The strong link between glucose control and COVID-19 outcomes has been reaffirmed in the largest study thus far of hospitalized patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

The retrospective, multicenter study, from 7,337 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was published online in Cell Metabolism by Lihua Zhu, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues.

The study finds that, while the presence of type 2 diabetes per se is a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, better glycemic control among those with preexisting type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with significant reductions in adverse outcomes and death.

“We were surprised to see such favorable outcomes in the well-controlled blood glucose group among patients with COVID-19 and preexisting type 2 diabetes,” senior author Hongliang Li, also of Renmin Hospital, said in a statement.

“Considering that people with diabetes had much higher risk for death and various complications, and there are no specific drugs for COVID-19, our findings indicate that controlling blood glucose well may act as an effective auxiliary approach to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and preexisting diabetes,” Dr. Li added.

Asked to comment on the findings, David Klonoff, MD, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills–Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif., cautioned that the way in which the “well-controlled” diabetes group was distinguished from the “poorly controlled” one in this study used a “nonstandard method for distinguishing these groups based on variability.”

So “there was a great deal of overlap between the two groups,” he observed.
 

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

Of the 7,337 participants with confirmed COVID-19 in the Chinese study, 13% (952) had preexisting type 2 diabetes while the other 6,385 did not have diabetes.

Median ages were 62 years for those with and 53 years for those without diabetes. As has been reported several times since the pandemic began, the presence of diabetes was associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Those with preexisting diabetes received significantly more antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, antihypertensive drugs, and vasoactive drugs than did those without diabetes. They were also more likely to receive oxygen inhalation (76.9% vs. 61.2%), noninvasive ventilation (10.2% vs. 3.9%), and invasive ventilation (3.6% vs. 0.7%).

Over 28 days starting with the day of admission, the type 2 diabetes group was significantly more likely to die compared with those without diabetes (7.8% vs. 2.7%; P < .001), with a crude hazard ratio of 2.90 (P < .001). After adjustments for age, gender, and COVID-19 severity, the diabetes group was still significantly more likely to die, with a hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = .005).

Those with diabetes were also significantly more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44), acute kidney injury (3.01), and septic shock (1.95).

“The results were unequivocal to implicate diabetes mellitus in higher risk of death and other detrimental outcomes of COVID-19,” the authors wrote, although they caution “there were notable differences in the covariate distributions between the two groups.”

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

Among the 952 with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, 282 individuals had “well-controlled” blood glucose, ranging from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L (~70 - 180 mg/dL) with median 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A_1c of 7.3%.

The other 528 were “poorly controlled,” defined as the lowest fasting glucose level 3.9 mmol/L or above and the highest 2-hour postprandial glucose exceeding 10.0 mmol/L, with median 10.9 mmol/L (196 mg/dL) and HbA_1c of 8.1%.

Just as with the diabetes vs. no diabetes comparison, those in the “well-controlled” blood glucose group had lower use of antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and vasoactive drugs.

They also were less likely to require oxygen inhalation (70.2% vs. 83.5%), non-invasive ventilation (4.6% vs. 11.9%), invasive ventilation (0% vs. 4.2%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0% vs. 0.8%).

In-hospital death was significantly lower in the “well-controlled” group (1.1% vs. 11.0%; crude hazard ratio, 0.09; P < .001). After adjustments for the previous factors plus site effect, the difference remained significant (0.13; P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratio for acute respiratory distress syndrome was 0.41 (P < .001) and for acute heart injury it was 0.21 (P = .003).
 

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

Klonoff was senior author on a previous study from the United States that showed that both diabetes and uncontrolled hyperglycemia among people without prior diabetes – the latter “presumably due to stress,” he said – were strong predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The new Chinese research only looks at individuals with previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes, Klonoff pointed out in an interview.

“The article by Zhu et al. did not look at outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Per [the U.S. study], in COVID-19 stress hyperglycemia, compared to diabetes, was associated with greater mortality.”

In addition, although international guidance now advises optimizing blood glucose levels in all patients with hyperglycemia and COVID-19, it’s actually not yet totally clear which in-target range improves COVID-19 prognosis the best, Dr. Klonoff said.

He is now working on a study aimed at answering that question.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff is a consultant to Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo, Roche, and ThirdWayv.

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

The strong link between glucose control and COVID-19 outcomes has been reaffirmed in the largest study thus far of hospitalized patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

The retrospective, multicenter study, from 7,337 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was published online in Cell Metabolism by Lihua Zhu, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues.

The study finds that, while the presence of type 2 diabetes per se is a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, better glycemic control among those with preexisting type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with significant reductions in adverse outcomes and death.

“We were surprised to see such favorable outcomes in the well-controlled blood glucose group among patients with COVID-19 and preexisting type 2 diabetes,” senior author Hongliang Li, also of Renmin Hospital, said in a statement.

“Considering that people with diabetes had much higher risk for death and various complications, and there are no specific drugs for COVID-19, our findings indicate that controlling blood glucose well may act as an effective auxiliary approach to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and preexisting diabetes,” Dr. Li added.

Asked to comment on the findings, David Klonoff, MD, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills–Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif., cautioned that the way in which the “well-controlled” diabetes group was distinguished from the “poorly controlled” one in this study used a “nonstandard method for distinguishing these groups based on variability.”

So “there was a great deal of overlap between the two groups,” he observed.
 

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

Of the 7,337 participants with confirmed COVID-19 in the Chinese study, 13% (952) had preexisting type 2 diabetes while the other 6,385 did not have diabetes.

Median ages were 62 years for those with and 53 years for those without diabetes. As has been reported several times since the pandemic began, the presence of diabetes was associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Those with preexisting diabetes received significantly more antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, antihypertensive drugs, and vasoactive drugs than did those without diabetes. They were also more likely to receive oxygen inhalation (76.9% vs. 61.2%), noninvasive ventilation (10.2% vs. 3.9%), and invasive ventilation (3.6% vs. 0.7%).

Over 28 days starting with the day of admission, the type 2 diabetes group was significantly more likely to die compared with those without diabetes (7.8% vs. 2.7%; P < .001), with a crude hazard ratio of 2.90 (P < .001). After adjustments for age, gender, and COVID-19 severity, the diabetes group was still significantly more likely to die, with a hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = .005).

Those with diabetes were also significantly more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44), acute kidney injury (3.01), and septic shock (1.95).

“The results were unequivocal to implicate diabetes mellitus in higher risk of death and other detrimental outcomes of COVID-19,” the authors wrote, although they caution “there were notable differences in the covariate distributions between the two groups.”

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

Among the 952 with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, 282 individuals had “well-controlled” blood glucose, ranging from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L (~70 - 180 mg/dL) with median 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A_1c of 7.3%.

The other 528 were “poorly controlled,” defined as the lowest fasting glucose level 3.9 mmol/L or above and the highest 2-hour postprandial glucose exceeding 10.0 mmol/L, with median 10.9 mmol/L (196 mg/dL) and HbA_1c of 8.1%.

Just as with the diabetes vs. no diabetes comparison, those in the “well-controlled” blood glucose group had lower use of antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and vasoactive drugs.

They also were less likely to require oxygen inhalation (70.2% vs. 83.5%), non-invasive ventilation (4.6% vs. 11.9%), invasive ventilation (0% vs. 4.2%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0% vs. 0.8%).

In-hospital death was significantly lower in the “well-controlled” group (1.1% vs. 11.0%; crude hazard ratio, 0.09; P < .001). After adjustments for the previous factors plus site effect, the difference remained significant (0.13; P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratio for acute respiratory distress syndrome was 0.41 (P < .001) and for acute heart injury it was 0.21 (P = .003).
 

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

Klonoff was senior author on a previous study from the United States that showed that both diabetes and uncontrolled hyperglycemia among people without prior diabetes – the latter “presumably due to stress,” he said – were strong predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The new Chinese research only looks at individuals with previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes, Klonoff pointed out in an interview.

“The article by Zhu et al. did not look at outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Per [the U.S. study], in COVID-19 stress hyperglycemia, compared to diabetes, was associated with greater mortality.”

In addition, although international guidance now advises optimizing blood glucose levels in all patients with hyperglycemia and COVID-19, it’s actually not yet totally clear which in-target range improves COVID-19 prognosis the best, Dr. Klonoff said.

He is now working on a study aimed at answering that question.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff is a consultant to Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo, Roche, and ThirdWayv.

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

The strong link between glucose control and COVID-19 outcomes has been reaffirmed in the largest study thus far of hospitalized patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

The retrospective, multicenter study, from 7,337 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was published online in Cell Metabolism by Lihua Zhu, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues.

The study finds that, while the presence of type 2 diabetes per se is a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, better glycemic control among those with preexisting type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with significant reductions in adverse outcomes and death.

“We were surprised to see such favorable outcomes in the well-controlled blood glucose group among patients with COVID-19 and preexisting type 2 diabetes,” senior author Hongliang Li, also of Renmin Hospital, said in a statement.

“Considering that people with diabetes had much higher risk for death and various complications, and there are no specific drugs for COVID-19, our findings indicate that controlling blood glucose well may act as an effective auxiliary approach to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and preexisting diabetes,” Dr. Li added.

Asked to comment on the findings, David Klonoff, MD, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills–Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif., cautioned that the way in which the “well-controlled” diabetes group was distinguished from the “poorly controlled” one in this study used a “nonstandard method for distinguishing these groups based on variability.”

So “there was a great deal of overlap between the two groups,” he observed.
 

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

Of the 7,337 participants with confirmed COVID-19 in the Chinese study, 13% (952) had preexisting type 2 diabetes while the other 6,385 did not have diabetes.

Median ages were 62 years for those with and 53 years for those without diabetes. As has been reported several times since the pandemic began, the presence of diabetes was associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Those with preexisting diabetes received significantly more antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, antihypertensive drugs, and vasoactive drugs than did those without diabetes. They were also more likely to receive oxygen inhalation (76.9% vs. 61.2%), noninvasive ventilation (10.2% vs. 3.9%), and invasive ventilation (3.6% vs. 0.7%).

Over 28 days starting with the day of admission, the type 2 diabetes group was significantly more likely to die compared with those without diabetes (7.8% vs. 2.7%; P < .001), with a crude hazard ratio of 2.90 (P < .001). After adjustments for age, gender, and COVID-19 severity, the diabetes group was still significantly more likely to die, with a hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = .005).

Those with diabetes were also significantly more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44), acute kidney injury (3.01), and septic shock (1.95).

“The results were unequivocal to implicate diabetes mellitus in higher risk of death and other detrimental outcomes of COVID-19,” the authors wrote, although they caution “there were notable differences in the covariate distributions between the two groups.”

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

Among the 952 with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, 282 individuals had “well-controlled” blood glucose, ranging from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L (~70 - 180 mg/dL) with median 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A_1c of 7.3%.

The other 528 were “poorly controlled,” defined as the lowest fasting glucose level 3.9 mmol/L or above and the highest 2-hour postprandial glucose exceeding 10.0 mmol/L, with median 10.9 mmol/L (196 mg/dL) and HbA_1c of 8.1%.

Just as with the diabetes vs. no diabetes comparison, those in the “well-controlled” blood glucose group had lower use of antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and vasoactive drugs.

They also were less likely to require oxygen inhalation (70.2% vs. 83.5%), non-invasive ventilation (4.6% vs. 11.9%), invasive ventilation (0% vs. 4.2%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0% vs. 0.8%).

In-hospital death was significantly lower in the “well-controlled” group (1.1% vs. 11.0%; crude hazard ratio, 0.09; P < .001). After adjustments for the previous factors plus site effect, the difference remained significant (0.13; P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratio for acute respiratory distress syndrome was 0.41 (P < .001) and for acute heart injury it was 0.21 (P = .003).
 

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

Klonoff was senior author on a previous study from the United States that showed that both diabetes and uncontrolled hyperglycemia among people without prior diabetes – the latter “presumably due to stress,” he said – were strong predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The new Chinese research only looks at individuals with previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes, Klonoff pointed out in an interview.

“The article by Zhu et al. did not look at outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Per [the U.S. study], in COVID-19 stress hyperglycemia, compared to diabetes, was associated with greater mortality.”

In addition, although international guidance now advises optimizing blood glucose levels in all patients with hyperglycemia and COVID-19, it’s actually not yet totally clear which in-target range improves COVID-19 prognosis the best, Dr. Klonoff said.

He is now working on a study aimed at answering that question.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff is a consultant to Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo, Roche, and ThirdWayv.

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

New recommendations for the management of metabolic and bariatric surgery candidates during and after the COVID-19 pandemic shift the focus from body mass index (BMI) alone to medical conditions most likely to be ameliorated by the procedures.

Meant as a guide for both surgeons and referring clinicians, the document was published online May 7 as a Personal View in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

“Millions of elective operations have been on hold because of COVID-19. ... In the next few months, we’re going to face a huge backlog of procedures of all types. Even when we resume doing surgery it’s not going to be business as usual for many months. ... Hospital clinicians and managers want to make decisions about who’s going to get those slots first,” lead author of the international 23-member writing panel, Francesco Rubino, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Rubino is professor of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College Hospital, London, UK.

The recommendations include a guide for prioritizing patients eligible for bariatric or metabolic surgery – the former referring to when it’s performed primarily for obesity and the latter for type 2 diabetes – once the pandemic restrictions on nonessential surgery are lifted.

Rather than prioritizing patients by BMI, the scheme focuses on medical comorbidities to place patients into “expedited” or “standard” access categories.

Historically, bariatric and metabolic surgery have had a low uptake due to factors such as lack of insurance coverage and stigma, with many physicians inappropriately viewing it as risky, ineffective, and/or as a “last resort” treatment, Rubino said.

“They don’t refer for surgery even though we have all the evidence that the benefits for patients are unquestionable,” he added.

Because of that background, “in the situation of limited capacity, patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes are likely to be penalized compared to any other conditions that need elective surgery,” Rubino stressed.

Asked to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C., called the document a “really valuable thought piece.”

Noting that only about 1% to 2% of people who are eligible for bariatric or metabolic surgery actually undergo the procedures, Kahan said, “because so few people get the surgery we’ve never really run into a situation of undersupply or overdemand.

“But, as we’re moving forward, one would think that we will run into that scenario. So, better prioritizing and triaging patients likely will be more important down the line, given how effective surgery has been shown to be now, both short term and long term.”

Risks of obesity, shifting away from BMI as the main metric

The new document extensively discusses the risks of obesity – including now as a major COVID-19 risk factor – and the benefits of the procedures and risks of delaying them.

It also addresses ongoing management of patients who had bariatric/metabolic surgery in the past and nonsurgical treatment to mitigate harm until patients can undergo the procedures.

Another important problem the document addresses, Rubino said, is the current BMI-focused bariatric/metabolic surgery criteria (≥ 40 kg/m2 or ≥ 35 kg/m2 with at least one obesity-related comorbidity).

“BMI is an epidemiological measure, not a measure of disease. But we select patients for bariatric surgery by saying who is eligible [without assessing] who has more or less severe disease, and who is at more or less risk for short-term complications from the disease compared to others,” he explained. “We don’t have any mechanism, even in normal times, let alone during a pandemic, to differentiate between patients who need surgery sooner rather than later.”

Indeed, Kahan said, “Traditionally we tend to oversimplify risk stratification in terms of how heavy people are. While that is one factor of importance, it’s far from the only factor and may not be the most important factor.”

In “someone who is relatively lighter but sicker, it would be sensible, in my mind, to prioritize them for a potentially curative procedure compared with someone who is heavier – even much heavier – but is not as sick,” he added.
 

“Pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue”

The document confirms that bariatric/metabolic surgery should remain suspended during the most intense phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and only resume once overall restrictions on nonessential surgeries are lifted.

Exceptions are limited to emergency endoscopic interventions for complications of prior surgery, such as hemorrhage or leaks.

A section offers guidance for pharmacologic and other nonsurgical options to mitigate harm from delaying the procedures including use of drugs that promote weight loss, such as glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists and/or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

Once less-urgent surgeries are allowed to resume, a prioritization scheme addresses which patients should receive “expedited access” (risk of harm if delayed beyond 90 days) versus “standard access” (unlikely to deteriorate within 6 months) within three indication categories: “diabetes (metabolic) surgery,” “obesity (bariatric) surgery,” or “adjuvant bariatric and metabolic surgery.”

Examples of patients who would qualify for “expedited” access in the “diabetes surgery” category include those with an A_1c of 8% or greater despite use of two or more oral medications or insulin use, those with a history of cardiovascular disease, and/or those with stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease.

For the “obesity surgery” group, priority patients include those with a BMI of 60 kg/m2 or greater or with severe obesity hypoventilation syndrome or severe sleep apnea.

And for the adjuvant category, those requiring weight loss to allow for other treatments, such as organ transplants, would be expedited.

Individuals with less-severe obesity or chronic conditions could have their surgeries put off until a later date.

The panel also recommends that even though keyhole surgery involves aerosol-generating techniques that could increase the risk for coronavirus infection, laparoscopic approaches are still preferred over open procedures because they carry lower risks for complications and result in shorter hospital stays, thereby lowering infection risk.

Appropriate personal protective equipment is, of course, advised for use by clinicians.

Kahan said of the document: “I think it’s a very sensible piece where they’re thinking through things that haven’t really needed to be thought through all that much. That’s partly with respect to COVID-19, but even beyond that I think this will be a valuable platform going forward.”

Indeed, Rubino said, “The pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue.”

Rubino has reported being on advisory boards for GI Dynamics, Keyron, and Novo Nordisk, has reported receiving consulting fees and research grants from Ethicon Endo-Surgery and Medtronic. Kahan has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations for the management of metabolic and bariatric surgery candidates during and after the COVID-19 pandemic shift the focus from body mass index (BMI) alone to medical conditions most likely to be ameliorated by the procedures.

Meant as a guide for both surgeons and referring clinicians, the document was published online May 7 as a Personal View in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

“Millions of elective operations have been on hold because of COVID-19. ... In the next few months, we’re going to face a huge backlog of procedures of all types. Even when we resume doing surgery it’s not going to be business as usual for many months. ... Hospital clinicians and managers want to make decisions about who’s going to get those slots first,” lead author of the international 23-member writing panel, Francesco Rubino, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Rubino is professor of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College Hospital, London, UK.

The recommendations include a guide for prioritizing patients eligible for bariatric or metabolic surgery – the former referring to when it’s performed primarily for obesity and the latter for type 2 diabetes – once the pandemic restrictions on nonessential surgery are lifted.

Rather than prioritizing patients by BMI, the scheme focuses on medical comorbidities to place patients into “expedited” or “standard” access categories.

Historically, bariatric and metabolic surgery have had a low uptake due to factors such as lack of insurance coverage and stigma, with many physicians inappropriately viewing it as risky, ineffective, and/or as a “last resort” treatment, Rubino said.

“They don’t refer for surgery even though we have all the evidence that the benefits for patients are unquestionable,” he added.

Because of that background, “in the situation of limited capacity, patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes are likely to be penalized compared to any other conditions that need elective surgery,” Rubino stressed.

Asked to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C., called the document a “really valuable thought piece.”

Noting that only about 1% to 2% of people who are eligible for bariatric or metabolic surgery actually undergo the procedures, Kahan said, “because so few people get the surgery we’ve never really run into a situation of undersupply or overdemand.

“But, as we’re moving forward, one would think that we will run into that scenario. So, better prioritizing and triaging patients likely will be more important down the line, given how effective surgery has been shown to be now, both short term and long term.”

Risks of obesity, shifting away from BMI as the main metric

The new document extensively discusses the risks of obesity – including now as a major COVID-19 risk factor – and the benefits of the procedures and risks of delaying them.

It also addresses ongoing management of patients who had bariatric/metabolic surgery in the past and nonsurgical treatment to mitigate harm until patients can undergo the procedures.

Another important problem the document addresses, Rubino said, is the current BMI-focused bariatric/metabolic surgery criteria (≥ 40 kg/m2 or ≥ 35 kg/m2 with at least one obesity-related comorbidity).

“BMI is an epidemiological measure, not a measure of disease. But we select patients for bariatric surgery by saying who is eligible [without assessing] who has more or less severe disease, and who is at more or less risk for short-term complications from the disease compared to others,” he explained. “We don’t have any mechanism, even in normal times, let alone during a pandemic, to differentiate between patients who need surgery sooner rather than later.”

Indeed, Kahan said, “Traditionally we tend to oversimplify risk stratification in terms of how heavy people are. While that is one factor of importance, it’s far from the only factor and may not be the most important factor.”

In “someone who is relatively lighter but sicker, it would be sensible, in my mind, to prioritize them for a potentially curative procedure compared with someone who is heavier – even much heavier – but is not as sick,” he added.
 

“Pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue”

The document confirms that bariatric/metabolic surgery should remain suspended during the most intense phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and only resume once overall restrictions on nonessential surgeries are lifted.

Exceptions are limited to emergency endoscopic interventions for complications of prior surgery, such as hemorrhage or leaks.

A section offers guidance for pharmacologic and other nonsurgical options to mitigate harm from delaying the procedures including use of drugs that promote weight loss, such as glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists and/or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

Once less-urgent surgeries are allowed to resume, a prioritization scheme addresses which patients should receive “expedited access” (risk of harm if delayed beyond 90 days) versus “standard access” (unlikely to deteriorate within 6 months) within three indication categories: “diabetes (metabolic) surgery,” “obesity (bariatric) surgery,” or “adjuvant bariatric and metabolic surgery.”

Examples of patients who would qualify for “expedited” access in the “diabetes surgery” category include those with an A_1c of 8% or greater despite use of two or more oral medications or insulin use, those with a history of cardiovascular disease, and/or those with stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease.

For the “obesity surgery” group, priority patients include those with a BMI of 60 kg/m2 or greater or with severe obesity hypoventilation syndrome or severe sleep apnea.

And for the adjuvant category, those requiring weight loss to allow for other treatments, such as organ transplants, would be expedited.

Individuals with less-severe obesity or chronic conditions could have their surgeries put off until a later date.

The panel also recommends that even though keyhole surgery involves aerosol-generating techniques that could increase the risk for coronavirus infection, laparoscopic approaches are still preferred over open procedures because they carry lower risks for complications and result in shorter hospital stays, thereby lowering infection risk.

Appropriate personal protective equipment is, of course, advised for use by clinicians.

Kahan said of the document: “I think it’s a very sensible piece where they’re thinking through things that haven’t really needed to be thought through all that much. That’s partly with respect to COVID-19, but even beyond that I think this will be a valuable platform going forward.”

Indeed, Rubino said, “The pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue.”

Rubino has reported being on advisory boards for GI Dynamics, Keyron, and Novo Nordisk, has reported receiving consulting fees and research grants from Ethicon Endo-Surgery and Medtronic. Kahan has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations for the management of metabolic and bariatric surgery candidates during and after the COVID-19 pandemic shift the focus from body mass index (BMI) alone to medical conditions most likely to be ameliorated by the procedures.

Meant as a guide for both surgeons and referring clinicians, the document was published online May 7 as a Personal View in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

“Millions of elective operations have been on hold because of COVID-19. ... In the next few months, we’re going to face a huge backlog of procedures of all types. Even when we resume doing surgery it’s not going to be business as usual for many months. ... Hospital clinicians and managers want to make decisions about who’s going to get those slots first,” lead author of the international 23-member writing panel, Francesco Rubino, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Rubino is professor of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College Hospital, London, UK.

The recommendations include a guide for prioritizing patients eligible for bariatric or metabolic surgery – the former referring to when it’s performed primarily for obesity and the latter for type 2 diabetes – once the pandemic restrictions on nonessential surgery are lifted.

Rather than prioritizing patients by BMI, the scheme focuses on medical comorbidities to place patients into “expedited” or “standard” access categories.

Historically, bariatric and metabolic surgery have had a low uptake due to factors such as lack of insurance coverage and stigma, with many physicians inappropriately viewing it as risky, ineffective, and/or as a “last resort” treatment, Rubino said.

“They don’t refer for surgery even though we have all the evidence that the benefits for patients are unquestionable,” he added.

Because of that background, “in the situation of limited capacity, patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes are likely to be penalized compared to any other conditions that need elective surgery,” Rubino stressed.

Asked to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C., called the document a “really valuable thought piece.”

Noting that only about 1% to 2% of people who are eligible for bariatric or metabolic surgery actually undergo the procedures, Kahan said, “because so few people get the surgery we’ve never really run into a situation of undersupply or overdemand.

“But, as we’re moving forward, one would think that we will run into that scenario. So, better prioritizing and triaging patients likely will be more important down the line, given how effective surgery has been shown to be now, both short term and long term.”

Risks of obesity, shifting away from BMI as the main metric

The new document extensively discusses the risks of obesity – including now as a major COVID-19 risk factor – and the benefits of the procedures and risks of delaying them.

It also addresses ongoing management of patients who had bariatric/metabolic surgery in the past and nonsurgical treatment to mitigate harm until patients can undergo the procedures.

Another important problem the document addresses, Rubino said, is the current BMI-focused bariatric/metabolic surgery criteria (≥ 40 kg/m2 or ≥ 35 kg/m2 with at least one obesity-related comorbidity).

“BMI is an epidemiological measure, not a measure of disease. But we select patients for bariatric surgery by saying who is eligible [without assessing] who has more or less severe disease, and who is at more or less risk for short-term complications from the disease compared to others,” he explained. “We don’t have any mechanism, even in normal times, let alone during a pandemic, to differentiate between patients who need surgery sooner rather than later.”

Indeed, Kahan said, “Traditionally we tend to oversimplify risk stratification in terms of how heavy people are. While that is one factor of importance, it’s far from the only factor and may not be the most important factor.”

In “someone who is relatively lighter but sicker, it would be sensible, in my mind, to prioritize them for a potentially curative procedure compared with someone who is heavier – even much heavier – but is not as sick,” he added.
 

“Pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue”

The document confirms that bariatric/metabolic surgery should remain suspended during the most intense phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and only resume once overall restrictions on nonessential surgeries are lifted.

Exceptions are limited to emergency endoscopic interventions for complications of prior surgery, such as hemorrhage or leaks.

A section offers guidance for pharmacologic and other nonsurgical options to mitigate harm from delaying the procedures including use of drugs that promote weight loss, such as glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists and/or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

Once less-urgent surgeries are allowed to resume, a prioritization scheme addresses which patients should receive “expedited access” (risk of harm if delayed beyond 90 days) versus “standard access” (unlikely to deteriorate within 6 months) within three indication categories: “diabetes (metabolic) surgery,” “obesity (bariatric) surgery,” or “adjuvant bariatric and metabolic surgery.”

Examples of patients who would qualify for “expedited” access in the “diabetes surgery” category include those with an A_1c of 8% or greater despite use of two or more oral medications or insulin use, those with a history of cardiovascular disease, and/or those with stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease.

For the “obesity surgery” group, priority patients include those with a BMI of 60 kg/m2 or greater or with severe obesity hypoventilation syndrome or severe sleep apnea.

And for the adjuvant category, those requiring weight loss to allow for other treatments, such as organ transplants, would be expedited.

Individuals with less-severe obesity or chronic conditions could have their surgeries put off until a later date.

The panel also recommends that even though keyhole surgery involves aerosol-generating techniques that could increase the risk for coronavirus infection, laparoscopic approaches are still preferred over open procedures because they carry lower risks for complications and result in shorter hospital stays, thereby lowering infection risk.

Appropriate personal protective equipment is, of course, advised for use by clinicians.

Kahan said of the document: “I think it’s a very sensible piece where they’re thinking through things that haven’t really needed to be thought through all that much. That’s partly with respect to COVID-19, but even beyond that I think this will be a valuable platform going forward.”

Indeed, Rubino said, “The pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue.”

Rubino has reported being on advisory boards for GI Dynamics, Keyron, and Novo Nordisk, has reported receiving consulting fees and research grants from Ethicon Endo-Surgery and Medtronic. Kahan has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Protective measures recommended for cosmetic procedures have recently been published by Dover et al. in Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine. The manuscript, titled “A path to resume aesthetic care Project AesCert Guidance Supplement – practical considerations for aesthetic medicine professionals supporting clinic preparedness in response to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak,” provides thorough, detailed recommendations on all aspects of protection and preparedness for aesthetic clinical practices.

While health care offices, professional organizations, and governmental agencies come up with the optimal plans and protocols to keep patients, staff, and communities safe from COVID-19, specific guidelines for laser surgeries have been difficult to discern in this uncharted territory. During the last pandemic, the 1918 Spanish flu, caused by an H1N1 virus, laser procedures didn’t exist. Discussion among dermatologists and laser surgeons, including the aforementioned publication, have led to the following initial office recommendations (subject to change).

Office preparation and safety including:

• Prescreening patients for symptoms.
• Social distancing in the office, including waiting room areas (or eliminating waiting areas and bringing patients into exam rooms upon arrival).
• Decreasing patient load and increasing length of appointment times.
• Having no additional visitors during patient appointments, unless necessary (minor, caregiver).
• Patients wearing masks to appointments and hand washing/sanitizing upon arrival/departure.
• Providers wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during visits.
• Instituting office disinfectant checklists.

For nonablative laser surgery specifically, especially for therapy of the face and neck, recommendations include the following:

• Lasers and office areas are thoroughly sanitized between each procedure.
• Providers wear appropriate PPE, including N95 masks if possible, wraparound safety glasses, gloves, as well as strong consideration of face shields).
• The duration and number of procedures should be limited, as should intraprocedure conversations and close face-to-face proximity with patient’s airways.
• Lasers with increased plume, including laser tattoo removal and laser hair removal, are the procedures with the most concern with regards to viral particle or infection transmission.

PPE is recommended (including masks – N95 if available – gloves, and face shield), as well as evacuator suction systems of the two-stage filtration type, and/or negative room pressure if available. For air-filtration evacuator suction systems, the device vacuum must be held within 2 inches of the treatment area for the best efficacy. Some have suggested performing laser tattoo removal through a hydrogel patch to help eliminate plume, which may also increase the cost of the procedure and may depend on the availability of the patches themselves. Nothing has been published on the use of the hydrogel patch in laser hair removal. Shaving or trimming of hairs prior to the procedure is critical.

While pulse dye and intense pulsed light (IPL) lasers have generally been deemed safer to use during the COVID-19 pandemic – with appropriate protective gear and general office precautions – I would recommend being mindful of potential plume created when using these lasers in hair-bearing areas. IPL is generally avoided in these regions, unless specific filters are used for hair removal treatment. But if use an IPL in a hair-bearing region, shaving or trimming of the hairs with the above precautions should be done first to reduce plume. As with all face-to-face procedures, the above PPE, contact, and intraprocedure conversation precautions should be taken.

Nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers are areas in which more questions lie. Some providers are comfortable performing nonablative fractional lasers with protective gear and air filtration systems, while others are recommending delaying these procedures until more information is available. The question essentially involves whether infection risk is higher with these procedures because of plume and if depth of penetration of the laser can release viral particles.

In addition to the other precautions above, with the high transmissibility of COVID-19, I would recommend considering precleansing the treatment area with soap and water or a sterile prep that won’t irritate the skin, which has activity against coronaviruses. A study by Kampf et al. demonstrated that coronaviruses can persist on surfaces such as metal, glass, or plastic for up to 9 days (human skin surface unknown) but can be effectively inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62%-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide, or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Other biocidal agents that may be more tolerable on the skin surface, such as 0.05%-0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate were less effective. Washing the face with soap and water may be the most tolerated and easiest cleansing method. Face-to-face respiratory transmission should be mitigated by the aforementioned methods.

Ablative laser surgery

Most laser surgeons agree that ablative laser surgery procedures should likely be delayed until the virus has waned more, because of the increased invasiveness of and recovery of wound healing from the procedure. There is increased evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infecting endothelial cells, raising concern about transmission via blood. A study of the cardiovascular manifestations seen in COVID-19 infection, published in The Lancet, showed the virus directly targets the endothelial cells that line blood vessels. Ablative laser surgery (fractional and fully ablative) is associated with blood or serous fluid on the skin surface immediately after the procedure and for up to 5-7 days post procedure, particularly with Er:Yag than with the CO₂ laser. Antibacterial and antiviral prophylaxis often is used with these procedures. While the aforementioned protocols for other nonablative lasers may help with ablative laser treatment, there is currently no known effective and available antiviral prophylactic medication against SARS-CoV-2, if needed.

PPE

HRAUN/E+

With asymptomatic spread and the lack of adequate testing for COVID-19, as practices reopen, all practitioners will be on the front lines and should treat their practice and protect their patients, staff and themselves as such.
 

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They have no relevant disclosures.

References:

Dover JS et al. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med. 2020 May 5. doi: 10.1089/fpsam.2020.0239.

Kampf G et al. J Hosp Infect. 2020 Mar;104(3):246-51.

Varga Z et al. Lancet. 2020 May 2;395(10234):1417-8.

Protective measures recommended for cosmetic procedures have recently been published by Dover et al. in Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine. The manuscript, titled “A path to resume aesthetic care Project AesCert Guidance Supplement – practical considerations for aesthetic medicine professionals supporting clinic preparedness in response to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak,” provides thorough, detailed recommendations on all aspects of protection and preparedness for aesthetic clinical practices.

While health care offices, professional organizations, and governmental agencies come up with the optimal plans and protocols to keep patients, staff, and communities safe from COVID-19, specific guidelines for laser surgeries have been difficult to discern in this uncharted territory. During the last pandemic, the 1918 Spanish flu, caused by an H1N1 virus, laser procedures didn’t exist. Discussion among dermatologists and laser surgeons, including the aforementioned publication, have led to the following initial office recommendations (subject to change).

Office preparation and safety including:

• Prescreening patients for symptoms.
• Social distancing in the office, including waiting room areas (or eliminating waiting areas and bringing patients into exam rooms upon arrival).
• Decreasing patient load and increasing length of appointment times.
• Having no additional visitors during patient appointments, unless necessary (minor, caregiver).
• Patients wearing masks to appointments and hand washing/sanitizing upon arrival/departure.
• Providers wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during visits.
• Instituting office disinfectant checklists.

For nonablative laser surgery specifically, especially for therapy of the face and neck, recommendations include the following:

• Lasers and office areas are thoroughly sanitized between each procedure.
• Providers wear appropriate PPE, including N95 masks if possible, wraparound safety glasses, gloves, as well as strong consideration of face shields).
• The duration and number of procedures should be limited, as should intraprocedure conversations and close face-to-face proximity with patient’s airways.
• Lasers with increased plume, including laser tattoo removal and laser hair removal, are the procedures with the most concern with regards to viral particle or infection transmission.

PPE is recommended (including masks – N95 if available – gloves, and face shield), as well as evacuator suction systems of the two-stage filtration type, and/or negative room pressure if available. For air-filtration evacuator suction systems, the device vacuum must be held within 2 inches of the treatment area for the best efficacy. Some have suggested performing laser tattoo removal through a hydrogel patch to help eliminate plume, which may also increase the cost of the procedure and may depend on the availability of the patches themselves. Nothing has been published on the use of the hydrogel patch in laser hair removal. Shaving or trimming of hairs prior to the procedure is critical.

While pulse dye and intense pulsed light (IPL) lasers have generally been deemed safer to use during the COVID-19 pandemic – with appropriate protective gear and general office precautions – I would recommend being mindful of potential plume created when using these lasers in hair-bearing areas. IPL is generally avoided in these regions, unless specific filters are used for hair removal treatment. But if use an IPL in a hair-bearing region, shaving or trimming of the hairs with the above precautions should be done first to reduce plume. As with all face-to-face procedures, the above PPE, contact, and intraprocedure conversation precautions should be taken.

Nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers are areas in which more questions lie. Some providers are comfortable performing nonablative fractional lasers with protective gear and air filtration systems, while others are recommending delaying these procedures until more information is available. The question essentially involves whether infection risk is higher with these procedures because of plume and if depth of penetration of the laser can release viral particles.

In addition to the other precautions above, with the high transmissibility of COVID-19, I would recommend considering precleansing the treatment area with soap and water or a sterile prep that won’t irritate the skin, which has activity against coronaviruses. A study by Kampf et al. demonstrated that coronaviruses can persist on surfaces such as metal, glass, or plastic for up to 9 days (human skin surface unknown) but can be effectively inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62%-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide, or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Other biocidal agents that may be more tolerable on the skin surface, such as 0.05%-0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate were less effective. Washing the face with soap and water may be the most tolerated and easiest cleansing method. Face-to-face respiratory transmission should be mitigated by the aforementioned methods.

Ablative laser surgery

Most laser surgeons agree that ablative laser surgery procedures should likely be delayed until the virus has waned more, because of the increased invasiveness of and recovery of wound healing from the procedure. There is increased evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infecting endothelial cells, raising concern about transmission via blood. A study of the cardiovascular manifestations seen in COVID-19 infection, published in The Lancet, showed the virus directly targets the endothelial cells that line blood vessels. Ablative laser surgery (fractional and fully ablative) is associated with blood or serous fluid on the skin surface immediately after the procedure and for up to 5-7 days post procedure, particularly with Er:Yag than with the CO₂ laser. Antibacterial and antiviral prophylaxis often is used with these procedures. While the aforementioned protocols for other nonablative lasers may help with ablative laser treatment, there is currently no known effective and available antiviral prophylactic medication against SARS-CoV-2, if needed.

PPE

HRAUN/E+

With asymptomatic spread and the lack of adequate testing for COVID-19, as practices reopen, all practitioners will be on the front lines and should treat their practice and protect their patients, staff and themselves as such.
 

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They have no relevant disclosures.

References:

Dover JS et al. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med. 2020 May 5. doi: 10.1089/fpsam.2020.0239.

Kampf G et al. J Hosp Infect. 2020 Mar;104(3):246-51.

Varga Z et al. Lancet. 2020 May 2;395(10234):1417-8.

Protective measures recommended for cosmetic procedures have recently been published by Dover et al. in Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine. The manuscript, titled “A path to resume aesthetic care Project AesCert Guidance Supplement – practical considerations for aesthetic medicine professionals supporting clinic preparedness in response to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak,” provides thorough, detailed recommendations on all aspects of protection and preparedness for aesthetic clinical practices.

While health care offices, professional organizations, and governmental agencies come up with the optimal plans and protocols to keep patients, staff, and communities safe from COVID-19, specific guidelines for laser surgeries have been difficult to discern in this uncharted territory. During the last pandemic, the 1918 Spanish flu, caused by an H1N1 virus, laser procedures didn’t exist. Discussion among dermatologists and laser surgeons, including the aforementioned publication, have led to the following initial office recommendations (subject to change).

Office preparation and safety including:

• Prescreening patients for symptoms.
• Social distancing in the office, including waiting room areas (or eliminating waiting areas and bringing patients into exam rooms upon arrival).
• Decreasing patient load and increasing length of appointment times.
• Having no additional visitors during patient appointments, unless necessary (minor, caregiver).
• Patients wearing masks to appointments and hand washing/sanitizing upon arrival/departure.
• Providers wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during visits.
• Instituting office disinfectant checklists.

For nonablative laser surgery specifically, especially for therapy of the face and neck, recommendations include the following:

• Lasers and office areas are thoroughly sanitized between each procedure.
• Providers wear appropriate PPE, including N95 masks if possible, wraparound safety glasses, gloves, as well as strong consideration of face shields).
• The duration and number of procedures should be limited, as should intraprocedure conversations and close face-to-face proximity with patient’s airways.
• Lasers with increased plume, including laser tattoo removal and laser hair removal, are the procedures with the most concern with regards to viral particle or infection transmission.

PPE is recommended (including masks – N95 if available – gloves, and face shield), as well as evacuator suction systems of the two-stage filtration type, and/or negative room pressure if available. For air-filtration evacuator suction systems, the device vacuum must be held within 2 inches of the treatment area for the best efficacy. Some have suggested performing laser tattoo removal through a hydrogel patch to help eliminate plume, which may also increase the cost of the procedure and may depend on the availability of the patches themselves. Nothing has been published on the use of the hydrogel patch in laser hair removal. Shaving or trimming of hairs prior to the procedure is critical.

While pulse dye and intense pulsed light (IPL) lasers have generally been deemed safer to use during the COVID-19 pandemic – with appropriate protective gear and general office precautions – I would recommend being mindful of potential plume created when using these lasers in hair-bearing areas. IPL is generally avoided in these regions, unless specific filters are used for hair removal treatment. But if use an IPL in a hair-bearing region, shaving or trimming of the hairs with the above precautions should be done first to reduce plume. As with all face-to-face procedures, the above PPE, contact, and intraprocedure conversation precautions should be taken.

Nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers are areas in which more questions lie. Some providers are comfortable performing nonablative fractional lasers with protective gear and air filtration systems, while others are recommending delaying these procedures until more information is available. The question essentially involves whether infection risk is higher with these procedures because of plume and if depth of penetration of the laser can release viral particles.

In addition to the other precautions above, with the high transmissibility of COVID-19, I would recommend considering precleansing the treatment area with soap and water or a sterile prep that won’t irritate the skin, which has activity against coronaviruses. A study by Kampf et al. demonstrated that coronaviruses can persist on surfaces such as metal, glass, or plastic for up to 9 days (human skin surface unknown) but can be effectively inactivated by surface disinfection procedures with 62%-71% ethanol, 0.5% hydrogen peroxide, or 0.1% sodium hypochlorite within 1 minute. Other biocidal agents that may be more tolerable on the skin surface, such as 0.05%-0.2% benzalkonium chloride or 0.02% chlorhexidine digluconate were less effective. Washing the face with soap and water may be the most tolerated and easiest cleansing method. Face-to-face respiratory transmission should be mitigated by the aforementioned methods.

Ablative laser surgery

Most laser surgeons agree that ablative laser surgery procedures should likely be delayed until the virus has waned more, because of the increased invasiveness of and recovery of wound healing from the procedure. There is increased evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infecting endothelial cells, raising concern about transmission via blood. A study of the cardiovascular manifestations seen in COVID-19 infection, published in The Lancet, showed the virus directly targets the endothelial cells that line blood vessels. Ablative laser surgery (fractional and fully ablative) is associated with blood or serous fluid on the skin surface immediately after the procedure and for up to 5-7 days post procedure, particularly with Er:Yag than with the CO₂ laser. Antibacterial and antiviral prophylaxis often is used with these procedures. While the aforementioned protocols for other nonablative lasers may help with ablative laser treatment, there is currently no known effective and available antiviral prophylactic medication against SARS-CoV-2, if needed.

PPE

HRAUN/E+

With asymptomatic spread and the lack of adequate testing for COVID-19, as practices reopen, all practitioners will be on the front lines and should treat their practice and protect their patients, staff and themselves as such.
 

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They have no relevant disclosures.

References:

Dover JS et al. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med. 2020 May 5. doi: 10.1089/fpsam.2020.0239.

Kampf G et al. J Hosp Infect. 2020 Mar;104(3):246-51.

Varga Z et al. Lancet. 2020 May 2;395(10234):1417-8.

Each day, we’re inundated with news about the COVID-19 pandemic and how it continues to strain our health care system and resources. With more than 1.15 million positive cases in the United States and over 67,000 deaths as of this writing, it has been a scary yet humbling experience for everyone. There is no doubt this pandemic will be a defining moment in health care for several reasons. From supply chain disruptions and personal protective equipment (PPE) and ventilator shortages to exhausted caregivers – both physically and mentally – this event has pushed the envelope on finding answers from federal and state authorities. Hospital administrations are working harder than ever to rise to the challenge and do what is best for their frontline staff and, more importantly, the patients and the communities they serve.

The provider experience during COVID-19

Hospitalists are in a unique situation as frontline providers. Managing daily throughput of patients has always been a key role for the specialty. They also play an integral role in their own care teams alongside nurses, trainees, case managers, pharmacists, and others in cohorted COVID-19 units. Now more than ever, such a geographic placement of patients is quickly emerging as a must-have staffing model to reduce risk of cross-contamination and preserving critical PPE supplies. This heightened awareness, coupled with anxiety, sometimes leads to added stress and burnout risk for hospitalists.

Communication is critical in creating situational awareness and reducing anxiety within the teams. This is exactly where hospitalists can lead:

• Active presence in hospital incident command centers and infection control boards
• Close coordination with emergency medicine colleagues and bed placement navigators
• Developing protocols for appropriate testing
• Frequent daily huddles to discuss current state- and hospital-level testing guidelines
• Close involvement in the hospital operations committee
• Advocating for or securing more testing or supplies, especially PPE
• Effective communication about changes in PPE requirements and conservation strategies as per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, State Department of Health, and the hospital infection control board
• Crisis-driven changes, including development and review of triage and treatment protocols and elective procedure cancellations
• Census numbers and capacity/staffing adjustments within the team to meet temporary dips and surges in on-service patient volumes
• Frontline caregiver mental and physical health assessment

Daily huddles at key times (e.g., at shift start and end times) can help to identify these barriers. If operational issues arise, there should be a clear channel to escalate them to senior leadership.

Hospitalists could also use several strategies proven to improve staff morale and resilience. For instance, take this time to connect with friends and family virtually, unplug when off from work, explore one’s spiritual self through meditation and prayers, spend time with nature, exercise daily, seek humor, and develop or work on one’s hobby.
 

The patient experience during COVID-19

Some intriguing data is also being released about patient experience during the pandemic. A Press Ganey analysis of 350,000 comments between January and March 2020 shows that patients are looking for more information about their condition, primarily COVID-19 test delays and result notification time. There is also hypervigilance in patients’ minds about hand hygiene and overall cleanliness of the hospital. Patients also seek clarification and transparent explanation of their caregiver’s bedside mannerisms – for example, why did they gown up before entering – and their daily care plans.

Patients have been appreciative of providers and recognize the personal risk frontline staff put themselves through. Communication transparency seems to mitigate concerns about delays of care especially caused by operational challenges as a result of the pandemic.

In surveys specifically related to experiences including COVID-19, patients were more likely to rate more areas of service lower than in surveys that did not mention COVID-19. The patients also seemed to put more value on the quality of instructions and information they received and on perception of providers’ respect and listening abilities. These insights could prove invaluable in improving care delivery by hospitalists.

Isolation of patients has been shown in multiple studies to have negative outcomes. These patients are up to twice as likely to have an adverse event, and seven times more likely to have treatment-related avoidable adversity, poorer perceived patient experience, and overall perception of being cared for “less.” Add to this a higher level of depression and mental strain, and these patients quickly become “unsatisfied.”

At the ED level, the willingness to let family be present for care was the key area of concern listed – a metric that has changed rapidly since the early days of the pandemic.

The bottom line is these are trying times for everyone – both for providers and patients. Both look up to health system and group leadership for reassurance. Patients and families recognize the risks frontline providers are assuming. However, transparent communication across all levels is the key. Silos are disappearing and team based care is taking center stage.

Beyond the current public health crisis, these efforts will go a long way to create unshakable trust between health systems, providers, patients, and their loved ones.

Dr. Singh is currently the chief of inpatient operations at Adena Health System in Chillicothe, Ohio, where he also has key roles in medical informatics and health IT. He is also the president-elect of the Central Ohio Chapter of SHM.

Each day, we’re inundated with news about the COVID-19 pandemic and how it continues to strain our health care system and resources. With more than 1.15 million positive cases in the United States and over 67,000 deaths as of this writing, it has been a scary yet humbling experience for everyone. There is no doubt this pandemic will be a defining moment in health care for several reasons. From supply chain disruptions and personal protective equipment (PPE) and ventilator shortages to exhausted caregivers – both physically and mentally – this event has pushed the envelope on finding answers from federal and state authorities. Hospital administrations are working harder than ever to rise to the challenge and do what is best for their frontline staff and, more importantly, the patients and the communities they serve.

The provider experience during COVID-19

Hospitalists are in a unique situation as frontline providers. Managing daily throughput of patients has always been a key role for the specialty. They also play an integral role in their own care teams alongside nurses, trainees, case managers, pharmacists, and others in cohorted COVID-19 units. Now more than ever, such a geographic placement of patients is quickly emerging as a must-have staffing model to reduce risk of cross-contamination and preserving critical PPE supplies. This heightened awareness, coupled with anxiety, sometimes leads to added stress and burnout risk for hospitalists.

Communication is critical in creating situational awareness and reducing anxiety within the teams. This is exactly where hospitalists can lead:

• Active presence in hospital incident command centers and infection control boards
• Close coordination with emergency medicine colleagues and bed placement navigators
• Developing protocols for appropriate testing
• Frequent daily huddles to discuss current state- and hospital-level testing guidelines
• Close involvement in the hospital operations committee
• Advocating for or securing more testing or supplies, especially PPE
• Effective communication about changes in PPE requirements and conservation strategies as per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, State Department of Health, and the hospital infection control board
• Crisis-driven changes, including development and review of triage and treatment protocols and elective procedure cancellations
• Census numbers and capacity/staffing adjustments within the team to meet temporary dips and surges in on-service patient volumes
• Frontline caregiver mental and physical health assessment

Daily huddles at key times (e.g., at shift start and end times) can help to identify these barriers. If operational issues arise, there should be a clear channel to escalate them to senior leadership.

Hospitalists could also use several strategies proven to improve staff morale and resilience. For instance, take this time to connect with friends and family virtually, unplug when off from work, explore one’s spiritual self through meditation and prayers, spend time with nature, exercise daily, seek humor, and develop or work on one’s hobby.
 

The patient experience during COVID-19

Some intriguing data is also being released about patient experience during the pandemic. A Press Ganey analysis of 350,000 comments between January and March 2020 shows that patients are looking for more information about their condition, primarily COVID-19 test delays and result notification time. There is also hypervigilance in patients’ minds about hand hygiene and overall cleanliness of the hospital. Patients also seek clarification and transparent explanation of their caregiver’s bedside mannerisms – for example, why did they gown up before entering – and their daily care plans.

Patients have been appreciative of providers and recognize the personal risk frontline staff put themselves through. Communication transparency seems to mitigate concerns about delays of care especially caused by operational challenges as a result of the pandemic.

In surveys specifically related to experiences including COVID-19, patients were more likely to rate more areas of service lower than in surveys that did not mention COVID-19. The patients also seemed to put more value on the quality of instructions and information they received and on perception of providers’ respect and listening abilities. These insights could prove invaluable in improving care delivery by hospitalists.

Isolation of patients has been shown in multiple studies to have negative outcomes. These patients are up to twice as likely to have an adverse event, and seven times more likely to have treatment-related avoidable adversity, poorer perceived patient experience, and overall perception of being cared for “less.” Add to this a higher level of depression and mental strain, and these patients quickly become “unsatisfied.”

At the ED level, the willingness to let family be present for care was the key area of concern listed – a metric that has changed rapidly since the early days of the pandemic.

The bottom line is these are trying times for everyone – both for providers and patients. Both look up to health system and group leadership for reassurance. Patients and families recognize the risks frontline providers are assuming. However, transparent communication across all levels is the key. Silos are disappearing and team based care is taking center stage.

Beyond the current public health crisis, these efforts will go a long way to create unshakable trust between health systems, providers, patients, and their loved ones.

Dr. Singh is currently the chief of inpatient operations at Adena Health System in Chillicothe, Ohio, where he also has key roles in medical informatics and health IT. He is also the president-elect of the Central Ohio Chapter of SHM.

Each day, we’re inundated with news about the COVID-19 pandemic and how it continues to strain our health care system and resources. With more than 1.15 million positive cases in the United States and over 67,000 deaths as of this writing, it has been a scary yet humbling experience for everyone. There is no doubt this pandemic will be a defining moment in health care for several reasons. From supply chain disruptions and personal protective equipment (PPE) and ventilator shortages to exhausted caregivers – both physically and mentally – this event has pushed the envelope on finding answers from federal and state authorities. Hospital administrations are working harder than ever to rise to the challenge and do what is best for their frontline staff and, more importantly, the patients and the communities they serve.

The provider experience during COVID-19

Hospitalists are in a unique situation as frontline providers. Managing daily throughput of patients has always been a key role for the specialty. They also play an integral role in their own care teams alongside nurses, trainees, case managers, pharmacists, and others in cohorted COVID-19 units. Now more than ever, such a geographic placement of patients is quickly emerging as a must-have staffing model to reduce risk of cross-contamination and preserving critical PPE supplies. This heightened awareness, coupled with anxiety, sometimes leads to added stress and burnout risk for hospitalists.

Communication is critical in creating situational awareness and reducing anxiety within the teams. This is exactly where hospitalists can lead:

• Active presence in hospital incident command centers and infection control boards
• Close coordination with emergency medicine colleagues and bed placement navigators
• Developing protocols for appropriate testing
• Frequent daily huddles to discuss current state- and hospital-level testing guidelines
• Close involvement in the hospital operations committee
• Advocating for or securing more testing or supplies, especially PPE
• Effective communication about changes in PPE requirements and conservation strategies as per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, State Department of Health, and the hospital infection control board
• Crisis-driven changes, including development and review of triage and treatment protocols and elective procedure cancellations
• Census numbers and capacity/staffing adjustments within the team to meet temporary dips and surges in on-service patient volumes
• Frontline caregiver mental and physical health assessment

Daily huddles at key times (e.g., at shift start and end times) can help to identify these barriers. If operational issues arise, there should be a clear channel to escalate them to senior leadership.

Hospitalists could also use several strategies proven to improve staff morale and resilience. For instance, take this time to connect with friends and family virtually, unplug when off from work, explore one’s spiritual self through meditation and prayers, spend time with nature, exercise daily, seek humor, and develop or work on one’s hobby.
 

The patient experience during COVID-19

Some intriguing data is also being released about patient experience during the pandemic. A Press Ganey analysis of 350,000 comments between January and March 2020 shows that patients are looking for more information about their condition, primarily COVID-19 test delays and result notification time. There is also hypervigilance in patients’ minds about hand hygiene and overall cleanliness of the hospital. Patients also seek clarification and transparent explanation of their caregiver’s bedside mannerisms – for example, why did they gown up before entering – and their daily care plans.

Patients have been appreciative of providers and recognize the personal risk frontline staff put themselves through. Communication transparency seems to mitigate concerns about delays of care especially caused by operational challenges as a result of the pandemic.

In surveys specifically related to experiences including COVID-19, patients were more likely to rate more areas of service lower than in surveys that did not mention COVID-19. The patients also seemed to put more value on the quality of instructions and information they received and on perception of providers’ respect and listening abilities. These insights could prove invaluable in improving care delivery by hospitalists.

Isolation of patients has been shown in multiple studies to have negative outcomes. These patients are up to twice as likely to have an adverse event, and seven times more likely to have treatment-related avoidable adversity, poorer perceived patient experience, and overall perception of being cared for “less.” Add to this a higher level of depression and mental strain, and these patients quickly become “unsatisfied.”

At the ED level, the willingness to let family be present for care was the key area of concern listed – a metric that has changed rapidly since the early days of the pandemic.

The bottom line is these are trying times for everyone – both for providers and patients. Both look up to health system and group leadership for reassurance. Patients and families recognize the risks frontline providers are assuming. However, transparent communication across all levels is the key. Silos are disappearing and team based care is taking center stage.

Beyond the current public health crisis, these efforts will go a long way to create unshakable trust between health systems, providers, patients, and their loved ones.

Dr. Singh is currently the chief of inpatient operations at Adena Health System in Chillicothe, Ohio, where he also has key roles in medical informatics and health IT. He is also the president-elect of the Central Ohio Chapter of SHM.

While car crashes are still the leading cause of death among adolescents in the United States, the expansion of state laws restricting cell phone use or texting while driving has pushed down death rates for teen drivers, a study has found.

alanpoulson/iStock/Getty Images

However, the researchers wrote that the type of law and the manner of enforcement bear on how much teen road deaths are reduced.

In an article published in Pediatrics, Michael R. Flaherty, DO, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues used data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, a national database of motor vehicle deaths in the United States, to identify 38,215 fatal crashes nationwide involving teen drivers from 2007 to 2017.

During that same time period, in which a majority of states began to adopt some form of “distracted driving” legislation prohibiting texting or all handheld cell phone use, fatal crashes involving 16- to 19-year-old drivers decreased from 30 in 100,000 persons to 19 in 100,000.

Under primarily enforced laws – those that make texting an offense for which police can stop and cite a driver – 16- to 19-year-old drivers saw a 29% lower driver fatality rate, compared with those living in states with no texting laws (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.76).

Under secondarily enforced bans, deaths of drivers aged 16-19 were reduced 15%, compared with no restrictions (aIRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.95).

Importantly, state laws limiting texting and cell phone use had to apply to drivers of all ages to be protective, the investigators found. Laws banning cell phone use only among novice drivers, which have been adopted in many states, were not seen lowering teen driver fatality rates. At the time of this study in 2017, “40 states had primary enforcement texting bans, 6 states had secondary enforcement texting bans, 34 states banned all cellphone use for novice drivers, and 12 banned handheld cellphones for all drivers, they reported.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues noted that their study was the first to look in detail at the effects of anti–distracted driving laws on teen drivers specifically. They noted among the study’s limitations that the database used did not capture nonfatal accidents, and that the findings could not be adjusted for social or technological changes such as alcohol use trends among teens or safety improvements to cars.

In an accompanying editorial, Catherine C. McDonald, PhD, RN, and M. Kit Delgado, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, along with Mark R. Zonfrillo, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., wrote that the findings show “reducing adolescent [crash] fatalities is not just about targeting laws to the adolescent drivers who are at elevated crash risk but also the other drivers who share the road with them.”

“The basic concepts related to eyes on the road, hands on the wheel, and mind on the task of driving are fundamental to driver safety. There is no one cause to pinpoint for adolescent motor vehicle crashes because there are multiple contributing factors, including inexperience, maturational development, and risk-taking.” they wrote.

Noting that nearly half of high school–aged drivers acknowledge texting while driving, the editorialists argued that most states still had room to “refine existing laws or implement new laws” to help reduce fatalities associated with adolescent drivers. “In the meantime, other technological and behavioral approaches may be needed to encourage adolescent drivers to act in their own and society’s best interests and comply with the law.”

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues declared no external funding for their study or financial conflicts of interest. Dr. McDonald, Dr. Delgado, and Dr. Zonfrillo declared funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development related to their editorial and no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Flaherty M et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(6):e20193621; McDonald CC et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(6):e20200419.

While car crashes are still the leading cause of death among adolescents in the United States, the expansion of state laws restricting cell phone use or texting while driving has pushed down death rates for teen drivers, a study has found.

alanpoulson/iStock/Getty Images

However, the researchers wrote that the type of law and the manner of enforcement bear on how much teen road deaths are reduced.

In an article published in Pediatrics, Michael R. Flaherty, DO, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues used data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, a national database of motor vehicle deaths in the United States, to identify 38,215 fatal crashes nationwide involving teen drivers from 2007 to 2017.

During that same time period, in which a majority of states began to adopt some form of “distracted driving” legislation prohibiting texting or all handheld cell phone use, fatal crashes involving 16- to 19-year-old drivers decreased from 30 in 100,000 persons to 19 in 100,000.

Under primarily enforced laws – those that make texting an offense for which police can stop and cite a driver – 16- to 19-year-old drivers saw a 29% lower driver fatality rate, compared with those living in states with no texting laws (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.76).

Under secondarily enforced bans, deaths of drivers aged 16-19 were reduced 15%, compared with no restrictions (aIRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.95).

Importantly, state laws limiting texting and cell phone use had to apply to drivers of all ages to be protective, the investigators found. Laws banning cell phone use only among novice drivers, which have been adopted in many states, were not seen lowering teen driver fatality rates. At the time of this study in 2017, “40 states had primary enforcement texting bans, 6 states had secondary enforcement texting bans, 34 states banned all cellphone use for novice drivers, and 12 banned handheld cellphones for all drivers, they reported.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues noted that their study was the first to look in detail at the effects of anti–distracted driving laws on teen drivers specifically. They noted among the study’s limitations that the database used did not capture nonfatal accidents, and that the findings could not be adjusted for social or technological changes such as alcohol use trends among teens or safety improvements to cars.

In an accompanying editorial, Catherine C. McDonald, PhD, RN, and M. Kit Delgado, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, along with Mark R. Zonfrillo, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., wrote that the findings show “reducing adolescent [crash] fatalities is not just about targeting laws to the adolescent drivers who are at elevated crash risk but also the other drivers who share the road with them.”

“The basic concepts related to eyes on the road, hands on the wheel, and mind on the task of driving are fundamental to driver safety. There is no one cause to pinpoint for adolescent motor vehicle crashes because there are multiple contributing factors, including inexperience, maturational development, and risk-taking.” they wrote.

Noting that nearly half of high school–aged drivers acknowledge texting while driving, the editorialists argued that most states still had room to “refine existing laws or implement new laws” to help reduce fatalities associated with adolescent drivers. “In the meantime, other technological and behavioral approaches may be needed to encourage adolescent drivers to act in their own and society’s best interests and comply with the law.”

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues declared no external funding for their study or financial conflicts of interest. Dr. McDonald, Dr. Delgado, and Dr. Zonfrillo declared funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development related to their editorial and no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Flaherty M et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(6):e20193621; McDonald CC et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(6):e20200419.

While car crashes are still the leading cause of death among adolescents in the United States, the expansion of state laws restricting cell phone use or texting while driving has pushed down death rates for teen drivers, a study has found.

alanpoulson/iStock/Getty Images

However, the researchers wrote that the type of law and the manner of enforcement bear on how much teen road deaths are reduced.

In an article published in Pediatrics, Michael R. Flaherty, DO, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues used data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, a national database of motor vehicle deaths in the United States, to identify 38,215 fatal crashes nationwide involving teen drivers from 2007 to 2017.

During that same time period, in which a majority of states began to adopt some form of “distracted driving” legislation prohibiting texting or all handheld cell phone use, fatal crashes involving 16- to 19-year-old drivers decreased from 30 in 100,000 persons to 19 in 100,000.

Under primarily enforced laws – those that make texting an offense for which police can stop and cite a driver – 16- to 19-year-old drivers saw a 29% lower driver fatality rate, compared with those living in states with no texting laws (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.76).

Under secondarily enforced bans, deaths of drivers aged 16-19 were reduced 15%, compared with no restrictions (aIRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.95).

Importantly, state laws limiting texting and cell phone use had to apply to drivers of all ages to be protective, the investigators found. Laws banning cell phone use only among novice drivers, which have been adopted in many states, were not seen lowering teen driver fatality rates. At the time of this study in 2017, “40 states had primary enforcement texting bans, 6 states had secondary enforcement texting bans, 34 states banned all cellphone use for novice drivers, and 12 banned handheld cellphones for all drivers, they reported.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues noted that their study was the first to look in detail at the effects of anti–distracted driving laws on teen drivers specifically. They noted among the study’s limitations that the database used did not capture nonfatal accidents, and that the findings could not be adjusted for social or technological changes such as alcohol use trends among teens or safety improvements to cars.

In an accompanying editorial, Catherine C. McDonald, PhD, RN, and M. Kit Delgado, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, along with Mark R. Zonfrillo, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., wrote that the findings show “reducing adolescent [crash] fatalities is not just about targeting laws to the adolescent drivers who are at elevated crash risk but also the other drivers who share the road with them.”

“The basic concepts related to eyes on the road, hands on the wheel, and mind on the task of driving are fundamental to driver safety. There is no one cause to pinpoint for adolescent motor vehicle crashes because there are multiple contributing factors, including inexperience, maturational development, and risk-taking.” they wrote.

Noting that nearly half of high school–aged drivers acknowledge texting while driving, the editorialists argued that most states still had room to “refine existing laws or implement new laws” to help reduce fatalities associated with adolescent drivers. “In the meantime, other technological and behavioral approaches may be needed to encourage adolescent drivers to act in their own and society’s best interests and comply with the law.”

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues declared no external funding for their study or financial conflicts of interest. Dr. McDonald, Dr. Delgado, and Dr. Zonfrillo declared funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development related to their editorial and no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Flaherty M et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(6):e20193621; McDonald CC et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(6):e20200419.

Stadnytskyi and colleagues explored the size of droplets created by speech using a highly sensitive laser system. They reported in PNAS that speaking resulted in the generation of a high number of medium-sized droplets (10- to 100-µm in diameter). Under the conditions of their experiment (27% humidity and 23° C) they reported that speech probably generates droplets that originate at a size of 12 to 21 µm in diameter and quickly dehydrate to an estimated diameter of 4 µm. The 4 µm-sized particles had a falling rate of only 0.06 cm·s⁻¹ and remained airborne for 8 to 14 minutes.¹

As reported by Hamner and colleagues, on March 10, 2020, 61 persons attended a 2.5-hour choir practice. One choir member had symptoms of an upper respiratory infection that began on March 7. Eventually that choir member tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 60 remaining persons, 52 (86.7%) eventually developed an upper respiratory illness. In total, 33 cases of SARS-CoV-2 were confirmed by nucleic acid testing and 20 probable cases were diagnosed (these individuals declined testing). The  choir attendees developed symptoms at a median of 3 days following the practice, with a range of 1 to 12 days. Three of the 53 ill people were hospitalized, and two died.²

The Stadnytskyi study suggests that speech generates large respiratory droplets that dehydrate into very small droplets that may remain in the air for an extended period of time. If the SARS-CoV-2 virus were in the original large droplet, the rapid dehydration of the droplet would result in prolonged airborne presence of the virus and enhance its infectivity.

The Hamner study highlights the importance of vocalization and respiratory particles in transmitting the SARS-CoV-2 virus. For clinicians and patients, both studies support many recommendations to reduce viral transmission, including:

• all clinicians and patients need to wear face masks
• all clinicians and patients should avoid face-to-face contact if alternative approaches to communication are possible
• all clinicians and patients should avoid gathering in large groups or crowded public spaces and need to maintain physical distancing.

The COVID pandemic has dramatically changed how we practice medicine and socialize.

Stadnytskyi and colleagues explored the size of droplets created by speech using a highly sensitive laser system. They reported in PNAS that speaking resulted in the generation of a high number of medium-sized droplets (10- to 100-µm in diameter). Under the conditions of their experiment (27% humidity and 23° C) they reported that speech probably generates droplets that originate at a size of 12 to 21 µm in diameter and quickly dehydrate to an estimated diameter of 4 µm. The 4 µm-sized particles had a falling rate of only 0.06 cm·s⁻¹ and remained airborne for 8 to 14 minutes.¹

As reported by Hamner and colleagues, on March 10, 2020, 61 persons attended a 2.5-hour choir practice. One choir member had symptoms of an upper respiratory infection that began on March 7. Eventually that choir member tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 60 remaining persons, 52 (86.7%) eventually developed an upper respiratory illness. In total, 33 cases of SARS-CoV-2 were confirmed by nucleic acid testing and 20 probable cases were diagnosed (these individuals declined testing). The  choir attendees developed symptoms at a median of 3 days following the practice, with a range of 1 to 12 days. Three of the 53 ill people were hospitalized, and two died.²

The Stadnytskyi study suggests that speech generates large respiratory droplets that dehydrate into very small droplets that may remain in the air for an extended period of time. If the SARS-CoV-2 virus were in the original large droplet, the rapid dehydration of the droplet would result in prolonged airborne presence of the virus and enhance its infectivity.

The Hamner study highlights the importance of vocalization and respiratory particles in transmitting the SARS-CoV-2 virus. For clinicians and patients, both studies support many recommendations to reduce viral transmission, including:

• all clinicians and patients need to wear face masks
• all clinicians and patients should avoid face-to-face contact if alternative approaches to communication are possible
• all clinicians and patients should avoid gathering in large groups or crowded public spaces and need to maintain physical distancing.

The COVID pandemic has dramatically changed how we practice medicine and socialize.

Stadnytskyi and colleagues explored the size of droplets created by speech using a highly sensitive laser system. They reported in PNAS that speaking resulted in the generation of a high number of medium-sized droplets (10- to 100-µm in diameter). Under the conditions of their experiment (27% humidity and 23° C) they reported that speech probably generates droplets that originate at a size of 12 to 21 µm in diameter and quickly dehydrate to an estimated diameter of 4 µm. The 4 µm-sized particles had a falling rate of only 0.06 cm·s⁻¹ and remained airborne for 8 to 14 minutes.¹

As reported by Hamner and colleagues, on March 10, 2020, 61 persons attended a 2.5-hour choir practice. One choir member had symptoms of an upper respiratory infection that began on March 7. Eventually that choir member tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 60 remaining persons, 52 (86.7%) eventually developed an upper respiratory illness. In total, 33 cases of SARS-CoV-2 were confirmed by nucleic acid testing and 20 probable cases were diagnosed (these individuals declined testing). The  choir attendees developed symptoms at a median of 3 days following the practice, with a range of 1 to 12 days. Three of the 53 ill people were hospitalized, and two died.²

The Stadnytskyi study suggests that speech generates large respiratory droplets that dehydrate into very small droplets that may remain in the air for an extended period of time. If the SARS-CoV-2 virus were in the original large droplet, the rapid dehydration of the droplet would result in prolonged airborne presence of the virus and enhance its infectivity.

The Hamner study highlights the importance of vocalization and respiratory particles in transmitting the SARS-CoV-2 virus. For clinicians and patients, both studies support many recommendations to reduce viral transmission, including:

• all clinicians and patients need to wear face masks
• all clinicians and patients should avoid face-to-face contact if alternative approaches to communication are possible
• all clinicians and patients should avoid gathering in large groups or crowded public spaces and need to maintain physical distancing.

The COVID pandemic has dramatically changed how we practice medicine and socialize.

Psoriasis patients with symptoms of psychological distress and depression reported lower satisfaction with their clinicians than did those without mental health comorbidities, according to a retrospective analysis of survey data.

The findings highlight the importance of clinicians being supportive and adaptable in their communication style when interacting with psoriasis patients with mental illness.

“This study aims to evaluate whether an association exists between a patient’s psychological state and the perception of patient-clinician encounters,” wrote Charlotte Read, MBBS, of Imperial College London, and April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, in JAMA Dermatology.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed longitudinal data from over 8.8 million U.S. adults (unweighted, 652) with psoriasis who participated in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 2004 to 2017. The nationally representative database includes various clinical information, such as data on patient demographics, health care use, and mental health comorbidities.

The primary outcome, patient satisfaction with their physician, was assessed using a patient-physician communication composite score. Mental health comorbidities were evaluated using standard questionnaires.

The mean age of study patients was 52.1 years (range, 0.7 years), and most were female (54%). In all, 73% of participants had no or mild psychological distress symptoms, and 27% had moderate or severe symptoms.

After analysis, the researchers found that patients with moderate psychological distress symptoms were 2.8 times more likely to report lower satisfaction with their physician than were those with no or mild symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 2.8; P = .001). They also reported that patients with severe symptoms were more likely to report lower satisfaction (aOR, 2.3; P = .03).

“Patients with moderate or severe depression symptoms were less satisfied with their clinicians, compared with those with no or mild depression symptoms,” they further explained.

Based on the results, the coinvestigators emphasized the importance of bettering the patient experience for those with mental illness given the potential association with improved health outcomes.

“Because depressed patients can be more sensitive to negative communication, the clinician needs to be more conscious about using a positive and supportive communication style,” they recommended.

The authors acknowledged the inadequacy of evaluating clinician performance using patient satisfaction alone. As a result, the findings may not be generalizable to all clinical settings.

The study was funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr. Armstrong reported financial affiliations with several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Read C, Armstrong AW. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1054.

Psoriasis patients with symptoms of psychological distress and depression reported lower satisfaction with their clinicians than did those without mental health comorbidities, according to a retrospective analysis of survey data.

The findings highlight the importance of clinicians being supportive and adaptable in their communication style when interacting with psoriasis patients with mental illness.

“This study aims to evaluate whether an association exists between a patient’s psychological state and the perception of patient-clinician encounters,” wrote Charlotte Read, MBBS, of Imperial College London, and April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, in JAMA Dermatology.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed longitudinal data from over 8.8 million U.S. adults (unweighted, 652) with psoriasis who participated in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 2004 to 2017. The nationally representative database includes various clinical information, such as data on patient demographics, health care use, and mental health comorbidities.

The primary outcome, patient satisfaction with their physician, was assessed using a patient-physician communication composite score. Mental health comorbidities were evaluated using standard questionnaires.

The mean age of study patients was 52.1 years (range, 0.7 years), and most were female (54%). In all, 73% of participants had no or mild psychological distress symptoms, and 27% had moderate or severe symptoms.

After analysis, the researchers found that patients with moderate psychological distress symptoms were 2.8 times more likely to report lower satisfaction with their physician than were those with no or mild symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 2.8; P = .001). They also reported that patients with severe symptoms were more likely to report lower satisfaction (aOR, 2.3; P = .03).

“Patients with moderate or severe depression symptoms were less satisfied with their clinicians, compared with those with no or mild depression symptoms,” they further explained.

Based on the results, the coinvestigators emphasized the importance of bettering the patient experience for those with mental illness given the potential association with improved health outcomes.

“Because depressed patients can be more sensitive to negative communication, the clinician needs to be more conscious about using a positive and supportive communication style,” they recommended.

The authors acknowledged the inadequacy of evaluating clinician performance using patient satisfaction alone. As a result, the findings may not be generalizable to all clinical settings.

The study was funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr. Armstrong reported financial affiliations with several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Read C, Armstrong AW. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1054.

Psoriasis patients with symptoms of psychological distress and depression reported lower satisfaction with their clinicians than did those without mental health comorbidities, according to a retrospective analysis of survey data.

The findings highlight the importance of clinicians being supportive and adaptable in their communication style when interacting with psoriasis patients with mental illness.

“This study aims to evaluate whether an association exists between a patient’s psychological state and the perception of patient-clinician encounters,” wrote Charlotte Read, MBBS, of Imperial College London, and April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, in JAMA Dermatology.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed longitudinal data from over 8.8 million U.S. adults (unweighted, 652) with psoriasis who participated in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 2004 to 2017. The nationally representative database includes various clinical information, such as data on patient demographics, health care use, and mental health comorbidities.

The primary outcome, patient satisfaction with their physician, was assessed using a patient-physician communication composite score. Mental health comorbidities were evaluated using standard questionnaires.

The mean age of study patients was 52.1 years (range, 0.7 years), and most were female (54%). In all, 73% of participants had no or mild psychological distress symptoms, and 27% had moderate or severe symptoms.

After analysis, the researchers found that patients with moderate psychological distress symptoms were 2.8 times more likely to report lower satisfaction with their physician than were those with no or mild symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 2.8; P = .001). They also reported that patients with severe symptoms were more likely to report lower satisfaction (aOR, 2.3; P = .03).

“Patients with moderate or severe depression symptoms were less satisfied with their clinicians, compared with those with no or mild depression symptoms,” they further explained.

Based on the results, the coinvestigators emphasized the importance of bettering the patient experience for those with mental illness given the potential association with improved health outcomes.

“Because depressed patients can be more sensitive to negative communication, the clinician needs to be more conscious about using a positive and supportive communication style,” they recommended.

The authors acknowledged the inadequacy of evaluating clinician performance using patient satisfaction alone. As a result, the findings may not be generalizable to all clinical settings.

The study was funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr. Armstrong reported financial affiliations with several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Read C, Armstrong AW. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1054.

CD123, a membrane-bound interleukin-3 receptor, is overexpressed in many hematological malignancies, and it has been found useful in characterizing both acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). CD123 expression also appears positively correlated with the presence of minimal residual disease (MRD) after treatment, and may be useful as a marker of treatment success, according to a report presented online in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

Nupur Das, MD, and colleagues from the Dr B.R. Ambedkar Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, New Delhi, India, evaluated the pattern of CD123 expression across different subtypes of acute leukemia to assess its utility as a diagnostic marker, and to assess its impact on MRD assessment and early treatment outcome.

The evaluated the expression of CD123 in 757 samples of acute leukemia (479 treatment-naive and 278 follow-up samples) and compared the results with post-induction morphological remission (CR) and measurable residual disease (MRD) status.

The researchers used cut-offs of 5%, 10%, and 20% CD123-expression positive results to define a case as CD123 positive. On this basis, expression of CD123 was observed in 75.6%, 66.2%. and 50% of AML samples and 88.6%, 81.8%, and 75% of B-ALL samples respectively. They also found that none of the 12 T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) cases expressed CD123.

In addition, they found that CD123 expression was associated with MRD-positive status in both B-ALL (P < .001) and AML (P = .001).

“MRD is already an established post-treatment prognostication tool in acute leukemia and hence, the positive correlation of CD123 expression with MRD positivity in AML signifies its utility as an important marker to assess early response to therapy,” the researchers stated.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Das N et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 May 10; doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2020.05.004.

CD123, a membrane-bound interleukin-3 receptor, is overexpressed in many hematological malignancies, and it has been found useful in characterizing both acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). CD123 expression also appears positively correlated with the presence of minimal residual disease (MRD) after treatment, and may be useful as a marker of treatment success, according to a report presented online in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

Nupur Das, MD, and colleagues from the Dr B.R. Ambedkar Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, New Delhi, India, evaluated the pattern of CD123 expression across different subtypes of acute leukemia to assess its utility as a diagnostic marker, and to assess its impact on MRD assessment and early treatment outcome.

The evaluated the expression of CD123 in 757 samples of acute leukemia (479 treatment-naive and 278 follow-up samples) and compared the results with post-induction morphological remission (CR) and measurable residual disease (MRD) status.

The researchers used cut-offs of 5%, 10%, and 20% CD123-expression positive results to define a case as CD123 positive. On this basis, expression of CD123 was observed in 75.6%, 66.2%. and 50% of AML samples and 88.6%, 81.8%, and 75% of B-ALL samples respectively. They also found that none of the 12 T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) cases expressed CD123.

In addition, they found that CD123 expression was associated with MRD-positive status in both B-ALL (P < .001) and AML (P = .001).

“MRD is already an established post-treatment prognostication tool in acute leukemia and hence, the positive correlation of CD123 expression with MRD positivity in AML signifies its utility as an important marker to assess early response to therapy,” the researchers stated.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Das N et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 May 10; doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2020.05.004.

CD123, a membrane-bound interleukin-3 receptor, is overexpressed in many hematological malignancies, and it has been found useful in characterizing both acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). CD123 expression also appears positively correlated with the presence of minimal residual disease (MRD) after treatment, and may be useful as a marker of treatment success, according to a report presented online in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia.

Nupur Das, MD, and colleagues from the Dr B.R. Ambedkar Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, New Delhi, India, evaluated the pattern of CD123 expression across different subtypes of acute leukemia to assess its utility as a diagnostic marker, and to assess its impact on MRD assessment and early treatment outcome.

The evaluated the expression of CD123 in 757 samples of acute leukemia (479 treatment-naive and 278 follow-up samples) and compared the results with post-induction morphological remission (CR) and measurable residual disease (MRD) status.

The researchers used cut-offs of 5%, 10%, and 20% CD123-expression positive results to define a case as CD123 positive. On this basis, expression of CD123 was observed in 75.6%, 66.2%. and 50% of AML samples and 88.6%, 81.8%, and 75% of B-ALL samples respectively. They also found that none of the 12 T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) cases expressed CD123.

In addition, they found that CD123 expression was associated with MRD-positive status in both B-ALL (P < .001) and AML (P = .001).

“MRD is already an established post-treatment prognostication tool in acute leukemia and hence, the positive correlation of CD123 expression with MRD positivity in AML signifies its utility as an important marker to assess early response to therapy,” the researchers stated.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Das N et al. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020 May 10; doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2020.05.004.

A novel telemedicine approach to remotely guide ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treatment in four Latin American countries screened more than 780,000 patients and resulted in a mortality rate of 5.2%, results from a 1-year, prospective, observational study showed.

“We have created a modality where the care of acute MI can be remotely guided,” lead investigator Sameer Mehta, MD, MBA, said during a press briefing at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions virtual annual scientific sessions. “This flattens the disparity between the developed and the developing countries, particularly in the poorer parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.”

Dr. Mehta, chairman of the Lumen Foundation in Miami, and colleagues developed a “hub and spoke” platform to expand STEMI access to more than 100 million people in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina. For the effort, known as the Latin America Telemedicine Infarct Network (LATIN), “spokes” consisted of small clinics and primary health care centers in remote locations, while the “hubs” were medical centers that provided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and/or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. There were 313 spokes, 47 hubs, and more than 2,000 health care professionals who participated in the endeavor, including about 600 physicians.

The study, which is the largest of its kind, implemented a 3T strategy: telemedicine, triage, and transport, “which was the hardest part,” Dr. Mehta said. “In some cases, the spokes were located up to 300 miles away from the hubs. Up to 11% of these spokes in the remote areas did not even have a physician. Some had nurses who were triaging the patients.”

Patients who presented at spoke sites were enrolled into LATIN and data were collected through a form that included patient demographics, previous medical history, and an ECG. This information was sent through an app to one of three telemedicine diagnosis centers with 24/7 access to a cardiologist: one in Colombia, one in Brazil, one in Argentina. Once STEMI was identified by ECG, the STEMI protocol was activated, sending alerts to both designated hub and spoke sites and triggering ambulance dispatch. At the spoke sites, thrombolysis, a pharmaco-invasive strategy, or a primary PCI was performed, depending on case and treatment availability. Patients with successful thrombolysis were stabilized for up to 24 hours before transferral to a hub. Patients for whom reperfusion failed were transferred immediately to a hub for rescue PCI.

Dr. Mehta reported findings from 780,234 telemedicine encounters that occurred in the LATIN network in 2018. Telemedicine experts diagnosed 8,395 patients (1%) with STEMI, of which 3,872 (46%) were urgently treated at 47 hubs. A total of 3,015 (78%) were reperfused with PCI. Time-to-telemedicine diagnosis averaged 3.5 minutes. “It used to take us 11 minutes of time to make a diagnosis by telemedicine,” Dr. Mehta said. “By the time we were done with the trial, the time to diagnosis was brought down to 3.5 minutes.” Average door-to-balloon time was 48 minutes and the STEMI mortality was 5.2%. This represents a 55% reduction in STEMI mortality from when LATIN began as a pilot project in 2013, Dr. Mehta said.

Hypertension was the most prevalent underlying disease (59%), followed by smoking (30%) and diabetes (29%), and the male to female STEMI diagnosis ratio was 1.71. The chief reason for nontreatment was coverage denial from insurance carriers (71%). “Getting payers onboard is extremely difficult, because being located here in Miami, is it very hard for me to convince them about the importance of supporting these people,” Dr. Mehta said. “However, as time has passed [and with] coverage of LATIN by the media, the program has become better known. We have been able to work mainly through the health secretaries [in these four countries], but is difficult from there onward.”

LATIN investigators faced other hurdles, which were unique in each of the four countries. “In Colombia, we were facing all sorts of geographical challenges; Brazil was challenging because of its size of the country and [difficulty establishing relationships with] some of the inner-city hospitals,” he said. “Mexico and Argentina were unique from the telemedicine point of view.” The fact that the care of LATIN patients was navigated from one of three telemedicine diagnosis centers “demonstrates the ability of telemedicine,” he said. “If I am able to guide a patient in Mexico from Bogotá, Colombia, it should be easy to guide a patient from Miami who’s presenting in Zambia.”

Dealing with the lack of ambulance services in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina has also been a hitch to the effort. “There is either a complete lack of ambulances or there is no central ambulance system,” he said. “In one of the earlier cities where we started the program in Colombia, 84% of patients used to self-transport. At the moment, 79% are being transported by ambulance. So, the halo effect of how LATIN has helped MI management has been impressive.”

Despite the lack of a comparator study as robust as LATIN, the program was estimated to reach between $39.6 million and $119 million USD total savings during the study period. This includes the cost of tele-emergency encounters, avoided transfers, and the cost of transportation. The investigators project that by the year 2026, 5 million patients could be triaged by this telemedicine pathway, saving $249 million. “As we are getting excited about the developments and the possibilities of telemedicine in the COVID-19 era, I think the work of LATIN becomes all the more relevant,” Dr. Mehta said during his main presentation.

During the press briefing, Timothy D. Henry, MD, praised the success of LATIN in reaching an underserved population. “The majority of these patients 10 years ago were not being treated with any reperfusion therapy at all,” said Dr. Henry, medical director of The Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research and Education at The Christ Hospital in Cincinnati. “With rapid diagnosis and the process of putting [LATIN] in place, that has increased to the point where 78% are now getting primary PCI. That is remarkable.”

[email protected]

A novel telemedicine approach to remotely guide ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treatment in four Latin American countries screened more than 780,000 patients and resulted in a mortality rate of 5.2%, results from a 1-year, prospective, observational study showed.

“We have created a modality where the care of acute MI can be remotely guided,” lead investigator Sameer Mehta, MD, MBA, said during a press briefing at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions virtual annual scientific sessions. “This flattens the disparity between the developed and the developing countries, particularly in the poorer parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.”

Dr. Mehta, chairman of the Lumen Foundation in Miami, and colleagues developed a “hub and spoke” platform to expand STEMI access to more than 100 million people in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina. For the effort, known as the Latin America Telemedicine Infarct Network (LATIN), “spokes” consisted of small clinics and primary health care centers in remote locations, while the “hubs” were medical centers that provided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and/or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. There were 313 spokes, 47 hubs, and more than 2,000 health care professionals who participated in the endeavor, including about 600 physicians.

The study, which is the largest of its kind, implemented a 3T strategy: telemedicine, triage, and transport, “which was the hardest part,” Dr. Mehta said. “In some cases, the spokes were located up to 300 miles away from the hubs. Up to 11% of these spokes in the remote areas did not even have a physician. Some had nurses who were triaging the patients.”

Patients who presented at spoke sites were enrolled into LATIN and data were collected through a form that included patient demographics, previous medical history, and an ECG. This information was sent through an app to one of three telemedicine diagnosis centers with 24/7 access to a cardiologist: one in Colombia, one in Brazil, one in Argentina. Once STEMI was identified by ECG, the STEMI protocol was activated, sending alerts to both designated hub and spoke sites and triggering ambulance dispatch. At the spoke sites, thrombolysis, a pharmaco-invasive strategy, or a primary PCI was performed, depending on case and treatment availability. Patients with successful thrombolysis were stabilized for up to 24 hours before transferral to a hub. Patients for whom reperfusion failed were transferred immediately to a hub for rescue PCI.

Dr. Mehta reported findings from 780,234 telemedicine encounters that occurred in the LATIN network in 2018. Telemedicine experts diagnosed 8,395 patients (1%) with STEMI, of which 3,872 (46%) were urgently treated at 47 hubs. A total of 3,015 (78%) were reperfused with PCI. Time-to-telemedicine diagnosis averaged 3.5 minutes. “It used to take us 11 minutes of time to make a diagnosis by telemedicine,” Dr. Mehta said. “By the time we were done with the trial, the time to diagnosis was brought down to 3.5 minutes.” Average door-to-balloon time was 48 minutes and the STEMI mortality was 5.2%. This represents a 55% reduction in STEMI mortality from when LATIN began as a pilot project in 2013, Dr. Mehta said.

Hypertension was the most prevalent underlying disease (59%), followed by smoking (30%) and diabetes (29%), and the male to female STEMI diagnosis ratio was 1.71. The chief reason for nontreatment was coverage denial from insurance carriers (71%). “Getting payers onboard is extremely difficult, because being located here in Miami, is it very hard for me to convince them about the importance of supporting these people,” Dr. Mehta said. “However, as time has passed [and with] coverage of LATIN by the media, the program has become better known. We have been able to work mainly through the health secretaries [in these four countries], but is difficult from there onward.”

LATIN investigators faced other hurdles, which were unique in each of the four countries. “In Colombia, we were facing all sorts of geographical challenges; Brazil was challenging because of its size of the country and [difficulty establishing relationships with] some of the inner-city hospitals,” he said. “Mexico and Argentina were unique from the telemedicine point of view.” The fact that the care of LATIN patients was navigated from one of three telemedicine diagnosis centers “demonstrates the ability of telemedicine,” he said. “If I am able to guide a patient in Mexico from Bogotá, Colombia, it should be easy to guide a patient from Miami who’s presenting in Zambia.”

Dealing with the lack of ambulance services in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina has also been a hitch to the effort. “There is either a complete lack of ambulances or there is no central ambulance system,” he said. “In one of the earlier cities where we started the program in Colombia, 84% of patients used to self-transport. At the moment, 79% are being transported by ambulance. So, the halo effect of how LATIN has helped MI management has been impressive.”

Despite the lack of a comparator study as robust as LATIN, the program was estimated to reach between $39.6 million and $119 million USD total savings during the study period. This includes the cost of tele-emergency encounters, avoided transfers, and the cost of transportation. The investigators project that by the year 2026, 5 million patients could be triaged by this telemedicine pathway, saving $249 million. “As we are getting excited about the developments and the possibilities of telemedicine in the COVID-19 era, I think the work of LATIN becomes all the more relevant,” Dr. Mehta said during his main presentation.

During the press briefing, Timothy D. Henry, MD, praised the success of LATIN in reaching an underserved population. “The majority of these patients 10 years ago were not being treated with any reperfusion therapy at all,” said Dr. Henry, medical director of The Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research and Education at The Christ Hospital in Cincinnati. “With rapid diagnosis and the process of putting [LATIN] in place, that has increased to the point where 78% are now getting primary PCI. That is remarkable.”

[email protected]

A novel telemedicine approach to remotely guide ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treatment in four Latin American countries screened more than 780,000 patients and resulted in a mortality rate of 5.2%, results from a 1-year, prospective, observational study showed.

“We have created a modality where the care of acute MI can be remotely guided,” lead investigator Sameer Mehta, MD, MBA, said during a press briefing at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions virtual annual scientific sessions. “This flattens the disparity between the developed and the developing countries, particularly in the poorer parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.”

Dr. Mehta, chairman of the Lumen Foundation in Miami, and colleagues developed a “hub and spoke” platform to expand STEMI access to more than 100 million people in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina. For the effort, known as the Latin America Telemedicine Infarct Network (LATIN), “spokes” consisted of small clinics and primary health care centers in remote locations, while the “hubs” were medical centers that provided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and/or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. There were 313 spokes, 47 hubs, and more than 2,000 health care professionals who participated in the endeavor, including about 600 physicians.

The study, which is the largest of its kind, implemented a 3T strategy: telemedicine, triage, and transport, “which was the hardest part,” Dr. Mehta said. “In some cases, the spokes were located up to 300 miles away from the hubs. Up to 11% of these spokes in the remote areas did not even have a physician. Some had nurses who were triaging the patients.”

Patients who presented at spoke sites were enrolled into LATIN and data were collected through a form that included patient demographics, previous medical history, and an ECG. This information was sent through an app to one of three telemedicine diagnosis centers with 24/7 access to a cardiologist: one in Colombia, one in Brazil, one in Argentina. Once STEMI was identified by ECG, the STEMI protocol was activated, sending alerts to both designated hub and spoke sites and triggering ambulance dispatch. At the spoke sites, thrombolysis, a pharmaco-invasive strategy, or a primary PCI was performed, depending on case and treatment availability. Patients with successful thrombolysis were stabilized for up to 24 hours before transferral to a hub. Patients for whom reperfusion failed were transferred immediately to a hub for rescue PCI.

Dr. Mehta reported findings from 780,234 telemedicine encounters that occurred in the LATIN network in 2018. Telemedicine experts diagnosed 8,395 patients (1%) with STEMI, of which 3,872 (46%) were urgently treated at 47 hubs. A total of 3,015 (78%) were reperfused with PCI. Time-to-telemedicine diagnosis averaged 3.5 minutes. “It used to take us 11 minutes of time to make a diagnosis by telemedicine,” Dr. Mehta said. “By the time we were done with the trial, the time to diagnosis was brought down to 3.5 minutes.” Average door-to-balloon time was 48 minutes and the STEMI mortality was 5.2%. This represents a 55% reduction in STEMI mortality from when LATIN began as a pilot project in 2013, Dr. Mehta said.

Hypertension was the most prevalent underlying disease (59%), followed by smoking (30%) and diabetes (29%), and the male to female STEMI diagnosis ratio was 1.71. The chief reason for nontreatment was coverage denial from insurance carriers (71%). “Getting payers onboard is extremely difficult, because being located here in Miami, is it very hard for me to convince them about the importance of supporting these people,” Dr. Mehta said. “However, as time has passed [and with] coverage of LATIN by the media, the program has become better known. We have been able to work mainly through the health secretaries [in these four countries], but is difficult from there onward.”

LATIN investigators faced other hurdles, which were unique in each of the four countries. “In Colombia, we were facing all sorts of geographical challenges; Brazil was challenging because of its size of the country and [difficulty establishing relationships with] some of the inner-city hospitals,” he said. “Mexico and Argentina were unique from the telemedicine point of view.” The fact that the care of LATIN patients was navigated from one of three telemedicine diagnosis centers “demonstrates the ability of telemedicine,” he said. “If I am able to guide a patient in Mexico from Bogotá, Colombia, it should be easy to guide a patient from Miami who’s presenting in Zambia.”

Dealing with the lack of ambulance services in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina has also been a hitch to the effort. “There is either a complete lack of ambulances or there is no central ambulance system,” he said. “In one of the earlier cities where we started the program in Colombia, 84% of patients used to self-transport. At the moment, 79% are being transported by ambulance. So, the halo effect of how LATIN has helped MI management has been impressive.”

Despite the lack of a comparator study as robust as LATIN, the program was estimated to reach between $39.6 million and $119 million USD total savings during the study period. This includes the cost of tele-emergency encounters, avoided transfers, and the cost of transportation. The investigators project that by the year 2026, 5 million patients could be triaged by this telemedicine pathway, saving $249 million. “As we are getting excited about the developments and the possibilities of telemedicine in the COVID-19 era, I think the work of LATIN becomes all the more relevant,” Dr. Mehta said during his main presentation.

During the press briefing, Timothy D. Henry, MD, praised the success of LATIN in reaching an underserved population. “The majority of these patients 10 years ago were not being treated with any reperfusion therapy at all,” said Dr. Henry, medical director of The Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research and Education at The Christ Hospital in Cincinnati. “With rapid diagnosis and the process of putting [LATIN] in place, that has increased to the point where 78% are now getting primary PCI. That is remarkable.”

[email protected]

Bariatric surgery is a safe and effective means for obese patients with advanced heart failure supported by a left ventricular assist device to qualify for heart transplantation, Praneet Wander, MD, reported in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

She presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine retrospective or cross-sectional cohort studies totaling 86 patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and advanced heart failure who had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 44.8 kg/m² when they underwent bariatric surgery at an average age of 44 years and 33.2 kg/m² at follow-up a mean of 14.3 months later.

Of the 86 patients, 50 (58%) were able to drop their BMI below 35, a requirement for inclusion on the heart transplant waiting list, noted Dr. Wander, a gastroenterology fellow at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., and North Shore LIJ Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y.

“A lot of bariatric surgeons don’t feel comfortable operating on patients who have a low ejection fraction,” she explained in an interview. “This study should encourage bariatric surgeons to do procedures even in patients with advanced heart failure so they can meet the BMI requirement for heart transplantation.”

Even if patients don’t actually undergo heart transplantation because of the perpetual donor organ shortage or inability to meet non–BMI-related eligibility criteria, they gain other major benefits from bariatric surgery: Their blood pressure goes down, their diabetes improves, and they become better able to engage in physical activity, she added.

Of the 86 patients in the meta-analysis, 84 underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. That’s the preferred bariatric operation in patients with advanced heart failure at the Mayo Clinic as well, according to Andres J. Acosta, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at the medical center in Rochester, Minn.

There’s less weight loss achieved than with an open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, but it’s a simpler operation in these high-risk patients, who typically have multiple comorbid conditions, he explained.

He predicted that Dr. Wander’s study will indeed influence bariatric surgeons at tertiary medical centers around the country to become more willing to consider weight-loss surgery in patients with advanced heart failure, while those in community practice will likely continue to be most comfortable operating on more stable patients with minimal comorbidities aside from their obesity.

“Data such as [these] will be reassuring to bariatric surgery programs such as ours, where we’re able to say: ‘Yes, there are risks, but these patients will benefit in the long term if we assume those risks,’ ” Dr. Acosta said.

He’s confident that, in the near future, the preferred form of bariatric surgery in patients with advanced heart failure will be a minimally invasive procedure performed endoscopically by gastroenterologists. He and his Mayo Clinic colleagues have already established a track record of success with endoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in patients with advanced kidney, liver, or lung disease in order to make them eligible for transplantation, as well as for the ancillary benefits provided by massive weight loss.

“There’s a little less weight loss than with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, but it’s a significantly less risky operation. Shorter operative time, shorter hospital length of stay, less risk of infections and leaks,” he said in an interview. “We haven’t done it yet in heart disease, but I think based on this study this should be the next step at Mayo.”

Radha Gopalan, MD, director of heart failure and transplantation at Banner–University Medical Center in Phoenix, pronounced Dr. Wander’s meta-analysis “a positive study that’s very supportive of what we’re doing at our center.

“At a busy heart transplant center like ours, we are comfortable managing these patients, so the bariatric surgeons are reassured that the heart failure team is behind them. The risk of the procedure is mitigated by the availability of the multidisciplinary team to get the patient with obesity and heart failure through the surgery,” he explained.

Dr. Gopalan heads a novel bariatric heart failure program at Banner. While Dr. Wander’s meta-analysis focused on bariatric surgery in heart failure patients on LVAD circulatory support, Dr. Gopalan and colleagues are moving the intervention upstream. Roughly roughly 80% of patients in his bariatric heart failure program who meet criteria for LVAD implantation are now offered bariatric surgery before an LVAD is put in.

“I am moving away from putting the LVAD in first and then doing bariatric surgery. We have gotten comfortable taking these patients for bariatric surgery with inotropic support before going to the LVAD, which has the potential to even eliminate the requirement for an LVAD. Some patients get so much better that they become transplant ineligible,” Dr. Gopalan said.

Dr. Wander reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wander P. DDW 2020 Abstract, #Mo2010.

Bariatric surgery is a safe and effective means for obese patients with advanced heart failure supported by a left ventricular assist device to qualify for heart transplantation, Praneet Wander, MD, reported in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

She presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine retrospective or cross-sectional cohort studies totaling 86 patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and advanced heart failure who had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 44.8 kg/m² when they underwent bariatric surgery at an average age of 44 years and 33.2 kg/m² at follow-up a mean of 14.3 months later.

Of the 86 patients, 50 (58%) were able to drop their BMI below 35, a requirement for inclusion on the heart transplant waiting list, noted Dr. Wander, a gastroenterology fellow at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., and North Shore LIJ Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y.

“A lot of bariatric surgeons don’t feel comfortable operating on patients who have a low ejection fraction,” she explained in an interview. “This study should encourage bariatric surgeons to do procedures even in patients with advanced heart failure so they can meet the BMI requirement for heart transplantation.”

Even if patients don’t actually undergo heart transplantation because of the perpetual donor organ shortage or inability to meet non–BMI-related eligibility criteria, they gain other major benefits from bariatric surgery: Their blood pressure goes down, their diabetes improves, and they become better able to engage in physical activity, she added.

Of the 86 patients in the meta-analysis, 84 underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. That’s the preferred bariatric operation in patients with advanced heart failure at the Mayo Clinic as well, according to Andres J. Acosta, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at the medical center in Rochester, Minn.

There’s less weight loss achieved than with an open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, but it’s a simpler operation in these high-risk patients, who typically have multiple comorbid conditions, he explained.

He predicted that Dr. Wander’s study will indeed influence bariatric surgeons at tertiary medical centers around the country to become more willing to consider weight-loss surgery in patients with advanced heart failure, while those in community practice will likely continue to be most comfortable operating on more stable patients with minimal comorbidities aside from their obesity.

“Data such as [these] will be reassuring to bariatric surgery programs such as ours, where we’re able to say: ‘Yes, there are risks, but these patients will benefit in the long term if we assume those risks,’ ” Dr. Acosta said.

He’s confident that, in the near future, the preferred form of bariatric surgery in patients with advanced heart failure will be a minimally invasive procedure performed endoscopically by gastroenterologists. He and his Mayo Clinic colleagues have already established a track record of success with endoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in patients with advanced kidney, liver, or lung disease in order to make them eligible for transplantation, as well as for the ancillary benefits provided by massive weight loss.

“There’s a little less weight loss than with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, but it’s a significantly less risky operation. Shorter operative time, shorter hospital length of stay, less risk of infections and leaks,” he said in an interview. “We haven’t done it yet in heart disease, but I think based on this study this should be the next step at Mayo.”

Radha Gopalan, MD, director of heart failure and transplantation at Banner–University Medical Center in Phoenix, pronounced Dr. Wander’s meta-analysis “a positive study that’s very supportive of what we’re doing at our center.

“At a busy heart transplant center like ours, we are comfortable managing these patients, so the bariatric surgeons are reassured that the heart failure team is behind them. The risk of the procedure is mitigated by the availability of the multidisciplinary team to get the patient with obesity and heart failure through the surgery,” he explained.

Dr. Gopalan heads a novel bariatric heart failure program at Banner. While Dr. Wander’s meta-analysis focused on bariatric surgery in heart failure patients on LVAD circulatory support, Dr. Gopalan and colleagues are moving the intervention upstream. Roughly roughly 80% of patients in his bariatric heart failure program who meet criteria for LVAD implantation are now offered bariatric surgery before an LVAD is put in.

“I am moving away from putting the LVAD in first and then doing bariatric surgery. We have gotten comfortable taking these patients for bariatric surgery with inotropic support before going to the LVAD, which has the potential to even eliminate the requirement for an LVAD. Some patients get so much better that they become transplant ineligible,” Dr. Gopalan said.

Dr. Wander reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wander P. DDW 2020 Abstract, #Mo2010.

Bariatric surgery is a safe and effective means for obese patients with advanced heart failure supported by a left ventricular assist device to qualify for heart transplantation, Praneet Wander, MD, reported in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

She presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine retrospective or cross-sectional cohort studies totaling 86 patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and advanced heart failure who had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 44.8 kg/m² when they underwent bariatric surgery at an average age of 44 years and 33.2 kg/m² at follow-up a mean of 14.3 months later.

Of the 86 patients, 50 (58%) were able to drop their BMI below 35, a requirement for inclusion on the heart transplant waiting list, noted Dr. Wander, a gastroenterology fellow at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., and North Shore LIJ Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y.

“A lot of bariatric surgeons don’t feel comfortable operating on patients who have a low ejection fraction,” she explained in an interview. “This study should encourage bariatric surgeons to do procedures even in patients with advanced heart failure so they can meet the BMI requirement for heart transplantation.”

Even if patients don’t actually undergo heart transplantation because of the perpetual donor organ shortage or inability to meet non–BMI-related eligibility criteria, they gain other major benefits from bariatric surgery: Their blood pressure goes down, their diabetes improves, and they become better able to engage in physical activity, she added.

Of the 86 patients in the meta-analysis, 84 underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. That’s the preferred bariatric operation in patients with advanced heart failure at the Mayo Clinic as well, according to Andres J. Acosta, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at the medical center in Rochester, Minn.

There’s less weight loss achieved than with an open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, but it’s a simpler operation in these high-risk patients, who typically have multiple comorbid conditions, he explained.

He predicted that Dr. Wander’s study will indeed influence bariatric surgeons at tertiary medical centers around the country to become more willing to consider weight-loss surgery in patients with advanced heart failure, while those in community practice will likely continue to be most comfortable operating on more stable patients with minimal comorbidities aside from their obesity.

“Data such as [these] will be reassuring to bariatric surgery programs such as ours, where we’re able to say: ‘Yes, there are risks, but these patients will benefit in the long term if we assume those risks,’ ” Dr. Acosta said.

He’s confident that, in the near future, the preferred form of bariatric surgery in patients with advanced heart failure will be a minimally invasive procedure performed endoscopically by gastroenterologists. He and his Mayo Clinic colleagues have already established a track record of success with endoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in patients with advanced kidney, liver, or lung disease in order to make them eligible for transplantation, as well as for the ancillary benefits provided by massive weight loss.

“There’s a little less weight loss than with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, but it’s a significantly less risky operation. Shorter operative time, shorter hospital length of stay, less risk of infections and leaks,” he said in an interview. “We haven’t done it yet in heart disease, but I think based on this study this should be the next step at Mayo.”

Radha Gopalan, MD, director of heart failure and transplantation at Banner–University Medical Center in Phoenix, pronounced Dr. Wander’s meta-analysis “a positive study that’s very supportive of what we’re doing at our center.

“At a busy heart transplant center like ours, we are comfortable managing these patients, so the bariatric surgeons are reassured that the heart failure team is behind them. The risk of the procedure is mitigated by the availability of the multidisciplinary team to get the patient with obesity and heart failure through the surgery,” he explained.

Dr. Gopalan heads a novel bariatric heart failure program at Banner. While Dr. Wander’s meta-analysis focused on bariatric surgery in heart failure patients on LVAD circulatory support, Dr. Gopalan and colleagues are moving the intervention upstream. Roughly roughly 80% of patients in his bariatric heart failure program who meet criteria for LVAD implantation are now offered bariatric surgery before an LVAD is put in.

“I am moving away from putting the LVAD in first and then doing bariatric surgery. We have gotten comfortable taking these patients for bariatric surgery with inotropic support before going to the LVAD, which has the potential to even eliminate the requirement for an LVAD. Some patients get so much better that they become transplant ineligible,” Dr. Gopalan said.

Dr. Wander reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Wander P. DDW 2020 Abstract, #Mo2010.