocytopenia, hemolytic anemia, and schistocytes on a blood smear, the latter causes acute kidney injury more frequently than TTP. In addition, gemcitabine-­induced TMA may not lead to severe decrease in ADAMTS13 activity. A kidney biopsy could confirm drug-induced TMA but was contraindicated in this case because of the thrombocytopenia. Gemcitabine should not be restarted if this side effect is suspected.

Given the continued rise in C difficile incidence, hospitalists should be aware that C difficile infection can cause extraintestinal illness.^9,10 Although uncommon, these extraintestinal complications are associated with high risk of mortality and frequently occur in those with a history of intestinal injury or inflammation and a concomitant bloodstream infection.¹⁰ Regarding the possibility of C difficile contributing to hemolysis in this case, the patient’s low blood counts and hemolysis improved concomitantly with more aggressive treatment of C difficile infection. Although his blood cultures were sterile, C difficile is notoriously difficult to culture. Prior case reports have associated C difficile with intravascular hemolysis, which leads to the possibility that the patient did have a very rare manifestation of this unfortunately common infection.¹¹

This case provides an excellent example of a diagnostic pivot point initiated by new information that fundamentally alters a patient’s diagnostic journey. Here, the finding of pyroipoikilocytes on peripheral smear led us to alter the differential diagnosis. Such pivots are often “surprises” that cause the care team to stop and reconsider their differential diagnosis because the problem representation has fundamentally changed. This patient’s unexpected fiery finding provided a pivot point that led to his effective treatment and recovery.

• In evaluating symptomatic cancer patients, providers must consider sequelae of the tumor, paraneoplastic phenomena, and treatment-related complications.
• Hemolytic anemia may represent a life-threatening emergency particularly when accompanied by AKI and requires urgent peripheral blood smear evaluation.
• Acquired pyropoikilocytosis is a specific finding known to be associated only with thermal injury, drug-induced TMA, and bacterial toxin–mediated hemolysis.

The authors have nothing to disclose.

A 62-year-old man with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) presented to the Emergency Department with 3 days of progressive generalized weakness, anorexia, and nonbloody diarrhea. He denied fever, chills, nausea, vomiting, cough, shortness of breath, or abdominal pain. He had no sick contacts.

One diagnostic approach for patients with cancer who present with new symptoms is to consider diagnoses both related and unrelated to the cancer. Cancer-related diagnoses can include the broad categories of complications related to the tumor itself (such as mass effect), paraneoplastic phenomena, or treatment-related complications (such as infection from immunosuppression or chemotherapy toxicity).

For this patient with metastatic NSCLC, weakness, anorexia, and diarrhea are unlikely to be related to mass effect unless the patient has peritoneal metastases (an uncommon complication of NSCLC) with carcinomatosis-associated diarrhea.

Paraneoplastic phenomena, such as hypercalcemia or hyponatremia from the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH), are common with NSCLC and could both lead to weakness and anorexia. Hematologic consequences of NSCLC (or its treatment) include anemia, thrombosis, and thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA), though diarrhea, in the absence of abdominal pain or hematochezia, would be unexpected.

Weakness, anorexia, and diarrhea may also be symptoms of chemotherapy toxicity or an infection resulting from immunosuppression. It would be important to know what specific treatment the patient has received. Chemotherapy commonly causes neutropenia and predisposes to rapidly progressive infections, while immunotherapies have other toxicities. Diarrhea is a common toxicity of the checkpoint inhibitors and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors that are frequently used to treat metastatic NSCLC. Checkpoint inhibitors also are known to cause a wide range of autoimmune phenomena including colitis.

Finally, the patient’s symptoms may be unrelated to the cancer. Weakness, anorexia, and nonbloody diarrhea could be signs of viral or bacterial gastroenteritis or Clostridioides difficile colitis particularly with frequent healthcare contact or antimicrobial use.

Two days prior, he had been diagnosed with nonsevere Clostridioides difficile colitis in an acute care clinic. He was started on oral metronidazole, but his diarrhea worsened over the next day and was accompanied by weakness and anorexia. Additional past medical history included untreated hepatitis C infection, chronic kidney disease stage 3, seizure disorder, and left lung NSCLC (adenocarcinoma). The lung cancer was diagnosed 8 months prior when he had presented with hemoptysis and 3 months of progressive constitutional symptoms. Imaging at that time revealed metastases to the contralateral lung and regional lymph nodes, as well as vertebrae, ribs, and pelvis. He had no abdominal metastases. He was initially treated with carboplatin and paclitaxel. After a partial response to initial chemotherapy, he developed peripheral neuropathy and was switched to gemcitabine 12 weeks ago. He received five cycles of gemcitabine over 10 weeks. He was last administered gemcitabine 2 weeks prior. He had not received any additional chemotherapy or immunotherapy. He had a 40 pack-year history of smoking, but quit when diagnosed with cancer. He did not drink alcohol. He had no recent travel or sick contacts. He was not on any medications. He was homeless but staying with family members in the area. Additional review of systems was negative for recent bleeding, bruising, hemoptysis, melena, hematochezia, or hematuria.

Recent treatment with gemcitabine could contribute to the presentation in a number of ways. First, gemcitabine is associated with myelosuppression and neutropenia that could predispose him to infectious colitis. Second, gemcitabine is known to cause anemia, anorexia, diarrhea, and fatigue. Third, gemcitabine may also cause renal injury that can contribute to worsening anemia. He may be at greater risk of anemia and renal toxicity because of preexisting chronic kidney disease. Finally, gemcitabine can rarely cause TMA with characteristics that mimic the hemolytic-uremic syndrome with microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, mild thrombocytopenia, and severe acute kidney injury (AKI).

In addition, worsening infectious colitis could certainly explain his presenting symptoms. At this point, local mass effect seems unlikely despite his metastatic disease. Lastly, it should be noted that, in an immunosuppressed cancer patient, multiple problems could be present at the same time. Laboratory testing should evaluate for hypercalcemia, SIADH, hematologic indexes, and renal function. If initial laboratory evaluation is unrevealing, abdominal imaging may be needed to assess for carcinomatosis, complications from colitis, typhlitis, abscess, or perforation.

On physical examination, the patient appeared fatigued. His temperature was 36.8°C, blood pressure 158/72 mm Hg, pulse 88 beats per minute, respiratory rate 16 breaths per minute, and oxygen saturation was 96% while breathing ambient air. There was neither scleral icterus nor conjunctival injection but he had mild conjunctival pallor. Cardiovascular and lung examinations were normal. Abdominal exam revealed normal bowel sounds without tenderness or organomegaly. He had no supraclavicular, axillary, or inguinal lymphadenopathy. He was alert and oriented. Cranial nerves II through XII were intact. He had decreased muscle bulk in his extremities without focal weakness. Gait and reflexes were not tested.

Initial laboratory testing revealed a white blood cell count of 5.5 K/mm³, hemoglobin of 5 g/dL (hemoglobin 1 month prior was 10.1 g/dL), and platelet count of 20 K/mm³ (platelet count 1 month prior was 246 K/mm³). Creatinine was 3.9 mg/dL (compared with a baseline of 1.8 mg/dL), and blood urea nitrogen was 39 mg/dL. His sodium was 137 mEq/L, potassium 4.2 mEq/L, chloride 105 mEq/L, bicarbonate 22 mEq/L, and thyroid stimulating hormone 0.9 mU/L. His total protein was 4.9 g/dL, albumin 2.1 g/dL, alkaline phosphatase 60 IU/L, alanine aminotransferase 17 IU/L, aspartate aminotransferase 60 IU/L, direct bilirubin 0.2 mg/dL, and total bilirubin 0.5 mg/dL. A chest x-ray showed no infiltrates.

The patient’s laboratory tests reveal several important new findings, including severe acute on chronic anemia, acute thrombocytopenia, and AKI, without clinical evidence of acute blood loss. These changes could be parts of a syndrome or multiple independent disorders. The most urgent priority is to evaluate for TMAs, many of which are fatal if not diagnosed and treated expeditiously. This includes thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), disseminated intravascular hemolysis (DIC), and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS). A manual review of a peripheral blood smear is required to evaluate for fragmented red blood cells (schistocytes). Thereafter, ancillary testing to confirm intravascular hemolysis would include measuring free plasma hemoglobin and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Additionally, in intravascular hemolysis, haptoglobin should be depleted and urinalysis should show heme-positive urine without RBCs. In this case the patient’s normal bilirubin studies argue against hemolysis; however, elevated bilirubin is variably present in hemolytic anemias depending on the liver’s ability to conjugate and excrete bilirubin, the relative degree of RBC turnover, and type of hemolysis. Patients with intravascular hemolysis lose hemoglobin directly into the urine leaving relatively little hemoglobin to be incorporated into bile once it has reached the reticuloendothelial system. This results in relatively normal bilirubin levels. More specific indicators of intravascular hemolysis include pink colored plasma on visual inspection (commonly done in the blood bank as part of assessing for hemolytic transfusion reactions), measuring plasma free hemoglobin, or by detecting hemoglobin in the urine.

If microangiopathic hemolytic anemia (MAHA) is excluded, then other causes of these laboratory abnormalities should be considered. Bleeding is the most common cause for anemia, and thrombocytopenia predisposes patients to bleeding. However, there is no evidence of bleeding in this patient, and such a rapid acute anemia is unlikely to be caused by occult blood loss alone. Concurrent anemia and thrombocytopenia could be evidence of bone marrow toxicity from chemotherapy or neoplastic infiltration. With marrow infiltration, there are typically signs on the peripheral smear of leukoerythroblastosis, with circulating nucleated red blood cells and early myeloid forms. Concurrent immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) and autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA), or Evans’ Syndrome, should also be considered. AIHA would be suggested by spherocytes on the peripheral smear, elevated LDH and a positive direct antibody test (DAT).

Regarding the AKI, the patient has diarrhea, which could lead to prerenal azotemia and acute tubular necrosis. A formal urinalysis would evaluate for prerenal and intrinsic kidney disease. TMA can cause intrinsic kidney injury with a benign urinary sediment. The blood urea nitrogen-to-creatinine ratio is not elevated, but in a patient with malnutrition this may not indicate prerenal azotemia. In summary, to differentiate potential TMAs from other causes, the patient needs a blood smear, coagulation studies, and an evaluation for hemolysis, including a urinalysis for free heme and any evidence of intrinsic kidney disease.

Urinalysis showed amber-colored, dilute urine with no white blood cells, red blood cells, protein, or casts. It was positive for blood and negative for bilirubin and hemosiderin. LDH was 1,382 IU/L (reference range 135-225 IU/L), and haptoglobin was unmeasurably low. His ferritin was 2,267 ng/mL, serum iron was 57 mcg/dL, total iron-binding capacity was 241 mcg/dL, and transferrin was 162 mcg/dL. Reticulocyte count was 6% (reticulocyte index of 0.86). Vitamin B12 level was normal. DAT was negative; INR and aPTT were normal. Fibrinogen was 287 mg/dL (reference range 200-400 mg/dL), and D-dimer was 5,095 ng/mL (reference range 0-229 ng/mL).

The urinalysis shows no active sediment to suggest vasculitis or glomerulonephritis. The kidney injury could be the result of renal toxicity from free hemoglobin or as part of TMA caused by microvascular thrombosis. The dilute urine makes prerenal azotemia less likely.

There is clearly acute intravascular hemolysis occurring as evidenced by hemoglobinuria, very high LDH, and undetectable serum haptoglobin. The hemolysis is acute because chronic intravascular hemolysis would lead to positive urine hemosiderin via deposition in the renal tubules. Autoimmune hemolytic anemia is much less likely, but not ruled out, by a negative DAT.

This syndrome can be further refined from acute anemia to acute anemia with likely nonimmune intravascular hemolysis, acute thrombocytopenia, and AKI with hemoglobinuria and a bland urinary sediment. At this point, intravascular hemolysis and kidney injury could be part of a unifying diagnosis. However, this does not account for the patient’s thrombocytopenia, and TMA remains the best explanation for the constellation of findings. Review of the peripheral blood smear is urgent because evidence of MAHA would prompt urgent plasma exchange based on presumptive diagnosis of acquired TTP to later be confirmed with ADAMTS13 activity testing. Most TMAs are treated with supportive care only; TTP and aHUS have specific interventions that change the natural history of the disease (plasma exchange and anticomplement therapy, respectively). Given both the deadly natural history and opportunity to intervene with plasma exchange, patients with TMA should be treated with urgent plasma exchange until ADAMTS13 deficiency is confirmed or refuted. One TMA that can be excluded at this point is DIC. DIC in its acute and chronic forms nearly universally causes MAHA, thrombocytopenia, and consumptive coagulopathy including hypofibrinogenemia.

If MAHA is excluded, then other causes of intravascular hemolysis should be considered, along with causes of thrombocytopenia that might be occurring concurrently. Intravascular hemolysis can be further differentiated by etiologies primarily related to the RBC or whether the RBC is the innocent bystander amidst a systemic illness. RBC disorders include syndromes affecting RBC fragility like hereditary spherocytosis or RBC enzymopathies (G6PD deficiency), but these do not cause thrombocytopenia. One exception is an acquired membrane defect, paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), in which RBCs and other blood cells become susceptible to complement-mediated lysis. Testing for PNH by peripheral blood flow cytometry should be considered if the blood film lacks schistocytes. Systemic disorders that cause intravascular hemolysis include severe burns (heat damage to RBCs), RBC trauma from “march hemoglobinuria” or mechanical heart valves, immune (antibody-mediated) hemolysis from Rh immune globulin administration, cold agglutinin disease or ABO mismatched transfusion, and infections including the intraerythrocyte parasites malaria, Bartonellosis, and Babesiosis, as well as organisms that induce RBC fragility such as Leishmaniasis, Clostridium perfringens, and Haemophilus influenzae B.

On review of additional history, the patient had not recently received blood products. He had received heparin during prior hospitalizations, but had no prior history of thrombosis. He had no history of tick exposure. Peripheral blood smear was obtained and reviewed by a hematopathologist. It showed no schistocytes or spherocytes, but demonstrated pyropoikilocytosis.

The blood smear helps narrow the differential further. The lack of schistocytes makes TMA far less likely and so plasma exchange is not urgently indicated. The differential still includes drug-­induced TMA (gemcitabine being a well-known cause for TMA) and cancer-associated TMA could still cause these findings, but plasma exchange does not improve outcomes. Acquired (immune) TTP is very unlikely unless the patient did not improve with supportive care or developed neurologic symptoms. Similarly, atypical (complement-driven) HUS would only be considered if renal failure did not improve with supportive care.

The blood smear does show a surprising finding of pyropoikilocytosis. Pyropoikilocytosis refers to changes in RBC shape (poikilocytosis) typically seen with thermal injury or rare RBC membrane structural defects. Hereditary pyropoikilocytosis, a very rare disease, is characterized by chronic hyperproliferative, compensated anemia, and occasional hemolytic crises. These crises are associated with splenomegaly, reticulocytosis, and elevated bilirubin with jaundice. As the patient has no history of similar episodes, the blood smear changes are not due to a hereditary cause and obviously not due to thermal injury (ie, severe burns). Pyropoikilocytosis has been rarely reported in drug-induced TMA and in severe bacterial bloodstream infections (most commonly Gram-negative bacilli). This patient has received gemcitabine (a known cause of drug-induced TMA) and has a recently diagnosed infection (C difficile colitis), either of which could be linked to this rare blood smear finding. Both of these syndromes would be treated with supportive care plus avoidance of future gemcitabine.

Transfusion of packed RBCs is indicated given his profound anemia and symptoms of fatigue. One should obtain further testing for cold agglutinins, PNH, and echocardiography to exclude endocarditis. If he were to become critically ill, anuric, or encephalopathic, then one could consider plasma exchange for treatment of TMA and hemoglobin-mediated AKI. Pyropoikilocytosis should be considered the result of drug-induced TMA, severe C difficile colitis, or an occult infection.

The patient was transfused packed RBCs. Because of a concern for an acute TMA such as TTP, both a hematopathologist and the consulting hematology/oncology team reviewed the peripheral blood morphology emergently. He was given aggressive fluid resuscitation and received 3 L of IV lactated ringers’ solution. An echocardiogram did not show valvular abnormalities. A renal biopsy was contraindicated because of the severe thrombocytopenia.

Given the recently confirmed C difficile colitis along with the findings of pyropoikilocytosis on the peripheral smear, toxin-mediated intravascular hemolysis from systemic C difficile infection became the leading diagnosis. Positing that the C difficile colitis was inadequately treated with oral metronidazole, aggressive treatment for C difficile was initiated with oral vancomycin in addition to intravenous metronidazole. Intravenous metronidazole was included given his elevated creatinine, presence of severe colitis on imaging, and concern he may be at risk for translocation of colonic C difficile or exotoxin into the bloodstream.

Over the course of the next 3 days, the patient’s platelet count normalized and his hemoglobin, creatinine, and symptoms of fatigue improved. Blood cultures remained negative. The patient’s rapid improvement with antibiotics supported our final diagnosis of toxin-mediated hemolysis caused by a systemic C difficile infection. On follow-up testing after hospital discharge, hemoglobin had returned to prior baseline and there was no recurrent hemolysis. Gemcitabine was considered to be a possible cause of his hemolytic anemia and was not continued in further treatment for his NSCLC.

When evaluating patients with cancer who present with fatigue, hospitalists should consider a broad list of potential causes. The differential should include etiologies directly related to the malignancy, paraneoplastic phenomena, treatment-related complications, and diseases unrelated to cancer. In addition, as the number of medications used for cancer proliferates, hospitalists must take a detailed history of the agents used and be aware of major side effects. Using this information, hospitalists may undertake a targeted approach to diagnostics while searching for a cause of fatigue.

When lab testing reveals profound anemia, hospitalists must consider syndromes that may require emergent management. Anemia can be caused by decreased RBC production, and acute anemia in the absence of clear blood loss suggests hemolysis. Moreover, the combination of elevated LDH and low haptoglobin is quite specific of hemolytic anemia.^1,2 Once hemolytic anemia is identified, DIC and TMA syndromes (such as TTP) need to be considered. The combination of hemolytic anemia and AKI may indicate a medical emergency and should prompt hospitalists to obtain an urgent peripheral blood smear to help narrow the differential.³

The absence of schistocytes on a blood smear does not rule out TTP or HUS, but does argue strongly against these diagnoses.^4,5 Of note, consultation with a hematopathologist and hematology subspecialist should be done to ensure appropriate and timely review of the peripheral blood smear.

In this case, the blood smear led to a very rare finding of pyropoikilocytosis. The unexpected result should prompt a broader review of the medical history particularly as it relates to the patient’s broader symptoms and laboratory abnormalities. Acquired pyropoikilocytosis is a very specific finding known to be associated only with hyperthermal injury (seen in burn patients), drug-induced TMA, and bacterial bloodstream infections, mainly Gram-negative toxins and Clostridioidal infections.^6-8 In this case, both drug-induced TMA and C difficile infection were considered.

Gemcitabine-induced TMA can occur with either short or long term use of the medication and can be difficult to distinguish from TTP. While both TTP and gemcitabine-induced TMA can cause thrombocytopenia, hemolytic anemia, and schistocytes on a blood smear, the latter causes acute kidney injury more frequently than TTP. In addition, gemcitabine-­induced TMA may not lead to severe decrease in ADAMTS13 activity. A kidney biopsy could confirm drug-induced TMA but was contraindicated in this case because of the thrombocytopenia. Gemcitabine should not be restarted if this side effect is suspected.

Given the continued rise in C difficile incidence, hospitalists should be aware that C difficile infection can cause extraintestinal illness.^9,10 Although uncommon, these extraintestinal complications are associated with high risk of mortality and frequently occur in those with a history of intestinal injury or inflammation and a concomitant bloodstream infection.¹⁰ Regarding the possibility of C difficile contributing to hemolysis in this case, the patient’s low blood counts and hemolysis improved concomitantly with more aggressive treatment of C difficile infection. Although his blood cultures were sterile, C difficile is notoriously difficult to culture. Prior case reports have associated C difficile with intravascular hemolysis, which leads to the possibility that the patient did have a very rare manifestation of this unfortunately common infection.¹¹

This case provides an excellent example of a diagnostic pivot point initiated by new information that fundamentally alters a patient’s diagnostic journey. Here, the finding of pyroipoikilocytes on peripheral smear led us to alter the differential diagnosis. Such pivots are often “surprises” that cause the care team to stop and reconsider their differential diagnosis because the problem representation has fundamentally changed. This patient’s unexpected fiery finding provided a pivot point that led to his effective treatment and recovery.

• In evaluating symptomatic cancer patients, providers must consider sequelae of the tumor, paraneoplastic phenomena, and treatment-related complications.
• Hemolytic anemia may represent a life-threatening emergency particularly when accompanied by AKI and requires urgent peripheral blood smear evaluation.
• Acquired pyropoikilocytosis is a specific finding known to be associated only with thermal injury, drug-induced TMA, and bacterial toxin–mediated hemolysis.

The authors have nothing to disclose.

A 62-year-old man with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) presented to the Emergency Department with 3 days of progressive generalized weakness, anorexia, and nonbloody diarrhea. He denied fever, chills, nausea, vomiting, cough, shortness of breath, or abdominal pain. He had no sick contacts.

One diagnostic approach for patients with cancer who present with new symptoms is to consider diagnoses both related and unrelated to the cancer. Cancer-related diagnoses can include the broad categories of complications related to the tumor itself (such as mass effect), paraneoplastic phenomena, or treatment-related complications (such as infection from immunosuppression or chemotherapy toxicity).

For this patient with metastatic NSCLC, weakness, anorexia, and diarrhea are unlikely to be related to mass effect unless the patient has peritoneal metastases (an uncommon complication of NSCLC) with carcinomatosis-associated diarrhea.

Paraneoplastic phenomena, such as hypercalcemia or hyponatremia from the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH), are common with NSCLC and could both lead to weakness and anorexia. Hematologic consequences of NSCLC (or its treatment) include anemia, thrombosis, and thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA), though diarrhea, in the absence of abdominal pain or hematochezia, would be unexpected.

Weakness, anorexia, and diarrhea may also be symptoms of chemotherapy toxicity or an infection resulting from immunosuppression. It would be important to know what specific treatment the patient has received. Chemotherapy commonly causes neutropenia and predisposes to rapidly progressive infections, while immunotherapies have other toxicities. Diarrhea is a common toxicity of the checkpoint inhibitors and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors that are frequently used to treat metastatic NSCLC. Checkpoint inhibitors also are known to cause a wide range of autoimmune phenomena including colitis.

Finally, the patient’s symptoms may be unrelated to the cancer. Weakness, anorexia, and nonbloody diarrhea could be signs of viral or bacterial gastroenteritis or Clostridioides difficile colitis particularly with frequent healthcare contact or antimicrobial use.

Two days prior, he had been diagnosed with nonsevere Clostridioides difficile colitis in an acute care clinic. He was started on oral metronidazole, but his diarrhea worsened over the next day and was accompanied by weakness and anorexia. Additional past medical history included untreated hepatitis C infection, chronic kidney disease stage 3, seizure disorder, and left lung NSCLC (adenocarcinoma). The lung cancer was diagnosed 8 months prior when he had presented with hemoptysis and 3 months of progressive constitutional symptoms. Imaging at that time revealed metastases to the contralateral lung and regional lymph nodes, as well as vertebrae, ribs, and pelvis. He had no abdominal metastases. He was initially treated with carboplatin and paclitaxel. After a partial response to initial chemotherapy, he developed peripheral neuropathy and was switched to gemcitabine 12 weeks ago. He received five cycles of gemcitabine over 10 weeks. He was last administered gemcitabine 2 weeks prior. He had not received any additional chemotherapy or immunotherapy. He had a 40 pack-year history of smoking, but quit when diagnosed with cancer. He did not drink alcohol. He had no recent travel or sick contacts. He was not on any medications. He was homeless but staying with family members in the area. Additional review of systems was negative for recent bleeding, bruising, hemoptysis, melena, hematochezia, or hematuria.

Recent treatment with gemcitabine could contribute to the presentation in a number of ways. First, gemcitabine is associated with myelosuppression and neutropenia that could predispose him to infectious colitis. Second, gemcitabine is known to cause anemia, anorexia, diarrhea, and fatigue. Third, gemcitabine may also cause renal injury that can contribute to worsening anemia. He may be at greater risk of anemia and renal toxicity because of preexisting chronic kidney disease. Finally, gemcitabine can rarely cause TMA with characteristics that mimic the hemolytic-uremic syndrome with microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, mild thrombocytopenia, and severe acute kidney injury (AKI).

In addition, worsening infectious colitis could certainly explain his presenting symptoms. At this point, local mass effect seems unlikely despite his metastatic disease. Lastly, it should be noted that, in an immunosuppressed cancer patient, multiple problems could be present at the same time. Laboratory testing should evaluate for hypercalcemia, SIADH, hematologic indexes, and renal function. If initial laboratory evaluation is unrevealing, abdominal imaging may be needed to assess for carcinomatosis, complications from colitis, typhlitis, abscess, or perforation.

On physical examination, the patient appeared fatigued. His temperature was 36.8°C, blood pressure 158/72 mm Hg, pulse 88 beats per minute, respiratory rate 16 breaths per minute, and oxygen saturation was 96% while breathing ambient air. There was neither scleral icterus nor conjunctival injection but he had mild conjunctival pallor. Cardiovascular and lung examinations were normal. Abdominal exam revealed normal bowel sounds without tenderness or organomegaly. He had no supraclavicular, axillary, or inguinal lymphadenopathy. He was alert and oriented. Cranial nerves II through XII were intact. He had decreased muscle bulk in his extremities without focal weakness. Gait and reflexes were not tested.

Initial laboratory testing revealed a white blood cell count of 5.5 K/mm³, hemoglobin of 5 g/dL (hemoglobin 1 month prior was 10.1 g/dL), and platelet count of 20 K/mm³ (platelet count 1 month prior was 246 K/mm³). Creatinine was 3.9 mg/dL (compared with a baseline of 1.8 mg/dL), and blood urea nitrogen was 39 mg/dL. His sodium was 137 mEq/L, potassium 4.2 mEq/L, chloride 105 mEq/L, bicarbonate 22 mEq/L, and thyroid stimulating hormone 0.9 mU/L. His total protein was 4.9 g/dL, albumin 2.1 g/dL, alkaline phosphatase 60 IU/L, alanine aminotransferase 17 IU/L, aspartate aminotransferase 60 IU/L, direct bilirubin 0.2 mg/dL, and total bilirubin 0.5 mg/dL. A chest x-ray showed no infiltrates.

The patient’s laboratory tests reveal several important new findings, including severe acute on chronic anemia, acute thrombocytopenia, and AKI, without clinical evidence of acute blood loss. These changes could be parts of a syndrome or multiple independent disorders. The most urgent priority is to evaluate for TMAs, many of which are fatal if not diagnosed and treated expeditiously. This includes thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), disseminated intravascular hemolysis (DIC), and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS). A manual review of a peripheral blood smear is required to evaluate for fragmented red blood cells (schistocytes). Thereafter, ancillary testing to confirm intravascular hemolysis would include measuring free plasma hemoglobin and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Additionally, in intravascular hemolysis, haptoglobin should be depleted and urinalysis should show heme-positive urine without RBCs. In this case the patient’s normal bilirubin studies argue against hemolysis; however, elevated bilirubin is variably present in hemolytic anemias depending on the liver’s ability to conjugate and excrete bilirubin, the relative degree of RBC turnover, and type of hemolysis. Patients with intravascular hemolysis lose hemoglobin directly into the urine leaving relatively little hemoglobin to be incorporated into bile once it has reached the reticuloendothelial system. This results in relatively normal bilirubin levels. More specific indicators of intravascular hemolysis include pink colored plasma on visual inspection (commonly done in the blood bank as part of assessing for hemolytic transfusion reactions), measuring plasma free hemoglobin, or by detecting hemoglobin in the urine.

If microangiopathic hemolytic anemia (MAHA) is excluded, then other causes of these laboratory abnormalities should be considered. Bleeding is the most common cause for anemia, and thrombocytopenia predisposes patients to bleeding. However, there is no evidence of bleeding in this patient, and such a rapid acute anemia is unlikely to be caused by occult blood loss alone. Concurrent anemia and thrombocytopenia could be evidence of bone marrow toxicity from chemotherapy or neoplastic infiltration. With marrow infiltration, there are typically signs on the peripheral smear of leukoerythroblastosis, with circulating nucleated red blood cells and early myeloid forms. Concurrent immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) and autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA), or Evans’ Syndrome, should also be considered. AIHA would be suggested by spherocytes on the peripheral smear, elevated LDH and a positive direct antibody test (DAT).

Regarding the AKI, the patient has diarrhea, which could lead to prerenal azotemia and acute tubular necrosis. A formal urinalysis would evaluate for prerenal and intrinsic kidney disease. TMA can cause intrinsic kidney injury with a benign urinary sediment. The blood urea nitrogen-to-creatinine ratio is not elevated, but in a patient with malnutrition this may not indicate prerenal azotemia. In summary, to differentiate potential TMAs from other causes, the patient needs a blood smear, coagulation studies, and an evaluation for hemolysis, including a urinalysis for free heme and any evidence of intrinsic kidney disease.

Urinalysis showed amber-colored, dilute urine with no white blood cells, red blood cells, protein, or casts. It was positive for blood and negative for bilirubin and hemosiderin. LDH was 1,382 IU/L (reference range 135-225 IU/L), and haptoglobin was unmeasurably low. His ferritin was 2,267 ng/mL, serum iron was 57 mcg/dL, total iron-binding capacity was 241 mcg/dL, and transferrin was 162 mcg/dL. Reticulocyte count was 6% (reticulocyte index of 0.86). Vitamin B12 level was normal. DAT was negative; INR and aPTT were normal. Fibrinogen was 287 mg/dL (reference range 200-400 mg/dL), and D-dimer was 5,095 ng/mL (reference range 0-229 ng/mL).

The urinalysis shows no active sediment to suggest vasculitis or glomerulonephritis. The kidney injury could be the result of renal toxicity from free hemoglobin or as part of TMA caused by microvascular thrombosis. The dilute urine makes prerenal azotemia less likely.

There is clearly acute intravascular hemolysis occurring as evidenced by hemoglobinuria, very high LDH, and undetectable serum haptoglobin. The hemolysis is acute because chronic intravascular hemolysis would lead to positive urine hemosiderin via deposition in the renal tubules. Autoimmune hemolytic anemia is much less likely, but not ruled out, by a negative DAT.

This syndrome can be further refined from acute anemia to acute anemia with likely nonimmune intravascular hemolysis, acute thrombocytopenia, and AKI with hemoglobinuria and a bland urinary sediment. At this point, intravascular hemolysis and kidney injury could be part of a unifying diagnosis. However, this does not account for the patient’s thrombocytopenia, and TMA remains the best explanation for the constellation of findings. Review of the peripheral blood smear is urgent because evidence of MAHA would prompt urgent plasma exchange based on presumptive diagnosis of acquired TTP to later be confirmed with ADAMTS13 activity testing. Most TMAs are treated with supportive care only; TTP and aHUS have specific interventions that change the natural history of the disease (plasma exchange and anticomplement therapy, respectively). Given both the deadly natural history and opportunity to intervene with plasma exchange, patients with TMA should be treated with urgent plasma exchange until ADAMTS13 deficiency is confirmed or refuted. One TMA that can be excluded at this point is DIC. DIC in its acute and chronic forms nearly universally causes MAHA, thrombocytopenia, and consumptive coagulopathy including hypofibrinogenemia.

If MAHA is excluded, then other causes of intravascular hemolysis should be considered, along with causes of thrombocytopenia that might be occurring concurrently. Intravascular hemolysis can be further differentiated by etiologies primarily related to the RBC or whether the RBC is the innocent bystander amidst a systemic illness. RBC disorders include syndromes affecting RBC fragility like hereditary spherocytosis or RBC enzymopathies (G6PD deficiency), but these do not cause thrombocytopenia. One exception is an acquired membrane defect, paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), in which RBCs and other blood cells become susceptible to complement-mediated lysis. Testing for PNH by peripheral blood flow cytometry should be considered if the blood film lacks schistocytes. Systemic disorders that cause intravascular hemolysis include severe burns (heat damage to RBCs), RBC trauma from “march hemoglobinuria” or mechanical heart valves, immune (antibody-mediated) hemolysis from Rh immune globulin administration, cold agglutinin disease or ABO mismatched transfusion, and infections including the intraerythrocyte parasites malaria, Bartonellosis, and Babesiosis, as well as organisms that induce RBC fragility such as Leishmaniasis, Clostridium perfringens, and Haemophilus influenzae B.

On review of additional history, the patient had not recently received blood products. He had received heparin during prior hospitalizations, but had no prior history of thrombosis. He had no history of tick exposure. Peripheral blood smear was obtained and reviewed by a hematopathologist. It showed no schistocytes or spherocytes, but demonstrated pyropoikilocytosis.

The blood smear helps narrow the differential further. The lack of schistocytes makes TMA far less likely and so plasma exchange is not urgently indicated. The differential still includes drug-­induced TMA (gemcitabine being a well-known cause for TMA) and cancer-associated TMA could still cause these findings, but plasma exchange does not improve outcomes. Acquired (immune) TTP is very unlikely unless the patient did not improve with supportive care or developed neurologic symptoms. Similarly, atypical (complement-driven) HUS would only be considered if renal failure did not improve with supportive care.

The blood smear does show a surprising finding of pyropoikilocytosis. Pyropoikilocytosis refers to changes in RBC shape (poikilocytosis) typically seen with thermal injury or rare RBC membrane structural defects. Hereditary pyropoikilocytosis, a very rare disease, is characterized by chronic hyperproliferative, compensated anemia, and occasional hemolytic crises. These crises are associated with splenomegaly, reticulocytosis, and elevated bilirubin with jaundice. As the patient has no history of similar episodes, the blood smear changes are not due to a hereditary cause and obviously not due to thermal injury (ie, severe burns). Pyropoikilocytosis has been rarely reported in drug-induced TMA and in severe bacterial bloodstream infections (most commonly Gram-negative bacilli). This patient has received gemcitabine (a known cause of drug-induced TMA) and has a recently diagnosed infection (C difficile colitis), either of which could be linked to this rare blood smear finding. Both of these syndromes would be treated with supportive care plus avoidance of future gemcitabine.

Transfusion of packed RBCs is indicated given his profound anemia and symptoms of fatigue. One should obtain further testing for cold agglutinins, PNH, and echocardiography to exclude endocarditis. If he were to become critically ill, anuric, or encephalopathic, then one could consider plasma exchange for treatment of TMA and hemoglobin-mediated AKI. Pyropoikilocytosis should be considered the result of drug-induced TMA, severe C difficile colitis, or an occult infection.

The patient was transfused packed RBCs. Because of a concern for an acute TMA such as TTP, both a hematopathologist and the consulting hematology/oncology team reviewed the peripheral blood morphology emergently. He was given aggressive fluid resuscitation and received 3 L of IV lactated ringers’ solution. An echocardiogram did not show valvular abnormalities. A renal biopsy was contraindicated because of the severe thrombocytopenia.

Given the recently confirmed C difficile colitis along with the findings of pyropoikilocytosis on the peripheral smear, toxin-mediated intravascular hemolysis from systemic C difficile infection became the leading diagnosis. Positing that the C difficile colitis was inadequately treated with oral metronidazole, aggressive treatment for C difficile was initiated with oral vancomycin in addition to intravenous metronidazole. Intravenous metronidazole was included given his elevated creatinine, presence of severe colitis on imaging, and concern he may be at risk for translocation of colonic C difficile or exotoxin into the bloodstream.

Over the course of the next 3 days, the patient’s platelet count normalized and his hemoglobin, creatinine, and symptoms of fatigue improved. Blood cultures remained negative. The patient’s rapid improvement with antibiotics supported our final diagnosis of toxin-mediated hemolysis caused by a systemic C difficile infection. On follow-up testing after hospital discharge, hemoglobin had returned to prior baseline and there was no recurrent hemolysis. Gemcitabine was considered to be a possible cause of his hemolytic anemia and was not continued in further treatment for his NSCLC.

When evaluating patients with cancer who present with fatigue, hospitalists should consider a broad list of potential causes. The differential should include etiologies directly related to the malignancy, paraneoplastic phenomena, treatment-related complications, and diseases unrelated to cancer. In addition, as the number of medications used for cancer proliferates, hospitalists must take a detailed history of the agents used and be aware of major side effects. Using this information, hospitalists may undertake a targeted approach to diagnostics while searching for a cause of fatigue.

When lab testing reveals profound anemia, hospitalists must consider syndromes that may require emergent management. Anemia can be caused by decreased RBC production, and acute anemia in the absence of clear blood loss suggests hemolysis. Moreover, the combination of elevated LDH and low haptoglobin is quite specific of hemolytic anemia.^1,2 Once hemolytic anemia is identified, DIC and TMA syndromes (such as TTP) need to be considered. The combination of hemolytic anemia and AKI may indicate a medical emergency and should prompt hospitalists to obtain an urgent peripheral blood smear to help narrow the differential.³

The absence of schistocytes on a blood smear does not rule out TTP or HUS, but does argue strongly against these diagnoses.^4,5 Of note, consultation with a hematopathologist and hematology subspecialist should be done to ensure appropriate and timely review of the peripheral blood smear.

In this case, the blood smear led to a very rare finding of pyropoikilocytosis. The unexpected result should prompt a broader review of the medical history particularly as it relates to the patient’s broader symptoms and laboratory abnormalities. Acquired pyropoikilocytosis is a very specific finding known to be associated only with hyperthermal injury (seen in burn patients), drug-induced TMA, and bacterial bloodstream infections, mainly Gram-negative toxins and Clostridioidal infections.^6-8 In this case, both drug-induced TMA and C difficile infection were considered.

Gemcitabine-induced TMA can occur with either short or long term use of the medication and can be difficult to distinguish from TTP. While both TTP and gemcitabine-induced TMA can cause thrombocytopenia, hemolytic anemia, and schistocytes on a blood smear, the latter causes acute kidney injury more frequently than TTP. In addition, gemcitabine-­induced TMA may not lead to severe decrease in ADAMTS13 activity. A kidney biopsy could confirm drug-induced TMA but was contraindicated in this case because of the thrombocytopenia. Gemcitabine should not be restarted if this side effect is suspected.

Given the continued rise in C difficile incidence, hospitalists should be aware that C difficile infection can cause extraintestinal illness.^9,10 Although uncommon, these extraintestinal complications are associated with high risk of mortality and frequently occur in those with a history of intestinal injury or inflammation and a concomitant bloodstream infection.¹⁰ Regarding the possibility of C difficile contributing to hemolysis in this case, the patient’s low blood counts and hemolysis improved concomitantly with more aggressive treatment of C difficile infection. Although his blood cultures were sterile, C difficile is notoriously difficult to culture. Prior case reports have associated C difficile with intravascular hemolysis, which leads to the possibility that the patient did have a very rare manifestation of this unfortunately common infection.¹¹

This case provides an excellent example of a diagnostic pivot point initiated by new information that fundamentally alters a patient’s diagnostic journey. Here, the finding of pyroipoikilocytes on peripheral smear led us to alter the differential diagnosis. Such pivots are often “surprises” that cause the care team to stop and reconsider their differential diagnosis because the problem representation has fundamentally changed. This patient’s unexpected fiery finding provided a pivot point that led to his effective treatment and recovery.

• In evaluating symptomatic cancer patients, providers must consider sequelae of the tumor, paraneoplastic phenomena, and treatment-related complications.
• Hemolytic anemia may represent a life-threatening emergency particularly when accompanied by AKI and requires urgent peripheral blood smear evaluation.
• Acquired pyropoikilocytosis is a specific finding known to be associated only with thermal injury, drug-induced TMA, and bacterial toxin–mediated hemolysis.

The authors have nothing to disclose.

More than 200 million patients worldwide undergo major noncardiac surgery each year. Of these, more than 10 million patients suffer a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) within 30 days of surgery.¹ Elevated troponins after noncardiac surgery have been associated with increased mortality, but the management of these patients and the indications for screening remain unclear. The nomenclature around myocardial injury also remains confusing. In this Progress Note, we aim to define myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) and discuss the key questions on MINS and postoperative troponin elevation.

A PubMed search for medical subject headings and the terms “myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery,” “perioperative troponin,” and “postoperative troponin” restricted to humans, English language, and published in the past 5 years resulted in 144 articles. Articles most relevant to this progress note were included. Guidelines from major societies on perioperative cardiovascular assessment and management were also reviewed.

The Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction ( UDMI 4) defines myocardial injury as detection of an elevated cardiac troponin above the 99th percentile upper reference limit (URL).² Different troponin assays are not comparable and institutions set their own thresholds for abnormal troponin. Per UDMI 4, myocardial injury is classified as (Figure)^2-4:

• Acute Myocardial Infarction (MI): This is defined as “detection of a rise and/or fall of cardiac troponin with ≥1 value above the 99th percentile URL and ≥1 of the following: symptoms of acute myocardial ischemia, new ischemic electrocardiographic changes, development of pathological Q waves, or imaging evidence of new loss of viable myocardium or new regional wall motion abnormality in a pattern consistent with an ischemic etiology.” If these patients have an acute atherosclerotic plaque rupture, they are classified as Type 1 MI (T1MI), and if they have a mismatch between oxygen supply/demand, they are classified as Type 2 MI (T2MI).
• Acute Nonischemic Myocardial Injury (NIMI): This is defined as detection of both a rise and/or fall of cardiac troponin and one or more cardiac troponin values above the 99th percentile URL, but no overt clinical evidence of myocardial ischemia.
• Chronic Myocardial Injury: This is defined as one or more cardiac troponin values above the 99th percentile URL but without a rise and/or fall pattern.

MINS is defined as a rise and/or fall of cardiac biomarkers of presumed ischemic etiology within 30 days of noncardiac surgery that may occur with or without the clinical criteria necessary to fulfill the universal definition of MI (Figure).^5-8

A meta-analysis of 169 studies reported the overall incidence of MINS to be 17.9%; the incidence was 19.6% when systematic troponin screening was done versus 9.9% when troponins were ordered selectively based on the clinical context.⁵

That meta-analysis found that patients with MINS were more likely to be older, male, undergoing nonelective surgeries, and have hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD), prior MI, heart failure, or kidney disease.⁵ Intraoperative hypotension (defined as systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg or mean arterial pressure <55 mm Hg for up to 5 minutes or <60 mm Hg for 30 minutes or more) and intraoperative tachycardia (defined as heart rate >100 beats per minute) have been associated with MINS.^5,9 The relationship between anesthesia type and MINS is uncertain.

MINS is associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality, nonfatal cardiac arrest, heart failure, and stroke.In the Vascular Events In Noncardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION) studies, the majority of patients did not have ischemic symptoms.^6,7 In this study, 30-day mortality rates were 8.5% to 13.5% in patients with ischemic symptoms or electrocardiographic changes and 2.9% to 7.7% in patients with asymptomatic troponin elevations. Among the patients without MINS, 30-day mortality was 0.6% to 1.1%. Higher levels of cardiac troponin were associated with higher mortality rates and shorter time to death.

The recommendations for perioperative screening for MINS vary from society to society. Although MINS is associated with worse outcomes, and most patients with MINS are asymptomatic, perioperative screening for MINS in the absence of clinical signs or symptoms is currently not recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA).¹⁰

ACC/AHA

“The usefulness of postoperative screening with troponin levels in patients at high risk for perioperative MI, but without signs or symptoms suggestive of myocardial ischemia or MI, is uncertain in the absence of established risks and benefits of a defined management strategy (Class IIb; level of evidence [LOE]–B).”¹⁰

European Society of Cardiology

“Measurement of B-type natriuretic peptides (BNP) and high-sensitivity troponins (hsTn) after surgery may be considered in high-risk patients to improve risk stratification (Class IIb; LOE-B). Preoperatively and postoperatively, patients who could most benefit from BNP or hsTn measurements are those with metabolic equivalents (METs) ≤4 or those with a revised cardiac risk index (RCRI) score >1 for vascular surgery and >2 for nonvascular surgery. Postoperatively, patients with a surgical Apgar score <7 should also be monitored with BNP or hsTn to detect complications early, independent of their RCRI values.”¹¹

Canadian Cardiovascular Society

“We recommend obtaining daily troponins for 48-72 hours after noncardiac surgery in patients with a baseline risk of >5% for cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI at 30 days after surgery (ie, patients with an elevated N-terminal-proBNP (NT-proBNP)/BNP before surgery or, if there is no NT-proBNP/BNP before surgery, in those who have an RCRI score ≥1, age 45-64 years with significant cardiovascular disease, or age ≥65 years) (Strong recommendation; Moderate quality evidence).”¹

Currently, evidence-based therapies are well established only for T1MI. However, it is often challenging to differentiate T1MI from other causes of troponin elevation in the perioperative setting in which anesthesia, sedation, or analgesia may mask ischemic symptoms that typically prompt further investigation. While peak troponin levels may be higher in T1MI than they are in T2MI, the initial or delta change in the troponin may provide poor discrimination between T1MI and T2MI.² Management is complicated not only by the uncertainty about the underlying diagnosis (T1MI, T2MI, or NIMI) but also by the heterogeneity in the underlying pathophysiology of troponin elevation in patients with T2MI and NIMI. Patients with T2MI are generally sicker and have higher mortality than patients with T1MI, and management typically involves treating the underlying reason for oxygen supply/demand mismatch. Mortality in T2MI is more commonly caused by noncardiovascular causes, but underlying CAD is an independent predictor of cardiovascular death or recurrent MI in these patients.

The MANAGE trial (Management of Myocardial Injury After Noncardiac Surgery) had several methodological limitations to inform clinical practice but showed potential benefit of dabigatran in patients with MINS.¹² In this trial, patients on dabigatran had significantly lower rates of the primary efficacy outcome (composite of vascular mortality and nonfatal MI, nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, amputation, and symptomatic venous thromboembolism) without a significant increase in life-threatening, major, or critical organ bleeding. Of the secondary efficacy outcomes, only nonhemorrhagic stroke was significantly reduced with dabigatran, but the event rate was low. In the subgroup analysis, patients randomized to dabigatran within 5 days of MINS and those meeting the criteria for MI had significantly lower rates of the primary efficacy outcome.

Patients with T2MI with known CAD may benefit from long-term risk reduction strategies for secondary prevention. There are no definitive management strategies in the literature for T2MI with unknown or no CAD. The SWEDEHEART registry (Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapy) enrolled 9,136 patients with MI with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA).¹³ Though MINOCA may include T1MI patients, the majority of these patients are classified as T2MI under UDMI 4. Therefore, it has been proposed that data from this registry may inform management on T2MI.¹⁴ Data from this registry showed that statins and angiotensin-­converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers were associated with lower incidence of MACE over a mean follow-up of 4.1 years. Dual-antiplatelet therapy or beta blockers did not significantly lower the incidence of MACE.¹³ In another study assessing 2-year mortality in patients with T2MI, beta blockers were beneficial.¹⁵

Who should be screened?

Screening can be performed if further risk stratification of high-risk patients or patients with poor functional status is desired. European Society of Cardiology and Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines provide guidance on the screening criteria. Troponin elevation in a low-risk group is associated with a low mortality rate, and many of these troponin elevations may be secondary to causes other than myocardial ischemia.

How should screening be conducted?

If planning to obtain postoperative troponins, then preoperative troponin should be obtained because 35% of the patients may have a chronic troponin elevation.

What is the risk if postoperative troponin screening is not performed?

Most patients with MINS are asymptomatic. Systematic screening with troponins (compared with selective screening based on clinical signs or symptoms) can detect T1MI that would otherwise remain occult and undiagnosed.

What is the risk if postoperative troponin screening is performed?

Detecting asymptomatic troponin elevations could lead to potentially harmful treatments (eg, increased risk of bleeding with antithrombotics in the postoperative setting, increased use of cardiac angiography, or addition of new medications such as statins and beta-blockers in the postoperative setting with the potential for adverse effects).

How should MINS be documented?

ST-elevation and non–ST elevation MI (STEMI and NSTEMI) should be reserved for T1MI only. T1MI should be documented when acute plaque rupture is strongly suspected. T2MI should be documented when oxygen supply/demand mismatch is strongly suspected as the etiology of acute MI (eg, T2MI secondary to tachyarrhythmia, hypertensive emergency, or septic shock). Documenting as “demand ischemia” or “unlikely acute coronary syndrome” for T2MI or NIMI should be avoided. Troponin elevations not meeting the criteria for acute MI should be documented as “non-MI troponin elevation” (eg, non-MI troponin elevation secondary to chronic kidney disease or left ventricular hypertrophy). Terms like “troponinitis” or “troponinemia” should be avoided.³

Can MINS be prevented?

There are no well-defined strategies for prevention of MINS, but cardiovascular risk factors should be optimized preoperatively for all patients. In a meta-analysis, preoperative aspirin was not associated with reduced incidence of MINS, and the role of preoperative statins remains speculative; however, nonacute initiation of beta-blockers preoperatively was associated with a lower incidence of MINS.⁵ Withholding angiotensin-­converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers in the 24 hours prior to surgery has been associated with a lower incidence of MINS. Intraoperative hypotension or tachycardia should be avoided.

While MINS has been associated with increased 30-day mortality, there are currently no definitive evidence-based management strategies for these patients. Institutions should consider creating decision-support tools if considering screening for MINS based on patient- and surgery-specific risk factors.

The authors have nothing to disclose.

More than 200 million patients worldwide undergo major noncardiac surgery each year. Of these, more than 10 million patients suffer a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) within 30 days of surgery.¹ Elevated troponins after noncardiac surgery have been associated with increased mortality, but the management of these patients and the indications for screening remain unclear. The nomenclature around myocardial injury also remains confusing. In this Progress Note, we aim to define myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) and discuss the key questions on MINS and postoperative troponin elevation.

A PubMed search for medical subject headings and the terms “myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery,” “perioperative troponin,” and “postoperative troponin” restricted to humans, English language, and published in the past 5 years resulted in 144 articles. Articles most relevant to this progress note were included. Guidelines from major societies on perioperative cardiovascular assessment and management were also reviewed.

The Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction ( UDMI 4) defines myocardial injury as detection of an elevated cardiac troponin above the 99th percentile upper reference limit (URL).² Different troponin assays are not comparable and institutions set their own thresholds for abnormal troponin. Per UDMI 4, myocardial injury is classified as (Figure)^2-4:

• Acute Myocardial Infarction (MI): This is defined as “detection of a rise and/or fall of cardiac troponin with ≥1 value above the 99th percentile URL and ≥1 of the following: symptoms of acute myocardial ischemia, new ischemic electrocardiographic changes, development of pathological Q waves, or imaging evidence of new loss of viable myocardium or new regional wall motion abnormality in a pattern consistent with an ischemic etiology.” If these patients have an acute atherosclerotic plaque rupture, they are classified as Type 1 MI (T1MI), and if they have a mismatch between oxygen supply/demand, they are classified as Type 2 MI (T2MI).
• Acute Nonischemic Myocardial Injury (NIMI): This is defined as detection of both a rise and/or fall of cardiac troponin and one or more cardiac troponin values above the 99th percentile URL, but no overt clinical evidence of myocardial ischemia.
• Chronic Myocardial Injury: This is defined as one or more cardiac troponin values above the 99th percentile URL but without a rise and/or fall pattern.

MINS is defined as a rise and/or fall of cardiac biomarkers of presumed ischemic etiology within 30 days of noncardiac surgery that may occur with or without the clinical criteria necessary to fulfill the universal definition of MI (Figure).^5-8

A meta-analysis of 169 studies reported the overall incidence of MINS to be 17.9%; the incidence was 19.6% when systematic troponin screening was done versus 9.9% when troponins were ordered selectively based on the clinical context.⁵

That meta-analysis found that patients with MINS were more likely to be older, male, undergoing nonelective surgeries, and have hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD), prior MI, heart failure, or kidney disease.⁵ Intraoperative hypotension (defined as systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg or mean arterial pressure <55 mm Hg for up to 5 minutes or <60 mm Hg for 30 minutes or more) and intraoperative tachycardia (defined as heart rate >100 beats per minute) have been associated with MINS.^5,9 The relationship between anesthesia type and MINS is uncertain.

MINS is associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality, nonfatal cardiac arrest, heart failure, and stroke.In the Vascular Events In Noncardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION) studies, the majority of patients did not have ischemic symptoms.^6,7 In this study, 30-day mortality rates were 8.5% to 13.5% in patients with ischemic symptoms or electrocardiographic changes and 2.9% to 7.7% in patients with asymptomatic troponin elevations. Among the patients without MINS, 30-day mortality was 0.6% to 1.1%. Higher levels of cardiac troponin were associated with higher mortality rates and shorter time to death.

The recommendations for perioperative screening for MINS vary from society to society. Although MINS is associated with worse outcomes, and most patients with MINS are asymptomatic, perioperative screening for MINS in the absence of clinical signs or symptoms is currently not recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA).¹⁰

ACC/AHA

“The usefulness of postoperative screening with troponin levels in patients at high risk for perioperative MI, but without signs or symptoms suggestive of myocardial ischemia or MI, is uncertain in the absence of established risks and benefits of a defined management strategy (Class IIb; level of evidence [LOE]–B).”¹⁰

European Society of Cardiology

“Measurement of B-type natriuretic peptides (BNP) and high-sensitivity troponins (hsTn) after surgery may be considered in high-risk patients to improve risk stratification (Class IIb; LOE-B). Preoperatively and postoperatively, patients who could most benefit from BNP or hsTn measurements are those with metabolic equivalents (METs) ≤4 or those with a revised cardiac risk index (RCRI) score >1 for vascular surgery and >2 for nonvascular surgery. Postoperatively, patients with a surgical Apgar score <7 should also be monitored with BNP or hsTn to detect complications early, independent of their RCRI values.”¹¹

Canadian Cardiovascular Society

“We recommend obtaining daily troponins for 48-72 hours after noncardiac surgery in patients with a baseline risk of >5% for cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI at 30 days after surgery (ie, patients with an elevated N-terminal-proBNP (NT-proBNP)/BNP before surgery or, if there is no NT-proBNP/BNP before surgery, in those who have an RCRI score ≥1, age 45-64 years with significant cardiovascular disease, or age ≥65 years) (Strong recommendation; Moderate quality evidence).”¹

Currently, evidence-based therapies are well established only for T1MI. However, it is often challenging to differentiate T1MI from other causes of troponin elevation in the perioperative setting in which anesthesia, sedation, or analgesia may mask ischemic symptoms that typically prompt further investigation. While peak troponin levels may be higher in T1MI than they are in T2MI, the initial or delta change in the troponin may provide poor discrimination between T1MI and T2MI.² Management is complicated not only by the uncertainty about the underlying diagnosis (T1MI, T2MI, or NIMI) but also by the heterogeneity in the underlying pathophysiology of troponin elevation in patients with T2MI and NIMI. Patients with T2MI are generally sicker and have higher mortality than patients with T1MI, and management typically involves treating the underlying reason for oxygen supply/demand mismatch. Mortality in T2MI is more commonly caused by noncardiovascular causes, but underlying CAD is an independent predictor of cardiovascular death or recurrent MI in these patients.

The MANAGE trial (Management of Myocardial Injury After Noncardiac Surgery) had several methodological limitations to inform clinical practice but showed potential benefit of dabigatran in patients with MINS.¹² In this trial, patients on dabigatran had significantly lower rates of the primary efficacy outcome (composite of vascular mortality and nonfatal MI, nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, amputation, and symptomatic venous thromboembolism) without a significant increase in life-threatening, major, or critical organ bleeding. Of the secondary efficacy outcomes, only nonhemorrhagic stroke was significantly reduced with dabigatran, but the event rate was low. In the subgroup analysis, patients randomized to dabigatran within 5 days of MINS and those meeting the criteria for MI had significantly lower rates of the primary efficacy outcome.

Patients with T2MI with known CAD may benefit from long-term risk reduction strategies for secondary prevention. There are no definitive management strategies in the literature for T2MI with unknown or no CAD. The SWEDEHEART registry (Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapy) enrolled 9,136 patients with MI with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA).¹³ Though MINOCA may include T1MI patients, the majority of these patients are classified as T2MI under UDMI 4. Therefore, it has been proposed that data from this registry may inform management on T2MI.¹⁴ Data from this registry showed that statins and angiotensin-­converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers were associated with lower incidence of MACE over a mean follow-up of 4.1 years. Dual-antiplatelet therapy or beta blockers did not significantly lower the incidence of MACE.¹³ In another study assessing 2-year mortality in patients with T2MI, beta blockers were beneficial.¹⁵

Who should be screened?

Screening can be performed if further risk stratification of high-risk patients or patients with poor functional status is desired. European Society of Cardiology and Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines provide guidance on the screening criteria. Troponin elevation in a low-risk group is associated with a low mortality rate, and many of these troponin elevations may be secondary to causes other than myocardial ischemia.

How should screening be conducted?

If planning to obtain postoperative troponins, then preoperative troponin should be obtained because 35% of the patients may have a chronic troponin elevation.

What is the risk if postoperative troponin screening is not performed?

Most patients with MINS are asymptomatic. Systematic screening with troponins (compared with selective screening based on clinical signs or symptoms) can detect T1MI that would otherwise remain occult and undiagnosed.

What is the risk if postoperative troponin screening is performed?

Detecting asymptomatic troponin elevations could lead to potentially harmful treatments (eg, increased risk of bleeding with antithrombotics in the postoperative setting, increased use of cardiac angiography, or addition of new medications such as statins and beta-blockers in the postoperative setting with the potential for adverse effects).

How should MINS be documented?

ST-elevation and non–ST elevation MI (STEMI and NSTEMI) should be reserved for T1MI only. T1MI should be documented when acute plaque rupture is strongly suspected. T2MI should be documented when oxygen supply/demand mismatch is strongly suspected as the etiology of acute MI (eg, T2MI secondary to tachyarrhythmia, hypertensive emergency, or septic shock). Documenting as “demand ischemia” or “unlikely acute coronary syndrome” for T2MI or NIMI should be avoided. Troponin elevations not meeting the criteria for acute MI should be documented as “non-MI troponin elevation” (eg, non-MI troponin elevation secondary to chronic kidney disease or left ventricular hypertrophy). Terms like “troponinitis” or “troponinemia” should be avoided.³

Can MINS be prevented?

There are no well-defined strategies for prevention of MINS, but cardiovascular risk factors should be optimized preoperatively for all patients. In a meta-analysis, preoperative aspirin was not associated with reduced incidence of MINS, and the role of preoperative statins remains speculative; however, nonacute initiation of beta-blockers preoperatively was associated with a lower incidence of MINS.⁵ Withholding angiotensin-­converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers in the 24 hours prior to surgery has been associated with a lower incidence of MINS. Intraoperative hypotension or tachycardia should be avoided.

While MINS has been associated with increased 30-day mortality, there are currently no definitive evidence-based management strategies for these patients. Institutions should consider creating decision-support tools if considering screening for MINS based on patient- and surgery-specific risk factors.

The authors have nothing to disclose.

More than 200 million patients worldwide undergo major noncardiac surgery each year. Of these, more than 10 million patients suffer a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) within 30 days of surgery.¹ Elevated troponins after noncardiac surgery have been associated with increased mortality, but the management of these patients and the indications for screening remain unclear. The nomenclature around myocardial injury also remains confusing. In this Progress Note, we aim to define myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) and discuss the key questions on MINS and postoperative troponin elevation.

A PubMed search for medical subject headings and the terms “myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery,” “perioperative troponin,” and “postoperative troponin” restricted to humans, English language, and published in the past 5 years resulted in 144 articles. Articles most relevant to this progress note were included. Guidelines from major societies on perioperative cardiovascular assessment and management were also reviewed.

The Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction ( UDMI 4) defines myocardial injury as detection of an elevated cardiac troponin above the 99th percentile upper reference limit (URL).² Different troponin assays are not comparable and institutions set their own thresholds for abnormal troponin. Per UDMI 4, myocardial injury is classified as (Figure)^2-4:

• Acute Myocardial Infarction (MI): This is defined as “detection of a rise and/or fall of cardiac troponin with ≥1 value above the 99th percentile URL and ≥1 of the following: symptoms of acute myocardial ischemia, new ischemic electrocardiographic changes, development of pathological Q waves, or imaging evidence of new loss of viable myocardium or new regional wall motion abnormality in a pattern consistent with an ischemic etiology.” If these patients have an acute atherosclerotic plaque rupture, they are classified as Type 1 MI (T1MI), and if they have a mismatch between oxygen supply/demand, they are classified as Type 2 MI (T2MI).
• Acute Nonischemic Myocardial Injury (NIMI): This is defined as detection of both a rise and/or fall of cardiac troponin and one or more cardiac troponin values above the 99th percentile URL, but no overt clinical evidence of myocardial ischemia.
• Chronic Myocardial Injury: This is defined as one or more cardiac troponin values above the 99th percentile URL but without a rise and/or fall pattern.

MINS is defined as a rise and/or fall of cardiac biomarkers of presumed ischemic etiology within 30 days of noncardiac surgery that may occur with or without the clinical criteria necessary to fulfill the universal definition of MI (Figure).^5-8

A meta-analysis of 169 studies reported the overall incidence of MINS to be 17.9%; the incidence was 19.6% when systematic troponin screening was done versus 9.9% when troponins were ordered selectively based on the clinical context.⁵

That meta-analysis found that patients with MINS were more likely to be older, male, undergoing nonelective surgeries, and have hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD), prior MI, heart failure, or kidney disease.⁵ Intraoperative hypotension (defined as systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg or mean arterial pressure <55 mm Hg for up to 5 minutes or <60 mm Hg for 30 minutes or more) and intraoperative tachycardia (defined as heart rate >100 beats per minute) have been associated with MINS.^5,9 The relationship between anesthesia type and MINS is uncertain.

MINS is associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality, nonfatal cardiac arrest, heart failure, and stroke.In the Vascular Events In Noncardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION) studies, the majority of patients did not have ischemic symptoms.^6,7 In this study, 30-day mortality rates were 8.5% to 13.5% in patients with ischemic symptoms or electrocardiographic changes and 2.9% to 7.7% in patients with asymptomatic troponin elevations. Among the patients without MINS, 30-day mortality was 0.6% to 1.1%. Higher levels of cardiac troponin were associated with higher mortality rates and shorter time to death.

The recommendations for perioperative screening for MINS vary from society to society. Although MINS is associated with worse outcomes, and most patients with MINS are asymptomatic, perioperative screening for MINS in the absence of clinical signs or symptoms is currently not recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA).¹⁰

ACC/AHA

“The usefulness of postoperative screening with troponin levels in patients at high risk for perioperative MI, but without signs or symptoms suggestive of myocardial ischemia or MI, is uncertain in the absence of established risks and benefits of a defined management strategy (Class IIb; level of evidence [LOE]–B).”¹⁰

European Society of Cardiology

“Measurement of B-type natriuretic peptides (BNP) and high-sensitivity troponins (hsTn) after surgery may be considered in high-risk patients to improve risk stratification (Class IIb; LOE-B). Preoperatively and postoperatively, patients who could most benefit from BNP or hsTn measurements are those with metabolic equivalents (METs) ≤4 or those with a revised cardiac risk index (RCRI) score >1 for vascular surgery and >2 for nonvascular surgery. Postoperatively, patients with a surgical Apgar score <7 should also be monitored with BNP or hsTn to detect complications early, independent of their RCRI values.”¹¹

Canadian Cardiovascular Society

“We recommend obtaining daily troponins for 48-72 hours after noncardiac surgery in patients with a baseline risk of >5% for cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI at 30 days after surgery (ie, patients with an elevated N-terminal-proBNP (NT-proBNP)/BNP before surgery or, if there is no NT-proBNP/BNP before surgery, in those who have an RCRI score ≥1, age 45-64 years with significant cardiovascular disease, or age ≥65 years) (Strong recommendation; Moderate quality evidence).”¹

Currently, evidence-based therapies are well established only for T1MI. However, it is often challenging to differentiate T1MI from other causes of troponin elevation in the perioperative setting in which anesthesia, sedation, or analgesia may mask ischemic symptoms that typically prompt further investigation. While peak troponin levels may be higher in T1MI than they are in T2MI, the initial or delta change in the troponin may provide poor discrimination between T1MI and T2MI.² Management is complicated not only by the uncertainty about the underlying diagnosis (T1MI, T2MI, or NIMI) but also by the heterogeneity in the underlying pathophysiology of troponin elevation in patients with T2MI and NIMI. Patients with T2MI are generally sicker and have higher mortality than patients with T1MI, and management typically involves treating the underlying reason for oxygen supply/demand mismatch. Mortality in T2MI is more commonly caused by noncardiovascular causes, but underlying CAD is an independent predictor of cardiovascular death or recurrent MI in these patients.

The MANAGE trial (Management of Myocardial Injury After Noncardiac Surgery) had several methodological limitations to inform clinical practice but showed potential benefit of dabigatran in patients with MINS.¹² In this trial, patients on dabigatran had significantly lower rates of the primary efficacy outcome (composite of vascular mortality and nonfatal MI, nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, amputation, and symptomatic venous thromboembolism) without a significant increase in life-threatening, major, or critical organ bleeding. Of the secondary efficacy outcomes, only nonhemorrhagic stroke was significantly reduced with dabigatran, but the event rate was low. In the subgroup analysis, patients randomized to dabigatran within 5 days of MINS and those meeting the criteria for MI had significantly lower rates of the primary efficacy outcome.

Patients with T2MI with known CAD may benefit from long-term risk reduction strategies for secondary prevention. There are no definitive management strategies in the literature for T2MI with unknown or no CAD. The SWEDEHEART registry (Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapy) enrolled 9,136 patients with MI with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA).¹³ Though MINOCA may include T1MI patients, the majority of these patients are classified as T2MI under UDMI 4. Therefore, it has been proposed that data from this registry may inform management on T2MI.¹⁴ Data from this registry showed that statins and angiotensin-­converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers were associated with lower incidence of MACE over a mean follow-up of 4.1 years. Dual-antiplatelet therapy or beta blockers did not significantly lower the incidence of MACE.¹³ In another study assessing 2-year mortality in patients with T2MI, beta blockers were beneficial.¹⁵

Who should be screened?

Screening can be performed if further risk stratification of high-risk patients or patients with poor functional status is desired. European Society of Cardiology and Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines provide guidance on the screening criteria. Troponin elevation in a low-risk group is associated with a low mortality rate, and many of these troponin elevations may be secondary to causes other than myocardial ischemia.

How should screening be conducted?

If planning to obtain postoperative troponins, then preoperative troponin should be obtained because 35% of the patients may have a chronic troponin elevation.

What is the risk if postoperative troponin screening is not performed?

Most patients with MINS are asymptomatic. Systematic screening with troponins (compared with selective screening based on clinical signs or symptoms) can detect T1MI that would otherwise remain occult and undiagnosed.

What is the risk if postoperative troponin screening is performed?

Detecting asymptomatic troponin elevations could lead to potentially harmful treatments (eg, increased risk of bleeding with antithrombotics in the postoperative setting, increased use of cardiac angiography, or addition of new medications such as statins and beta-blockers in the postoperative setting with the potential for adverse effects).

How should MINS be documented?

ST-elevation and non–ST elevation MI (STEMI and NSTEMI) should be reserved for T1MI only. T1MI should be documented when acute plaque rupture is strongly suspected. T2MI should be documented when oxygen supply/demand mismatch is strongly suspected as the etiology of acute MI (eg, T2MI secondary to tachyarrhythmia, hypertensive emergency, or septic shock). Documenting as “demand ischemia” or “unlikely acute coronary syndrome” for T2MI or NIMI should be avoided. Troponin elevations not meeting the criteria for acute MI should be documented as “non-MI troponin elevation” (eg, non-MI troponin elevation secondary to chronic kidney disease or left ventricular hypertrophy). Terms like “troponinitis” or “troponinemia” should be avoided.³

Can MINS be prevented?

There are no well-defined strategies for prevention of MINS, but cardiovascular risk factors should be optimized preoperatively for all patients. In a meta-analysis, preoperative aspirin was not associated with reduced incidence of MINS, and the role of preoperative statins remains speculative; however, nonacute initiation of beta-blockers preoperatively was associated with a lower incidence of MINS.⁵ Withholding angiotensin-­converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers in the 24 hours prior to surgery has been associated with a lower incidence of MINS. Intraoperative hypotension or tachycardia should be avoided.

While MINS has been associated with increased 30-day mortality, there are currently no definitive evidence-based management strategies for these patients. Institutions should consider creating decision-support tools if considering screening for MINS based on patient- and surgery-specific risk factors.

The authors have nothing to disclose.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare overall hospital ratings was originally released in 2016 and was recently updated in February 2019.^1,2 The program is designed to provide a consumer-friendly global rating system for hospitals, with hospitals rated on a scale from one star (worst) to five stars (best). The ratings are based on a formula that combines scores on 57 performance measures into seven groups, with the groups of mortality, safety, readmission, and patient experience given weights of 22% each in the overall scoring, and groups of effectiveness of care, timeliness of care, and efficient use of medical imaging equally contributing to the rest of the score.

Concerns have been raised since the introduction of the program regarding the methodology and possible unfairly high or low star ratings for certain types of hospitals.^3,4 It has been noted that five-star hospitals are disproportionately small, specialty-focused hospitals that may not have Emergency Departments or significant volumes of Medicaid patients.⁵ Hospitals that report fewer measures and thus receive scores for fewer measure groups (in general, smaller or specialty hospitals) are more likely to receive higher star ratings than are hospitals that receive scores for all measure groups.^6,7 Teaching hospitals, on average, have received lower star ratings than nonteaching hospitals.^8,9

Multihospital systems generally designate one of their hospitals as a “flagship” hospital and often use the name of that hospital to identify the system as a whole (eg, Mayo Clinic Health System, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center). There is not a set of objective criteria to designate a “flagship” hospital of a multihospital health system. Flagships could be the founding hospitals of the systems or the largest hospitals in the systems, and they are usually (although not always) large teaching hospitals. There is therefore a potential paradox in which a set of hospitals that tend to get lower ratings in the CMS star rating system may also be the set frequently identified as system flagship hospitals and whose reputation is used as a brand identity for multihospital systems.

It is possible, though, that the hospitals designated as flagship hospitals in multihospital systems are exceptions to the general rule of lower star ratings for major teaching hospitals. The flagship designation may reflect excellence that is then reflected in the star rating system, or it may reflect some other kind of excellence (eg, reputation for research or teaching, diverse medical services provided) that is not reflected in the star rating system. The primary aim of this study was to compare the average star ratings and hospital characteristics of designated flagship hospitals in multihospital systems with those of (1) major teaching hospitals generally and (2) “nonflagship” hospitals across and within the same systems specifically. We sought to determine whether a flagship designation would be associated with higher star ratings than those of major teaching hospitals in general and with higher star ratings than other, nonflagship hospitals in the same system.

The use of a prestigious flagship hospital name to identify a multihospital system suggests that some aspects of high quality in the flagship are extended in some way to other hospitals in the system. If that is so, then the star ratings of hospitals in organized multihospital systems with a flagship may be more similar to each other than those of sets of hospitals selected at random. As a secondary aim, to determine whether this type of consistent quality throughout a system could be identified in the CMS hospital star rating system, we compared the variation in star ratings between organized multihospital systems with flagship hospitals to those of artificially created “pseudo systems” of unaffiliated hospitals.

We used the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Compendium of U.S. Health Systems, 2016, database and hospital file to identify multihospital health systems and their member hospitals.¹⁰ The database also provides information about health system characteristics such as systemwide teaching intensity and total number of acute care hospitals. We linked the AHRQ files to the CMS Hospital Compare datasets and Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) 2018 Final Rule Impact File to obtain star ratings and other information about specific hospitals (eg, resident to bed ratio, uncompensated care payment). Throughout the study, we followed the AHRQ’s definition of “major teaching hospitals” as hospitals with a high resident to bed ratio (≥0.25).

For purposes of this study, the primary criterion for identification of flagship hospitals was an explicit designation by the parent health systems on their websites, in the systems’ official documents, or in press releases or through major media reports. In the few cases in which parent systems did not designate their flagships, we searched reliable online sources such as major newspapers and hospital reviews to see if there was an agreement among sources on the flagship status. If we could not unambiguously identify a flagship hospital in a multihospital system using these methods, the system was not included in the study. A health system could have more than one flagship hospital.

Because the concept of “flagship” often involves a role as a referral center for complex cases in a regional area small enough to have referrals from hospital to hospital within the same system, we excluded multistate national health systems (eg, Catholic Health Initiatives, Community Health Systems, Inc.) and health systems with no major teaching hospitals or no flagship(s) identified by the systems themselves. Non-acute care and stand-alone hospitals, hospitals with missing CMS Certification Numbers (CCNs) or unmatched CCNs or hospital types across different data files, and hospitals without a star rating, were excluded.

Our analyses were performed at both hospital and health system levels. In the hospital-level analysis, we grouped hospitals into “1-2 star,” “3 star,” and “4-5 star” rating categories. We first compared star ratings of flagship hospitals with those of major teaching hospitals in general (ie, hospitals in the CMS Hospital Compare database with resident to bed ratios ≥0.25 that were not designated as system flagship hospitals). We then compared the average flagship hospital and average nonflagship hospital star ratings pooled across all the health systems. To explore hospital-level characteristics that might be associated with flagship hospitals’ performance on star ratings, we compared hospitals’ teaching intensity, bed size, charity care, and disproportionate share hospital (DSH) patient percentage between flagship and major teaching hospitals and between flagship and nonflagship hospitals. Differences were tested using two-sample t test with equal variances. We also compared hospital characteristics among hospitals with 1-2 stars, 3 stars, and 4-5 stars with use of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons.

In the system-level analysis, we examined flagship hospitals’ star ratings relative to the star ratings for other member hospitals in the same system. We assigned health systems to the following three groups according to their flagship hospitals’ star ratings in comparison to other hospitals within their own systems: health systems in which flagship hospitals were rated the lowest among all member hospitals, health systems in which flagship hospitals were rated neither highest nor lowest or all hospitals within the system had the same star rating, and health systems in which flagship hospitals were rated the highest among all member hospitals. We compared system-level characteristics of the three groups. We calculated the average differences in uncompensated care payment, resident to bed ratio, DSH patient percentage, and total beds between flagship hospitals and nonflagship hospitals of the same health systems, and we also compared the differences across the three health system groups defined previously. We conducted an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to take system-level factors into consideration, including system size (total number of acute care hospitals in the system), systemwide teaching intensity, and systemwide charity care. The Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for potential problems of multiple comparisons.

Finally, to compare the diversity of star ratings within health systems and the diversity of star ratings nationwide, we generated a set of 100 pseudo systems each comprising six member hospitals (corresponding to the average number of member hospitals per “true” health system included in the study) that were randomly selected from all hospitals excluded from this study. We calculated and compared the average standard deviations of star ratings between the true health systems and this set of pseudo systems. Differences were tested using two-sample t test with equal variances.

Data management and statistical analyses were conducted using Stata SE, version 13.0 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas).

Our final analysis included 599 hospitals in 113 health systems; 119 hospitals were flagships (four health systems each had two flagship hospitals, and one health system had three flagship hospitals). All other hospitals (n = 480) were designated as nonflaghips. On average, each health system had 6 member hospitals with star ratings, with a range from 2 to 22.

Flagship hospitals did have higher average star ratings than major teaching hospitals (mean star rating, 2.8 vs 2.3, respectively; P < .01; Figure). A larger proportion of flagship hospitals received four or five stars than did major teaching hospitals (29% vs 20%, respectively), and a smaller proportion of them received one or two stars (44% vs 59%, respectively; P < .05).

Flagship hospitals had lower star ratings on average, across all systems, than did nonflagship hospitals (mean star rating, 2.8 vs 3.3, respectively; P < .001). A smaller proportion of flagships received four or five stars than did nonflagships (29% vs 44%, respectively), and a larger proportion of them received one or two stars (44% vs 23%, respectively; P < .001).

As expected, flagship hospitals had significantly higher teaching intensity, larger bed size, higher DSH patient percentage, and higher value of uncompensated care payments than did nonflagship hospitals (P < .001 for all). On average, flagship hospitals were significantly larger but had lower DSH patient percentage and lower value of uncompensated care payments than did major teaching hospitals in general (P < .01 for all). In all types of hospitals, four- or five-star hospitals consistently had significantly lower DSH patient percentage (P < .001) and lower value of uncompensated care payment per claim (P < .05) than did other hospitals (Table).

In half of all health systems (n = 56), flagship hospitals were rated the lowest of all hospitals within that system; in approximately 20% of all health systems (n = 22), flagship hospitals were rated the highest. Flagship hospitals were more likely to have the lowest star rating in the system if the within-system difference in DSH patient percentage between flagship and nonflagship hospitals was relatively large. Within-system DSH patient percentage differences between flagship and nonflagship hospitals were 12.4%, 5.4%, and 3.5% in “flagship rated lowest,” “flagship rated middle,” and “flagship rated highest” systems, respectively (P < .05).

Average standardized deviations of star ratings for the 113 true health systems and 100 randomly generated pseudo health systems were 0.86 and 0.97, respectively (P < .05).

System-designated flagship hospitals did not generally have higher star ratings than did the other, smaller, community hospitals, either on average or within their own systems. In fact, the most common pattern observed was the system-designated flagship hospitals had the lowest star rating in their system. Flagship hospitals in multihospital systems were, however, rated higher than major teaching hospitals in general. The safety-net role of many of the system flagship hospitals, as captured by relative DSH percentage, was the most important determinant of low star ratings. A high bed number and teaching status were not as strongly associated with low star ratings.

It is already well established that the CMS star rating system does not correspond to other global hospital ratings systems like those of US News & World Report, Healthgrades, or the Leapfrog Group.¹¹ Each global rating system uses a unique set of measures and weighting systems for those measures, so discrepancies among these systems are inevitable. Multihospital systems may feel that the positive reputation for tertiary care excellence held by a flagship hospital is captured in a rating system like US News that has an explicit reputation component¹² and that the US News rankings are more prominent in the public eye than are those of CMS. To the extent that the CMS star ratings do become more widely used by the public or by payers to establish narrow provider networks, the relatively low ratings of multisystem flagship hospitals may become a cause for concern for those hospitals and systems.

System-designated flagship hospitals are typically large teaching hospitals with higher levels of technology, more highly specialized services and medical staff, more extensive research programs and active clinical trials programs, and the ability to treat cases that are difficult or complex or instances of rare conditions. They are not generally, as it turns out, the hospitals in a given system that the CMS star rating system identifies as “best.” In a number of multihospital systems, the system name is derived from the name of the flagship hospital (eg, Yale New Haven Health System and Montefiore Health System), which suggests that the system finds a marketing or branding advantage in being publicly identified with the name and positive reputation of the flagship hospital. Flagship hospitals may be designated as such because they have other attributes that patients, the community, and the system value, which may not be represented by the CMS quality metrics summarized by star ratings.

We did find a somewhat lower level of variation in star ratings in actual multihospital systems than in a set of randomly created “pseudo systems,” suggesting the presence of some mechanism for quality management in those systems leading to a more similar set of star ratings than one would find in hospitals selected at random.

Our study has a few limitations. First, we excluded multihospital health systems without any major teaching member hospital, which was based on our observation that they do not usually designate their flagship hospitals or they do not have any identifiable flagship hospitals. There may be a small number of such health systems that have designated their flagship hospitals and were excluded from the study, but we do not believe it will change our key findings. Second, it was possible that multiple hospitals in the same health system reported under the same CCN (multicampuses will often use the flagship facility’s IDs for the purposes of claims processing or cost and measure reporting), and therefore, the star ratings for the flagship hospitals reflected the performance of both the flagship hospital and the other member hospitals sharing the same CCN. We cannot fix the underlying reporting issue, and as a result, part of our analysis was probably more of a comparison of the “financial” flagship with other more loosely associated hospitals in the system. We could have in fact overestimated the flagships’ star rating performance by including data of other better performing nonflagship hospitals.

System-designated flagship hospitals tended to have lower CMS Hospital Compare overall hospital quality star ratings than did nonflagship hospitals in the same multihospital systems. The characteristics of hospitals identified as system flagships do not seem well aligned with those associated with better performance in the star rating system.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare overall hospital ratings was originally released in 2016 and was recently updated in February 2019.^1,2 The program is designed to provide a consumer-friendly global rating system for hospitals, with hospitals rated on a scale from one star (worst) to five stars (best). The ratings are based on a formula that combines scores on 57 performance measures into seven groups, with the groups of mortality, safety, readmission, and patient experience given weights of 22% each in the overall scoring, and groups of effectiveness of care, timeliness of care, and efficient use of medical imaging equally contributing to the rest of the score.

Concerns have been raised since the introduction of the program regarding the methodology and possible unfairly high or low star ratings for certain types of hospitals.^3,4 It has been noted that five-star hospitals are disproportionately small, specialty-focused hospitals that may not have Emergency Departments or significant volumes of Medicaid patients.⁵ Hospitals that report fewer measures and thus receive scores for fewer measure groups (in general, smaller or specialty hospitals) are more likely to receive higher star ratings than are hospitals that receive scores for all measure groups.^6,7 Teaching hospitals, on average, have received lower star ratings than nonteaching hospitals.^8,9

Multihospital systems generally designate one of their hospitals as a “flagship” hospital and often use the name of that hospital to identify the system as a whole (eg, Mayo Clinic Health System, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center). There is not a set of objective criteria to designate a “flagship” hospital of a multihospital health system. Flagships could be the founding hospitals of the systems or the largest hospitals in the systems, and they are usually (although not always) large teaching hospitals. There is therefore a potential paradox in which a set of hospitals that tend to get lower ratings in the CMS star rating system may also be the set frequently identified as system flagship hospitals and whose reputation is used as a brand identity for multihospital systems.

It is possible, though, that the hospitals designated as flagship hospitals in multihospital systems are exceptions to the general rule of lower star ratings for major teaching hospitals. The flagship designation may reflect excellence that is then reflected in the star rating system, or it may reflect some other kind of excellence (eg, reputation for research or teaching, diverse medical services provided) that is not reflected in the star rating system. The primary aim of this study was to compare the average star ratings and hospital characteristics of designated flagship hospitals in multihospital systems with those of (1) major teaching hospitals generally and (2) “nonflagship” hospitals across and within the same systems specifically. We sought to determine whether a flagship designation would be associated with higher star ratings than those of major teaching hospitals in general and with higher star ratings than other, nonflagship hospitals in the same system.

The use of a prestigious flagship hospital name to identify a multihospital system suggests that some aspects of high quality in the flagship are extended in some way to other hospitals in the system. If that is so, then the star ratings of hospitals in organized multihospital systems with a flagship may be more similar to each other than those of sets of hospitals selected at random. As a secondary aim, to determine whether this type of consistent quality throughout a system could be identified in the CMS hospital star rating system, we compared the variation in star ratings between organized multihospital systems with flagship hospitals to those of artificially created “pseudo systems” of unaffiliated hospitals.

We used the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Compendium of U.S. Health Systems, 2016, database and hospital file to identify multihospital health systems and their member hospitals.¹⁰ The database also provides information about health system characteristics such as systemwide teaching intensity and total number of acute care hospitals. We linked the AHRQ files to the CMS Hospital Compare datasets and Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) 2018 Final Rule Impact File to obtain star ratings and other information about specific hospitals (eg, resident to bed ratio, uncompensated care payment). Throughout the study, we followed the AHRQ’s definition of “major teaching hospitals” as hospitals with a high resident to bed ratio (≥0.25).

For purposes of this study, the primary criterion for identification of flagship hospitals was an explicit designation by the parent health systems on their websites, in the systems’ official documents, or in press releases or through major media reports. In the few cases in which parent systems did not designate their flagships, we searched reliable online sources such as major newspapers and hospital reviews to see if there was an agreement among sources on the flagship status. If we could not unambiguously identify a flagship hospital in a multihospital system using these methods, the system was not included in the study. A health system could have more than one flagship hospital.

Because the concept of “flagship” often involves a role as a referral center for complex cases in a regional area small enough to have referrals from hospital to hospital within the same system, we excluded multistate national health systems (eg, Catholic Health Initiatives, Community Health Systems, Inc.) and health systems with no major teaching hospitals or no flagship(s) identified by the systems themselves. Non-acute care and stand-alone hospitals, hospitals with missing CMS Certification Numbers (CCNs) or unmatched CCNs or hospital types across different data files, and hospitals without a star rating, were excluded.

Our analyses were performed at both hospital and health system levels. In the hospital-level analysis, we grouped hospitals into “1-2 star,” “3 star,” and “4-5 star” rating categories. We first compared star ratings of flagship hospitals with those of major teaching hospitals in general (ie, hospitals in the CMS Hospital Compare database with resident to bed ratios ≥0.25 that were not designated as system flagship hospitals). We then compared the average flagship hospital and average nonflagship hospital star ratings pooled across all the health systems. To explore hospital-level characteristics that might be associated with flagship hospitals’ performance on star ratings, we compared hospitals’ teaching intensity, bed size, charity care, and disproportionate share hospital (DSH) patient percentage between flagship and major teaching hospitals and between flagship and nonflagship hospitals. Differences were tested using two-sample t test with equal variances. We also compared hospital characteristics among hospitals with 1-2 stars, 3 stars, and 4-5 stars with use of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons.

In the system-level analysis, we examined flagship hospitals’ star ratings relative to the star ratings for other member hospitals in the same system. We assigned health systems to the following three groups according to their flagship hospitals’ star ratings in comparison to other hospitals within their own systems: health systems in which flagship hospitals were rated the lowest among all member hospitals, health systems in which flagship hospitals were rated neither highest nor lowest or all hospitals within the system had the same star rating, and health systems in which flagship hospitals were rated the highest among all member hospitals. We compared system-level characteristics of the three groups. We calculated the average differences in uncompensated care payment, resident to bed ratio, DSH patient percentage, and total beds between flagship hospitals and nonflagship hospitals of the same health systems, and we also compared the differences across the three health system groups defined previously. We conducted an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to take system-level factors into consideration, including system size (total number of acute care hospitals in the system), systemwide teaching intensity, and systemwide charity care. The Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for potential problems of multiple comparisons.

Finally, to compare the diversity of star ratings within health systems and the diversity of star ratings nationwide, we generated a set of 100 pseudo systems each comprising six member hospitals (corresponding to the average number of member hospitals per “true” health system included in the study) that were randomly selected from all hospitals excluded from this study. We calculated and compared the average standard deviations of star ratings between the true health systems and this set of pseudo systems. Differences were tested using two-sample t test with equal variances.

Data management and statistical analyses were conducted using Stata SE, version 13.0 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas).

Our final analysis included 599 hospitals in 113 health systems; 119 hospitals were flagships (four health systems each had two flagship hospitals, and one health system had three flagship hospitals). All other hospitals (n = 480) were designated as nonflaghips. On average, each health system had 6 member hospitals with star ratings, with a range from 2 to 22.

Flagship hospitals did have higher average star ratings than major teaching hospitals (mean star rating, 2.8 vs 2.3, respectively; P < .01; Figure). A larger proportion of flagship hospitals received four or five stars than did major teaching hospitals (29% vs 20%, respectively), and a smaller proportion of them received one or two stars (44% vs 59%, respectively; P < .05).

Flagship hospitals had lower star ratings on average, across all systems, than did nonflagship hospitals (mean star rating, 2.8 vs 3.3, respectively; P < .001). A smaller proportion of flagships received four or five stars than did nonflagships (29% vs 44%, respectively), and a larger proportion of them received one or two stars (44% vs 23%, respectively; P < .001).

As expected, flagship hospitals had significantly higher teaching intensity, larger bed size, higher DSH patient percentage, and higher value of uncompensated care payments than did nonflagship hospitals (P < .001 for all). On average, flagship hospitals were significantly larger but had lower DSH patient percentage and lower value of uncompensated care payments than did major teaching hospitals in general (P < .01 for all). In all types of hospitals, four- or five-star hospitals consistently had significantly lower DSH patient percentage (P < .001) and lower value of uncompensated care payment per claim (P < .05) than did other hospitals (Table).

In half of all health systems (n = 56), flagship hospitals were rated the lowest of all hospitals within that system; in approximately 20% of all health systems (n = 22), flagship hospitals were rated the highest. Flagship hospitals were more likely to have the lowest star rating in the system if the within-system difference in DSH patient percentage between flagship and nonflagship hospitals was relatively large. Within-system DSH patient percentage differences between flagship and nonflagship hospitals were 12.4%, 5.4%, and 3.5% in “flagship rated lowest,” “flagship rated middle,” and “flagship rated highest” systems, respectively (P < .05).

Average standardized deviations of star ratings for the 113 true health systems and 100 randomly generated pseudo health systems were 0.86 and 0.97, respectively (P < .05).

System-designated flagship hospitals did not generally have higher star ratings than did the other, smaller, community hospitals, either on average or within their own systems. In fact, the most common pattern observed was the system-designated flagship hospitals had the lowest star rating in their system. Flagship hospitals in multihospital systems were, however, rated higher than major teaching hospitals in general. The safety-net role of many of the system flagship hospitals, as captured by relative DSH percentage, was the most important determinant of low star ratings. A high bed number and teaching status were not as strongly associated with low star ratings.

It is already well established that the CMS star rating system does not correspond to other global hospital ratings systems like those of US News & World Report, Healthgrades, or the Leapfrog Group.¹¹ Each global rating system uses a unique set of measures and weighting systems for those measures, so discrepancies among these systems are inevitable. Multihospital systems may feel that the positive reputation for tertiary care excellence held by a flagship hospital is captured in a rating system like US News that has an explicit reputation component¹² and that the US News rankings are more prominent in the public eye than are those of CMS. To the extent that the CMS star ratings do become more widely used by the public or by payers to establish narrow provider networks, the relatively low ratings of multisystem flagship hospitals may become a cause for concern for those hospitals and systems.

System-designated flagship hospitals are typically large teaching hospitals with higher levels of technology, more highly specialized services and medical staff, more extensive research programs and active clinical trials programs, and the ability to treat cases that are difficult or complex or instances of rare conditions. They are not generally, as it turns out, the hospitals in a given system that the CMS star rating system identifies as “best.” In a number of multihospital systems, the system name is derived from the name of the flagship hospital (eg, Yale New Haven Health System and Montefiore Health System), which suggests that the system finds a marketing or branding advantage in being publicly identified with the name and positive reputation of the flagship hospital. Flagship hospitals may be designated as such because they have other attributes that patients, the community, and the system value, which may not be represented by the CMS quality metrics summarized by star ratings.

We did find a somewhat lower level of variation in star ratings in actual multihospital systems than in a set of randomly created “pseudo systems,” suggesting the presence of some mechanism for quality management in those systems leading to a more similar set of star ratings than one would find in hospitals selected at random.

Our study has a few limitations. First, we excluded multihospital health systems without any major teaching member hospital, which was based on our observation that they do not usually designate their flagship hospitals or they do not have any identifiable flagship hospitals. There may be a small number of such health systems that have designated their flagship hospitals and were excluded from the study, but we do not believe it will change our key findings. Second, it was possible that multiple hospitals in the same health system reported under the same CCN (multicampuses will often use the flagship facility’s IDs for the purposes of claims processing or cost and measure reporting), and therefore, the star ratings for the flagship hospitals reflected the performance of both the flagship hospital and the other member hospitals sharing the same CCN. We cannot fix the underlying reporting issue, and as a result, part of our analysis was probably more of a comparison of the “financial” flagship with other more loosely associated hospitals in the system. We could have in fact overestimated the flagships’ star rating performance by including data of other better performing nonflagship hospitals.

System-designated flagship hospitals tended to have lower CMS Hospital Compare overall hospital quality star ratings than did nonflagship hospitals in the same multihospital systems. The characteristics of hospitals identified as system flagships do not seem well aligned with those associated with better performance in the star rating system.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare overall hospital ratings was originally released in 2016 and was recently updated in February 2019.^1,2 The program is designed to provide a consumer-friendly global rating system for hospitals, with hospitals rated on a scale from one star (worst) to five stars (best). The ratings are based on a formula that combines scores on 57 performance measures into seven groups, with the groups of mortality, safety, readmission, and patient experience given weights of 22% each in the overall scoring, and groups of effectiveness of care, timeliness of care, and efficient use of medical imaging equally contributing to the rest of the score.

Concerns have been raised since the introduction of the program regarding the methodology and possible unfairly high or low star ratings for certain types of hospitals.^3,4 It has been noted that five-star hospitals are disproportionately small, specialty-focused hospitals that may not have Emergency Departments or significant volumes of Medicaid patients.⁵ Hospitals that report fewer measures and thus receive scores for fewer measure groups (in general, smaller or specialty hospitals) are more likely to receive higher star ratings than are hospitals that receive scores for all measure groups.^6,7 Teaching hospitals, on average, have received lower star ratings than nonteaching hospitals.^8,9

Multihospital systems generally designate one of their hospitals as a “flagship” hospital and often use the name of that hospital to identify the system as a whole (eg, Mayo Clinic Health System, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center). There is not a set of objective criteria to designate a “flagship” hospital of a multihospital health system. Flagships could be the founding hospitals of the systems or the largest hospitals in the systems, and they are usually (although not always) large teaching hospitals. There is therefore a potential paradox in which a set of hospitals that tend to get lower ratings in the CMS star rating system may also be the set frequently identified as system flagship hospitals and whose reputation is used as a brand identity for multihospital systems.

It is possible, though, that the hospitals designated as flagship hospitals in multihospital systems are exceptions to the general rule of lower star ratings for major teaching hospitals. The flagship designation may reflect excellence that is then reflected in the star rating system, or it may reflect some other kind of excellence (eg, reputation for research or teaching, diverse medical services provided) that is not reflected in the star rating system. The primary aim of this study was to compare the average star ratings and hospital characteristics of designated flagship hospitals in multihospital systems with those of (1) major teaching hospitals generally and (2) “nonflagship” hospitals across and within the same systems specifically. We sought to determine whether a flagship designation would be associated with higher star ratings than those of major teaching hospitals in general and with higher star ratings than other, nonflagship hospitals in the same system.

The use of a prestigious flagship hospital name to identify a multihospital system suggests that some aspects of high quality in the flagship are extended in some way to other hospitals in the system. If that is so, then the star ratings of hospitals in organized multihospital systems with a flagship may be more similar to each other than those of sets of hospitals selected at random. As a secondary aim, to determine whether this type of consistent quality throughout a system could be identified in the CMS hospital star rating system, we compared the variation in star ratings between organized multihospital systems with flagship hospitals to those of artificially created “pseudo systems” of unaffiliated hospitals.

We used the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Compendium of U.S. Health Systems, 2016, database and hospital file to identify multihospital health systems and their member hospitals.¹⁰ The database also provides information about health system characteristics such as systemwide teaching intensity and total number of acute care hospitals. We linked the AHRQ files to the CMS Hospital Compare datasets and Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) 2018 Final Rule Impact File to obtain star ratings and other information about specific hospitals (eg, resident to bed ratio, uncompensated care payment). Throughout the study, we followed the AHRQ’s definition of “major teaching hospitals” as hospitals with a high resident to bed ratio (≥0.25).

For purposes of this study, the primary criterion for identification of flagship hospitals was an explicit designation by the parent health systems on their websites, in the systems’ official documents, or in press releases or through major media reports. In the few cases in which parent systems did not designate their flagships, we searched reliable online sources such as major newspapers and hospital reviews to see if there was an agreement among sources on the flagship status. If we could not unambiguously identify a flagship hospital in a multihospital system using these methods, the system was not included in the study. A health system could have more than one flagship hospital.

Because the concept of “flagship” often involves a role as a referral center for complex cases in a regional area small enough to have referrals from hospital to hospital within the same system, we excluded multistate national health systems (eg, Catholic Health Initiatives, Community Health Systems, Inc.) and health systems with no major teaching hospitals or no flagship(s) identified by the systems themselves. Non-acute care and stand-alone hospitals, hospitals with missing CMS Certification Numbers (CCNs) or unmatched CCNs or hospital types across different data files, and hospitals without a star rating, were excluded.

Our analyses were performed at both hospital and health system levels. In the hospital-level analysis, we grouped hospitals into “1-2 star,” “3 star,” and “4-5 star” rating categories. We first compared star ratings of flagship hospitals with those of major teaching hospitals in general (ie, hospitals in the CMS Hospital Compare database with resident to bed ratios ≥0.25 that were not designated as system flagship hospitals). We then compared the average flagship hospital and average nonflagship hospital star ratings pooled across all the health systems. To explore hospital-level characteristics that might be associated with flagship hospitals’ performance on star ratings, we compared hospitals’ teaching intensity, bed size, charity care, and disproportionate share hospital (DSH) patient percentage between flagship and major teaching hospitals and between flagship and nonflagship hospitals. Differences were tested using two-sample t test with equal variances. We also compared hospital characteristics among hospitals with 1-2 stars, 3 stars, and 4-5 stars with use of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons.

In the system-level analysis, we examined flagship hospitals’ star ratings relative to the star ratings for other member hospitals in the same system. We assigned health systems to the following three groups according to their flagship hospitals’ star ratings in comparison to other hospitals within their own systems: health systems in which flagship hospitals were rated the lowest among all member hospitals, health systems in which flagship hospitals were rated neither highest nor lowest or all hospitals within the system had the same star rating, and health systems in which flagship hospitals were rated the highest among all member hospitals. We compared system-level characteristics of the three groups. We calculated the average differences in uncompensated care payment, resident to bed ratio, DSH patient percentage, and total beds between flagship hospitals and nonflagship hospitals of the same health systems, and we also compared the differences across the three health system groups defined previously. We conducted an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to take system-level factors into consideration, including system size (total number of acute care hospitals in the system), systemwide teaching intensity, and systemwide charity care. The Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for potential problems of multiple comparisons.

Finally, to compare the diversity of star ratings within health systems and the diversity of star ratings nationwide, we generated a set of 100 pseudo systems each comprising six member hospitals (corresponding to the average number of member hospitals per “true” health system included in the study) that were randomly selected from all hospitals excluded from this study. We calculated and compared the average standard deviations of star ratings between the true health systems and this set of pseudo systems. Differences were tested using two-sample t test with equal variances.

Data management and statistical analyses were conducted using Stata SE, version 13.0 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas).

Our final analysis included 599 hospitals in 113 health systems; 119 hospitals were flagships (four health systems each had two flagship hospitals, and one health system had three flagship hospitals). All other hospitals (n = 480) were designated as nonflaghips. On average, each health system had 6 member hospitals with star ratings, with a range from 2 to 22.

Flagship hospitals did have higher average star ratings than major teaching hospitals (mean star rating, 2.8 vs 2.3, respectively; P < .01; Figure). A larger proportion of flagship hospitals received four or five stars than did major teaching hospitals (29% vs 20%, respectively), and a smaller proportion of them received one or two stars (44% vs 59%, respectively; P < .05).

Flagship hospitals had lower star ratings on average, across all systems, than did nonflagship hospitals (mean star rating, 2.8 vs 3.3, respectively; P < .001). A smaller proportion of flagships received four or five stars than did nonflagships (29% vs 44%, respectively), and a larger proportion of them received one or two stars (44% vs 23%, respectively; P < .001).

As expected, flagship hospitals had significantly higher teaching intensity, larger bed size, higher DSH patient percentage, and higher value of uncompensated care payments than did nonflagship hospitals (P < .001 for all). On average, flagship hospitals were significantly larger but had lower DSH patient percentage and lower value of uncompensated care payments than did major teaching hospitals in general (P < .01 for all). In all types of hospitals, four- or five-star hospitals consistently had significantly lower DSH patient percentage (P < .001) and lower value of uncompensated care payment per claim (P < .05) than did other hospitals (Table).

In half of all health systems (n = 56), flagship hospitals were rated the lowest of all hospitals within that system; in approximately 20% of all health systems (n = 22), flagship hospitals were rated the highest. Flagship hospitals were more likely to have the lowest star rating in the system if the within-system difference in DSH patient percentage between flagship and nonflagship hospitals was relatively large. Within-system DSH patient percentage differences between flagship and nonflagship hospitals were 12.4%, 5.4%, and 3.5% in “flagship rated lowest,” “flagship rated middle,” and “flagship rated highest” systems, respectively (P < .05).

Average standardized deviations of star ratings for the 113 true health systems and 100 randomly generated pseudo health systems were 0.86 and 0.97, respectively (P < .05).

System-designated flagship hospitals did not generally have higher star ratings than did the other, smaller, community hospitals, either on average or within their own systems. In fact, the most common pattern observed was the system-designated flagship hospitals had the lowest star rating in their system. Flagship hospitals in multihospital systems were, however, rated higher than major teaching hospitals in general. The safety-net role of many of the system flagship hospitals, as captured by relative DSH percentage, was the most important determinant of low star ratings. A high bed number and teaching status were not as strongly associated with low star ratings.

It is already well established that the CMS star rating system does not correspond to other global hospital ratings systems like those of US News & World Report, Healthgrades, or the Leapfrog Group.¹¹ Each global rating system uses a unique set of measures and weighting systems for those measures, so discrepancies among these systems are inevitable. Multihospital systems may feel that the positive reputation for tertiary care excellence held by a flagship hospital is captured in a rating system like US News that has an explicit reputation component¹² and that the US News rankings are more prominent in the public eye than are those of CMS. To the extent that the CMS star ratings do become more widely used by the public or by payers to establish narrow provider networks, the relatively low ratings of multisystem flagship hospitals may become a cause for concern for those hospitals and systems.

System-designated flagship hospitals are typically large teaching hospitals with higher levels of technology, more highly specialized services and medical staff, more extensive research programs and active clinical trials programs, and the ability to treat cases that are difficult or complex or instances of rare conditions. They are not generally, as it turns out, the hospitals in a given system that the CMS star rating system identifies as “best.” In a number of multihospital systems, the system name is derived from the name of the flagship hospital (eg, Yale New Haven Health System and Montefiore Health System), which suggests that the system finds a marketing or branding advantage in being publicly identified with the name and positive reputation of the flagship hospital. Flagship hospitals may be designated as such because they have other attributes that patients, the community, and the system value, which may not be represented by the CMS quality metrics summarized by star ratings.

We did find a somewhat lower level of variation in star ratings in actual multihospital systems than in a set of randomly created “pseudo systems,” suggesting the presence of some mechanism for quality management in those systems leading to a more similar set of star ratings than one would find in hospitals selected at random.

Our study has a few limitations. First, we excluded multihospital health systems without any major teaching member hospital, which was based on our observation that they do not usually designate their flagship hospitals or they do not have any identifiable flagship hospitals. There may be a small number of such health systems that have designated their flagship hospitals and were excluded from the study, but we do not believe it will change our key findings. Second, it was possible that multiple hospitals in the same health system reported under the same CCN (multicampuses will often use the flagship facility’s IDs for the purposes of claims processing or cost and measure reporting), and therefore, the star ratings for the flagship hospitals reflected the performance of both the flagship hospital and the other member hospitals sharing the same CCN. We cannot fix the underlying reporting issue, and as a result, part of our analysis was probably more of a comparison of the “financial” flagship with other more loosely associated hospitals in the system. We could have in fact overestimated the flagships’ star rating performance by including data of other better performing nonflagship hospitals.

System-designated flagship hospitals tended to have lower CMS Hospital Compare overall hospital quality star ratings than did nonflagship hospitals in the same multihospital systems. The characteristics of hospitals identified as system flagships do not seem well aligned with those associated with better performance in the star rating system.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

For severe asthma exacerbations unresponsive to initial treatment, expert consensus guidelines from 2007 recommend consideration for adjunct treatments (magnesium or heliox) to decrease the likelihood of intubation.¹ Over the last decade, data have emerged suggesting that intravenous (IV) magnesium may be more effective for reduction of hospital admission rates.² Pooled meta-analyses have demonstrated improved pulmonary function and reduction of hospital admission by as much as 68% in children when IV magnesium is administered in the emergency department (ED), although the evidence is extremely limited because of a small number of studies (three) and small sample size (115 children).^2-5

Though these data suggest that use of IV magnesium may reduce admission rates, a study of pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians in US and Canada reported reluctance regarding use for this purpose. While PEM physicians reported awareness of the literature on admission prevention, they estimated that fewer than 5% of their patients receiving IV magnesium were discharged home.⁶ Their practice was generally limited to using IV magnesium in children with impending respiratory failure for the purpose of reducing intensive care unit (ICU) admission and not hospitalization.⁶ PEM physicians’ reluctance to use IV magnesium was related to the lack of strong available evidence supporting the impact of IV magnesium on outcomes, such as admission, and gaps in the literature about its dosing and safety profile.

The goal of this study was to assess the prevailing trends in IV magnesium use across US children’s hospitals and to assess the relationship of IV magnesium use to admission rate, length of stay (LOS), readmission rate, and ICU admission rate. We hypothesized that IV magnesium use might have increased following publication of studies demonstrating an association between IV magnesium use and fewer admissions.

Study Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a retrospective cohort study of asthma (All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group 141) hospitalizations for patients less than 18 years old presenting to 35 tertiary care children’s hospitals from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017, included in the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS; Children’s Hospital Association, Lenexa, Kansas) database. The PHIS database is an administrative database that contains demographics, International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th Revision diagnoses and procedures, and daily billing records for all inpatient, observation, ED, and ambulatory surgery encounters. All data were deidentified prior to inclusion in the database and tracking of patients across ED and inpatient visits was achieved through an encrypted and unique patient identifier. Children transferred from other hospitals were excluded because we could not verify IV magnesium use prior to transfer. For hospitals to be included, they were required to provide continuous data throughout the study period.

Main Outcome Measure

The main outcome was exposure to IV magnesium as determined by billing information available in the PHIS database.

Patient Demographics

We assessed patients’ demographic characteristics, including age (younger than 5 years, 5-11 years, and 12-17 years), sex, race/ethnicity, and insurance status.

Healthcare Utilization and Hospital Characteristics

We assessed healthcare utilization using geometric mean LOS, proportion of patients admitted to the hospital and to the ICU, and the proportion of patients with a 7-day all-cause readmission. In addition, we divided hospitals into three equal groups based on their annual inpatient asthma volume (<300, 300-850, >850 cases per year).

Statistical Analysis

We compared demographic and clinical characteristics across patients receiving IV magnesium with those who did not receive it with use of chi-square tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. We calculated annual IV magnesium use rates for each hospital and modeled the average annual rate with a general linear model in order to assess change over time. We used Pearson product moment correlation to compare the annual proportion of magnesium use and healthcare utilization measures, including geometric mean LOS, the proportion of patients using the inpatient wards or the ICU, and the proportion of cases with a 7-day all-cause readmission. Geometric mean LOS was used to normalize the compounding effect of non–normally distributed arithmetic mean LOS. A sensitivity analysis was performed stratifying IV magnesium use over time by hospital inpatient volume. Data were analyzed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina), and P values < .05 were considered statistically significant.

Study Population

A total of 878,188 encounters with acute asthma exacerbation met the inclusion criteria, with 65,558 (7.5%) receiving IV magnesium (Table). Of those receiving IV magnesium, 90% were admitted to the hospital. There were statistically significant differences in IV magnesium use when compared by age, race/ethnicity, and payer type, but not gender. IV magnesium use was significantly associated with older age (more than 5 years old), non-Hispanic black race, ED visit in the year prior to admission, longer hospital LOS, and higher ICU admission rate.

Trends in Intravenous Magnesium Use

IV magnesium use among hospitalized children more than doubled from 2010 to 2017 (17% vs 36%). Low-volume hospitals had a lower frequency of IV magnesium use, compared with the moderate- and high-volume hospitals. The growth rate per year of IV magnesium use was greater in high- and moderate-volume hospitals (3.4% and 2.9% per year, respectively), compared with the low-volume hospitals (1.2% per year; P = .04).

Trends in Intravenous Magnesium Use and Hospital Outcomes

The trend in IV magnesium use was not associated with a statistically significant change in the inpatient and ICU admission rate or in the 7-day all-cause readmission rate (Figure and Appendix Figure). Although IV magnesium use increased over time, LOS decreased significantly during the same period (1.6 days in 2010 vs 1.4 days in 2017; P < .001). When analyzed by hospital volume, no significant associations were found in the inpatient admission, ICU admission, and 7-day readmission rate.

The use of IV magnesium has significantly increased in US children’s hospitals over the last 8 years, especially among those hospitalized following an ED evaluation. Over this interval, trends in inpatient and ICU admission rate, as well as 7-day all-cause readmission rate, for asthma did not change, while LOS decreased. These findings contrast with a recent Cochrane review that summarized the efficacy of IV magnesium for reducing admission rate in few small trials.²

Our study findings are more consistent with prior survey findings that IV magnesium does not reduce hospitalization and that ED physicians tend to use IV magnesium in severe asthma exacerbation for its potential therapeutic benefits because of bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory effect.^6,7 Similar to PEM physicians’ estimates, only 10% of patients receiving IV magnesium were discharged home in our study.

IV magnesium use is higher in high-volume hospitals than in moderate- and low-volume ones. One potential explanation is that high- and moderate-volume hospitals may see a higher volume of children with severe or impending respiratory failure and, therefore, are more likely to use IV magnesium than the low-volume hospitals are. Alternatively, physician adoption of magnesium use for lower-acuity asthma exacerbations could vary by hospital volume.

Trend analyses of outcomes suggest that increase in IV magnesium use was not associated with an increase in inpatient and ICU admission rate or with 7-day all-cause readmission rate, although LOS reduced. LOS might be reduced because of various quality improvement initiatives (eg, discharging patients after every 3 hours albuterol treatments or respiratory therapist–driven protocols) and might not be related to IV magnesium use.^8,9 To this point, a recent study of a respiratory assessment score–matched cohort did not find any therapeutic benefit of IV magnesium with severe asthma exacerbation when receiving continuous albuterol therapy on a pediatric ward.⁵ Perhaps future studies could explore estimating the outcome by performing comparative effectiveness studies between those with severe asthma exacerbation who did or did not receive IV magnesium. Additionally, randomized controlled trials comparing IV magnesium and standard therapy and its effects on outcomes, such as hospitalization, LOS, association with asthma chronicity, and previous oral steroid use, might provide further insight to inform clinical practice.

Certain study limitations should be noted. The study cohort included children’s hospitals only, and it is possible that care at nonchildren’s hospitals for asthma differs. PHIS dataset used in this study does not allow determination of where and when IV magnesium was given, the severity of asthma exacerbation, or the chronicity of baseline disease. Moreover, PHIS hospitals include centers in large cities, and other competing children’s hospitals may provide other tertiary care that could affect the readmission data calculation. Lastly, the temporal associations between IV magnesium use and outcomes reported in this study should not be used as evidence or lack of evidence for the effectiveness of magnesium given the limitations of the observational study design and dataset used.

In conclusion, IV magnesium use in management of asthma exacerbation in children across the United States has significantly increased. The increase occurred disproportionately in high-volume hospitals and was not associated with changes in admission rate, ICU admission rate, or 7-day all-cause readmission rate, although LOS has decreased over time.

The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article or conflicts of interest to disclose. 

This paper was a platform presentation at annual meetings of Pediatric Academic Societies 2019; accepted for presentation at annual meeting of Pediatric Hospital Medicine, July 2019.

No funding was secured for this study. 

For severe asthma exacerbations unresponsive to initial treatment, expert consensus guidelines from 2007 recommend consideration for adjunct treatments (magnesium or heliox) to decrease the likelihood of intubation.¹ Over the last decade, data have emerged suggesting that intravenous (IV) magnesium may be more effective for reduction of hospital admission rates.² Pooled meta-analyses have demonstrated improved pulmonary function and reduction of hospital admission by as much as 68% in children when IV magnesium is administered in the emergency department (ED), although the evidence is extremely limited because of a small number of studies (three) and small sample size (115 children).^2-5

Though these data suggest that use of IV magnesium may reduce admission rates, a study of pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians in US and Canada reported reluctance regarding use for this purpose. While PEM physicians reported awareness of the literature on admission prevention, they estimated that fewer than 5% of their patients receiving IV magnesium were discharged home.⁶ Their practice was generally limited to using IV magnesium in children with impending respiratory failure for the purpose of reducing intensive care unit (ICU) admission and not hospitalization.⁶ PEM physicians’ reluctance to use IV magnesium was related to the lack of strong available evidence supporting the impact of IV magnesium on outcomes, such as admission, and gaps in the literature about its dosing and safety profile.

The goal of this study was to assess the prevailing trends in IV magnesium use across US children’s hospitals and to assess the relationship of IV magnesium use to admission rate, length of stay (LOS), readmission rate, and ICU admission rate. We hypothesized that IV magnesium use might have increased following publication of studies demonstrating an association between IV magnesium use and fewer admissions.

Study Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a retrospective cohort study of asthma (All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group 141) hospitalizations for patients less than 18 years old presenting to 35 tertiary care children’s hospitals from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017, included in the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS; Children’s Hospital Association, Lenexa, Kansas) database. The PHIS database is an administrative database that contains demographics, International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th Revision diagnoses and procedures, and daily billing records for all inpatient, observation, ED, and ambulatory surgery encounters. All data were deidentified prior to inclusion in the database and tracking of patients across ED and inpatient visits was achieved through an encrypted and unique patient identifier. Children transferred from other hospitals were excluded because we could not verify IV magnesium use prior to transfer. For hospitals to be included, they were required to provide continuous data throughout the study period.

Main Outcome Measure

The main outcome was exposure to IV magnesium as determined by billing information available in the PHIS database.

Patient Demographics

We assessed patients’ demographic characteristics, including age (younger than 5 years, 5-11 years, and 12-17 years), sex, race/ethnicity, and insurance status.

Healthcare Utilization and Hospital Characteristics

We assessed healthcare utilization using geometric mean LOS, proportion of patients admitted to the hospital and to the ICU, and the proportion of patients with a 7-day all-cause readmission. In addition, we divided hospitals into three equal groups based on their annual inpatient asthma volume (<300, 300-850, >850 cases per year).

Statistical Analysis

We compared demographic and clinical characteristics across patients receiving IV magnesium with those who did not receive it with use of chi-square tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. We calculated annual IV magnesium use rates for each hospital and modeled the average annual rate with a general linear model in order to assess change over time. We used Pearson product moment correlation to compare the annual proportion of magnesium use and healthcare utilization measures, including geometric mean LOS, the proportion of patients using the inpatient wards or the ICU, and the proportion of cases with a 7-day all-cause readmission. Geometric mean LOS was used to normalize the compounding effect of non–normally distributed arithmetic mean LOS. A sensitivity analysis was performed stratifying IV magnesium use over time by hospital inpatient volume. Data were analyzed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina), and P values < .05 were considered statistically significant.

Study Population

A total of 878,188 encounters with acute asthma exacerbation met the inclusion criteria, with 65,558 (7.5%) receiving IV magnesium (Table). Of those receiving IV magnesium, 90% were admitted to the hospital. There were statistically significant differences in IV magnesium use when compared by age, race/ethnicity, and payer type, but not gender. IV magnesium use was significantly associated with older age (more than 5 years old), non-Hispanic black race, ED visit in the year prior to admission, longer hospital LOS, and higher ICU admission rate.

Trends in Intravenous Magnesium Use

IV magnesium use among hospitalized children more than doubled from 2010 to 2017 (17% vs 36%). Low-volume hospitals had a lower frequency of IV magnesium use, compared with the moderate- and high-volume hospitals. The growth rate per year of IV magnesium use was greater in high- and moderate-volume hospitals (3.4% and 2.9% per year, respectively), compared with the low-volume hospitals (1.2% per year; P = .04).

Trends in Intravenous Magnesium Use and Hospital Outcomes

The trend in IV magnesium use was not associated with a statistically significant change in the inpatient and ICU admission rate or in the 7-day all-cause readmission rate (Figure and Appendix Figure). Although IV magnesium use increased over time, LOS decreased significantly during the same period (1.6 days in 2010 vs 1.4 days in 2017; P < .001). When analyzed by hospital volume, no significant associations were found in the inpatient admission, ICU admission, and 7-day readmission rate.

The use of IV magnesium has significantly increased in US children’s hospitals over the last 8 years, especially among those hospitalized following an ED evaluation. Over this interval, trends in inpatient and ICU admission rate, as well as 7-day all-cause readmission rate, for asthma did not change, while LOS decreased. These findings contrast with a recent Cochrane review that summarized the efficacy of IV magnesium for reducing admission rate in few small trials.²

Our study findings are more consistent with prior survey findings that IV magnesium does not reduce hospitalization and that ED physicians tend to use IV magnesium in severe asthma exacerbation for its potential therapeutic benefits because of bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory effect.^6,7 Similar to PEM physicians’ estimates, only 10% of patients receiving IV magnesium were discharged home in our study.

IV magnesium use is higher in high-volume hospitals than in moderate- and low-volume ones. One potential explanation is that high- and moderate-volume hospitals may see a higher volume of children with severe or impending respiratory failure and, therefore, are more likely to use IV magnesium than the low-volume hospitals are. Alternatively, physician adoption of magnesium use for lower-acuity asthma exacerbations could vary by hospital volume.

Trend analyses of outcomes suggest that increase in IV magnesium use was not associated with an increase in inpatient and ICU admission rate or with 7-day all-cause readmission rate, although LOS reduced. LOS might be reduced because of various quality improvement initiatives (eg, discharging patients after every 3 hours albuterol treatments or respiratory therapist–driven protocols) and might not be related to IV magnesium use.^8,9 To this point, a recent study of a respiratory assessment score–matched cohort did not find any therapeutic benefit of IV magnesium with severe asthma exacerbation when receiving continuous albuterol therapy on a pediatric ward.⁵ Perhaps future studies could explore estimating the outcome by performing comparative effectiveness studies between those with severe asthma exacerbation who did or did not receive IV magnesium. Additionally, randomized controlled trials comparing IV magnesium and standard therapy and its effects on outcomes, such as hospitalization, LOS, association with asthma chronicity, and previous oral steroid use, might provide further insight to inform clinical practice.

Certain study limitations should be noted. The study cohort included children’s hospitals only, and it is possible that care at nonchildren’s hospitals for asthma differs. PHIS dataset used in this study does not allow determination of where and when IV magnesium was given, the severity of asthma exacerbation, or the chronicity of baseline disease. Moreover, PHIS hospitals include centers in large cities, and other competing children’s hospitals may provide other tertiary care that could affect the readmission data calculation. Lastly, the temporal associations between IV magnesium use and outcomes reported in this study should not be used as evidence or lack of evidence for the effectiveness of magnesium given the limitations of the observational study design and dataset used.

In conclusion, IV magnesium use in management of asthma exacerbation in children across the United States has significantly increased. The increase occurred disproportionately in high-volume hospitals and was not associated with changes in admission rate, ICU admission rate, or 7-day all-cause readmission rate, although LOS has decreased over time.

The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article or conflicts of interest to disclose. 

This paper was a platform presentation at annual meetings of Pediatric Academic Societies 2019; accepted for presentation at annual meeting of Pediatric Hospital Medicine, July 2019.

No funding was secured for this study. 

For severe asthma exacerbations unresponsive to initial treatment, expert consensus guidelines from 2007 recommend consideration for adjunct treatments (magnesium or heliox) to decrease the likelihood of intubation.¹ Over the last decade, data have emerged suggesting that intravenous (IV) magnesium may be more effective for reduction of hospital admission rates.² Pooled meta-analyses have demonstrated improved pulmonary function and reduction of hospital admission by as much as 68% in children when IV magnesium is administered in the emergency department (ED), although the evidence is extremely limited because of a small number of studies (three) and small sample size (115 children).^2-5

Though these data suggest that use of IV magnesium may reduce admission rates, a study of pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians in US and Canada reported reluctance regarding use for this purpose. While PEM physicians reported awareness of the literature on admission prevention, they estimated that fewer than 5% of their patients receiving IV magnesium were discharged home.⁶ Their practice was generally limited to using IV magnesium in children with impending respiratory failure for the purpose of reducing intensive care unit (ICU) admission and not hospitalization.⁶ PEM physicians’ reluctance to use IV magnesium was related to the lack of strong available evidence supporting the impact of IV magnesium on outcomes, such as admission, and gaps in the literature about its dosing and safety profile.

The goal of this study was to assess the prevailing trends in IV magnesium use across US children’s hospitals and to assess the relationship of IV magnesium use to admission rate, length of stay (LOS), readmission rate, and ICU admission rate. We hypothesized that IV magnesium use might have increased following publication of studies demonstrating an association between IV magnesium use and fewer admissions.

Study Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a retrospective cohort study of asthma (All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group 141) hospitalizations for patients less than 18 years old presenting to 35 tertiary care children’s hospitals from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017, included in the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS; Children’s Hospital Association, Lenexa, Kansas) database. The PHIS database is an administrative database that contains demographics, International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th Revision diagnoses and procedures, and daily billing records for all inpatient, observation, ED, and ambulatory surgery encounters. All data were deidentified prior to inclusion in the database and tracking of patients across ED and inpatient visits was achieved through an encrypted and unique patient identifier. Children transferred from other hospitals were excluded because we could not verify IV magnesium use prior to transfer. For hospitals to be included, they were required to provide continuous data throughout the study period.

Main Outcome Measure

The main outcome was exposure to IV magnesium as determined by billing information available in the PHIS database.

Patient Demographics

We assessed patients’ demographic characteristics, including age (younger than 5 years, 5-11 years, and 12-17 years), sex, race/ethnicity, and insurance status.

Healthcare Utilization and Hospital Characteristics

We assessed healthcare utilization using geometric mean LOS, proportion of patients admitted to the hospital and to the ICU, and the proportion of patients with a 7-day all-cause readmission. In addition, we divided hospitals into three equal groups based on their annual inpatient asthma volume (<300, 300-850, >850 cases per year).

Statistical Analysis

We compared demographic and clinical characteristics across patients receiving IV magnesium with those who did not receive it with use of chi-square tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. We calculated annual IV magnesium use rates for each hospital and modeled the average annual rate with a general linear model in order to assess change over time. We used Pearson product moment correlation to compare the annual proportion of magnesium use and healthcare utilization measures, including geometric mean LOS, the proportion of patients using the inpatient wards or the ICU, and the proportion of cases with a 7-day all-cause readmission. Geometric mean LOS was used to normalize the compounding effect of non–normally distributed arithmetic mean LOS. A sensitivity analysis was performed stratifying IV magnesium use over time by hospital inpatient volume. Data were analyzed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina), and P values < .05 were considered statistically significant.

Study Population

A total of 878,188 encounters with acute asthma exacerbation met the inclusion criteria, with 65,558 (7.5%) receiving IV magnesium (Table). Of those receiving IV magnesium, 90% were admitted to the hospital. There were statistically significant differences in IV magnesium use when compared by age, race/ethnicity, and payer type, but not gender. IV magnesium use was significantly associated with older age (more than 5 years old), non-Hispanic black race, ED visit in the year prior to admission, longer hospital LOS, and higher ICU admission rate.

Trends in Intravenous Magnesium Use

IV magnesium use among hospitalized children more than doubled from 2010 to 2017 (17% vs 36%). Low-volume hospitals had a lower frequency of IV magnesium use, compared with the moderate- and high-volume hospitals. The growth rate per year of IV magnesium use was greater in high- and moderate-volume hospitals (3.4% and 2.9% per year, respectively), compared with the low-volume hospitals (1.2% per year; P = .04).

Trends in Intravenous Magnesium Use and Hospital Outcomes

The trend in IV magnesium use was not associated with a statistically significant change in the inpatient and ICU admission rate or in the 7-day all-cause readmission rate (Figure and Appendix Figure). Although IV magnesium use increased over time, LOS decreased significantly during the same period (1.6 days in 2010 vs 1.4 days in 2017; P < .001). When analyzed by hospital volume, no significant associations were found in the inpatient admission, ICU admission, and 7-day readmission rate.

The use of IV magnesium has significantly increased in US children’s hospitals over the last 8 years, especially among those hospitalized following an ED evaluation. Over this interval, trends in inpatient and ICU admission rate, as well as 7-day all-cause readmission rate, for asthma did not change, while LOS decreased. These findings contrast with a recent Cochrane review that summarized the efficacy of IV magnesium for reducing admission rate in few small trials.²

Our study findings are more consistent with prior survey findings that IV magnesium does not reduce hospitalization and that ED physicians tend to use IV magnesium in severe asthma exacerbation for its potential therapeutic benefits because of bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory effect.^6,7 Similar to PEM physicians’ estimates, only 10% of patients receiving IV magnesium were discharged home in our study.

IV magnesium use is higher in high-volume hospitals than in moderate- and low-volume ones. One potential explanation is that high- and moderate-volume hospitals may see a higher volume of children with severe or impending respiratory failure and, therefore, are more likely to use IV magnesium than the low-volume hospitals are. Alternatively, physician adoption of magnesium use for lower-acuity asthma exacerbations could vary by hospital volume.

Trend analyses of outcomes suggest that increase in IV magnesium use was not associated with an increase in inpatient and ICU admission rate or with 7-day all-cause readmission rate, although LOS reduced. LOS might be reduced because of various quality improvement initiatives (eg, discharging patients after every 3 hours albuterol treatments or respiratory therapist–driven protocols) and might not be related to IV magnesium use.^8,9 To this point, a recent study of a respiratory assessment score–matched cohort did not find any therapeutic benefit of IV magnesium with severe asthma exacerbation when receiving continuous albuterol therapy on a pediatric ward.⁵ Perhaps future studies could explore estimating the outcome by performing comparative effectiveness studies between those with severe asthma exacerbation who did or did not receive IV magnesium. Additionally, randomized controlled trials comparing IV magnesium and standard therapy and its effects on outcomes, such as hospitalization, LOS, association with asthma chronicity, and previous oral steroid use, might provide further insight to inform clinical practice.

Certain study limitations should be noted. The study cohort included children’s hospitals only, and it is possible that care at nonchildren’s hospitals for asthma differs. PHIS dataset used in this study does not allow determination of where and when IV magnesium was given, the severity of asthma exacerbation, or the chronicity of baseline disease. Moreover, PHIS hospitals include centers in large cities, and other competing children’s hospitals may provide other tertiary care that could affect the readmission data calculation. Lastly, the temporal associations between IV magnesium use and outcomes reported in this study should not be used as evidence or lack of evidence for the effectiveness of magnesium given the limitations of the observational study design and dataset used.

In conclusion, IV magnesium use in management of asthma exacerbation in children across the United States has significantly increased. The increase occurred disproportionately in high-volume hospitals and was not associated with changes in admission rate, ICU admission rate, or 7-day all-cause readmission rate, although LOS has decreased over time.

The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article or conflicts of interest to disclose. 

This paper was a platform presentation at annual meetings of Pediatric Academic Societies 2019; accepted for presentation at annual meeting of Pediatric Hospital Medicine, July 2019.

No funding was secured for this study. 

For parents of children with medical complexity (CMC), bringing a child to the hospital for needed expertise, equipment, and support is necessarily accompanied by a loss of power, freedom, and control. Two of our authors (K.L., P.M.) are parents of CMC—patients affectionately known as “frequent flyers” at their local hospitals. When health needs present, these experienced parents quickly identify what can be managed at home and what needs a higher level of care. The autonomy and security that accompany this parental expertise have been mitigated by, and in some cases even lost in, the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, one of the most obvious changes to patients’ and families’ roles in inpatient care has been in communication practices, including changes to patient- and family-centered rounding that result from current isolation procedures and visitation policies. Over the past few months, we’ve learned a tremendous amount from providers and caregivers of hospitalized patients; in this article, we share some of what they’ve taught us.

Before we continue, we take a humble pause. The process of writing this piece spanned weeks during which certain areas of the world were overwhelmed. Our perspective has been informed by others who shared their experiences, and as a result, our health systems are more prepared. We offer this perspective recognizing the importance of learning from others and feeling a sense of gratitude to the providers and patients on the front lines.

As a group of parents, nurses, physicians, educators, and researchers who have spent the last 10 years studying how to communicate more effectively in the healthcare setting,^1,2 we find ourselves in uncharted territory. Even now, we are engaged in an ongoing mentored implementation program examining the effects of a communication bundle on patient- and family- centered rounds (PFCRs) at 21 teaching hospitals across North America (the SHM I-PASS SCORE Study).³ COVID-19 has put that study on hold, and we have taken a step back to reassess the most basic communication needs of patients and families under any circumstance.

Even among our study group, our family advisors have also been on the front lines as patients and caregivers. One author (P.M.), shared a recent experience that she and her son, John Michael had:

“My son [who has autoimmune hepatitis and associated conditions] began coughing and had an intense sinus headache. As his symptoms continued, our concern steadily grew: Could we push through at home or would we have to go in [to the hospital] to seek care? My mind raced. We faced this decision many times, but never with the overwhelming threat of COVID-19 in the equation. My son, who is able to recognize troublesome symptoms, was afraid his sinuses were infected and decided that we should go in. My heart sank.”

Now, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, we have heard that patients like John Michael, who are accustomed to the healthcare setting, are “terrified with this additional concern of just being safe in the hospital,” reported a member of our Family Advisory Council. One of our members added, “We recognize this extends to the providers as well, who maintain great care despite their own family and personal safety concerns.” Although families affirmed the necessity of the enhanced isolation procedures and strict visitation policies, they also highlighted the effects of these changes on usual communication practices, including PFCRs.

In response to these sentiments, we reached out to all of our family advisors, as well as other team members, for suggestions on how healthcare teams could help patients and families best manage their hospital experiences in the setting of COVID-19. Additionally, we asked our physician and nursing colleagues across health systems about current inpatient unit adaptations. Their suggestions and adaptations reinforced and directly aligned with some of the core values of family engagement and patient- and family-centered care,⁴ namely, (1) prioritizing communication, (2) maintaining active engagement with patients and families, and (3) enhancing communication with technology.

Prioritizing Communication

Timely and clear communication can help providers manage the expectations of patients and families, build patient and family feelings of confidence, and reduce their feelings of anxiety and vulnerability. Almost universally, families acknowledged the importance of infection control and physical distancing measures while fearing that decreased entry into rooms would lead to decreased communication. “Since COVID-19 is contagious, families will want to see every precaution taken … but in a way that doesn’t cut off communication and leave an already sick and scared child and their family feeling emotionally isolated in a scary situation,” an Advisory Council member recounted. Importantly, one parent shared that hearing about personal protective equipment conservation could amplify stress because of fear their child wouldn’t be protected. These perspectives remind us that families may be experiencing heightened sensitivity and vulnerability during this pandemic.

Maintaining Active Engagement With Patients and Families

PFCRs continue to be an ideal setting for providers, patients, and families to communicate and build shared understanding, as well as build rapport and connection through human interactions. Maintaining rounding structures, when possible, reinforces familiarity with roles and expectations, among both patients who have been hospitalized in the past and those hospitalized for the first time. Adapting rounds may be as simple as opening the door during walk-rounds to invite caregiver participation while being aware of distancing. With large rounding teams, more substantial workflow changes may be necessary.

Beyond PFCRs, patients and family members can be further engaged through tasks/responsibilities for the time in between rounding communication. Examples include recording patient symptoms (eg, work of breathing) or actions (eg, how much water their child drinks). By doing this, patients and caregivers who feel helpless and anxious may be given a greater sense of control while at the same time making helpful contributions to medical care.

Parents also expressed value in reinforcing the message that patients and families are experts about themselves/their loved ones. Healthcare teams can invite their insights, questions, and concerns to show respect for their expertise and value. This builds trust and leads to a feeling of togetherness and teamwork. Across the board, families stressed the value of family engagement and communication in ideal conditions, and even more so in this time of upheaval.

Enhancing Communication With Technology

Many hospitals are leveraging technology to promote communication by integrating workstations on wheels & tablets with video-conferencing software (eg, Zoom, Skype) and even by adding communication via email and phone. While fewer team members are entering rooms, rounding teams are still including the voices of pharmacists, nutritionists, social workers, primary care physicians, and caregivers who are unable to be at the bedside.

These alternative communication methods may actually provide patients with more comfortable avenues for participating in their own care even beyond the pandemic. Children, in particular, may have strong opinions about their care but may not be comfortable speaking up in front of providers whom they don’t know very well. Telehealth, whiteboards, email, and limiting the number of providers in the room might actually create a more approachable environment for these patients even under routine conditions.

Patients, families, nurses, physicians, and other team members all feel the current stress on our healthcare system. As we continue to change workflows, alignment with principles of family engagement and patient- and family-centered care⁴ remain a priority for all involved. Prioritizing effective communication, maintaining engagement with patients and families, and using technology in new ways will all help us maintain high standards of care in both typical and completely atypical settings, such as during this pandemic. Nothing captures the benefits of effective communication better than P.M.’s description of John Michael’s experience during his hospitalization:

“Although usually an expedited triage patient, we spent hours in the ER among other ill and anxious patients. Ultimately, John Michael tested positive for influenza A. We spent 5 days in the hospital on droplet protection.

“The staff was amazing! The doctors and nurses communicated with us every step of the way. They made us aware of extra precautions and explained limitations, like not being able to go in the nutrition room or only having the doctors come in once midday. Whenever they did use [personal protective equipment] and come in, the nurses and team kept a safe distance but made sure to connect with John Michael, talking about what was on TV, what his favorite teams are, asking about his sisters, and always asking if we needed anything or if there was anything they could do. I am grateful for the kind, compassionate, and professional people who continue to care for our children under the intense danger and overwhelming magnitude of COVID-19.”

Dr Landrigan has served as a paid consultant to the Midwest Lighting Institute to help study the effect of blue light on health care provider performance and safety. He has consulted with and holds equity in the I-PASS Institute, which seeks to train institutions in best handoff practices and aid in their implementation. Dr Landrigan has received consulting fees from the Missouri Hospital Association/Executive Speakers Bureau for consulting on I-PASS. In addition, he has received monetary awards, honoraria, and travel reimbursement from multiple academic and professional organizations for teaching and consulting on sleep deprivation, physician performance, handoffs, and safety and has served as an expert witness in cases regarding patient safety and sleep deprivation. Drs Spector and Baird have also consulted with and hold equity in the I-PASS Institute. Dr Baird has consulted with the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute. Dr Patel holds equity/stock options in and has consulted for the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute. Dr Rosenbluth previously consulted with the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute, but not within the past 36 months. The other authors have no conflicts of interest or external support other than the existing PCORI funding for the Society of Hospital Medicine I-PASS SCORE study.

The I-PASS Patient Safety Institute did not provide support to any authors for this work.

For parents of children with medical complexity (CMC), bringing a child to the hospital for needed expertise, equipment, and support is necessarily accompanied by a loss of power, freedom, and control. Two of our authors (K.L., P.M.) are parents of CMC—patients affectionately known as “frequent flyers” at their local hospitals. When health needs present, these experienced parents quickly identify what can be managed at home and what needs a higher level of care. The autonomy and security that accompany this parental expertise have been mitigated by, and in some cases even lost in, the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, one of the most obvious changes to patients’ and families’ roles in inpatient care has been in communication practices, including changes to patient- and family-centered rounding that result from current isolation procedures and visitation policies. Over the past few months, we’ve learned a tremendous amount from providers and caregivers of hospitalized patients; in this article, we share some of what they’ve taught us.

Before we continue, we take a humble pause. The process of writing this piece spanned weeks during which certain areas of the world were overwhelmed. Our perspective has been informed by others who shared their experiences, and as a result, our health systems are more prepared. We offer this perspective recognizing the importance of learning from others and feeling a sense of gratitude to the providers and patients on the front lines.

As a group of parents, nurses, physicians, educators, and researchers who have spent the last 10 years studying how to communicate more effectively in the healthcare setting,^1,2 we find ourselves in uncharted territory. Even now, we are engaged in an ongoing mentored implementation program examining the effects of a communication bundle on patient- and family- centered rounds (PFCRs) at 21 teaching hospitals across North America (the SHM I-PASS SCORE Study).³ COVID-19 has put that study on hold, and we have taken a step back to reassess the most basic communication needs of patients and families under any circumstance.

Even among our study group, our family advisors have also been on the front lines as patients and caregivers. One author (P.M.), shared a recent experience that she and her son, John Michael had:

“My son [who has autoimmune hepatitis and associated conditions] began coughing and had an intense sinus headache. As his symptoms continued, our concern steadily grew: Could we push through at home or would we have to go in [to the hospital] to seek care? My mind raced. We faced this decision many times, but never with the overwhelming threat of COVID-19 in the equation. My son, who is able to recognize troublesome symptoms, was afraid his sinuses were infected and decided that we should go in. My heart sank.”

Now, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, we have heard that patients like John Michael, who are accustomed to the healthcare setting, are “terrified with this additional concern of just being safe in the hospital,” reported a member of our Family Advisory Council. One of our members added, “We recognize this extends to the providers as well, who maintain great care despite their own family and personal safety concerns.” Although families affirmed the necessity of the enhanced isolation procedures and strict visitation policies, they also highlighted the effects of these changes on usual communication practices, including PFCRs.

In response to these sentiments, we reached out to all of our family advisors, as well as other team members, for suggestions on how healthcare teams could help patients and families best manage their hospital experiences in the setting of COVID-19. Additionally, we asked our physician and nursing colleagues across health systems about current inpatient unit adaptations. Their suggestions and adaptations reinforced and directly aligned with some of the core values of family engagement and patient- and family-centered care,⁴ namely, (1) prioritizing communication, (2) maintaining active engagement with patients and families, and (3) enhancing communication with technology.

Prioritizing Communication

Timely and clear communication can help providers manage the expectations of patients and families, build patient and family feelings of confidence, and reduce their feelings of anxiety and vulnerability. Almost universally, families acknowledged the importance of infection control and physical distancing measures while fearing that decreased entry into rooms would lead to decreased communication. “Since COVID-19 is contagious, families will want to see every precaution taken … but in a way that doesn’t cut off communication and leave an already sick and scared child and their family feeling emotionally isolated in a scary situation,” an Advisory Council member recounted. Importantly, one parent shared that hearing about personal protective equipment conservation could amplify stress because of fear their child wouldn’t be protected. These perspectives remind us that families may be experiencing heightened sensitivity and vulnerability during this pandemic.

Maintaining Active Engagement With Patients and Families

PFCRs continue to be an ideal setting for providers, patients, and families to communicate and build shared understanding, as well as build rapport and connection through human interactions. Maintaining rounding structures, when possible, reinforces familiarity with roles and expectations, among both patients who have been hospitalized in the past and those hospitalized for the first time. Adapting rounds may be as simple as opening the door during walk-rounds to invite caregiver participation while being aware of distancing. With large rounding teams, more substantial workflow changes may be necessary.

Beyond PFCRs, patients and family members can be further engaged through tasks/responsibilities for the time in between rounding communication. Examples include recording patient symptoms (eg, work of breathing) or actions (eg, how much water their child drinks). By doing this, patients and caregivers who feel helpless and anxious may be given a greater sense of control while at the same time making helpful contributions to medical care.

Parents also expressed value in reinforcing the message that patients and families are experts about themselves/their loved ones. Healthcare teams can invite their insights, questions, and concerns to show respect for their expertise and value. This builds trust and leads to a feeling of togetherness and teamwork. Across the board, families stressed the value of family engagement and communication in ideal conditions, and even more so in this time of upheaval.

Enhancing Communication With Technology

Many hospitals are leveraging technology to promote communication by integrating workstations on wheels & tablets with video-conferencing software (eg, Zoom, Skype) and even by adding communication via email and phone. While fewer team members are entering rooms, rounding teams are still including the voices of pharmacists, nutritionists, social workers, primary care physicians, and caregivers who are unable to be at the bedside.

These alternative communication methods may actually provide patients with more comfortable avenues for participating in their own care even beyond the pandemic. Children, in particular, may have strong opinions about their care but may not be comfortable speaking up in front of providers whom they don’t know very well. Telehealth, whiteboards, email, and limiting the number of providers in the room might actually create a more approachable environment for these patients even under routine conditions.

Patients, families, nurses, physicians, and other team members all feel the current stress on our healthcare system. As we continue to change workflows, alignment with principles of family engagement and patient- and family-centered care⁴ remain a priority for all involved. Prioritizing effective communication, maintaining engagement with patients and families, and using technology in new ways will all help us maintain high standards of care in both typical and completely atypical settings, such as during this pandemic. Nothing captures the benefits of effective communication better than P.M.’s description of John Michael’s experience during his hospitalization:

“Although usually an expedited triage patient, we spent hours in the ER among other ill and anxious patients. Ultimately, John Michael tested positive for influenza A. We spent 5 days in the hospital on droplet protection.

“The staff was amazing! The doctors and nurses communicated with us every step of the way. They made us aware of extra precautions and explained limitations, like not being able to go in the nutrition room or only having the doctors come in once midday. Whenever they did use [personal protective equipment] and come in, the nurses and team kept a safe distance but made sure to connect with John Michael, talking about what was on TV, what his favorite teams are, asking about his sisters, and always asking if we needed anything or if there was anything they could do. I am grateful for the kind, compassionate, and professional people who continue to care for our children under the intense danger and overwhelming magnitude of COVID-19.”

Dr Landrigan has served as a paid consultant to the Midwest Lighting Institute to help study the effect of blue light on health care provider performance and safety. He has consulted with and holds equity in the I-PASS Institute, which seeks to train institutions in best handoff practices and aid in their implementation. Dr Landrigan has received consulting fees from the Missouri Hospital Association/Executive Speakers Bureau for consulting on I-PASS. In addition, he has received monetary awards, honoraria, and travel reimbursement from multiple academic and professional organizations for teaching and consulting on sleep deprivation, physician performance, handoffs, and safety and has served as an expert witness in cases regarding patient safety and sleep deprivation. Drs Spector and Baird have also consulted with and hold equity in the I-PASS Institute. Dr Baird has consulted with the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute. Dr Patel holds equity/stock options in and has consulted for the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute. Dr Rosenbluth previously consulted with the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute, but not within the past 36 months. The other authors have no conflicts of interest or external support other than the existing PCORI funding for the Society of Hospital Medicine I-PASS SCORE study.

The I-PASS Patient Safety Institute did not provide support to any authors for this work.

For parents of children with medical complexity (CMC), bringing a child to the hospital for needed expertise, equipment, and support is necessarily accompanied by a loss of power, freedom, and control. Two of our authors (K.L., P.M.) are parents of CMC—patients affectionately known as “frequent flyers” at their local hospitals. When health needs present, these experienced parents quickly identify what can be managed at home and what needs a higher level of care. The autonomy and security that accompany this parental expertise have been mitigated by, and in some cases even lost in, the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, one of the most obvious changes to patients’ and families’ roles in inpatient care has been in communication practices, including changes to patient- and family-centered rounding that result from current isolation procedures and visitation policies. Over the past few months, we’ve learned a tremendous amount from providers and caregivers of hospitalized patients; in this article, we share some of what they’ve taught us.

Before we continue, we take a humble pause. The process of writing this piece spanned weeks during which certain areas of the world were overwhelmed. Our perspective has been informed by others who shared their experiences, and as a result, our health systems are more prepared. We offer this perspective recognizing the importance of learning from others and feeling a sense of gratitude to the providers and patients on the front lines.

As a group of parents, nurses, physicians, educators, and researchers who have spent the last 10 years studying how to communicate more effectively in the healthcare setting,^1,2 we find ourselves in uncharted territory. Even now, we are engaged in an ongoing mentored implementation program examining the effects of a communication bundle on patient- and family- centered rounds (PFCRs) at 21 teaching hospitals across North America (the SHM I-PASS SCORE Study).³ COVID-19 has put that study on hold, and we have taken a step back to reassess the most basic communication needs of patients and families under any circumstance.

Even among our study group, our family advisors have also been on the front lines as patients and caregivers. One author (P.M.), shared a recent experience that she and her son, John Michael had:

“My son [who has autoimmune hepatitis and associated conditions] began coughing and had an intense sinus headache. As his symptoms continued, our concern steadily grew: Could we push through at home or would we have to go in [to the hospital] to seek care? My mind raced. We faced this decision many times, but never with the overwhelming threat of COVID-19 in the equation. My son, who is able to recognize troublesome symptoms, was afraid his sinuses were infected and decided that we should go in. My heart sank.”

Now, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, we have heard that patients like John Michael, who are accustomed to the healthcare setting, are “terrified with this additional concern of just being safe in the hospital,” reported a member of our Family Advisory Council. One of our members added, “We recognize this extends to the providers as well, who maintain great care despite their own family and personal safety concerns.” Although families affirmed the necessity of the enhanced isolation procedures and strict visitation policies, they also highlighted the effects of these changes on usual communication practices, including PFCRs.

In response to these sentiments, we reached out to all of our family advisors, as well as other team members, for suggestions on how healthcare teams could help patients and families best manage their hospital experiences in the setting of COVID-19. Additionally, we asked our physician and nursing colleagues across health systems about current inpatient unit adaptations. Their suggestions and adaptations reinforced and directly aligned with some of the core values of family engagement and patient- and family-centered care,⁴ namely, (1) prioritizing communication, (2) maintaining active engagement with patients and families, and (3) enhancing communication with technology.

Prioritizing Communication

Timely and clear communication can help providers manage the expectations of patients and families, build patient and family feelings of confidence, and reduce their feelings of anxiety and vulnerability. Almost universally, families acknowledged the importance of infection control and physical distancing measures while fearing that decreased entry into rooms would lead to decreased communication. “Since COVID-19 is contagious, families will want to see every precaution taken … but in a way that doesn’t cut off communication and leave an already sick and scared child and their family feeling emotionally isolated in a scary situation,” an Advisory Council member recounted. Importantly, one parent shared that hearing about personal protective equipment conservation could amplify stress because of fear their child wouldn’t be protected. These perspectives remind us that families may be experiencing heightened sensitivity and vulnerability during this pandemic.

Maintaining Active Engagement With Patients and Families

PFCRs continue to be an ideal setting for providers, patients, and families to communicate and build shared understanding, as well as build rapport and connection through human interactions. Maintaining rounding structures, when possible, reinforces familiarity with roles and expectations, among both patients who have been hospitalized in the past and those hospitalized for the first time. Adapting rounds may be as simple as opening the door during walk-rounds to invite caregiver participation while being aware of distancing. With large rounding teams, more substantial workflow changes may be necessary.

Beyond PFCRs, patients and family members can be further engaged through tasks/responsibilities for the time in between rounding communication. Examples include recording patient symptoms (eg, work of breathing) or actions (eg, how much water their child drinks). By doing this, patients and caregivers who feel helpless and anxious may be given a greater sense of control while at the same time making helpful contributions to medical care.

Parents also expressed value in reinforcing the message that patients and families are experts about themselves/their loved ones. Healthcare teams can invite their insights, questions, and concerns to show respect for their expertise and value. This builds trust and leads to a feeling of togetherness and teamwork. Across the board, families stressed the value of family engagement and communication in ideal conditions, and even more so in this time of upheaval.

Enhancing Communication With Technology

Many hospitals are leveraging technology to promote communication by integrating workstations on wheels & tablets with video-conferencing software (eg, Zoom, Skype) and even by adding communication via email and phone. While fewer team members are entering rooms, rounding teams are still including the voices of pharmacists, nutritionists, social workers, primary care physicians, and caregivers who are unable to be at the bedside.

These alternative communication methods may actually provide patients with more comfortable avenues for participating in their own care even beyond the pandemic. Children, in particular, may have strong opinions about their care but may not be comfortable speaking up in front of providers whom they don’t know very well. Telehealth, whiteboards, email, and limiting the number of providers in the room might actually create a more approachable environment for these patients even under routine conditions.

Patients, families, nurses, physicians, and other team members all feel the current stress on our healthcare system. As we continue to change workflows, alignment with principles of family engagement and patient- and family-centered care⁴ remain a priority for all involved. Prioritizing effective communication, maintaining engagement with patients and families, and using technology in new ways will all help us maintain high standards of care in both typical and completely atypical settings, such as during this pandemic. Nothing captures the benefits of effective communication better than P.M.’s description of John Michael’s experience during his hospitalization:

“Although usually an expedited triage patient, we spent hours in the ER among other ill and anxious patients. Ultimately, John Michael tested positive for influenza A. We spent 5 days in the hospital on droplet protection.

“The staff was amazing! The doctors and nurses communicated with us every step of the way. They made us aware of extra precautions and explained limitations, like not being able to go in the nutrition room or only having the doctors come in once midday. Whenever they did use [personal protective equipment] and come in, the nurses and team kept a safe distance but made sure to connect with John Michael, talking about what was on TV, what his favorite teams are, asking about his sisters, and always asking if we needed anything or if there was anything they could do. I am grateful for the kind, compassionate, and professional people who continue to care for our children under the intense danger and overwhelming magnitude of COVID-19.”

Dr Landrigan has served as a paid consultant to the Midwest Lighting Institute to help study the effect of blue light on health care provider performance and safety. He has consulted with and holds equity in the I-PASS Institute, which seeks to train institutions in best handoff practices and aid in their implementation. Dr Landrigan has received consulting fees from the Missouri Hospital Association/Executive Speakers Bureau for consulting on I-PASS. In addition, he has received monetary awards, honoraria, and travel reimbursement from multiple academic and professional organizations for teaching and consulting on sleep deprivation, physician performance, handoffs, and safety and has served as an expert witness in cases regarding patient safety and sleep deprivation. Drs Spector and Baird have also consulted with and hold equity in the I-PASS Institute. Dr Baird has consulted with the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute. Dr Patel holds equity/stock options in and has consulted for the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute. Dr Rosenbluth previously consulted with the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute, but not within the past 36 months. The other authors have no conflicts of interest or external support other than the existing PCORI funding for the Society of Hospital Medicine I-PASS SCORE study.

The I-PASS Patient Safety Institute did not provide support to any authors for this work.

The visibility of public health—both as a science and a government responsibility—has increased dramatically with the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health science, surveillance, and emergency interventions are saving lives across the globe. Public health leaders are advising local, state, national, and international policymakers and have a consistent and strong voice in the media. We describe here the trust challenges facing public health in this moment of crisis, as well as the strategies necessary to maintain and increase that trust.

In the United States, public opinion data suggest that, while trust in science and government is relatively low and has been declining in recent years, trust in public health is high.^1,2 In a survey released in April, 2020, the most trusted groups “to do the right thing” on COVID-19 were doctors, hospitals, scientists, researchers, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).³ Trust in state government was the next highest. Some governors have been particularly strong in supporting public health messages. For example, Governor Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan has repeatedly stated that her decisions are based on science and public health⁴; Michiganders reported trust in state government at 79%, compared with trust in the White House at 54%.³ In Ohio, where Governor Mike DeWine has stood with his director of public health, Amy Acton, MD, MPH, in his pandemic response, trust in state government was 80%, compared with trust in the White House at 62%.³

Until there is an effective vaccine with high levels of uptake, COVID-19 prevention and control efforts are going to primarily rely on intrusive and challenging public health interventions such as school/business closures, stay-at-home orders, crowd limits, and travel restrictions. Maintaining trust in and support for both public health interventions and leaders requires intentional strategies that are sophisticated and deploy effective social marketing and risk communication strategies.

Early in the trajectory of COVID-19, Americans were almost uniform in their support for stay-at-home orders.⁵ Later, as the economic and social impact of self-quarantine, business, and school closures deepened, backlash began to increase.⁶ As recent protests against stay-at-home orders and other COVID-19-interventions reveal, many people do not understand the breadth of government’s duty to protect the public’s health and welfare. In fact, the US Constitution gives states a significant amount of power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their populations, including “police powers” that generally fall into three categories: (a) protecting people who cannot protect themselves, (b) protecting people from others, and (c) protecting people from themselves.^7,8 Current executive orders and other government actions designed to combat COVID-19 represent the use of police powers in all three of these areas.

It is exceedingly difficult for governments to design effective pandemic interventions—including executive orders and laws based on “police power”—that protect the public’s health without negatively affecting the economy, healthcare system, schools, and the financial and psychosocial welfare of citizens.

To compound this challenge, while local, state, and federal governments have the authority to act strongly and swiftly in a public crisis, American’s passionate political and philosophical attachments to freedom and self-determination and their skepticism about government interference cannot be dismissed. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is more than a line in the Declaration of Independence—it reflects a strong set of American values that make the case for action that is collectively based while honoring individual interests. Although Americans have a deep-seated belief in individual freedoms, public health relies on collective action for success. Public health leaders must understand this tension and effectively articulate why and when collective action is necessary while also articulating a path to move from a uniform, state-imposed emergency response to one that relies on responsible individual actions.

The federal government’s conflicting messages on science and the public health are also an enormous threat to public health. When the White House’s top trade adviser publicly criticizes the response of the CDC, the CDC guidance appears politicized, which erodes public trust.

Unfortunately, public health in the United States has generally struggled to make a clear and compelling case for prevention and nonmedical approaches to health and well-being. As the saying goes, “Public health is invisible when it is most effective.” Public health leaders are trained in epidemiology and other sciences, in community-based partnerships, and sometimes medicine. However, few public health leaders have been trained in advocacy communication.

Government leaders and their partners can better balance the health, economic, and other needs of the population if they effectively communicate the rationale and need for population-­based public health interventions in ways that are based on communication science and are politically savvy. A civics lesson from public health officials about constitutional law and the role of police power in combating COVID-19 is not likely to be effective. However, sophisticated messaging tailored to different audiences about the government’s role in protecting the health of everyone could be.

While much is still unknown regarding COVID-19, the evidence is clear that nonpharmaceutical interventions like self-quarantine and isolation, physical distancing, business and school closures, and other core public health strategies are effective in reducing community spread and can flatten the infectious-disease epidemiologic curve.^9,10 Countries such as South Korea, New Zealand, Australia, and Germany—countries that have taken strong public-health approaches on social distancing and stay-at-home orders along with extensive testing and contact tracing—have demonstrated reduced rates of severe morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. Vietnam, a developing country of 96 million people that borders China, has reported zero deaths from COVID-19 to date because of both swift public health actions and strong communication strategies.¹¹

Public health communication efforts regarding COVID-19 should be based on risk and crisis communication science and on best practices for social marketing that rallies people around shared values.^12,13 For example, communications from Dr Acton have attempted to “inspire” rather than “order” people to physically isolate by appealing to widely shared core values.¹⁴ This includes acknowledging the hardships people are experiencing, emphasizing the important historic role that everyone is playing in their sacrifices, promoting determination rather than fear, and declaring that “not all heroes wear capes.” Best practices in communication also include segmenting audiences for the design and testing of different communication approaches.¹²

Public health leaders can also learn from the extensive research from other fields in how to build trust. Consumer product research emphasizes the importance of transparency in sharing known and unknown risks and admitting error when errors are made.¹⁵

Engagement of the public in policy decision-making is also essential in situations of uncertainty. Since much is unknown about COVID-19, policy guidance about mitigation and prevention strategies has changed in real time. Changing messages on the importance of face masks is an example of the trust challenge for public health. In the initial stages of the pandemic, the CDC discouraged the use of face masks. As more data became available, the CDC changed its guidance. Such changed guidance can undermine the entire public health message on protective factors. Acknowledging uncertainty and engaging the public in decision-making through a process of reflexive learning can build public trust in a time of uncertainty.¹⁶

COVID-19 has also reaffirmed and illuminated that the public health and healthcare delivery systems are intertwined. Failure to “flatten the curve” results in an overrun healthcare system, enormous costs, and significant mortality. However, public health efforts that successfully slow and limit community spread also produce significant financial losses for healthcare systems because the use of all types of nonemergent care greatly decreases. Public health and healthcare system leaders must partner in the strategic design and reinforcement of messages to build strong and lasting trust in the ongoing public health interventions and mandates that are going to be with us for the unforeseen future.

Finally, maintaining trust in the face of political attacks on our agencies of public health requires the healthcare community speak out in unity—endorsing science-based recommendations and supporting the CDC, the World Health Organization, and local public health.

Public health is at an unprecedented and crucial moment in this global pandemic, with growing societal understanding of the role that public health plays in our lives. Public health leaders have a unique opportunity to build on that understanding, strengthen trust, and increase funding and support for core public health services.

Balancing risks and benefits in the face of great uncertainty is never easy. With COVID-19, the horrific number of deaths and speed of community spread has led to a strong and essential public health emergency response throughout most of the country. Keeping the public committed to the important and ongoing measures necessary to ensure that prevention/control efforts are effective and that as few lives as possible are lost will require strengthening the widespread and deep trust in the science and practice of public health.

The authors have nothing to disclose.

The visibility of public health—both as a science and a government responsibility—has increased dramatically with the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health science, surveillance, and emergency interventions are saving lives across the globe. Public health leaders are advising local, state, national, and international policymakers and have a consistent and strong voice in the media. We describe here the trust challenges facing public health in this moment of crisis, as well as the strategies necessary to maintain and increase that trust.

In the United States, public opinion data suggest that, while trust in science and government is relatively low and has been declining in recent years, trust in public health is high.^1,2 In a survey released in April, 2020, the most trusted groups “to do the right thing” on COVID-19 were doctors, hospitals, scientists, researchers, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).³ Trust in state government was the next highest. Some governors have been particularly strong in supporting public health messages. For example, Governor Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan has repeatedly stated that her decisions are based on science and public health⁴; Michiganders reported trust in state government at 79%, compared with trust in the White House at 54%.³ In Ohio, where Governor Mike DeWine has stood with his director of public health, Amy Acton, MD, MPH, in his pandemic response, trust in state government was 80%, compared with trust in the White House at 62%.³

Until there is an effective vaccine with high levels of uptake, COVID-19 prevention and control efforts are going to primarily rely on intrusive and challenging public health interventions such as school/business closures, stay-at-home orders, crowd limits, and travel restrictions. Maintaining trust in and support for both public health interventions and leaders requires intentional strategies that are sophisticated and deploy effective social marketing and risk communication strategies.

Early in the trajectory of COVID-19, Americans were almost uniform in their support for stay-at-home orders.⁵ Later, as the economic and social impact of self-quarantine, business, and school closures deepened, backlash began to increase.⁶ As recent protests against stay-at-home orders and other COVID-19-interventions reveal, many people do not understand the breadth of government’s duty to protect the public’s health and welfare. In fact, the US Constitution gives states a significant amount of power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their populations, including “police powers” that generally fall into three categories: (a) protecting people who cannot protect themselves, (b) protecting people from others, and (c) protecting people from themselves.^7,8 Current executive orders and other government actions designed to combat COVID-19 represent the use of police powers in all three of these areas.

It is exceedingly difficult for governments to design effective pandemic interventions—including executive orders and laws based on “police power”—that protect the public’s health without negatively affecting the economy, healthcare system, schools, and the financial and psychosocial welfare of citizens.

To compound this challenge, while local, state, and federal governments have the authority to act strongly and swiftly in a public crisis, American’s passionate political and philosophical attachments to freedom and self-determination and their skepticism about government interference cannot be dismissed. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is more than a line in the Declaration of Independence—it reflects a strong set of American values that make the case for action that is collectively based while honoring individual interests. Although Americans have a deep-seated belief in individual freedoms, public health relies on collective action for success. Public health leaders must understand this tension and effectively articulate why and when collective action is necessary while also articulating a path to move from a uniform, state-imposed emergency response to one that relies on responsible individual actions.

The federal government’s conflicting messages on science and the public health are also an enormous threat to public health. When the White House’s top trade adviser publicly criticizes the response of the CDC, the CDC guidance appears politicized, which erodes public trust.

Unfortunately, public health in the United States has generally struggled to make a clear and compelling case for prevention and nonmedical approaches to health and well-being. As the saying goes, “Public health is invisible when it is most effective.” Public health leaders are trained in epidemiology and other sciences, in community-based partnerships, and sometimes medicine. However, few public health leaders have been trained in advocacy communication.

Government leaders and their partners can better balance the health, economic, and other needs of the population if they effectively communicate the rationale and need for population-­based public health interventions in ways that are based on communication science and are politically savvy. A civics lesson from public health officials about constitutional law and the role of police power in combating COVID-19 is not likely to be effective. However, sophisticated messaging tailored to different audiences about the government’s role in protecting the health of everyone could be.

While much is still unknown regarding COVID-19, the evidence is clear that nonpharmaceutical interventions like self-quarantine and isolation, physical distancing, business and school closures, and other core public health strategies are effective in reducing community spread and can flatten the infectious-disease epidemiologic curve.^9,10 Countries such as South Korea, New Zealand, Australia, and Germany—countries that have taken strong public-health approaches on social distancing and stay-at-home orders along with extensive testing and contact tracing—have demonstrated reduced rates of severe morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. Vietnam, a developing country of 96 million people that borders China, has reported zero deaths from COVID-19 to date because of both swift public health actions and strong communication strategies.¹¹

Public health communication efforts regarding COVID-19 should be based on risk and crisis communication science and on best practices for social marketing that rallies people around shared values.^12,13 For example, communications from Dr Acton have attempted to “inspire” rather than “order” people to physically isolate by appealing to widely shared core values.¹⁴ This includes acknowledging the hardships people are experiencing, emphasizing the important historic role that everyone is playing in their sacrifices, promoting determination rather than fear, and declaring that “not all heroes wear capes.” Best practices in communication also include segmenting audiences for the design and testing of different communication approaches.¹²

Public health leaders can also learn from the extensive research from other fields in how to build trust. Consumer product research emphasizes the importance of transparency in sharing known and unknown risks and admitting error when errors are made.¹⁵

Engagement of the public in policy decision-making is also essential in situations of uncertainty. Since much is unknown about COVID-19, policy guidance about mitigation and prevention strategies has changed in real time. Changing messages on the importance of face masks is an example of the trust challenge for public health. In the initial stages of the pandemic, the CDC discouraged the use of face masks. As more data became available, the CDC changed its guidance. Such changed guidance can undermine the entire public health message on protective factors. Acknowledging uncertainty and engaging the public in decision-making through a process of reflexive learning can build public trust in a time of uncertainty.¹⁶

COVID-19 has also reaffirmed and illuminated that the public health and healthcare delivery systems are intertwined. Failure to “flatten the curve” results in an overrun healthcare system, enormous costs, and significant mortality. However, public health efforts that successfully slow and limit community spread also produce significant financial losses for healthcare systems because the use of all types of nonemergent care greatly decreases. Public health and healthcare system leaders must partner in the strategic design and reinforcement of messages to build strong and lasting trust in the ongoing public health interventions and mandates that are going to be with us for the unforeseen future.

Finally, maintaining trust in the face of political attacks on our agencies of public health requires the healthcare community speak out in unity—endorsing science-based recommendations and supporting the CDC, the World Health Organization, and local public health.

Public health is at an unprecedented and crucial moment in this global pandemic, with growing societal understanding of the role that public health plays in our lives. Public health leaders have a unique opportunity to build on that understanding, strengthen trust, and increase funding and support for core public health services.

Balancing risks and benefits in the face of great uncertainty is never easy. With COVID-19, the horrific number of deaths and speed of community spread has led to a strong and essential public health emergency response throughout most of the country. Keeping the public committed to the important and ongoing measures necessary to ensure that prevention/control efforts are effective and that as few lives as possible are lost will require strengthening the widespread and deep trust in the science and practice of public health.

The authors have nothing to disclose.

The visibility of public health—both as a science and a government responsibility—has increased dramatically with the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health science, surveillance, and emergency interventions are saving lives across the globe. Public health leaders are advising local, state, national, and international policymakers and have a consistent and strong voice in the media. We describe here the trust challenges facing public health in this moment of crisis, as well as the strategies necessary to maintain and increase that trust.

In the United States, public opinion data suggest that, while trust in science and government is relatively low and has been declining in recent years, trust in public health is high.^1,2 In a survey released in April, 2020, the most trusted groups “to do the right thing” on COVID-19 were doctors, hospitals, scientists, researchers, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).³ Trust in state government was the next highest. Some governors have been particularly strong in supporting public health messages. For example, Governor Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan has repeatedly stated that her decisions are based on science and public health⁴; Michiganders reported trust in state government at 79%, compared with trust in the White House at 54%.³ In Ohio, where Governor Mike DeWine has stood with his director of public health, Amy Acton, MD, MPH, in his pandemic response, trust in state government was 80%, compared with trust in the White House at 62%.³

Until there is an effective vaccine with high levels of uptake, COVID-19 prevention and control efforts are going to primarily rely on intrusive and challenging public health interventions such as school/business closures, stay-at-home orders, crowd limits, and travel restrictions. Maintaining trust in and support for both public health interventions and leaders requires intentional strategies that are sophisticated and deploy effective social marketing and risk communication strategies.

Early in the trajectory of COVID-19, Americans were almost uniform in their support for stay-at-home orders.⁵ Later, as the economic and social impact of self-quarantine, business, and school closures deepened, backlash began to increase.⁶ As recent protests against stay-at-home orders and other COVID-19-interventions reveal, many people do not understand the breadth of government’s duty to protect the public’s health and welfare. In fact, the US Constitution gives states a significant amount of power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their populations, including “police powers” that generally fall into three categories: (a) protecting people who cannot protect themselves, (b) protecting people from others, and (c) protecting people from themselves.^7,8 Current executive orders and other government actions designed to combat COVID-19 represent the use of police powers in all three of these areas.

It is exceedingly difficult for governments to design effective pandemic interventions—including executive orders and laws based on “police power”—that protect the public’s health without negatively affecting the economy, healthcare system, schools, and the financial and psychosocial welfare of citizens.

To compound this challenge, while local, state, and federal governments have the authority to act strongly and swiftly in a public crisis, American’s passionate political and philosophical attachments to freedom and self-determination and their skepticism about government interference cannot be dismissed. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is more than a line in the Declaration of Independence—it reflects a strong set of American values that make the case for action that is collectively based while honoring individual interests. Although Americans have a deep-seated belief in individual freedoms, public health relies on collective action for success. Public health leaders must understand this tension and effectively articulate why and when collective action is necessary while also articulating a path to move from a uniform, state-imposed emergency response to one that relies on responsible individual actions.

The federal government’s conflicting messages on science and the public health are also an enormous threat to public health. When the White House’s top trade adviser publicly criticizes the response of the CDC, the CDC guidance appears politicized, which erodes public trust.

Unfortunately, public health in the United States has generally struggled to make a clear and compelling case for prevention and nonmedical approaches to health and well-being. As the saying goes, “Public health is invisible when it is most effective.” Public health leaders are trained in epidemiology and other sciences, in community-based partnerships, and sometimes medicine. However, few public health leaders have been trained in advocacy communication.

Government leaders and their partners can better balance the health, economic, and other needs of the population if they effectively communicate the rationale and need for population-­based public health interventions in ways that are based on communication science and are politically savvy. A civics lesson from public health officials about constitutional law and the role of police power in combating COVID-19 is not likely to be effective. However, sophisticated messaging tailored to different audiences about the government’s role in protecting the health of everyone could be.

While much is still unknown regarding COVID-19, the evidence is clear that nonpharmaceutical interventions like self-quarantine and isolation, physical distancing, business and school closures, and other core public health strategies are effective in reducing community spread and can flatten the infectious-disease epidemiologic curve.^9,10 Countries such as South Korea, New Zealand, Australia, and Germany—countries that have taken strong public-health approaches on social distancing and stay-at-home orders along with extensive testing and contact tracing—have demonstrated reduced rates of severe morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. Vietnam, a developing country of 96 million people that borders China, has reported zero deaths from COVID-19 to date because of both swift public health actions and strong communication strategies.¹¹

Public health communication efforts regarding COVID-19 should be based on risk and crisis communication science and on best practices for social marketing that rallies people around shared values.^12,13 For example, communications from Dr Acton have attempted to “inspire” rather than “order” people to physically isolate by appealing to widely shared core values.¹⁴ This includes acknowledging the hardships people are experiencing, emphasizing the important historic role that everyone is playing in their sacrifices, promoting determination rather than fear, and declaring that “not all heroes wear capes.” Best practices in communication also include segmenting audiences for the design and testing of different communication approaches.¹²

Public health leaders can also learn from the extensive research from other fields in how to build trust. Consumer product research emphasizes the importance of transparency in sharing known and unknown risks and admitting error when errors are made.¹⁵

Engagement of the public in policy decision-making is also essential in situations of uncertainty. Since much is unknown about COVID-19, policy guidance about mitigation and prevention strategies has changed in real time. Changing messages on the importance of face masks is an example of the trust challenge for public health. In the initial stages of the pandemic, the CDC discouraged the use of face masks. As more data became available, the CDC changed its guidance. Such changed guidance can undermine the entire public health message on protective factors. Acknowledging uncertainty and engaging the public in decision-making through a process of reflexive learning can build public trust in a time of uncertainty.¹⁶

COVID-19 has also reaffirmed and illuminated that the public health and healthcare delivery systems are intertwined. Failure to “flatten the curve” results in an overrun healthcare system, enormous costs, and significant mortality. However, public health efforts that successfully slow and limit community spread also produce significant financial losses for healthcare systems because the use of all types of nonemergent care greatly decreases. Public health and healthcare system leaders must partner in the strategic design and reinforcement of messages to build strong and lasting trust in the ongoing public health interventions and mandates that are going to be with us for the unforeseen future.

Finally, maintaining trust in the face of political attacks on our agencies of public health requires the healthcare community speak out in unity—endorsing science-based recommendations and supporting the CDC, the World Health Organization, and local public health.

Public health is at an unprecedented and crucial moment in this global pandemic, with growing societal understanding of the role that public health plays in our lives. Public health leaders have a unique opportunity to build on that understanding, strengthen trust, and increase funding and support for core public health services.

Balancing risks and benefits in the face of great uncertainty is never easy. With COVID-19, the horrific number of deaths and speed of community spread has led to a strong and essential public health emergency response throughout most of the country. Keeping the public committed to the important and ongoing measures necessary to ensure that prevention/control efforts are effective and that as few lives as possible are lost will require strengthening the widespread and deep trust in the science and practice of public health.

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Manifestations of disease, as perceived by physicians, can shape conceptual views and favor specific therapeutic actions. Historically, these factors appear to have an outsized influence on medical thinking in general. Disease concepts derived from empirical observations during pandemics impose a trade-off. We obtain unparalleled insight into medical thought and practice, but risk incurring the cost of unfortunate mistakes. The psychologist and Nobel Prize winner in economics Daniel Kahneman describes two mental systems that shape our judgments and decision-making in his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow: System One is intuitive, emotional, and fast, whereas System Two is deliberative and logical and has slower onset.¹ If we extrapolate these observations to clinical medicine, we often rely on either System One or System Two depending on particular situations. Errors can emerge when we default to fast and emotional responses in situations that instead require more deliberate and logical assessments. These include instances in which the desire to help—our humanitarian role as physicians, associated with an “adrenaline rush”—results from attempts to relieve human suffering. As mercenaries of misfortune, it is inevitable we engage medical interventions based on an incomplete understanding of the pathophysiology—in other words, without understanding the full risks and benefits.

During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, members of the medical community continue to provide care with the utmost nobility, empathy, and desire for action amid uncertainty. However, as the number of cases continues to increase worldwide, we urge caution in evaluating the current state of scientific understanding, our approaches to treatment, and the safety of empiric medical interventions targeting COVID-19. We are concerned that the extensive history of unintended adverse consequences of therapies for emerging infectious diseases in the past is being ignored in the development of approaches to COVID-19 treatment. It is likely harms will emerge from current empiric therapies for COVID-19 given what can be learned from history.

Whereas influenza can be treated with neuraminidase inhibitors,² there are currently no established effective antiviral therapies for COVID-19, which is similar to two other coronavirus diseases from the 21st century, SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) in 2003 and MERS (Middle-Eastern Respiratory Syndrome) in 2012.³ Even in times of global pandemic, we need to consider potential harms and adverse consequences of novel treatments and show justifiable ratio of risk versus benefit. With the absence of proven COVID-19 therapy and the desire to fulfill our oath of primum non nocere (first, do no harm) in mind, we review selected unintended adverse events of developing therapies for infectious diseases.

Two types of error in our decision-making strategies are errors of omission and errors of commission.⁴ Errors of omission, defined as instances in which a medical intervention was not carried out when there was a clear indication to do so, are less conspicuous in the history of infectious disease therapeutics. Errors of commission, in contrast, have become a more concerning component of our approach to COVID-19 therapy, perhaps prompted by our desire to act. Errors of commission are defined as instances in which a specific medical intervention that should have been avoided was instead performed. We will discuss historical examples of errors of commission to highlight parallels with the current pandemic (Appendix Figure).

During influenza epidemics in the 18th century, some physicians advocated the use of therapeutic lancet phlebotomies, while others recommended indiscriminate use of opium, which led to high rates of addiction.⁵ Neither intervention was supported by a reassuring body of evidence. Many recommended mercury-based preparations during major outbreaks of syphilis in medieval protestant Europe. Because of accumulated mercurial toxicity, many persons suffered long-term sequelae including chronic kidney injury and peripheral neuropathy.⁶ After the discovery of the tuberculous bacillus, Robert Koch attempted the inoculation of tuberculin as a curative intervention for tuberculosis.⁷ Under pressure from the king of Prussia to present his findings at the International Medical Meeting in Berlin, Germany, in 1890, Koch conducted a poorly executed clinical trial. Rudolf Virchow then demonstrated endobronchial spread of the infection with resultant clinical worsening in those who received Koch’s tuberculin. In 1905, Harold Wolfersan Thomas at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine treated cases of African trypanosomiasis with the arsenical drug Atoxyl (arsanilic acid), which demonstrated some efficacy but also caused optic nerve atrophy leading to blindness.⁸

There have also been errors of commission in the development of vaccines. One such event, known as the Cutter incident, followed from an incompletely inactivated batch of polio vaccine that caused 40,000 cases of abortive poliomyelitis and many cases of paralysis and death.⁹ In the early phases of the development of the yellow fever vaccine, Hideyo Noguchi tried to develop a vaccine based on the erroneous assumption that yellow fever was caused by Leptospira icteroides.¹⁰ In 1976, an error of commission occurred in response to an outbreak of a few dozen cases of Influenza A/H₁N₁ in Fort Dix, New Jersey: The accelerated implementation of a swine influenza–vaccination program led to many cases of Guillian-Barré Syndrome among recipients.¹¹ Immunization experts defended this decision to vaccinate by arguing that “when lives are at risk, it’s better to err on the side of overreaction over underreaction.”¹¹ However, this is a risk-perception versus risk-management concept that drives potential errors of commission.

A more recent error of commission involved the use of drotrecogin alfa (activated protein C) in the treatment of sepsis. This drug became the first and only Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for sepsis treatment. The approval process of this medication relied on one clinical trial, which was terminated early because of perceived overwhelming evidence of efficacy. Despite the initial high medical and financial expectations, Eli Lilly (Indianapolis) withdrew the drug when a larger, international clinical trial (PROWESS-SHOCK) did not show a similar benefit.¹²

The gravity of the COVID-19 pandemic has motivated the repurposing of previously available therapies. This explains the use of medications like hydroxychloroquine, interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonists, and remdesivir.^13-15

Despite early authorization of emergency use for hydroxychloroquine by the FDA based on limited and poor-quality evidence,¹⁶ this drug has yet to demonstrate treatment efficacy for COVID-19. On the contrary, other, controlled, retrospective studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine might actually increase mortality, possibly through prolongation of the QT-­interval.^16,17 Also, diversion of this drug to treat COVID-19 raises the concern of hydroxychloroquine shortages for treatment of patients with autoimmune disease, in whom the drug has proven benefit. We question the hasty FDA authorization for emergency use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19.

There is also great enthusiasm among the medical community to administer IL-6 receptor antagonists as a COVID-19 treatment. The rationale for this approach includes observations in case series in which IL-6 levels correlated with adverse clinical outcomes.¹³ IL-6 antagonists have a proven track record of improving the outcome in autoimmune diseases. However, we must avoid the logical trap of post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) dictum from which one would assume that, based on those observations of high IL-6 levels and adverse outcomes, lowering IL-6 levels will necessarily improve outcomes in COVID-19. The supposed role of IL-6 in causing COVID-19 is based on scant preliminary observations and on the yet unproven assumption that IL-6 association with disease severity is a cause-effect relationship and not an association separate from pathogenesis. Moreover, there is sufficient scientific evidence that, in the case of severe influenza infections, IL-6 limits inflammation and protects against severe and potentially life-­threatening lung injury. The road ahead for IL-6 inhibition to treat COVID-19 is perilous and should be entered cautiously. One immediate concern of administering IL-6 receptor antagonists in this patient population is the potential reactivation of latent tuberculosis infection and hepatitis B, colonic perforation, and increased rate of infections in general.

The greatest hope at this early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic may be remdesivir, which is a direct-acting antiviral. Here again, initial case series in prestigious medical journals signaled the possibility of a morbidity and mortality benefit.¹⁴ Despite these encouraging signs, a recent clinical trial from China that was limited by incomplete patient enrollment demonstrated a lack of efficacy of remdesivir in accelerating clinical improvement or limiting mortality.¹⁸ In spite of these negative results, preliminary data from the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT) has revealed a nonsignificant signal of reduced mortality and shorter time to recovery in the remdesivir group. In response to these reports, the FDA has now issued emergency use authorization of remdesivir for treating COVID-19. Given the precedence of conflicting study data in therapeutic development for infectious diseases, we urge caution in drawing interpretations of benefit based on these early reports. Early termination of clinical studies is often associated with a 30% overestimation of clinical benefit.¹⁹ Furthermore, the availability of remdesivir is limited, which raises substantial ethical concerns on the preferential allocation of the drug to selected populations in high-income countries. At the time of this report, uncertainty regarding the risk-benefit balance of remdesivir and other COVID-19 treatments should be emphasized among decision makers.

Errors of commission present particular concerns for risk in treating COVID-19 patients and suggest that sometimes inaction is preferable to action. With many pandemics, there is a history of repeating mistakes, and we believe this can be curtailed by heeding the lessons of history. In the end, we may learn that avoiding therapeutic interventions that are poorly supported may prove to be one of the most important legacies of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors reported having nothing to disclose.

Dr Shapiro is supported by The Emily Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts. For all other authors, no financial support was declared.

Manifestations of disease, as perceived by physicians, can shape conceptual views and favor specific therapeutic actions. Historically, these factors appear to have an outsized influence on medical thinking in general. Disease concepts derived from empirical observations during pandemics impose a trade-off. We obtain unparalleled insight into medical thought and practice, but risk incurring the cost of unfortunate mistakes. The psychologist and Nobel Prize winner in economics Daniel Kahneman describes two mental systems that shape our judgments and decision-making in his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow: System One is intuitive, emotional, and fast, whereas System Two is deliberative and logical and has slower onset.¹ If we extrapolate these observations to clinical medicine, we often rely on either System One or System Two depending on particular situations. Errors can emerge when we default to fast and emotional responses in situations that instead require more deliberate and logical assessments. These include instances in which the desire to help—our humanitarian role as physicians, associated with an “adrenaline rush”—results from attempts to relieve human suffering. As mercenaries of misfortune, it is inevitable we engage medical interventions based on an incomplete understanding of the pathophysiology—in other words, without understanding the full risks and benefits.

During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, members of the medical community continue to provide care with the utmost nobility, empathy, and desire for action amid uncertainty. However, as the number of cases continues to increase worldwide, we urge caution in evaluating the current state of scientific understanding, our approaches to treatment, and the safety of empiric medical interventions targeting COVID-19. We are concerned that the extensive history of unintended adverse consequences of therapies for emerging infectious diseases in the past is being ignored in the development of approaches to COVID-19 treatment. It is likely harms will emerge from current empiric therapies for COVID-19 given what can be learned from history.

Whereas influenza can be treated with neuraminidase inhibitors,² there are currently no established effective antiviral therapies for COVID-19, which is similar to two other coronavirus diseases from the 21st century, SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) in 2003 and MERS (Middle-Eastern Respiratory Syndrome) in 2012.³ Even in times of global pandemic, we need to consider potential harms and adverse consequences of novel treatments and show justifiable ratio of risk versus benefit. With the absence of proven COVID-19 therapy and the desire to fulfill our oath of primum non nocere (first, do no harm) in mind, we review selected unintended adverse events of developing therapies for infectious diseases.

Two types of error in our decision-making strategies are errors of omission and errors of commission.⁴ Errors of omission, defined as instances in which a medical intervention was not carried out when there was a clear indication to do so, are less conspicuous in the history of infectious disease therapeutics. Errors of commission, in contrast, have become a more concerning component of our approach to COVID-19 therapy, perhaps prompted by our desire to act. Errors of commission are defined as instances in which a specific medical intervention that should have been avoided was instead performed. We will discuss historical examples of errors of commission to highlight parallels with the current pandemic (Appendix Figure).

During influenza epidemics in the 18th century, some physicians advocated the use of therapeutic lancet phlebotomies, while others recommended indiscriminate use of opium, which led to high rates of addiction.⁵ Neither intervention was supported by a reassuring body of evidence. Many recommended mercury-based preparations during major outbreaks of syphilis in medieval protestant Europe. Because of accumulated mercurial toxicity, many persons suffered long-term sequelae including chronic kidney injury and peripheral neuropathy.⁶ After the discovery of the tuberculous bacillus, Robert Koch attempted the inoculation of tuberculin as a curative intervention for tuberculosis.⁷ Under pressure from the king of Prussia to present his findings at the International Medical Meeting in Berlin, Germany, in 1890, Koch conducted a poorly executed clinical trial. Rudolf Virchow then demonstrated endobronchial spread of the infection with resultant clinical worsening in those who received Koch’s tuberculin. In 1905, Harold Wolfersan Thomas at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine treated cases of African trypanosomiasis with the arsenical drug Atoxyl (arsanilic acid), which demonstrated some efficacy but also caused optic nerve atrophy leading to blindness.⁸

There have also been errors of commission in the development of vaccines. One such event, known as the Cutter incident, followed from an incompletely inactivated batch of polio vaccine that caused 40,000 cases of abortive poliomyelitis and many cases of paralysis and death.⁹ In the early phases of the development of the yellow fever vaccine, Hideyo Noguchi tried to develop a vaccine based on the erroneous assumption that yellow fever was caused by Leptospira icteroides.¹⁰ In 1976, an error of commission occurred in response to an outbreak of a few dozen cases of Influenza A/H₁N₁ in Fort Dix, New Jersey: The accelerated implementation of a swine influenza–vaccination program led to many cases of Guillian-Barré Syndrome among recipients.¹¹ Immunization experts defended this decision to vaccinate by arguing that “when lives are at risk, it’s better to err on the side of overreaction over underreaction.”¹¹ However, this is a risk-perception versus risk-management concept that drives potential errors of commission.

A more recent error of commission involved the use of drotrecogin alfa (activated protein C) in the treatment of sepsis. This drug became the first and only Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for sepsis treatment. The approval process of this medication relied on one clinical trial, which was terminated early because of perceived overwhelming evidence of efficacy. Despite the initial high medical and financial expectations, Eli Lilly (Indianapolis) withdrew the drug when a larger, international clinical trial (PROWESS-SHOCK) did not show a similar benefit.¹²

The gravity of the COVID-19 pandemic has motivated the repurposing of previously available therapies. This explains the use of medications like hydroxychloroquine, interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonists, and remdesivir.^13-15

Despite early authorization of emergency use for hydroxychloroquine by the FDA based on limited and poor-quality evidence,¹⁶ this drug has yet to demonstrate treatment efficacy for COVID-19. On the contrary, other, controlled, retrospective studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine might actually increase mortality, possibly through prolongation of the QT-­interval.^16,17 Also, diversion of this drug to treat COVID-19 raises the concern of hydroxychloroquine shortages for treatment of patients with autoimmune disease, in whom the drug has proven benefit. We question the hasty FDA authorization for emergency use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19.

There is also great enthusiasm among the medical community to administer IL-6 receptor antagonists as a COVID-19 treatment. The rationale for this approach includes observations in case series in which IL-6 levels correlated with adverse clinical outcomes.¹³ IL-6 antagonists have a proven track record of improving the outcome in autoimmune diseases. However, we must avoid the logical trap of post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) dictum from which one would assume that, based on those observations of high IL-6 levels and adverse outcomes, lowering IL-6 levels will necessarily improve outcomes in COVID-19. The supposed role of IL-6 in causing COVID-19 is based on scant preliminary observations and on the yet unproven assumption that IL-6 association with disease severity is a cause-effect relationship and not an association separate from pathogenesis. Moreover, there is sufficient scientific evidence that, in the case of severe influenza infections, IL-6 limits inflammation and protects against severe and potentially life-­threatening lung injury. The road ahead for IL-6 inhibition to treat COVID-19 is perilous and should be entered cautiously. One immediate concern of administering IL-6 receptor antagonists in this patient population is the potential reactivation of latent tuberculosis infection and hepatitis B, colonic perforation, and increased rate of infections in general.

The greatest hope at this early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic may be remdesivir, which is a direct-acting antiviral. Here again, initial case series in prestigious medical journals signaled the possibility of a morbidity and mortality benefit.¹⁴ Despite these encouraging signs, a recent clinical trial from China that was limited by incomplete patient enrollment demonstrated a lack of efficacy of remdesivir in accelerating clinical improvement or limiting mortality.¹⁸ In spite of these negative results, preliminary data from the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT) has revealed a nonsignificant signal of reduced mortality and shorter time to recovery in the remdesivir group. In response to these reports, the FDA has now issued emergency use authorization of remdesivir for treating COVID-19. Given the precedence of conflicting study data in therapeutic development for infectious diseases, we urge caution in drawing interpretations of benefit based on these early reports. Early termination of clinical studies is often associated with a 30% overestimation of clinical benefit.¹⁹ Furthermore, the availability of remdesivir is limited, which raises substantial ethical concerns on the preferential allocation of the drug to selected populations in high-income countries. At the time of this report, uncertainty regarding the risk-benefit balance of remdesivir and other COVID-19 treatments should be emphasized among decision makers.

Errors of commission present particular concerns for risk in treating COVID-19 patients and suggest that sometimes inaction is preferable to action. With many pandemics, there is a history of repeating mistakes, and we believe this can be curtailed by heeding the lessons of history. In the end, we may learn that avoiding therapeutic interventions that are poorly supported may prove to be one of the most important legacies of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors reported having nothing to disclose.

Dr Shapiro is supported by The Emily Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts. For all other authors, no financial support was declared.

Manifestations of disease, as perceived by physicians, can shape conceptual views and favor specific therapeutic actions. Historically, these factors appear to have an outsized influence on medical thinking in general. Disease concepts derived from empirical observations during pandemics impose a trade-off. We obtain unparalleled insight into medical thought and practice, but risk incurring the cost of unfortunate mistakes. The psychologist and Nobel Prize winner in economics Daniel Kahneman describes two mental systems that shape our judgments and decision-making in his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow: System One is intuitive, emotional, and fast, whereas System Two is deliberative and logical and has slower onset.¹ If we extrapolate these observations to clinical medicine, we often rely on either System One or System Two depending on particular situations. Errors can emerge when we default to fast and emotional responses in situations that instead require more deliberate and logical assessments. These include instances in which the desire to help—our humanitarian role as physicians, associated with an “adrenaline rush”—results from attempts to relieve human suffering. As mercenaries of misfortune, it is inevitable we engage medical interventions based on an incomplete understanding of the pathophysiology—in other words, without understanding the full risks and benefits.

During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, members of the medical community continue to provide care with the utmost nobility, empathy, and desire for action amid uncertainty. However, as the number of cases continues to increase worldwide, we urge caution in evaluating the current state of scientific understanding, our approaches to treatment, and the safety of empiric medical interventions targeting COVID-19. We are concerned that the extensive history of unintended adverse consequences of therapies for emerging infectious diseases in the past is being ignored in the development of approaches to COVID-19 treatment. It is likely harms will emerge from current empiric therapies for COVID-19 given what can be learned from history.

Whereas influenza can be treated with neuraminidase inhibitors,² there are currently no established effective antiviral therapies for COVID-19, which is similar to two other coronavirus diseases from the 21st century, SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) in 2003 and MERS (Middle-Eastern Respiratory Syndrome) in 2012.³ Even in times of global pandemic, we need to consider potential harms and adverse consequences of novel treatments and show justifiable ratio of risk versus benefit. With the absence of proven COVID-19 therapy and the desire to fulfill our oath of primum non nocere (first, do no harm) in mind, we review selected unintended adverse events of developing therapies for infectious diseases.

Two types of error in our decision-making strategies are errors of omission and errors of commission.⁴ Errors of omission, defined as instances in which a medical intervention was not carried out when there was a clear indication to do so, are less conspicuous in the history of infectious disease therapeutics. Errors of commission, in contrast, have become a more concerning component of our approach to COVID-19 therapy, perhaps prompted by our desire to act. Errors of commission are defined as instances in which a specific medical intervention that should have been avoided was instead performed. We will discuss historical examples of errors of commission to highlight parallels with the current pandemic (Appendix Figure).

During influenza epidemics in the 18th century, some physicians advocated the use of therapeutic lancet phlebotomies, while others recommended indiscriminate use of opium, which led to high rates of addiction.⁵ Neither intervention was supported by a reassuring body of evidence. Many recommended mercury-based preparations during major outbreaks of syphilis in medieval protestant Europe. Because of accumulated mercurial toxicity, many persons suffered long-term sequelae including chronic kidney injury and peripheral neuropathy.⁶ After the discovery of the tuberculous bacillus, Robert Koch attempted the inoculation of tuberculin as a curative intervention for tuberculosis.⁷ Under pressure from the king of Prussia to present his findings at the International Medical Meeting in Berlin, Germany, in 1890, Koch conducted a poorly executed clinical trial. Rudolf Virchow then demonstrated endobronchial spread of the infection with resultant clinical worsening in those who received Koch’s tuberculin. In 1905, Harold Wolfersan Thomas at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine treated cases of African trypanosomiasis with the arsenical drug Atoxyl (arsanilic acid), which demonstrated some efficacy but also caused optic nerve atrophy leading to blindness.⁸

There have also been errors of commission in the development of vaccines. One such event, known as the Cutter incident, followed from an incompletely inactivated batch of polio vaccine that caused 40,000 cases of abortive poliomyelitis and many cases of paralysis and death.⁹ In the early phases of the development of the yellow fever vaccine, Hideyo Noguchi tried to develop a vaccine based on the erroneous assumption that yellow fever was caused by Leptospira icteroides.¹⁰ In 1976, an error of commission occurred in response to an outbreak of a few dozen cases of Influenza A/H₁N₁ in Fort Dix, New Jersey: The accelerated implementation of a swine influenza–vaccination program led to many cases of Guillian-Barré Syndrome among recipients.¹¹ Immunization experts defended this decision to vaccinate by arguing that “when lives are at risk, it’s better to err on the side of overreaction over underreaction.”¹¹ However, this is a risk-perception versus risk-management concept that drives potential errors of commission.

A more recent error of commission involved the use of drotrecogin alfa (activated protein C) in the treatment of sepsis. This drug became the first and only Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for sepsis treatment. The approval process of this medication relied on one clinical trial, which was terminated early because of perceived overwhelming evidence of efficacy. Despite the initial high medical and financial expectations, Eli Lilly (Indianapolis) withdrew the drug when a larger, international clinical trial (PROWESS-SHOCK) did not show a similar benefit.¹²

The gravity of the COVID-19 pandemic has motivated the repurposing of previously available therapies. This explains the use of medications like hydroxychloroquine, interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonists, and remdesivir.^13-15

Despite early authorization of emergency use for hydroxychloroquine by the FDA based on limited and poor-quality evidence,¹⁶ this drug has yet to demonstrate treatment efficacy for COVID-19. On the contrary, other, controlled, retrospective studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine might actually increase mortality, possibly through prolongation of the QT-­interval.^16,17 Also, diversion of this drug to treat COVID-19 raises the concern of hydroxychloroquine shortages for treatment of patients with autoimmune disease, in whom the drug has proven benefit. We question the hasty FDA authorization for emergency use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19.

There is also great enthusiasm among the medical community to administer IL-6 receptor antagonists as a COVID-19 treatment. The rationale for this approach includes observations in case series in which IL-6 levels correlated with adverse clinical outcomes.¹³ IL-6 antagonists have a proven track record of improving the outcome in autoimmune diseases. However, we must avoid the logical trap of post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) dictum from which one would assume that, based on those observations of high IL-6 levels and adverse outcomes, lowering IL-6 levels will necessarily improve outcomes in COVID-19. The supposed role of IL-6 in causing COVID-19 is based on scant preliminary observations and on the yet unproven assumption that IL-6 association with disease severity is a cause-effect relationship and not an association separate from pathogenesis. Moreover, there is sufficient scientific evidence that, in the case of severe influenza infections, IL-6 limits inflammation and protects against severe and potentially life-­threatening lung injury. The road ahead for IL-6 inhibition to treat COVID-19 is perilous and should be entered cautiously. One immediate concern of administering IL-6 receptor antagonists in this patient population is the potential reactivation of latent tuberculosis infection and hepatitis B, colonic perforation, and increased rate of infections in general.

The greatest hope at this early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic may be remdesivir, which is a direct-acting antiviral. Here again, initial case series in prestigious medical journals signaled the possibility of a morbidity and mortality benefit.¹⁴ Despite these encouraging signs, a recent clinical trial from China that was limited by incomplete patient enrollment demonstrated a lack of efficacy of remdesivir in accelerating clinical improvement or limiting mortality.¹⁸ In spite of these negative results, preliminary data from the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT) has revealed a nonsignificant signal of reduced mortality and shorter time to recovery in the remdesivir group. In response to these reports, the FDA has now issued emergency use authorization of remdesivir for treating COVID-19. Given the precedence of conflicting study data in therapeutic development for infectious diseases, we urge caution in drawing interpretations of benefit based on these early reports. Early termination of clinical studies is often associated with a 30% overestimation of clinical benefit.¹⁹ Furthermore, the availability of remdesivir is limited, which raises substantial ethical concerns on the preferential allocation of the drug to selected populations in high-income countries. At the time of this report, uncertainty regarding the risk-benefit balance of remdesivir and other COVID-19 treatments should be emphasized among decision makers.

Errors of commission present particular concerns for risk in treating COVID-19 patients and suggest that sometimes inaction is preferable to action. With many pandemics, there is a history of repeating mistakes, and we believe this can be curtailed by heeding the lessons of history. In the end, we may learn that avoiding therapeutic interventions that are poorly supported may prove to be one of the most important legacies of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors reported having nothing to disclose.

Dr Shapiro is supported by The Emily Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts. For all other authors, no financial support was declared.

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the health crisis of our generation and will inevitably leave a lasting mark on how we practice medicine.^1,2 It has already rapidly changed the way we communicate with patients, families, and colleagues. From the explosion of virtual care—which has been accelerated by need and new reimbursement policies³—to the physical barriers created by personal protective equipment (PPE) and no-visitor policies, the landscape of caring for hospitalized patients has seismically shifted in a few short months. At its core, the practice of medicine is about human connection—a connection between healers and the sick—and should remain as such to provide compassionate care to patients and their loved ones.^4,5 In this perspective, we discuss challenges arising from communication barriers in the time of COVID-19 and opportunities to overcome them by preserving human connection to deliver high-quality care (Table).

While critically important to prevent transmission of the COVID-19 pathogen (ie, SARS-CoV-2), physical distancing and PPE create myriad challenges to achieving effective communication between healthcare providers and patients. Telemedicine has been leveraged to allow distanced communication between patients with COVID-19 and their providers from separate rooms. For face-to-face conversations, physical barriers, including distance between individuals and the wearing of face masks, impose new types of hindrances to nonverbal and verbal communication.

Challenges

Nonverbal communication helps build the therapeutic alliance and influences patient adherence to care plans, satisfaction, trust, and clinical outcomes.^6,7 Expressions of emotion and reciprocity of nonverbal communication serve as important foundations for physician-patient encounters.⁶ Face masks, a necessity to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, lead to fewer facial cues and may impede the ability to express and recognize emotional cues for patients and providers. A study of over 1,000 patients randomized to mask-wearing and non–mask-wearing physicians revealed a significant and negative effect on patient perception of physician empathy in consultations performed by mask-wearing physicians.⁸ Additionally, simple handshakes that convey respect and appreciation are no longer practiced.

Verbal communication is also affected by measures designed to reduce infection. The face mask and face shield worn by clinicians caring for patients with respiratory illnesses like COVID-19 diminish the volume and clarity of the spoken word. This is particularly problematic for patients who have sensory disturbances like hearing impairment. Additionally, these patients may rely on lipreading to effectively understand others, a strategy lost once the face mask is donned.

Opportunities

Healthcare providers may respond to nonverbal communication impediments by explicitly shifting nonverbal to verbal communication. For instance, when delivering serious news, a physician might previously have “mirrored” the patient’s sadness through a light touch on the hand and facial expressions congruent with that emotion. With physical distancing and PPE, the physician may instead express empathy through verbal statements such as acknowledging, validating, and respecting the patient’s emotions; making supportive statements; or exploring the patient’s feelings. The physician may also thank the patient for providing their input for the conversation.

Physicians should introduce themselves at the start of every daily encounter with a patient since there may be few distinct features above the face mask to distinguish the numerous individuals on a healthcare team. Some medical teams have provided “facesheets” with photographs and information about each member in an effort to humanize the team and connect more genuinely with the patient. In some cases, this may be the only way for a patient to see their healthcare providers’ faces.

To address obstacles to effective verbal communication, physicians should inquire about patients’ possible sensory disturbances on admission and, if necessary, arrange for hearing aids or other assistive devices. When communicating, physicians should articulate, enunciate, and increase volume to overcome the physical barrier created by the face mask. They should speak slowly, use plain language without jargon, and intentionally pause to check for understanding using the teach-back method.⁹

Challenges

With the aim of mitigating SARS-CoV-2 transmission, most healthcare systems have implemented no-visitor policies for hospitalized patients. This often leads to feelings of isolation among patients and their families. Goals-of-care discussions for COVID-19 and other serious diagnoses such as cancer can become even more difficult because family members often cannot witness how ill patients have become and clinicians cannot easily communicate virtually with multiple family members simultaneously.

Lack of family at the bedside also makes critical activities, such as discharge planning and education, more vulnerable to poor coordination and medical errors.¹⁰ Patients who are continuing to recover from acute illness may be expected to learn the details of home infusion for intravenous antibiotics, tracheostomy care, or specialized nutritional feeds. Without caregiver support, the patient may be at risk for readmission or other untoward safety events.

Opportunities

Several strategies may be used to improve virtual communication with families. The healthcare team should identify one family point of contact (ideally with the durable power of attorney for healthcare) who will receive and disseminate to others information about the patient’s status. This reduces the potential for multiple telephone conversations. We have witnessed some remarkable family points of contact call many family members to relay medical updates and moderate discussion. Care teams may decide to call the family contact during rounds so that they may listen in on the conversation with the patient or call after rounds to provide succinct updates. Family meetings may benefit greatly if conducted through a video platform, when possible, particularly if significant interval events have occurred. Connection through video allows eye contact and recognition of other nonverbal cues, as well as allowing findings like diagnostic images to be shared.

Because of increased anxiety associated with isolation, we recommend that one member of the primary healthcare team conduct telephone updates to the family point of contact on at least a daily basis. This simple act reduces potential for disjointed or discrepant messages from the healthcare team.¹¹ It also demonstrates the value of keeping those individuals most important to the patient informed and has been shown to increase satisfaction with care and perceived effectiveness of meeting informational needs.¹²

Regarding discharge planning, physicians should engage the patient and family/caregivers in developing a patient-­centered plan as early in the hospital stay as possible. The adage “discharge planning starts at admission” has never been more relevant. The team should avoid assumptions about patient/family sophistication for understanding complex healthcare concepts. Rather, physicians should assess patients’ and caregivers’ health literacy at the beginning of a hospital stay by asking simple, validated questions in a nonjudgmental way.^13,14 This valuable information then allows the team to tailor medical information and discharge education appropriately for both patients and caregivers.

Challenges

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, various members of the healthcare team may be working remotely, and therefore, team members may feel less connected with each other. This could lead to a loss of camaraderie and fellowship within the team, as well as depersonalization, one of the main facets of burnout.¹⁵ Even if colocalized in the same area, those wearing face masks may experience disconnection and depersonalization. In an anecdote at our medical center, one clinician did not know what her team members’ faces looked like until they removed their masks for a moment to have a snack just before the end of the rotation.

In addition, healthcare systems have witnessed an increase in the volume of electronic consultations in which faculty and house staff review the patient’s medical record and render medical decision-making and recommendations without physically examining or interviewing the patient at the bedside. The purpose of this is twofold: to reduce the risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 and to conserve PPE. Electronic consultations could threaten to reduce collaborative communication and teaching among primary and consulting teams, which may lead to greater misunderstanding, less-effective patient care, and decreased satisfaction within the healthcare team.

Opportunities

Now more than ever, physicians should purposefully engage in regular communication with the multidisciplinary healthcare team that includes nurses, pharmacists, social workers, and other critical members. Because many of these individuals may now be working remotely or not joining in-person rounds, several strategies are needed to ensure care coordination within the primary healthcare team. For example, all members should “huddle” at least once daily to review each patient’s care and progress in meeting discharge goals. Team members who are working remotely should be dialed into these huddles and included in coordinating the plan for the day. While in-person multidisciplinary rounds may be temporarily halted to allow for physical distancing of staff, physician leaders can still encourage regular check-ins and updates throughout the day with multidisciplinary team members by other means, such as discussions by phone or a secure instant messenger, if available.

Another strategy to improve care coordination is to engage consulting teams in direct patient/family communication at critical junctures. For example, when a patient’s renal failure has gotten severe enough that dialysis is a consideration, the primary team may ask the nephrology consult service to participate in a joint telephone discussion with the family about risks, benefits, and alternatives to renal replacement therapy. Additionally, our palliative care consult service volunteered to be automatically consulted for all COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit and high-risk COVID-19 patients on the acute care wards because of the disease’s high potential morbidity and mortality. Their roles included proactively confirming the patient’s surrogate decision maker, reviewing the patient’s decision-making capacity, eliciting specific goals of care and life-sustaining treatment preferences, and establishing relationships with the family. They also conducted daily huddles with the respective teams, another approach that fostered high-quality, collaborative care.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to change the approaches we usually employ to interact with patients and their loved ones, as well as healthcare team members, but it has not changed the heart of medicine, which is to heal. Here we provide tangible and discrete strategies to achieve this goal through clear and compassionate communication, including shifting nonverbal to verbal communication with patients, speaking at least daily to one family point of contact, ensuring early and tailored discharge planning, emphasizing continued close care coordination among the multidisciplinary team, and thoughtfully engaging consultants in patient/family communication. We hope this guidance will assist us in striving to cultivate connection with our patients, their loved ones, and each other, just as we have always sought to do. With these strategies in mind, coupled with a continued focus on patient- and family-centered care for hospitalized patients, no amount of distance or PPE will diminish the power of human connection.

The authors wish to thank their colleagues—the physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, clerks, custodial staff, security, and administrative professionals, to name a few—of the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System for their collaboration, dedication, and grace in this time of crisis. The authors are indebted to the patients and their loved ones for putting their trust in their team, for teaching team members, and for providing the privilege of being a part of their lives.

The authors reported having nothing to disclose.

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the health crisis of our generation and will inevitably leave a lasting mark on how we practice medicine.^1,2 It has already rapidly changed the way we communicate with patients, families, and colleagues. From the explosion of virtual care—which has been accelerated by need and new reimbursement policies³—to the physical barriers created by personal protective equipment (PPE) and no-visitor policies, the landscape of caring for hospitalized patients has seismically shifted in a few short months. At its core, the practice of medicine is about human connection—a connection between healers and the sick—and should remain as such to provide compassionate care to patients and their loved ones.^4,5 In this perspective, we discuss challenges arising from communication barriers in the time of COVID-19 and opportunities to overcome them by preserving human connection to deliver high-quality care (Table).

While critically important to prevent transmission of the COVID-19 pathogen (ie, SARS-CoV-2), physical distancing and PPE create myriad challenges to achieving effective communication between healthcare providers and patients. Telemedicine has been leveraged to allow distanced communication between patients with COVID-19 and their providers from separate rooms. For face-to-face conversations, physical barriers, including distance between individuals and the wearing of face masks, impose new types of hindrances to nonverbal and verbal communication.

Challenges

Nonverbal communication helps build the therapeutic alliance and influences patient adherence to care plans, satisfaction, trust, and clinical outcomes.^6,7 Expressions of emotion and reciprocity of nonverbal communication serve as important foundations for physician-patient encounters.⁶ Face masks, a necessity to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, lead to fewer facial cues and may impede the ability to express and recognize emotional cues for patients and providers. A study of over 1,000 patients randomized to mask-wearing and non–mask-wearing physicians revealed a significant and negative effect on patient perception of physician empathy in consultations performed by mask-wearing physicians.⁸ Additionally, simple handshakes that convey respect and appreciation are no longer practiced.

Verbal communication is also affected by measures designed to reduce infection. The face mask and face shield worn by clinicians caring for patients with respiratory illnesses like COVID-19 diminish the volume and clarity of the spoken word. This is particularly problematic for patients who have sensory disturbances like hearing impairment. Additionally, these patients may rely on lipreading to effectively understand others, a strategy lost once the face mask is donned.

Opportunities

Healthcare providers may respond to nonverbal communication impediments by explicitly shifting nonverbal to verbal communication. For instance, when delivering serious news, a physician might previously have “mirrored” the patient’s sadness through a light touch on the hand and facial expressions congruent with that emotion. With physical distancing and PPE, the physician may instead express empathy through verbal statements such as acknowledging, validating, and respecting the patient’s emotions; making supportive statements; or exploring the patient’s feelings. The physician may also thank the patient for providing their input for the conversation.

Physicians should introduce themselves at the start of every daily encounter with a patient since there may be few distinct features above the face mask to distinguish the numerous individuals on a healthcare team. Some medical teams have provided “facesheets” with photographs and information about each member in an effort to humanize the team and connect more genuinely with the patient. In some cases, this may be the only way for a patient to see their healthcare providers’ faces.

To address obstacles to effective verbal communication, physicians should inquire about patients’ possible sensory disturbances on admission and, if necessary, arrange for hearing aids or other assistive devices. When communicating, physicians should articulate, enunciate, and increase volume to overcome the physical barrier created by the face mask. They should speak slowly, use plain language without jargon, and intentionally pause to check for understanding using the teach-back method.⁹

Challenges

With the aim of mitigating SARS-CoV-2 transmission, most healthcare systems have implemented no-visitor policies for hospitalized patients. This often leads to feelings of isolation among patients and their families. Goals-of-care discussions for COVID-19 and other serious diagnoses such as cancer can become even more difficult because family members often cannot witness how ill patients have become and clinicians cannot easily communicate virtually with multiple family members simultaneously.

Lack of family at the bedside also makes critical activities, such as discharge planning and education, more vulnerable to poor coordination and medical errors.¹⁰ Patients who are continuing to recover from acute illness may be expected to learn the details of home infusion for intravenous antibiotics, tracheostomy care, or specialized nutritional feeds. Without caregiver support, the patient may be at risk for readmission or other untoward safety events.

Opportunities

Several strategies may be used to improve virtual communication with families. The healthcare team should identify one family point of contact (ideally with the durable power of attorney for healthcare) who will receive and disseminate to others information about the patient’s status. This reduces the potential for multiple telephone conversations. We have witnessed some remarkable family points of contact call many family members to relay medical updates and moderate discussion. Care teams may decide to call the family contact during rounds so that they may listen in on the conversation with the patient or call after rounds to provide succinct updates. Family meetings may benefit greatly if conducted through a video platform, when possible, particularly if significant interval events have occurred. Connection through video allows eye contact and recognition of other nonverbal cues, as well as allowing findings like diagnostic images to be shared.

Because of increased anxiety associated with isolation, we recommend that one member of the primary healthcare team conduct telephone updates to the family point of contact on at least a daily basis. This simple act reduces potential for disjointed or discrepant messages from the healthcare team.¹¹ It also demonstrates the value of keeping those individuals most important to the patient informed and has been shown to increase satisfaction with care and perceived effectiveness of meeting informational needs.¹²

Regarding discharge planning, physicians should engage the patient and family/caregivers in developing a patient-­centered plan as early in the hospital stay as possible. The adage “discharge planning starts at admission” has never been more relevant. The team should avoid assumptions about patient/family sophistication for understanding complex healthcare concepts. Rather, physicians should assess patients’ and caregivers’ health literacy at the beginning of a hospital stay by asking simple, validated questions in a nonjudgmental way.^13,14 This valuable information then allows the team to tailor medical information and discharge education appropriately for both patients and caregivers.

Challenges

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, various members of the healthcare team may be working remotely, and therefore, team members may feel less connected with each other. This could lead to a loss of camaraderie and fellowship within the team, as well as depersonalization, one of the main facets of burnout.¹⁵ Even if colocalized in the same area, those wearing face masks may experience disconnection and depersonalization. In an anecdote at our medical center, one clinician did not know what her team members’ faces looked like until they removed their masks for a moment to have a snack just before the end of the rotation.

In addition, healthcare systems have witnessed an increase in the volume of electronic consultations in which faculty and house staff review the patient’s medical record and render medical decision-making and recommendations without physically examining or interviewing the patient at the bedside. The purpose of this is twofold: to reduce the risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 and to conserve PPE. Electronic consultations could threaten to reduce collaborative communication and teaching among primary and consulting teams, which may lead to greater misunderstanding, less-effective patient care, and decreased satisfaction within the healthcare team.

Opportunities

Now more than ever, physicians should purposefully engage in regular communication with the multidisciplinary healthcare team that includes nurses, pharmacists, social workers, and other critical members. Because many of these individuals may now be working remotely or not joining in-person rounds, several strategies are needed to ensure care coordination within the primary healthcare team. For example, all members should “huddle” at least once daily to review each patient’s care and progress in meeting discharge goals. Team members who are working remotely should be dialed into these huddles and included in coordinating the plan for the day. While in-person multidisciplinary rounds may be temporarily halted to allow for physical distancing of staff, physician leaders can still encourage regular check-ins and updates throughout the day with multidisciplinary team members by other means, such as discussions by phone or a secure instant messenger, if available.

Another strategy to improve care coordination is to engage consulting teams in direct patient/family communication at critical junctures. For example, when a patient’s renal failure has gotten severe enough that dialysis is a consideration, the primary team may ask the nephrology consult service to participate in a joint telephone discussion with the family about risks, benefits, and alternatives to renal replacement therapy. Additionally, our palliative care consult service volunteered to be automatically consulted for all COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit and high-risk COVID-19 patients on the acute care wards because of the disease’s high potential morbidity and mortality. Their roles included proactively confirming the patient’s surrogate decision maker, reviewing the patient’s decision-making capacity, eliciting specific goals of care and life-sustaining treatment preferences, and establishing relationships with the family. They also conducted daily huddles with the respective teams, another approach that fostered high-quality, collaborative care.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to change the approaches we usually employ to interact with patients and their loved ones, as well as healthcare team members, but it has not changed the heart of medicine, which is to heal. Here we provide tangible and discrete strategies to achieve this goal through clear and compassionate communication, including shifting nonverbal to verbal communication with patients, speaking at least daily to one family point of contact, ensuring early and tailored discharge planning, emphasizing continued close care coordination among the multidisciplinary team, and thoughtfully engaging consultants in patient/family communication. We hope this guidance will assist us in striving to cultivate connection with our patients, their loved ones, and each other, just as we have always sought to do. With these strategies in mind, coupled with a continued focus on patient- and family-centered care for hospitalized patients, no amount of distance or PPE will diminish the power of human connection.

The authors wish to thank their colleagues—the physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, clerks, custodial staff, security, and administrative professionals, to name a few—of the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System for their collaboration, dedication, and grace in this time of crisis. The authors are indebted to the patients and their loved ones for putting their trust in their team, for teaching team members, and for providing the privilege of being a part of their lives.

The authors reported having nothing to disclose.

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the health crisis of our generation and will inevitably leave a lasting mark on how we practice medicine.^1,2 It has already rapidly changed the way we communicate with patients, families, and colleagues. From the explosion of virtual care—which has been accelerated by need and new reimbursement policies³—to the physical barriers created by personal protective equipment (PPE) and no-visitor policies, the landscape of caring for hospitalized patients has seismically shifted in a few short months. At its core, the practice of medicine is about human connection—a connection between healers and the sick—and should remain as such to provide compassionate care to patients and their loved ones.^4,5 In this perspective, we discuss challenges arising from communication barriers in the time of COVID-19 and opportunities to overcome them by preserving human connection to deliver high-quality care (Table).

While critically important to prevent transmission of the COVID-19 pathogen (ie, SARS-CoV-2), physical distancing and PPE create myriad challenges to achieving effective communication between healthcare providers and patients. Telemedicine has been leveraged to allow distanced communication between patients with COVID-19 and their providers from separate rooms. For face-to-face conversations, physical barriers, including distance between individuals and the wearing of face masks, impose new types of hindrances to nonverbal and verbal communication.

Challenges

Nonverbal communication helps build the therapeutic alliance and influences patient adherence to care plans, satisfaction, trust, and clinical outcomes.^6,7 Expressions of emotion and reciprocity of nonverbal communication serve as important foundations for physician-patient encounters.⁶ Face masks, a necessity to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2, lead to fewer facial cues and may impede the ability to express and recognize emotional cues for patients and providers. A study of over 1,000 patients randomized to mask-wearing and non–mask-wearing physicians revealed a significant and negative effect on patient perception of physician empathy in consultations performed by mask-wearing physicians.⁸ Additionally, simple handshakes that convey respect and appreciation are no longer practiced.

Verbal communication is also affected by measures designed to reduce infection. The face mask and face shield worn by clinicians caring for patients with respiratory illnesses like COVID-19 diminish the volume and clarity of the spoken word. This is particularly problematic for patients who have sensory disturbances like hearing impairment. Additionally, these patients may rely on lipreading to effectively understand others, a strategy lost once the face mask is donned.

Opportunities

Healthcare providers may respond to nonverbal communication impediments by explicitly shifting nonverbal to verbal communication. For instance, when delivering serious news, a physician might previously have “mirrored” the patient’s sadness through a light touch on the hand and facial expressions congruent with that emotion. With physical distancing and PPE, the physician may instead express empathy through verbal statements such as acknowledging, validating, and respecting the patient’s emotions; making supportive statements; or exploring the patient’s feelings. The physician may also thank the patient for providing their input for the conversation.

Physicians should introduce themselves at the start of every daily encounter with a patient since there may be few distinct features above the face mask to distinguish the numerous individuals on a healthcare team. Some medical teams have provided “facesheets” with photographs and information about each member in an effort to humanize the team and connect more genuinely with the patient. In some cases, this may be the only way for a patient to see their healthcare providers’ faces.

To address obstacles to effective verbal communication, physicians should inquire about patients’ possible sensory disturbances on admission and, if necessary, arrange for hearing aids or other assistive devices. When communicating, physicians should articulate, enunciate, and increase volume to overcome the physical barrier created by the face mask. They should speak slowly, use plain language without jargon, and intentionally pause to check for understanding using the teach-back method.⁹

Challenges

With the aim of mitigating SARS-CoV-2 transmission, most healthcare systems have implemented no-visitor policies for hospitalized patients. This often leads to feelings of isolation among patients and their families. Goals-of-care discussions for COVID-19 and other serious diagnoses such as cancer can become even more difficult because family members often cannot witness how ill patients have become and clinicians cannot easily communicate virtually with multiple family members simultaneously.

Lack of family at the bedside also makes critical activities, such as discharge planning and education, more vulnerable to poor coordination and medical errors.¹⁰ Patients who are continuing to recover from acute illness may be expected to learn the details of home infusion for intravenous antibiotics, tracheostomy care, or specialized nutritional feeds. Without caregiver support, the patient may be at risk for readmission or other untoward safety events.

Opportunities

Several strategies may be used to improve virtual communication with families. The healthcare team should identify one family point of contact (ideally with the durable power of attorney for healthcare) who will receive and disseminate to others information about the patient’s status. This reduces the potential for multiple telephone conversations. We have witnessed some remarkable family points of contact call many family members to relay medical updates and moderate discussion. Care teams may decide to call the family contact during rounds so that they may listen in on the conversation with the patient or call after rounds to provide succinct updates. Family meetings may benefit greatly if conducted through a video platform, when possible, particularly if significant interval events have occurred. Connection through video allows eye contact and recognition of other nonverbal cues, as well as allowing findings like diagnostic images to be shared.

Because of increased anxiety associated with isolation, we recommend that one member of the primary healthcare team conduct telephone updates to the family point of contact on at least a daily basis. This simple act reduces potential for disjointed or discrepant messages from the healthcare team.¹¹ It also demonstrates the value of keeping those individuals most important to the patient informed and has been shown to increase satisfaction with care and perceived effectiveness of meeting informational needs.¹²

Regarding discharge planning, physicians should engage the patient and family/caregivers in developing a patient-­centered plan as early in the hospital stay as possible. The adage “discharge planning starts at admission” has never been more relevant. The team should avoid assumptions about patient/family sophistication for understanding complex healthcare concepts. Rather, physicians should assess patients’ and caregivers’ health literacy at the beginning of a hospital stay by asking simple, validated questions in a nonjudgmental way.^13,14 This valuable information then allows the team to tailor medical information and discharge education appropriately for both patients and caregivers.

Challenges

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, various members of the healthcare team may be working remotely, and therefore, team members may feel less connected with each other. This could lead to a loss of camaraderie and fellowship within the team, as well as depersonalization, one of the main facets of burnout.¹⁵ Even if colocalized in the same area, those wearing face masks may experience disconnection and depersonalization. In an anecdote at our medical center, one clinician did not know what her team members’ faces looked like until they removed their masks for a moment to have a snack just before the end of the rotation.

In addition, healthcare systems have witnessed an increase in the volume of electronic consultations in which faculty and house staff review the patient’s medical record and render medical decision-making and recommendations without physically examining or interviewing the patient at the bedside. The purpose of this is twofold: to reduce the risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 and to conserve PPE. Electronic consultations could threaten to reduce collaborative communication and teaching among primary and consulting teams, which may lead to greater misunderstanding, less-effective patient care, and decreased satisfaction within the healthcare team.

Opportunities

Now more than ever, physicians should purposefully engage in regular communication with the multidisciplinary healthcare team that includes nurses, pharmacists, social workers, and other critical members. Because many of these individuals may now be working remotely or not joining in-person rounds, several strategies are needed to ensure care coordination within the primary healthcare team. For example, all members should “huddle” at least once daily to review each patient’s care and progress in meeting discharge goals. Team members who are working remotely should be dialed into these huddles and included in coordinating the plan for the day. While in-person multidisciplinary rounds may be temporarily halted to allow for physical distancing of staff, physician leaders can still encourage regular check-ins and updates throughout the day with multidisciplinary team members by other means, such as discussions by phone or a secure instant messenger, if available.

Another strategy to improve care coordination is to engage consulting teams in direct patient/family communication at critical junctures. For example, when a patient’s renal failure has gotten severe enough that dialysis is a consideration, the primary team may ask the nephrology consult service to participate in a joint telephone discussion with the family about risks, benefits, and alternatives to renal replacement therapy. Additionally, our palliative care consult service volunteered to be automatically consulted for all COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit and high-risk COVID-19 patients on the acute care wards because of the disease’s high potential morbidity and mortality. Their roles included proactively confirming the patient’s surrogate decision maker, reviewing the patient’s decision-making capacity, eliciting specific goals of care and life-sustaining treatment preferences, and establishing relationships with the family. They also conducted daily huddles with the respective teams, another approach that fostered high-quality, collaborative care.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to change the approaches we usually employ to interact with patients and their loved ones, as well as healthcare team members, but it has not changed the heart of medicine, which is to heal. Here we provide tangible and discrete strategies to achieve this goal through clear and compassionate communication, including shifting nonverbal to verbal communication with patients, speaking at least daily to one family point of contact, ensuring early and tailored discharge planning, emphasizing continued close care coordination among the multidisciplinary team, and thoughtfully engaging consultants in patient/family communication. We hope this guidance will assist us in striving to cultivate connection with our patients, their loved ones, and each other, just as we have always sought to do. With these strategies in mind, coupled with a continued focus on patient- and family-centered care for hospitalized patients, no amount of distance or PPE will diminish the power of human connection.

The authors wish to thank their colleagues—the physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, clerks, custodial staff, security, and administrative professionals, to name a few—of the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System for their collaboration, dedication, and grace in this time of crisis. The authors are indebted to the patients and their loved ones for putting their trust in their team, for teaching team members, and for providing the privilege of being a part of their lives.

The authors reported having nothing to disclose.

Few patients with episodic migraine, and even fewer with chronic migraine, receive optimal treatment, new research shows.

Results from a survey study showed less than 8% of patients with episodic migraine and less than 2% of patients with chronic migraine were able to overcome four key treatment barriers associated with optimal migraine management. These included current medical consultation, appropriate diagnosis, minimally adequate acute and preventive pharmacologic treatment (if indicated), and absence of acute medication overdose.

The researchers also evaluated any potential impact of race, ethnicity, and sociodemographic factors on these barriers.

“While chronic migraine was associated with higher rates of consulting, only 1.8% of respondents with chronic migraine traversed all four barriers compared with 8.5% of those with episodic migraine,” the investigators, led by Dawn C. Buse, PhD, clinical professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in New York City, noted.

The study was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Ongoing challenges

Migraineurs’ challenges include receiving an appropriate diagnosis and finding effective acute and preventive treatments, the researchers noted. Many patients do not receive optimal care. Previous research by Dr. Buse and colleagues showed that general clinicians were less likely to provide an appropriate diagnosis of migraine compared with headache specialists.

Among patients with chronic migraine who consulted headache specialists, most did not receive an accurate diagnosis of chronic migraine. Data also indicate that a minority, approximately 34%, of patients with chronic migraine used preventive pharmacologic treatments.

The investigators analyzed data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study to determine the proportion of patients who overcame four prespecified barriers to good outcomes.

Eligible participants met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders (3rd edition) criteria for migraine, had Migraine Disability Assessment Scores (MIDAS) of grade II or higher, and provided data on health insurance status. In addition, all eligible participants had to be receiving appropriate treatment for either episodic or chronic migraine.

In all, 16,789 participants met criteria for migraine. Of this group, 9,184 patients had a MIDAS score of grade II or higher and reported health insurance status. In this subgroup, 7,930 (86.3%) patients had episodic migraine and 1,254 (13.7%) had chronic migraine.

A total of 2,187 (27.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 512 (40.8%) patients with chronic migraine were under the care of a healthcare professional. Of this group, 1,655 patients with episodic migraine (75.7%) and 168 with chronic migraine (32.8%) reported receiving an appropriate diagnosis.

Of participants who successfully overcame the first two optimal management barriers—a consultation with a healthcare professional and an appropriate diagnosis—1,133 (68.5%) episodic migraineurs and 113 (67.3%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate acute treatment.

Furthermore, 1,430 (86.4%) episodic migraineurs and 127 (75.6%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate preventive medication treatment. In addition, 982 (59.3%) episodic migraineurs and 88 (52.4%) chronic migraineurs received minimally adequate acute and preventive treatment.

Acute medication overuse was relatively common, the investigators reported. A total of 310 (31.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 66 (75%) patients with chronic migraine met criteria for acute medication overuse.

“Overuse of acute medication for migraine in people with chronic migraine is a serious concern and is associated with increased risks of migraine progression, headache-related disability, and anxiety and depression. Active patient management and education is important to reduce the likelihood of medication overuse,” said Dr. Buse.

Among all eligible respondents, only 672 (8.5%) patients with episodic migraine and 22 (1.8%) with chronic migraine overcame all four barriers to optimal care.

The researchers found no significant effect of ethnicity or race on the likelihood of overcoming any barrier, but they acknowledged that participation bias might have contributed to this lack of difference. Higher annual household income was significantly associated with high likelihood of surmounting all four barriers.

“The analysis of sociodemographics revealed that female sex and higher annual household income showed a strong relationship with likelihood of obtaining an accurate episodic migraine or chronic migraine diagnosis,” said Dr. Buse.

“Although the reasons for this are not clear, it may be that women are more likely to convey the full scope of their symptoms during consultation. Additionally, the known prevalence of migraine in women may influence healthcare providers by reducing suspicion of chronic migraine in men,” she added.

The CaMEO Study was funded by Allergan (now AbbVie). Dr. Buse reports receiving grant support and honoraria from Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly and Co, and Promius. She also receives compensation for work on the editorial board of Current Pain and Headache Reports.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Few patients with episodic migraine, and even fewer with chronic migraine, receive optimal treatment, new research shows.

Results from a survey study showed less than 8% of patients with episodic migraine and less than 2% of patients with chronic migraine were able to overcome four key treatment barriers associated with optimal migraine management. These included current medical consultation, appropriate diagnosis, minimally adequate acute and preventive pharmacologic treatment (if indicated), and absence of acute medication overdose.

The researchers also evaluated any potential impact of race, ethnicity, and sociodemographic factors on these barriers.

“While chronic migraine was associated with higher rates of consulting, only 1.8% of respondents with chronic migraine traversed all four barriers compared with 8.5% of those with episodic migraine,” the investigators, led by Dawn C. Buse, PhD, clinical professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in New York City, noted.

The study was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Ongoing challenges

Migraineurs’ challenges include receiving an appropriate diagnosis and finding effective acute and preventive treatments, the researchers noted. Many patients do not receive optimal care. Previous research by Dr. Buse and colleagues showed that general clinicians were less likely to provide an appropriate diagnosis of migraine compared with headache specialists.

Among patients with chronic migraine who consulted headache specialists, most did not receive an accurate diagnosis of chronic migraine. Data also indicate that a minority, approximately 34%, of patients with chronic migraine used preventive pharmacologic treatments.

The investigators analyzed data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study to determine the proportion of patients who overcame four prespecified barriers to good outcomes.

Eligible participants met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders (3rd edition) criteria for migraine, had Migraine Disability Assessment Scores (MIDAS) of grade II or higher, and provided data on health insurance status. In addition, all eligible participants had to be receiving appropriate treatment for either episodic or chronic migraine.

In all, 16,789 participants met criteria for migraine. Of this group, 9,184 patients had a MIDAS score of grade II or higher and reported health insurance status. In this subgroup, 7,930 (86.3%) patients had episodic migraine and 1,254 (13.7%) had chronic migraine.

A total of 2,187 (27.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 512 (40.8%) patients with chronic migraine were under the care of a healthcare professional. Of this group, 1,655 patients with episodic migraine (75.7%) and 168 with chronic migraine (32.8%) reported receiving an appropriate diagnosis.

Of participants who successfully overcame the first two optimal management barriers—a consultation with a healthcare professional and an appropriate diagnosis—1,133 (68.5%) episodic migraineurs and 113 (67.3%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate acute treatment.

Furthermore, 1,430 (86.4%) episodic migraineurs and 127 (75.6%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate preventive medication treatment. In addition, 982 (59.3%) episodic migraineurs and 88 (52.4%) chronic migraineurs received minimally adequate acute and preventive treatment.

Acute medication overuse was relatively common, the investigators reported. A total of 310 (31.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 66 (75%) patients with chronic migraine met criteria for acute medication overuse.

“Overuse of acute medication for migraine in people with chronic migraine is a serious concern and is associated with increased risks of migraine progression, headache-related disability, and anxiety and depression. Active patient management and education is important to reduce the likelihood of medication overuse,” said Dr. Buse.

Among all eligible respondents, only 672 (8.5%) patients with episodic migraine and 22 (1.8%) with chronic migraine overcame all four barriers to optimal care.

The researchers found no significant effect of ethnicity or race on the likelihood of overcoming any barrier, but they acknowledged that participation bias might have contributed to this lack of difference. Higher annual household income was significantly associated with high likelihood of surmounting all four barriers.

“The analysis of sociodemographics revealed that female sex and higher annual household income showed a strong relationship with likelihood of obtaining an accurate episodic migraine or chronic migraine diagnosis,” said Dr. Buse.

“Although the reasons for this are not clear, it may be that women are more likely to convey the full scope of their symptoms during consultation. Additionally, the known prevalence of migraine in women may influence healthcare providers by reducing suspicion of chronic migraine in men,” she added.

The CaMEO Study was funded by Allergan (now AbbVie). Dr. Buse reports receiving grant support and honoraria from Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly and Co, and Promius. She also receives compensation for work on the editorial board of Current Pain and Headache Reports.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Few patients with episodic migraine, and even fewer with chronic migraine, receive optimal treatment, new research shows.

Results from a survey study showed less than 8% of patients with episodic migraine and less than 2% of patients with chronic migraine were able to overcome four key treatment barriers associated with optimal migraine management. These included current medical consultation, appropriate diagnosis, minimally adequate acute and preventive pharmacologic treatment (if indicated), and absence of acute medication overdose.

The researchers also evaluated any potential impact of race, ethnicity, and sociodemographic factors on these barriers.

“While chronic migraine was associated with higher rates of consulting, only 1.8% of respondents with chronic migraine traversed all four barriers compared with 8.5% of those with episodic migraine,” the investigators, led by Dawn C. Buse, PhD, clinical professor of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in New York City, noted.

The study was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Ongoing challenges

Migraineurs’ challenges include receiving an appropriate diagnosis and finding effective acute and preventive treatments, the researchers noted. Many patients do not receive optimal care. Previous research by Dr. Buse and colleagues showed that general clinicians were less likely to provide an appropriate diagnosis of migraine compared with headache specialists.

Among patients with chronic migraine who consulted headache specialists, most did not receive an accurate diagnosis of chronic migraine. Data also indicate that a minority, approximately 34%, of patients with chronic migraine used preventive pharmacologic treatments.

The investigators analyzed data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study to determine the proportion of patients who overcame four prespecified barriers to good outcomes.

Eligible participants met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders (3rd edition) criteria for migraine, had Migraine Disability Assessment Scores (MIDAS) of grade II or higher, and provided data on health insurance status. In addition, all eligible participants had to be receiving appropriate treatment for either episodic or chronic migraine.

In all, 16,789 participants met criteria for migraine. Of this group, 9,184 patients had a MIDAS score of grade II or higher and reported health insurance status. In this subgroup, 7,930 (86.3%) patients had episodic migraine and 1,254 (13.7%) had chronic migraine.

A total of 2,187 (27.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 512 (40.8%) patients with chronic migraine were under the care of a healthcare professional. Of this group, 1,655 patients with episodic migraine (75.7%) and 168 with chronic migraine (32.8%) reported receiving an appropriate diagnosis.

Of participants who successfully overcame the first two optimal management barriers—a consultation with a healthcare professional and an appropriate diagnosis—1,133 (68.5%) episodic migraineurs and 113 (67.3%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate acute treatment.

Furthermore, 1,430 (86.4%) episodic migraineurs and 127 (75.6%) chronic migraineurs reported receiving minimally adequate preventive medication treatment. In addition, 982 (59.3%) episodic migraineurs and 88 (52.4%) chronic migraineurs received minimally adequate acute and preventive treatment.

Acute medication overuse was relatively common, the investigators reported. A total of 310 (31.6%) patients with episodic migraine and 66 (75%) patients with chronic migraine met criteria for acute medication overuse.

“Overuse of acute medication for migraine in people with chronic migraine is a serious concern and is associated with increased risks of migraine progression, headache-related disability, and anxiety and depression. Active patient management and education is important to reduce the likelihood of medication overuse,” said Dr. Buse.

Among all eligible respondents, only 672 (8.5%) patients with episodic migraine and 22 (1.8%) with chronic migraine overcame all four barriers to optimal care.

The researchers found no significant effect of ethnicity or race on the likelihood of overcoming any barrier, but they acknowledged that participation bias might have contributed to this lack of difference. Higher annual household income was significantly associated with high likelihood of surmounting all four barriers.

“The analysis of sociodemographics revealed that female sex and higher annual household income showed a strong relationship with likelihood of obtaining an accurate episodic migraine or chronic migraine diagnosis,” said Dr. Buse.

“Although the reasons for this are not clear, it may be that women are more likely to convey the full scope of their symptoms during consultation. Additionally, the known prevalence of migraine in women may influence healthcare providers by reducing suspicion of chronic migraine in men,” she added.

The CaMEO Study was funded by Allergan (now AbbVie). Dr. Buse reports receiving grant support and honoraria from Allergan, Amgen, Biohaven, Eli Lilly and Co, and Promius. She also receives compensation for work on the editorial board of Current Pain and Headache Reports.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two international specialty societies have jointly released new guidance on management of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

wildpixel/Thinkstock

“Individuals with OCD, particularly those with contamination concerns or hypochondriacal kinds of worries associated with OCD, people who have perfectionistic type of rituals, or who worry about transmitting COVID-19 [to others] might be particularly vulnerable to this pandemic,” statement coauthor Michael Van Ameringen, MD, professor, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The guidance, issued by the International College of Obsessive Compulsive Spectrum Disorders (ICOCS) and the Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders Research Network (OCRN) of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, emphasizes the importance of using pharmacotherapy as a first-line approach, suspending or reducing exposure and response prevention (ERP), and offering psychoeducation.

The statement was published in the July issue of Comprehensive Psychiatry.
 

Confirm OCD diagnosis

A diagnosis of OCD should be confirmed, and it is important to clarify whether the current symptoms are a “rational or exaggerated response to recent highly stressful events” or a worsening of obsessive-compulsive symptomatology, the statement notes.

Some patients may experience an exacerbation of comorbid conditions such as anxiety disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which may need to be managed separately.

The authors recommend consulting the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines regarding mental health and psychosocial considerations during the COVID-19 outbreak.

“Several suicidal patients with OCD have come to the clinic during the pandemic,” reported Dr. Van Ameringen, director of the MacAnxiety Research Centre in Hamilton. “They felt overwhelmed and that they were contaminating themselves with everything they did, including breathing.”

The authors encourage clinicians to assess suicide risk using validated instruments, such as the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and hospitalize patients if necessary.

Pharmacotherapy is “the most efficacious first-line treatment modality” for adults and children with OCD and contamination, washing, or cleaning symptoms during the pandemic, the authors note.

They recommend a stepwise pharmacotherapeutic approach:

Type of medication

• Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) as first choice.
• Another SSRI if no response to first SSRI.
• Clomipramine as third choice.

Dosage

• Gradually increase suboptimal dose, paying attention to contraindications, adverse effects.

SSRI resistance

• Low-dose adjunctive antipsychotic (for example, aripiprazole, risperidone, quetiapine, olanzapine), for incomplete response, especially if tic is present.

Adherence

• Ensure patient can obtain an adequate supply of medication and is taking it regularly.
• Involve family/caregivers if adherence is problematic.
• Pill organizers and reminder apps may be helpful.

A role for CBT?

Under ordinary circumstances, CBT is considered a first-line intervention for OCD. However, there are risks associated specifically with ERP during the pandemic.

“In ERP, people are being exposed to things that trigger their OCD, so those with contamination fears may be asked to touch things in public places, then resist washing their hands, which would counter public health recommendations,” Dr. Van Ameringen said.

In vivo exposure should be paused, but some ERP interventions can be adapted or modified “on a case-by-case basis,” the authors state. For patients whose exposure is unrelated to contamination, other ERP treatment plans can be continued.

The authors recommend using therapy time to “prevent patients from deteriorating” by encouraging them to engage in activity scheduling and structuring the day to include physical activity, enjoyable activities, practices that enhance sleep, and mindfulness.

Limit news exposure

A central component of managing OCD during the pandemic is providing “balanced information” about the known risks and impact of COVID-19, the authors stated.

Dr. Van Ameringen recounted that he has seen patients who have washed their hands for hours and bleached or even boiled their hands.

“Some [patients with OCD] wonder if it’s safe to touch a newspaper or if they can catch the virus if they go outside, even if no one is around,” he reported. “Some wonder if they should ‘quarantine’ a package or wear gloves to bed.”

It has been helpful, for example, to show them the public health guidance of the WHO or CDC advising that 20 seconds of hand washing is adequate, he said.

“We have also seen that some of the sources of information about COVID-19 haven’t been factually correct and that people were watching the news all day and being bombarded with information from every source, which was making their symptoms a thousand times worse,” Dr. Van Ameringen reported.

Therefore, patients should be advised to limit news viewing to half an hour twice daily, the authors suggest. The authors also advise clinicians to “take a compassionate, calming,” and culturally sensitive approach to inform all interventions.

Unique anchor

Commenting on the statement in an interview, Debanjan Banerjee, MD, geriatric psychiatry senior resident, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India, said that this “comprehensive guideline, based on expert experience, will serve as a guiding framework for physicians and psychiatrists globally.”

In the “absence of systemic data so far, this guideline can provide a unique anchor of a global consensus on how to take care of those with preexisting OCD or newly emergent cases” said Dr. Banerjee, who was not involved in authoring the statement.

Also commenting on the statement, Jonathan Abramowitz, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that he “generally agrees” with these guidelines but disagrees with the “apparent recommendations to scale back” ERP.

“The fact is that effective and safe ERP is possible, even during this time, even following the scientific guidance,” stated Dr. Abramowitz, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders. He was not involved in the statement.

He noted that the International OCD Foundation offers educational programs for clinicians regarding the safe use of ERP during this time.

The authors acknowledge that their guideline is “largely based on empirical evidence” and should be regarded as “preliminary.” The guidance “will be updated as new information arises.”

No specific source of funding for the statement is listed. Dr. Van Ameringen reports being on the advisory boards of Allergan, Almatica, Brainsway, Janssen, Lundbeck, Myriad Neuroscience, Otsuka, and Purdue Pharma (Canada); is on the speakers bureau for Allergan, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Pfizer, Purdue Pharma (Canada) and Takeda; and has received research support from Janssen, Purdue Pharma (Canada), the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Hamilton Academic Health Sciences Organization. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Banerjee and Dr. Abramowitz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two international specialty societies have jointly released new guidance on management of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

wildpixel/Thinkstock

“Individuals with OCD, particularly those with contamination concerns or hypochondriacal kinds of worries associated with OCD, people who have perfectionistic type of rituals, or who worry about transmitting COVID-19 [to others] might be particularly vulnerable to this pandemic,” statement coauthor Michael Van Ameringen, MD, professor, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The guidance, issued by the International College of Obsessive Compulsive Spectrum Disorders (ICOCS) and the Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders Research Network (OCRN) of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, emphasizes the importance of using pharmacotherapy as a first-line approach, suspending or reducing exposure and response prevention (ERP), and offering psychoeducation.

The statement was published in the July issue of Comprehensive Psychiatry.
 

Confirm OCD diagnosis

A diagnosis of OCD should be confirmed, and it is important to clarify whether the current symptoms are a “rational or exaggerated response to recent highly stressful events” or a worsening of obsessive-compulsive symptomatology, the statement notes.

Some patients may experience an exacerbation of comorbid conditions such as anxiety disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which may need to be managed separately.

The authors recommend consulting the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines regarding mental health and psychosocial considerations during the COVID-19 outbreak.

“Several suicidal patients with OCD have come to the clinic during the pandemic,” reported Dr. Van Ameringen, director of the MacAnxiety Research Centre in Hamilton. “They felt overwhelmed and that they were contaminating themselves with everything they did, including breathing.”

The authors encourage clinicians to assess suicide risk using validated instruments, such as the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and hospitalize patients if necessary.

Pharmacotherapy is “the most efficacious first-line treatment modality” for adults and children with OCD and contamination, washing, or cleaning symptoms during the pandemic, the authors note.

They recommend a stepwise pharmacotherapeutic approach:

Type of medication

• Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) as first choice.
• Another SSRI if no response to first SSRI.
• Clomipramine as third choice.

Dosage

• Gradually increase suboptimal dose, paying attention to contraindications, adverse effects.

SSRI resistance

• Low-dose adjunctive antipsychotic (for example, aripiprazole, risperidone, quetiapine, olanzapine), for incomplete response, especially if tic is present.

Adherence

• Ensure patient can obtain an adequate supply of medication and is taking it regularly.
• Involve family/caregivers if adherence is problematic.
• Pill organizers and reminder apps may be helpful.

A role for CBT?

Under ordinary circumstances, CBT is considered a first-line intervention for OCD. However, there are risks associated specifically with ERP during the pandemic.

“In ERP, people are being exposed to things that trigger their OCD, so those with contamination fears may be asked to touch things in public places, then resist washing their hands, which would counter public health recommendations,” Dr. Van Ameringen said.

In vivo exposure should be paused, but some ERP interventions can be adapted or modified “on a case-by-case basis,” the authors state. For patients whose exposure is unrelated to contamination, other ERP treatment plans can be continued.

The authors recommend using therapy time to “prevent patients from deteriorating” by encouraging them to engage in activity scheduling and structuring the day to include physical activity, enjoyable activities, practices that enhance sleep, and mindfulness.

Limit news exposure

A central component of managing OCD during the pandemic is providing “balanced information” about the known risks and impact of COVID-19, the authors stated.

Dr. Van Ameringen recounted that he has seen patients who have washed their hands for hours and bleached or even boiled their hands.

“Some [patients with OCD] wonder if it’s safe to touch a newspaper or if they can catch the virus if they go outside, even if no one is around,” he reported. “Some wonder if they should ‘quarantine’ a package or wear gloves to bed.”

It has been helpful, for example, to show them the public health guidance of the WHO or CDC advising that 20 seconds of hand washing is adequate, he said.

“We have also seen that some of the sources of information about COVID-19 haven’t been factually correct and that people were watching the news all day and being bombarded with information from every source, which was making their symptoms a thousand times worse,” Dr. Van Ameringen reported.

Therefore, patients should be advised to limit news viewing to half an hour twice daily, the authors suggest. The authors also advise clinicians to “take a compassionate, calming,” and culturally sensitive approach to inform all interventions.

Unique anchor

Commenting on the statement in an interview, Debanjan Banerjee, MD, geriatric psychiatry senior resident, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India, said that this “comprehensive guideline, based on expert experience, will serve as a guiding framework for physicians and psychiatrists globally.”

In the “absence of systemic data so far, this guideline can provide a unique anchor of a global consensus on how to take care of those with preexisting OCD or newly emergent cases” said Dr. Banerjee, who was not involved in authoring the statement.

Also commenting on the statement, Jonathan Abramowitz, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that he “generally agrees” with these guidelines but disagrees with the “apparent recommendations to scale back” ERP.

“The fact is that effective and safe ERP is possible, even during this time, even following the scientific guidance,” stated Dr. Abramowitz, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders. He was not involved in the statement.

He noted that the International OCD Foundation offers educational programs for clinicians regarding the safe use of ERP during this time.

The authors acknowledge that their guideline is “largely based on empirical evidence” and should be regarded as “preliminary.” The guidance “will be updated as new information arises.”

No specific source of funding for the statement is listed. Dr. Van Ameringen reports being on the advisory boards of Allergan, Almatica, Brainsway, Janssen, Lundbeck, Myriad Neuroscience, Otsuka, and Purdue Pharma (Canada); is on the speakers bureau for Allergan, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Pfizer, Purdue Pharma (Canada) and Takeda; and has received research support from Janssen, Purdue Pharma (Canada), the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Hamilton Academic Health Sciences Organization. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Banerjee and Dr. Abramowitz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two international specialty societies have jointly released new guidance on management of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

wildpixel/Thinkstock

“Individuals with OCD, particularly those with contamination concerns or hypochondriacal kinds of worries associated with OCD, people who have perfectionistic type of rituals, or who worry about transmitting COVID-19 [to others] might be particularly vulnerable to this pandemic,” statement coauthor Michael Van Ameringen, MD, professor, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The guidance, issued by the International College of Obsessive Compulsive Spectrum Disorders (ICOCS) and the Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders Research Network (OCRN) of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, emphasizes the importance of using pharmacotherapy as a first-line approach, suspending or reducing exposure and response prevention (ERP), and offering psychoeducation.

The statement was published in the July issue of Comprehensive Psychiatry.
 

Confirm OCD diagnosis

A diagnosis of OCD should be confirmed, and it is important to clarify whether the current symptoms are a “rational or exaggerated response to recent highly stressful events” or a worsening of obsessive-compulsive symptomatology, the statement notes.

Some patients may experience an exacerbation of comorbid conditions such as anxiety disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which may need to be managed separately.

The authors recommend consulting the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines regarding mental health and psychosocial considerations during the COVID-19 outbreak.

“Several suicidal patients with OCD have come to the clinic during the pandemic,” reported Dr. Van Ameringen, director of the MacAnxiety Research Centre in Hamilton. “They felt overwhelmed and that they were contaminating themselves with everything they did, including breathing.”

The authors encourage clinicians to assess suicide risk using validated instruments, such as the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and hospitalize patients if necessary.

Pharmacotherapy is “the most efficacious first-line treatment modality” for adults and children with OCD and contamination, washing, or cleaning symptoms during the pandemic, the authors note.

They recommend a stepwise pharmacotherapeutic approach:

Type of medication

• Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) as first choice.
• Another SSRI if no response to first SSRI.
• Clomipramine as third choice.

Dosage

• Gradually increase suboptimal dose, paying attention to contraindications, adverse effects.

SSRI resistance

• Low-dose adjunctive antipsychotic (for example, aripiprazole, risperidone, quetiapine, olanzapine), for incomplete response, especially if tic is present.

Adherence

• Ensure patient can obtain an adequate supply of medication and is taking it regularly.
• Involve family/caregivers if adherence is problematic.
• Pill organizers and reminder apps may be helpful.

A role for CBT?

Under ordinary circumstances, CBT is considered a first-line intervention for OCD. However, there are risks associated specifically with ERP during the pandemic.

“In ERP, people are being exposed to things that trigger their OCD, so those with contamination fears may be asked to touch things in public places, then resist washing their hands, which would counter public health recommendations,” Dr. Van Ameringen said.

In vivo exposure should be paused, but some ERP interventions can be adapted or modified “on a case-by-case basis,” the authors state. For patients whose exposure is unrelated to contamination, other ERP treatment plans can be continued.

The authors recommend using therapy time to “prevent patients from deteriorating” by encouraging them to engage in activity scheduling and structuring the day to include physical activity, enjoyable activities, practices that enhance sleep, and mindfulness.

Limit news exposure

A central component of managing OCD during the pandemic is providing “balanced information” about the known risks and impact of COVID-19, the authors stated.

Dr. Van Ameringen recounted that he has seen patients who have washed their hands for hours and bleached or even boiled their hands.

“Some [patients with OCD] wonder if it’s safe to touch a newspaper or if they can catch the virus if they go outside, even if no one is around,” he reported. “Some wonder if they should ‘quarantine’ a package or wear gloves to bed.”

It has been helpful, for example, to show them the public health guidance of the WHO or CDC advising that 20 seconds of hand washing is adequate, he said.

“We have also seen that some of the sources of information about COVID-19 haven’t been factually correct and that people were watching the news all day and being bombarded with information from every source, which was making their symptoms a thousand times worse,” Dr. Van Ameringen reported.

Therefore, patients should be advised to limit news viewing to half an hour twice daily, the authors suggest. The authors also advise clinicians to “take a compassionate, calming,” and culturally sensitive approach to inform all interventions.

Unique anchor

Commenting on the statement in an interview, Debanjan Banerjee, MD, geriatric psychiatry senior resident, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India, said that this “comprehensive guideline, based on expert experience, will serve as a guiding framework for physicians and psychiatrists globally.”

In the “absence of systemic data so far, this guideline can provide a unique anchor of a global consensus on how to take care of those with preexisting OCD or newly emergent cases” said Dr. Banerjee, who was not involved in authoring the statement.

Also commenting on the statement, Jonathan Abramowitz, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that he “generally agrees” with these guidelines but disagrees with the “apparent recommendations to scale back” ERP.

“The fact is that effective and safe ERP is possible, even during this time, even following the scientific guidance,” stated Dr. Abramowitz, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders. He was not involved in the statement.

He noted that the International OCD Foundation offers educational programs for clinicians regarding the safe use of ERP during this time.

The authors acknowledge that their guideline is “largely based on empirical evidence” and should be regarded as “preliminary.” The guidance “will be updated as new information arises.”

No specific source of funding for the statement is listed. Dr. Van Ameringen reports being on the advisory boards of Allergan, Almatica, Brainsway, Janssen, Lundbeck, Myriad Neuroscience, Otsuka, and Purdue Pharma (Canada); is on the speakers bureau for Allergan, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Pfizer, Purdue Pharma (Canada) and Takeda; and has received research support from Janssen, Purdue Pharma (Canada), the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Hamilton Academic Health Sciences Organization. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Banerjee and Dr. Abramowitz have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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