User login
During a viral pandemic, anxiety is endemic: The psychiatric aspects of COVID-19
Fear of dying is considered “normal.” However, the ongoing threat of a potentially fatal viral infection can cause panic, anxiety, and an exaggerated fear of illness and death. The relentless spread of the coronavirus infectious disease that began in late 2019 (COVID-19) is spawning widespread anxiety, panic, and worry about one’s health and the health of loved ones. The viral pandemic has triggered a parallel anxiety epidemic.
Making things worse is that no vaccine has yet been developed, and for individuals who do get infected, there are no specific treatments other than supportive care, such as ventilators. Members of the public have been urged to practice sensible preventative measures, including handwashing, sanitizing certain items and surfaces, and—particularly challenging—self-isolation and social distancing. The public has channeled its fear into frantic buying and hoarding of food and non-food items, especially masks, sanitizers, soap, disinfectant wipes, and toilet paper (perhaps preparing for gastrointestinal hyperactivity during anxiety); canceling flights; avoiding group activities; and self-isolation or, for those exposed to the virus, quarantine. Anxiety is palpable. The facial masks that people wear are ironically unmasking their inner agitation and disquietude.
Our role as psychiatrists
As psychiatrists, we have an important role to play in such times, especially for our patients who already have anxiety disorders or depression. The additional emotional burden of this escalating health crisis is exacerbating the mental anguish of our patients (in addition to those who may soon become new patients). The anxiety and panic attacks due to “imagined” doom and gloom are now intensified by anxiety due to a “real” fatal threat. The effect on some vulnerable patients can be devastating, and may culminate in an acute stress reaction and future posttraumatic stress disorder. There are also reports of “psychogenic COVID-19” conversion reaction, with symptoms of sore throat, dyspnea, and even psychogenic fever. Paradoxically, self-isolation and social distancing, which are recommended to prevent the human-to-human spread of the virus, may further worsen anxiety and depression by reducing the comfort of intimacy and social contacts.
Individuals with depression will also experience an increased risk of symptom breakthrough despite receiving treatment. Stress is well known to trigger or exacerbate depression. Thus, the sense of helplessness and hopelessness during depression may intensify among our patients with pre-existing mood disorders, and suicidal ideation may resurface. Making things worse is the unfortunate timing of the COVID-19 pandemic. Spring is the peak season for the re-emergence of depression and suicide attempts. The ongoing stress of the health crisis, coupled with the onset of spring, may coalesce into a dreadful synergy for relapse among vulnerable individuals with unipolar or bipolar depression.
Patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are known to be averse to imagined germs and may wash their hands multiple times a day. An epidemic in which all health officials strongly urge washing one’s hands is very likely to exacerbate the compulsive handwashing of persons with OCD and significantly increase their anxiety. Because their other obsessions and compulsions may also increase in frequency and intensity, they will need our attention as their psychiatrists.
The viral pandemic is eerily similar to a natural disaster such as a hurricane of tornado, both of which physically destroy towns and flatten homes. The COVID-19 pandemic is damaging social structures and obliterating the fabric of global human relations. Consider the previously unimaginable disruption of what makes a vibrant society: schools, colleges, sporting events, concerts, Broadway shows, houses of worship, festivals, conferences, conventions, busy airports/train stations/bus stations, and spontaneous community gatherings. The sudden shock of upheaval in our daily lives may not only cause a hollow sense of emptiness and grief, but also have residual economic and emotional consequences. Nothing can be taken for granted anymore, and nothing is permanent. Cynicism may rise about maintaining life as we know it.
Rising to the challenge
Physicians and clinicians across all specialties are rising to the challenge of the pandemic, whether to manage the immediate physical or emotional impacts of the health crisis or its anticipated consequences (including the economic sequelae). The often-demonized pharmaceutical industry is urgently summoning all its resources to develop both a vaccine as well as biologic treatments for this potentially fatal viral infection. The government is removing regulatory barriers to expedite solutions to the crisis. A welcome public-private partnership is expediting the availability of and access to testing for the virus. The toxic political partisanship has temporarily given way to collaboration in crafting laws that can mitigate the corrosive effects of the health crisis on businesses and individuals. All these salubrious repercussions of the pandemic are heartening and indicative of how a crisis can often bring out the best among us humans.
Continue to: Let's acknowledge the benefits...
Let’s acknowledge the benefits of the internet and the often-maligned social media. At a time of social isolation and cancellation of popular recreational activities (March Madness, NBA games, spring training baseball, movie theaters, concerts, religious congregations, partying with friends), the internet can offset the pain of mandated isolation by connecting all of us virtually, thus alleviating the emptiness that comes with isolation and boredom laced with anxiety. The damaging effects of a viral pandemic on human well-being would have been much worse if the internet did not exist.
Before the internet, television was a major escape, and for many it still is. But there is a downside: the wall-to-wall coverage of the local, national, and international effects of the pandemic can be alarming, and could increase distress even among persons who don’t have an anxiety disorder. Paradoxically, fear of going outdoors (agoraphobia) has suddenly become a necessary coping mechanism during a viral pandemic, instead of its traditional status as a “disabling symptom.”
Thank heavens for advances in technology. School children and college students can continue their education remotely without the risks of spreading infection by going to crowded classrooms. Scientific interactions and collaboration as well as business communications can remain active via videoconferencing technology, such as Zoom, Skype, or WebEx, without having to walk in crowded airports and fly to other cities on planes with recirculated air. Also, individuals who live far from family or friends can use their smartphones to see and chat with their loved ones. And cellphones remain a convenient method of staying in touch with the latest developments or making a “call to action” locally, national, and internationally.
During these oppressive and exceptional times, special attention and support must be provided to vulnerable populations, especially individuals with psychiatric illnesses, older adults who are physically infirm, and young children. Providing medical care, including psychiatric care, is essential to prevent the escalation of anxiety and panic among children and adults alike, and to prevent physical deterioration or death. This health crisis must be tackled with biopsychosocial approaches. And we, psychiatrists, must support and educate our patients and the public about stress management, and remind all about the transiency of epidemics as exemplified by the 1918 Spanish flu, the 1957 Asian flu, the 1968 Hong Kong flu, the 1982 human immunodeficiency virus, the 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome virus, the 2009 Swine flu, the 2013 Ebola virus, and the 2016 Zika virus, all of which are now distant memories. The current COVID-19 pandemic should inoculate us to be more prepared and resilient for the inevitable future pandemics.
Fear of dying is considered “normal.” However, the ongoing threat of a potentially fatal viral infection can cause panic, anxiety, and an exaggerated fear of illness and death. The relentless spread of the coronavirus infectious disease that began in late 2019 (COVID-19) is spawning widespread anxiety, panic, and worry about one’s health and the health of loved ones. The viral pandemic has triggered a parallel anxiety epidemic.
Making things worse is that no vaccine has yet been developed, and for individuals who do get infected, there are no specific treatments other than supportive care, such as ventilators. Members of the public have been urged to practice sensible preventative measures, including handwashing, sanitizing certain items and surfaces, and—particularly challenging—self-isolation and social distancing. The public has channeled its fear into frantic buying and hoarding of food and non-food items, especially masks, sanitizers, soap, disinfectant wipes, and toilet paper (perhaps preparing for gastrointestinal hyperactivity during anxiety); canceling flights; avoiding group activities; and self-isolation or, for those exposed to the virus, quarantine. Anxiety is palpable. The facial masks that people wear are ironically unmasking their inner agitation and disquietude.
Our role as psychiatrists
As psychiatrists, we have an important role to play in such times, especially for our patients who already have anxiety disorders or depression. The additional emotional burden of this escalating health crisis is exacerbating the mental anguish of our patients (in addition to those who may soon become new patients). The anxiety and panic attacks due to “imagined” doom and gloom are now intensified by anxiety due to a “real” fatal threat. The effect on some vulnerable patients can be devastating, and may culminate in an acute stress reaction and future posttraumatic stress disorder. There are also reports of “psychogenic COVID-19” conversion reaction, with symptoms of sore throat, dyspnea, and even psychogenic fever. Paradoxically, self-isolation and social distancing, which are recommended to prevent the human-to-human spread of the virus, may further worsen anxiety and depression by reducing the comfort of intimacy and social contacts.
Individuals with depression will also experience an increased risk of symptom breakthrough despite receiving treatment. Stress is well known to trigger or exacerbate depression. Thus, the sense of helplessness and hopelessness during depression may intensify among our patients with pre-existing mood disorders, and suicidal ideation may resurface. Making things worse is the unfortunate timing of the COVID-19 pandemic. Spring is the peak season for the re-emergence of depression and suicide attempts. The ongoing stress of the health crisis, coupled with the onset of spring, may coalesce into a dreadful synergy for relapse among vulnerable individuals with unipolar or bipolar depression.
Patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are known to be averse to imagined germs and may wash their hands multiple times a day. An epidemic in which all health officials strongly urge washing one’s hands is very likely to exacerbate the compulsive handwashing of persons with OCD and significantly increase their anxiety. Because their other obsessions and compulsions may also increase in frequency and intensity, they will need our attention as their psychiatrists.
The viral pandemic is eerily similar to a natural disaster such as a hurricane of tornado, both of which physically destroy towns and flatten homes. The COVID-19 pandemic is damaging social structures and obliterating the fabric of global human relations. Consider the previously unimaginable disruption of what makes a vibrant society: schools, colleges, sporting events, concerts, Broadway shows, houses of worship, festivals, conferences, conventions, busy airports/train stations/bus stations, and spontaneous community gatherings. The sudden shock of upheaval in our daily lives may not only cause a hollow sense of emptiness and grief, but also have residual economic and emotional consequences. Nothing can be taken for granted anymore, and nothing is permanent. Cynicism may rise about maintaining life as we know it.
Rising to the challenge
Physicians and clinicians across all specialties are rising to the challenge of the pandemic, whether to manage the immediate physical or emotional impacts of the health crisis or its anticipated consequences (including the economic sequelae). The often-demonized pharmaceutical industry is urgently summoning all its resources to develop both a vaccine as well as biologic treatments for this potentially fatal viral infection. The government is removing regulatory barriers to expedite solutions to the crisis. A welcome public-private partnership is expediting the availability of and access to testing for the virus. The toxic political partisanship has temporarily given way to collaboration in crafting laws that can mitigate the corrosive effects of the health crisis on businesses and individuals. All these salubrious repercussions of the pandemic are heartening and indicative of how a crisis can often bring out the best among us humans.
Continue to: Let's acknowledge the benefits...
Let’s acknowledge the benefits of the internet and the often-maligned social media. At a time of social isolation and cancellation of popular recreational activities (March Madness, NBA games, spring training baseball, movie theaters, concerts, religious congregations, partying with friends), the internet can offset the pain of mandated isolation by connecting all of us virtually, thus alleviating the emptiness that comes with isolation and boredom laced with anxiety. The damaging effects of a viral pandemic on human well-being would have been much worse if the internet did not exist.
Before the internet, television was a major escape, and for many it still is. But there is a downside: the wall-to-wall coverage of the local, national, and international effects of the pandemic can be alarming, and could increase distress even among persons who don’t have an anxiety disorder. Paradoxically, fear of going outdoors (agoraphobia) has suddenly become a necessary coping mechanism during a viral pandemic, instead of its traditional status as a “disabling symptom.”
Thank heavens for advances in technology. School children and college students can continue their education remotely without the risks of spreading infection by going to crowded classrooms. Scientific interactions and collaboration as well as business communications can remain active via videoconferencing technology, such as Zoom, Skype, or WebEx, without having to walk in crowded airports and fly to other cities on planes with recirculated air. Also, individuals who live far from family or friends can use their smartphones to see and chat with their loved ones. And cellphones remain a convenient method of staying in touch with the latest developments or making a “call to action” locally, national, and internationally.
During these oppressive and exceptional times, special attention and support must be provided to vulnerable populations, especially individuals with psychiatric illnesses, older adults who are physically infirm, and young children. Providing medical care, including psychiatric care, is essential to prevent the escalation of anxiety and panic among children and adults alike, and to prevent physical deterioration or death. This health crisis must be tackled with biopsychosocial approaches. And we, psychiatrists, must support and educate our patients and the public about stress management, and remind all about the transiency of epidemics as exemplified by the 1918 Spanish flu, the 1957 Asian flu, the 1968 Hong Kong flu, the 1982 human immunodeficiency virus, the 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome virus, the 2009 Swine flu, the 2013 Ebola virus, and the 2016 Zika virus, all of which are now distant memories. The current COVID-19 pandemic should inoculate us to be more prepared and resilient for the inevitable future pandemics.
Fear of dying is considered “normal.” However, the ongoing threat of a potentially fatal viral infection can cause panic, anxiety, and an exaggerated fear of illness and death. The relentless spread of the coronavirus infectious disease that began in late 2019 (COVID-19) is spawning widespread anxiety, panic, and worry about one’s health and the health of loved ones. The viral pandemic has triggered a parallel anxiety epidemic.
Making things worse is that no vaccine has yet been developed, and for individuals who do get infected, there are no specific treatments other than supportive care, such as ventilators. Members of the public have been urged to practice sensible preventative measures, including handwashing, sanitizing certain items and surfaces, and—particularly challenging—self-isolation and social distancing. The public has channeled its fear into frantic buying and hoarding of food and non-food items, especially masks, sanitizers, soap, disinfectant wipes, and toilet paper (perhaps preparing for gastrointestinal hyperactivity during anxiety); canceling flights; avoiding group activities; and self-isolation or, for those exposed to the virus, quarantine. Anxiety is palpable. The facial masks that people wear are ironically unmasking their inner agitation and disquietude.
Our role as psychiatrists
As psychiatrists, we have an important role to play in such times, especially for our patients who already have anxiety disorders or depression. The additional emotional burden of this escalating health crisis is exacerbating the mental anguish of our patients (in addition to those who may soon become new patients). The anxiety and panic attacks due to “imagined” doom and gloom are now intensified by anxiety due to a “real” fatal threat. The effect on some vulnerable patients can be devastating, and may culminate in an acute stress reaction and future posttraumatic stress disorder. There are also reports of “psychogenic COVID-19” conversion reaction, with symptoms of sore throat, dyspnea, and even psychogenic fever. Paradoxically, self-isolation and social distancing, which are recommended to prevent the human-to-human spread of the virus, may further worsen anxiety and depression by reducing the comfort of intimacy and social contacts.
Individuals with depression will also experience an increased risk of symptom breakthrough despite receiving treatment. Stress is well known to trigger or exacerbate depression. Thus, the sense of helplessness and hopelessness during depression may intensify among our patients with pre-existing mood disorders, and suicidal ideation may resurface. Making things worse is the unfortunate timing of the COVID-19 pandemic. Spring is the peak season for the re-emergence of depression and suicide attempts. The ongoing stress of the health crisis, coupled with the onset of spring, may coalesce into a dreadful synergy for relapse among vulnerable individuals with unipolar or bipolar depression.
Patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are known to be averse to imagined germs and may wash their hands multiple times a day. An epidemic in which all health officials strongly urge washing one’s hands is very likely to exacerbate the compulsive handwashing of persons with OCD and significantly increase their anxiety. Because their other obsessions and compulsions may also increase in frequency and intensity, they will need our attention as their psychiatrists.
The viral pandemic is eerily similar to a natural disaster such as a hurricane of tornado, both of which physically destroy towns and flatten homes. The COVID-19 pandemic is damaging social structures and obliterating the fabric of global human relations. Consider the previously unimaginable disruption of what makes a vibrant society: schools, colleges, sporting events, concerts, Broadway shows, houses of worship, festivals, conferences, conventions, busy airports/train stations/bus stations, and spontaneous community gatherings. The sudden shock of upheaval in our daily lives may not only cause a hollow sense of emptiness and grief, but also have residual economic and emotional consequences. Nothing can be taken for granted anymore, and nothing is permanent. Cynicism may rise about maintaining life as we know it.
Rising to the challenge
Physicians and clinicians across all specialties are rising to the challenge of the pandemic, whether to manage the immediate physical or emotional impacts of the health crisis or its anticipated consequences (including the economic sequelae). The often-demonized pharmaceutical industry is urgently summoning all its resources to develop both a vaccine as well as biologic treatments for this potentially fatal viral infection. The government is removing regulatory barriers to expedite solutions to the crisis. A welcome public-private partnership is expediting the availability of and access to testing for the virus. The toxic political partisanship has temporarily given way to collaboration in crafting laws that can mitigate the corrosive effects of the health crisis on businesses and individuals. All these salubrious repercussions of the pandemic are heartening and indicative of how a crisis can often bring out the best among us humans.
Continue to: Let's acknowledge the benefits...
Let’s acknowledge the benefits of the internet and the often-maligned social media. At a time of social isolation and cancellation of popular recreational activities (March Madness, NBA games, spring training baseball, movie theaters, concerts, religious congregations, partying with friends), the internet can offset the pain of mandated isolation by connecting all of us virtually, thus alleviating the emptiness that comes with isolation and boredom laced with anxiety. The damaging effects of a viral pandemic on human well-being would have been much worse if the internet did not exist.
Before the internet, television was a major escape, and for many it still is. But there is a downside: the wall-to-wall coverage of the local, national, and international effects of the pandemic can be alarming, and could increase distress even among persons who don’t have an anxiety disorder. Paradoxically, fear of going outdoors (agoraphobia) has suddenly become a necessary coping mechanism during a viral pandemic, instead of its traditional status as a “disabling symptom.”
Thank heavens for advances in technology. School children and college students can continue their education remotely without the risks of spreading infection by going to crowded classrooms. Scientific interactions and collaboration as well as business communications can remain active via videoconferencing technology, such as Zoom, Skype, or WebEx, without having to walk in crowded airports and fly to other cities on planes with recirculated air. Also, individuals who live far from family or friends can use their smartphones to see and chat with their loved ones. And cellphones remain a convenient method of staying in touch with the latest developments or making a “call to action” locally, national, and internationally.
During these oppressive and exceptional times, special attention and support must be provided to vulnerable populations, especially individuals with psychiatric illnesses, older adults who are physically infirm, and young children. Providing medical care, including psychiatric care, is essential to prevent the escalation of anxiety and panic among children and adults alike, and to prevent physical deterioration or death. This health crisis must be tackled with biopsychosocial approaches. And we, psychiatrists, must support and educate our patients and the public about stress management, and remind all about the transiency of epidemics as exemplified by the 1918 Spanish flu, the 1957 Asian flu, the 1968 Hong Kong flu, the 1982 human immunodeficiency virus, the 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome virus, the 2009 Swine flu, the 2013 Ebola virus, and the 2016 Zika virus, all of which are now distant memories. The current COVID-19 pandemic should inoculate us to be more prepared and resilient for the inevitable future pandemics.
COVID-19 in pediatric patients: What the hospitalist needs to know
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11. This rapidly spreading disease is caused by the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The infection has spread to more than 140 countries, including the United States. As of March 16, more than 170,400 people had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and more than 6,619 people have died across the globe.
The number of new COVID-19 cases appears to be decreasing in China, but the number of cases are rapidly increasing worldwide. Based on available data, primarily from China, children (aged 0-19 years) account for only about 2% of all cases. Despite the probable low virulence and incidence of infection in children, they could act as potential vectors and transmit infection to more vulnerable populations. As of March 16, approximately 3,823 cases and more than 67 deaths had been reported in the United States with few pediatric patients testing positive for the disease.
SARS-CoV2 transmission mainly occurs via respiratory route through close contact with infected individuals and through fomites. The incubation period ranges from 2-14 days with an average of about 5 days. Adult patients present with cough and fever, which may progress to lower respiratory tract symptoms, including shortness of breath. Approximately 10% of all patients develop severe disease and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), requiring mechanical ventilation.
COVID-19 carries a mortality rate of up to 3%, but has been significantly higher in the elderly population, and those with chronic health conditions. Available data so far shows that children are at lower risk and the severity of the disease has been milder compared to adults. The reasons for this are not clear at this time. As of March 16, there were no reported COVID-19 related deaths in children under age 9 years.
The pediatric population: Disease patterns and transmission
The epidemiology and spectrum of disease for COVID-19 is poorly understood in pediatrics because of the low number of reported pediatric cases and limited data available from these patients. Small numbers of reported cases in children has led some to believe that children are relatively immune to the infection by SARS-CoV-2. However, Oifang et al. found that children are equally as likely as adults to be infected.1
Liu et al. found that of 366 children admitted to a hospital in Wuhan with respiratory infections in January 2020, 1.6% (six patients) cases were positive for SARS-CoV-2.2 These six children were aged 1-7 years and had all been previously healthy; all six presented with cough and fever of 102.2° F or greater. Four of the children also had vomiting. Laboratory findings were notable for lymphopenia (six of six), leukopenia (four of six), and neutropenia (3/6) with mild to moderate elevation in C-reactive protein (6.8-58.8 mg/L). Five of six children had chest CT scans. One child’s CT scan showed “bilateral ground-glass opacities” (similar to what is reported in adults), three showed “bilateral patchy shadows,” and one was normal. One child (aged 3 years) was admitted to the ICU. All of the children were treated with supportive measures, empiric antibiotics, and antivirals (six of six received oseltamivir and four of six received ribavirin). All six children recovered completely and their median hospital stay was 7.5 days with a range of 5-13 days.
Xia et al. reviewed 20 children (aged 1 day to 14 years) admitted to a hospital in Wuhan during Jan. 23–Feb. 8.3 The study reported that fever and cough were the most common presenting symptoms (approximately 65%). Less common symptoms included rhinorrhea (15%), diarrhea (15%), vomiting (10%), and sore throat (5%). WBC count was normal in majority of children (70%) with leukopenia in 20% and leukocytosis in 10%. Lymphopenia was noted to be 35%. Elevated procalcitonin was noted in 80% of children, although the degree of elevation is unclear. In this study, 8 of 20 children were coinfected with other respiratory pathogens such as influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, mycoplasma, and cytomegalovirus. All children had chest CT scans. Ten of 20 children had bilateral pulmonary lesions, 6 of 20 had unilateral pulmonary lesions, 12 of 20 had ground-glass opacities and 10 of 20 had lung consolidations with halo signs.
Wei et al., retrospective chart review of nine infants admitted for COVID-19 found that all nine had at least one infected family member.4 This study reported that seven of nine were female infants, four of nine had fever, two had mild upper respiratory infection symptoms, and one had no symptoms. The study did report that two infants did not have any information available related to symptoms. None of the infants developed severe symptoms or required ICU admission.
The youngest patient to be diagnosed with COVID-19 was a newborn of less than 24 hours old from England, whose mother also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, Chen et al. found no evidence of vertical transmission of the virus from infected pregnant women to their newborns.5
Although the risk of infection in children has been reported to be low, the infection has been shown to be particularly severe in adults with compromised immune systems and chronic health conditions. Thus immunocompromised children and those with chronic health conditions are thought to be at a higher risk for contracting the infection, with the probability for increased morbidity and mortality. Some of these risk groups include premature infants, young infants, immunocompromised children, and children with chronic health conditions like asthma, diabetes, and others. It is essential that caregivers, healthy siblings, and other family members are protected from contracting the infection in order to protect these vulnerable children. Given the high infectivity of SARS-CoV-2, the implications of infected children attending schools and daycares may be far reaching if there is delayed identification of the infection. For these reasons, it is important to closely monitor and promptly test children living with infected adults to prevent the spread. It may become necessary to close schools to mitigate transmission.
Schools and daycares should work with their local health departments and physicians in case of infected individuals in their community. In China, authorities closed schools and allowed students to receive virtual education from home, which may be a reasonable choice depending on resources.
Current challenges
Given the aggressive transmission of COVID-19, these numbers seem to be increasing exponentially with a significant impact on the life of the entire country. Therefore, we must focus on containing the spread and mitigating the transmission with a multimodality approach.
Some of the initial challenges faced by physicians in the United States were related to difficulty in access to testing in persons under investigation (PUI), which in turn resulted in a delay in diagnosis and infection control. At this time, the need is to increase surge testing capabilities across the country through a variety of innovative approaches including public-private partnerships with commercial labs through Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. To minimize exposure to health care professionals, telemedicine and telehealth capabilities should be exploited. This will minimize the exposure to infected patients and reduce the need for already limited personal protective equipment (PPE). As the number of cases rise, hospitals should expect and prepare for a surge in COVID-19–related hospitalizations and health care utilization.
Conclusion
Various theories are being proposed as to why children are not experiencing severe disease with COVID-19. Children may have cross-protective immunity from infection with other coronaviruses. Children may not have the same exposures from work, travel, and caregiving that adults experience as they are typically exposed by someone in their home. At this time, not enough is known about clinical presentations in children as the situation continues to evolve across the globe.
Respiratory infections in children pose unique infection control challenges with respect to compliant hand hygiene, cough etiquette, and the use of PPE when indicated. There is also concern for persistent fecal shedding of virus in infected pediatric patients, which could be another mode of transmission.6 Children could, however, be very efficient vectors of COVID-19, similar to flu, and potentially spread the pathogen to very vulnerable populations leading to high morbidity and mortality. School closures are an effective social distancing measure needed to flatten the curve and avoid overwhelming the health care structure of the United States.
Dr. Konanki is a board-certified pediatrician doing inpatient work at Wellspan Chambersburg Hospital and outpatient work at Keystone Pediatrics in Chambersburg, Pa. He also serves as the physician member of the hospital’s Code Blue Jr. committee and as a member of Quality Metrics committee at Keystone Health. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals. Dr. Palabindala is hospital medicine division chief at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.
References
1. Bi Q et al. Epidemiology and transmission of COVID-19 in Shenzhen China: Analysis of 391 cases and 1,286 of their close contacts. medRxiv 2020.03.03.20028423.
2. Liu W et al. Detection of Covid-19 in children in early January 2020 in Wuhan, China. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2003717.
3. Xia W et al. Clinical and CT features in pediatric patients with COVID‐19 infection: Different points from adults. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24718.
4. Wei M et al. Novel Coronavirus infection in hospitalized infants under 1 year of age in China. JAMA. 2020 Feb. 14. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2131.
5. Huijun C et al. Clinical characteristics and intrauterine vertical transmission potential of COVID-19 infection in nine pregnant women: A retrospective review of medical records. Lancet. 2020 Mar 7 395;10226:809-15.
6. Xu Y et al. Characteristics of pediatric SARS-CoV-2 infection and potential evidence for persistent fecal viral shedding. Nat Med. 2020 Mar 13. doi. org/10.1038/s41591-020-0817-4.
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11. This rapidly spreading disease is caused by the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The infection has spread to more than 140 countries, including the United States. As of March 16, more than 170,400 people had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and more than 6,619 people have died across the globe.
The number of new COVID-19 cases appears to be decreasing in China, but the number of cases are rapidly increasing worldwide. Based on available data, primarily from China, children (aged 0-19 years) account for only about 2% of all cases. Despite the probable low virulence and incidence of infection in children, they could act as potential vectors and transmit infection to more vulnerable populations. As of March 16, approximately 3,823 cases and more than 67 deaths had been reported in the United States with few pediatric patients testing positive for the disease.
SARS-CoV2 transmission mainly occurs via respiratory route through close contact with infected individuals and through fomites. The incubation period ranges from 2-14 days with an average of about 5 days. Adult patients present with cough and fever, which may progress to lower respiratory tract symptoms, including shortness of breath. Approximately 10% of all patients develop severe disease and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), requiring mechanical ventilation.
COVID-19 carries a mortality rate of up to 3%, but has been significantly higher in the elderly population, and those with chronic health conditions. Available data so far shows that children are at lower risk and the severity of the disease has been milder compared to adults. The reasons for this are not clear at this time. As of March 16, there were no reported COVID-19 related deaths in children under age 9 years.
The pediatric population: Disease patterns and transmission
The epidemiology and spectrum of disease for COVID-19 is poorly understood in pediatrics because of the low number of reported pediatric cases and limited data available from these patients. Small numbers of reported cases in children has led some to believe that children are relatively immune to the infection by SARS-CoV-2. However, Oifang et al. found that children are equally as likely as adults to be infected.1
Liu et al. found that of 366 children admitted to a hospital in Wuhan with respiratory infections in January 2020, 1.6% (six patients) cases were positive for SARS-CoV-2.2 These six children were aged 1-7 years and had all been previously healthy; all six presented with cough and fever of 102.2° F or greater. Four of the children also had vomiting. Laboratory findings were notable for lymphopenia (six of six), leukopenia (four of six), and neutropenia (3/6) with mild to moderate elevation in C-reactive protein (6.8-58.8 mg/L). Five of six children had chest CT scans. One child’s CT scan showed “bilateral ground-glass opacities” (similar to what is reported in adults), three showed “bilateral patchy shadows,” and one was normal. One child (aged 3 years) was admitted to the ICU. All of the children were treated with supportive measures, empiric antibiotics, and antivirals (six of six received oseltamivir and four of six received ribavirin). All six children recovered completely and their median hospital stay was 7.5 days with a range of 5-13 days.
Xia et al. reviewed 20 children (aged 1 day to 14 years) admitted to a hospital in Wuhan during Jan. 23–Feb. 8.3 The study reported that fever and cough were the most common presenting symptoms (approximately 65%). Less common symptoms included rhinorrhea (15%), diarrhea (15%), vomiting (10%), and sore throat (5%). WBC count was normal in majority of children (70%) with leukopenia in 20% and leukocytosis in 10%. Lymphopenia was noted to be 35%. Elevated procalcitonin was noted in 80% of children, although the degree of elevation is unclear. In this study, 8 of 20 children were coinfected with other respiratory pathogens such as influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, mycoplasma, and cytomegalovirus. All children had chest CT scans. Ten of 20 children had bilateral pulmonary lesions, 6 of 20 had unilateral pulmonary lesions, 12 of 20 had ground-glass opacities and 10 of 20 had lung consolidations with halo signs.
Wei et al., retrospective chart review of nine infants admitted for COVID-19 found that all nine had at least one infected family member.4 This study reported that seven of nine were female infants, four of nine had fever, two had mild upper respiratory infection symptoms, and one had no symptoms. The study did report that two infants did not have any information available related to symptoms. None of the infants developed severe symptoms or required ICU admission.
The youngest patient to be diagnosed with COVID-19 was a newborn of less than 24 hours old from England, whose mother also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, Chen et al. found no evidence of vertical transmission of the virus from infected pregnant women to their newborns.5
Although the risk of infection in children has been reported to be low, the infection has been shown to be particularly severe in adults with compromised immune systems and chronic health conditions. Thus immunocompromised children and those with chronic health conditions are thought to be at a higher risk for contracting the infection, with the probability for increased morbidity and mortality. Some of these risk groups include premature infants, young infants, immunocompromised children, and children with chronic health conditions like asthma, diabetes, and others. It is essential that caregivers, healthy siblings, and other family members are protected from contracting the infection in order to protect these vulnerable children. Given the high infectivity of SARS-CoV-2, the implications of infected children attending schools and daycares may be far reaching if there is delayed identification of the infection. For these reasons, it is important to closely monitor and promptly test children living with infected adults to prevent the spread. It may become necessary to close schools to mitigate transmission.
Schools and daycares should work with their local health departments and physicians in case of infected individuals in their community. In China, authorities closed schools and allowed students to receive virtual education from home, which may be a reasonable choice depending on resources.
Current challenges
Given the aggressive transmission of COVID-19, these numbers seem to be increasing exponentially with a significant impact on the life of the entire country. Therefore, we must focus on containing the spread and mitigating the transmission with a multimodality approach.
Some of the initial challenges faced by physicians in the United States were related to difficulty in access to testing in persons under investigation (PUI), which in turn resulted in a delay in diagnosis and infection control. At this time, the need is to increase surge testing capabilities across the country through a variety of innovative approaches including public-private partnerships with commercial labs through Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. To minimize exposure to health care professionals, telemedicine and telehealth capabilities should be exploited. This will minimize the exposure to infected patients and reduce the need for already limited personal protective equipment (PPE). As the number of cases rise, hospitals should expect and prepare for a surge in COVID-19–related hospitalizations and health care utilization.
Conclusion
Various theories are being proposed as to why children are not experiencing severe disease with COVID-19. Children may have cross-protective immunity from infection with other coronaviruses. Children may not have the same exposures from work, travel, and caregiving that adults experience as they are typically exposed by someone in their home. At this time, not enough is known about clinical presentations in children as the situation continues to evolve across the globe.
Respiratory infections in children pose unique infection control challenges with respect to compliant hand hygiene, cough etiquette, and the use of PPE when indicated. There is also concern for persistent fecal shedding of virus in infected pediatric patients, which could be another mode of transmission.6 Children could, however, be very efficient vectors of COVID-19, similar to flu, and potentially spread the pathogen to very vulnerable populations leading to high morbidity and mortality. School closures are an effective social distancing measure needed to flatten the curve and avoid overwhelming the health care structure of the United States.
Dr. Konanki is a board-certified pediatrician doing inpatient work at Wellspan Chambersburg Hospital and outpatient work at Keystone Pediatrics in Chambersburg, Pa. He also serves as the physician member of the hospital’s Code Blue Jr. committee and as a member of Quality Metrics committee at Keystone Health. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals. Dr. Palabindala is hospital medicine division chief at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.
References
1. Bi Q et al. Epidemiology and transmission of COVID-19 in Shenzhen China: Analysis of 391 cases and 1,286 of their close contacts. medRxiv 2020.03.03.20028423.
2. Liu W et al. Detection of Covid-19 in children in early January 2020 in Wuhan, China. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2003717.
3. Xia W et al. Clinical and CT features in pediatric patients with COVID‐19 infection: Different points from adults. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24718.
4. Wei M et al. Novel Coronavirus infection in hospitalized infants under 1 year of age in China. JAMA. 2020 Feb. 14. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2131.
5. Huijun C et al. Clinical characteristics and intrauterine vertical transmission potential of COVID-19 infection in nine pregnant women: A retrospective review of medical records. Lancet. 2020 Mar 7 395;10226:809-15.
6. Xu Y et al. Characteristics of pediatric SARS-CoV-2 infection and potential evidence for persistent fecal viral shedding. Nat Med. 2020 Mar 13. doi. org/10.1038/s41591-020-0817-4.
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11. This rapidly spreading disease is caused by the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The infection has spread to more than 140 countries, including the United States. As of March 16, more than 170,400 people had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and more than 6,619 people have died across the globe.
The number of new COVID-19 cases appears to be decreasing in China, but the number of cases are rapidly increasing worldwide. Based on available data, primarily from China, children (aged 0-19 years) account for only about 2% of all cases. Despite the probable low virulence and incidence of infection in children, they could act as potential vectors and transmit infection to more vulnerable populations. As of March 16, approximately 3,823 cases and more than 67 deaths had been reported in the United States with few pediatric patients testing positive for the disease.
SARS-CoV2 transmission mainly occurs via respiratory route through close contact with infected individuals and through fomites. The incubation period ranges from 2-14 days with an average of about 5 days. Adult patients present with cough and fever, which may progress to lower respiratory tract symptoms, including shortness of breath. Approximately 10% of all patients develop severe disease and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), requiring mechanical ventilation.
COVID-19 carries a mortality rate of up to 3%, but has been significantly higher in the elderly population, and those with chronic health conditions. Available data so far shows that children are at lower risk and the severity of the disease has been milder compared to adults. The reasons for this are not clear at this time. As of March 16, there were no reported COVID-19 related deaths in children under age 9 years.
The pediatric population: Disease patterns and transmission
The epidemiology and spectrum of disease for COVID-19 is poorly understood in pediatrics because of the low number of reported pediatric cases and limited data available from these patients. Small numbers of reported cases in children has led some to believe that children are relatively immune to the infection by SARS-CoV-2. However, Oifang et al. found that children are equally as likely as adults to be infected.1
Liu et al. found that of 366 children admitted to a hospital in Wuhan with respiratory infections in January 2020, 1.6% (six patients) cases were positive for SARS-CoV-2.2 These six children were aged 1-7 years and had all been previously healthy; all six presented with cough and fever of 102.2° F or greater. Four of the children also had vomiting. Laboratory findings were notable for lymphopenia (six of six), leukopenia (four of six), and neutropenia (3/6) with mild to moderate elevation in C-reactive protein (6.8-58.8 mg/L). Five of six children had chest CT scans. One child’s CT scan showed “bilateral ground-glass opacities” (similar to what is reported in adults), three showed “bilateral patchy shadows,” and one was normal. One child (aged 3 years) was admitted to the ICU. All of the children were treated with supportive measures, empiric antibiotics, and antivirals (six of six received oseltamivir and four of six received ribavirin). All six children recovered completely and their median hospital stay was 7.5 days with a range of 5-13 days.
Xia et al. reviewed 20 children (aged 1 day to 14 years) admitted to a hospital in Wuhan during Jan. 23–Feb. 8.3 The study reported that fever and cough were the most common presenting symptoms (approximately 65%). Less common symptoms included rhinorrhea (15%), diarrhea (15%), vomiting (10%), and sore throat (5%). WBC count was normal in majority of children (70%) with leukopenia in 20% and leukocytosis in 10%. Lymphopenia was noted to be 35%. Elevated procalcitonin was noted in 80% of children, although the degree of elevation is unclear. In this study, 8 of 20 children were coinfected with other respiratory pathogens such as influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, mycoplasma, and cytomegalovirus. All children had chest CT scans. Ten of 20 children had bilateral pulmonary lesions, 6 of 20 had unilateral pulmonary lesions, 12 of 20 had ground-glass opacities and 10 of 20 had lung consolidations with halo signs.
Wei et al., retrospective chart review of nine infants admitted for COVID-19 found that all nine had at least one infected family member.4 This study reported that seven of nine were female infants, four of nine had fever, two had mild upper respiratory infection symptoms, and one had no symptoms. The study did report that two infants did not have any information available related to symptoms. None of the infants developed severe symptoms or required ICU admission.
The youngest patient to be diagnosed with COVID-19 was a newborn of less than 24 hours old from England, whose mother also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, Chen et al. found no evidence of vertical transmission of the virus from infected pregnant women to their newborns.5
Although the risk of infection in children has been reported to be low, the infection has been shown to be particularly severe in adults with compromised immune systems and chronic health conditions. Thus immunocompromised children and those with chronic health conditions are thought to be at a higher risk for contracting the infection, with the probability for increased morbidity and mortality. Some of these risk groups include premature infants, young infants, immunocompromised children, and children with chronic health conditions like asthma, diabetes, and others. It is essential that caregivers, healthy siblings, and other family members are protected from contracting the infection in order to protect these vulnerable children. Given the high infectivity of SARS-CoV-2, the implications of infected children attending schools and daycares may be far reaching if there is delayed identification of the infection. For these reasons, it is important to closely monitor and promptly test children living with infected adults to prevent the spread. It may become necessary to close schools to mitigate transmission.
Schools and daycares should work with their local health departments and physicians in case of infected individuals in their community. In China, authorities closed schools and allowed students to receive virtual education from home, which may be a reasonable choice depending on resources.
Current challenges
Given the aggressive transmission of COVID-19, these numbers seem to be increasing exponentially with a significant impact on the life of the entire country. Therefore, we must focus on containing the spread and mitigating the transmission with a multimodality approach.
Some of the initial challenges faced by physicians in the United States were related to difficulty in access to testing in persons under investigation (PUI), which in turn resulted in a delay in diagnosis and infection control. At this time, the need is to increase surge testing capabilities across the country through a variety of innovative approaches including public-private partnerships with commercial labs through Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. To minimize exposure to health care professionals, telemedicine and telehealth capabilities should be exploited. This will minimize the exposure to infected patients and reduce the need for already limited personal protective equipment (PPE). As the number of cases rise, hospitals should expect and prepare for a surge in COVID-19–related hospitalizations and health care utilization.
Conclusion
Various theories are being proposed as to why children are not experiencing severe disease with COVID-19. Children may have cross-protective immunity from infection with other coronaviruses. Children may not have the same exposures from work, travel, and caregiving that adults experience as they are typically exposed by someone in their home. At this time, not enough is known about clinical presentations in children as the situation continues to evolve across the globe.
Respiratory infections in children pose unique infection control challenges with respect to compliant hand hygiene, cough etiquette, and the use of PPE when indicated. There is also concern for persistent fecal shedding of virus in infected pediatric patients, which could be another mode of transmission.6 Children could, however, be very efficient vectors of COVID-19, similar to flu, and potentially spread the pathogen to very vulnerable populations leading to high morbidity and mortality. School closures are an effective social distancing measure needed to flatten the curve and avoid overwhelming the health care structure of the United States.
Dr. Konanki is a board-certified pediatrician doing inpatient work at Wellspan Chambersburg Hospital and outpatient work at Keystone Pediatrics in Chambersburg, Pa. He also serves as the physician member of the hospital’s Code Blue Jr. committee and as a member of Quality Metrics committee at Keystone Health. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals. Dr. Palabindala is hospital medicine division chief at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.
References
1. Bi Q et al. Epidemiology and transmission of COVID-19 in Shenzhen China: Analysis of 391 cases and 1,286 of their close contacts. medRxiv 2020.03.03.20028423.
2. Liu W et al. Detection of Covid-19 in children in early January 2020 in Wuhan, China. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2003717.
3. Xia W et al. Clinical and CT features in pediatric patients with COVID‐19 infection: Different points from adults. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24718.
4. Wei M et al. Novel Coronavirus infection in hospitalized infants under 1 year of age in China. JAMA. 2020 Feb. 14. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.2131.
5. Huijun C et al. Clinical characteristics and intrauterine vertical transmission potential of COVID-19 infection in nine pregnant women: A retrospective review of medical records. Lancet. 2020 Mar 7 395;10226:809-15.
6. Xu Y et al. Characteristics of pediatric SARS-CoV-2 infection and potential evidence for persistent fecal viral shedding. Nat Med. 2020 Mar 13. doi. org/10.1038/s41591-020-0817-4.
COVID-19 in children, pregnant women: What do we know?
A novel coronavirus, the causative agent of the current pandemic of viral respiratory illness and pneumonia, was first identified in Wuhan, Hubei, China. The disease has been given the name, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The virus at last report has spread to more than 100 countries. Much of what we suspect about this virus comes from work on other severe coronavirus respiratory disease outbreaks – Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). MERS-CoV was a viral respiratory disease, first reported in Saudi Arabia, that was identified in more than 27 additional countries. The disease was characterized by severe acute respiratory illness, including fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Among 2,499 cases, only two patients tested positive for MERS-CoV in the United States. SARS-CoV also caused a severe viral respiratory illness. SARS was first recognized in Asia in 2003 and was subsequently reported in approximately 25 countries. The last case reported was in 2004.
As of March 13, there are 137,066 cases worldwide of COVID-19 and 1,701 in the United States, according to the John Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 resource center.
What about children?
The remarkable observation is how few seriously ill children have been identified in the face of global spread. Unlike the H1N1 influenza epidemic of 2009, where older adults were relatively spared and children were a major target population, COVID-19 appears to be relatively infrequent in children or too mild to come to diagnosis, to date. Specifically, among China’s first approximately 44,000 cases, less than 2% were identified in children less than 20 years of age, and severe disease was uncommon with no deaths in children less than 10 years of age reported. One child, 13 months of age, with acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock was reported in China. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention webcast , children present with fever in about 50% of cases, cough, fatigue, and subsequently some (3%-30%) progress to shortness of breath. Some children and adults have presented with gastrointestinal disease initially. Viral RNA has been detected in respiratory secretions, blood, and stool of affected children; however, the samples were not cultured for virus so whether stool is a potential source for transmission is unclear. In adults, the disease appears to be most severe – with development of pneumonia – in the second week of illness. In both children and adults, the chest x-ray findings are an interstitial pneumonitis, ground glass appearance, and/or patchy infiltrates.
Are some children at greater risk? Are children the source of community transmission? Will children become a greater part of the disease pattern as further cases are identified and further testing is available? We cannot answer many of these questions about COVID-19 in children as yet, but as you are aware, data are accumulating daily, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health are providing regular updates.
A report from China gave us some idea about community transmission and infection risk for children. The Shenzhen CDC identified 391 COVID-19 cases and 1,286 close contacts. Household contacts and those persons traveling with a case of the virus were at highest risk of acquisition. The secondary attack rates within households was 15%; children were as likely to become infected as adults (medRxiv preprint. 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.03.20028423).
What about pregnant women?
The data on pregnant women are even more limited. The concern about COVID-19 during pregnancy comes from our knowledge of adverse outcomes from other respiratory viral infections. For example, respiratory viral infections such as influenza have been associated with increased maternal risk of severe disease, and adverse neonatal outcomes, including low birth weight and preterm birth. The experience with SARS also is concerning for excess adverse maternal and neonatal complications such as spontaneous miscarriage, preterm delivery, intrauterine growth restriction, admission to the ICU, renal failure, and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy all were reported as complications of SARS infection during pregnancy.
Two studies on COVID-19 in pregnancy have been reported to date. In nine pregnant women reported by Chen et al., COVID-19 pneumonia was identified in the third trimester. The women presented with fever, cough, myalgia, sore throat, and/or malaise. Fetal distress was reported in two; all nine infants were born alive. Apgar scores were 8-10 at 1 minute. Five were found to have lymphopenia; three had increases in hepatic enzymes. None of the infants developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Amniotic fluid, cord blood, neonatal throat swab, and breast milk samples from six of the nine patients were tested for the novel coronavirus 2019, and all results were negative (Lancet. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]30360-3)https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30360-3/fulltext.
In a study by Zhu et al., nine pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 infection were identified during Jan. 20-Feb. 5, 2020. The onset of clinical symptoms in these women occurred before delivery in four cases, on the day of delivery in two cases, and after delivery in three cases. Of the 10 neonates (one set of twins) many had clinical symptoms, but none were proven to be COVID-19 positive in their pharyngeal swabs. Shortness of breath was observed in six, fever in two, tachycardia in one. GI symptoms such as feeding intolerance, bloating, GI bleed, and vomiting also were observed. Chest radiography showed abnormalities in seven neonates at admission. Thrombocytopenia and/or disseminated intravascular coagulopathy also was reported. Five neonates recovered and were discharged, one died, and four neonates remained in hospital in a stable condition. It is unclear if the illness in these infants was related to COVID-19 (Transl Pediatrics. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.21037/tp.2020.02.06)http://tp.amegroups.com/article/view/35919/28274.
In the limited experience to date, no evidence of virus has been found in the breast milk of women with COVID-19, which is consistent with the SARS experience. Current recommendations are to separate the infant from known COVID-19 infected mothers either in a different room or in the mother’s room using a six foot rule, a barrier curtain of some type, and mask and hand washing prior to any contact between mother and infant. If the mother desires to breastfeed her child, the same precautions – mask and hand washing – should be in place.
What about treatment?
There are no proven effective therapies and supportive care has been the mainstay to date. Clinical trials of remdesivir have been initiated both by Gilead (compassionate use, open label) and by the National Institutes of Health (randomized remdesivirhttps://www.drugs.com/history/remdesivir.html vs. placebo) in adults based on in vitro data suggesting activity again COVID-19. Lopinavir/ritonavir (combination protease inhibitors) also have been administered off label, but no results are available as yet.
Keeping up
I suggest several valuable resources to keep yourself abreast of the rapidly changing COVID-19 story. First the CDC website or your local Department of Health. These are being updated frequently and include advisories on personal protective equipment, clusters of cases in your local community, and current recommendations for mitigation of the epidemic. I have listened to Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Robert R. Redfield, MD, the director of the CDC almost daily. I trust their viewpoints and transparency about what is and what is not known, as well as the why and wherefore of their guidance, remembering that each day brings new information and new guidance.
Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and public health and senior attending physician at Boston Medical Center. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
A novel coronavirus, the causative agent of the current pandemic of viral respiratory illness and pneumonia, was first identified in Wuhan, Hubei, China. The disease has been given the name, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The virus at last report has spread to more than 100 countries. Much of what we suspect about this virus comes from work on other severe coronavirus respiratory disease outbreaks – Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). MERS-CoV was a viral respiratory disease, first reported in Saudi Arabia, that was identified in more than 27 additional countries. The disease was characterized by severe acute respiratory illness, including fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Among 2,499 cases, only two patients tested positive for MERS-CoV in the United States. SARS-CoV also caused a severe viral respiratory illness. SARS was first recognized in Asia in 2003 and was subsequently reported in approximately 25 countries. The last case reported was in 2004.
As of March 13, there are 137,066 cases worldwide of COVID-19 and 1,701 in the United States, according to the John Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 resource center.
What about children?
The remarkable observation is how few seriously ill children have been identified in the face of global spread. Unlike the H1N1 influenza epidemic of 2009, where older adults were relatively spared and children were a major target population, COVID-19 appears to be relatively infrequent in children or too mild to come to diagnosis, to date. Specifically, among China’s first approximately 44,000 cases, less than 2% were identified in children less than 20 years of age, and severe disease was uncommon with no deaths in children less than 10 years of age reported. One child, 13 months of age, with acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock was reported in China. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention webcast , children present with fever in about 50% of cases, cough, fatigue, and subsequently some (3%-30%) progress to shortness of breath. Some children and adults have presented with gastrointestinal disease initially. Viral RNA has been detected in respiratory secretions, blood, and stool of affected children; however, the samples were not cultured for virus so whether stool is a potential source for transmission is unclear. In adults, the disease appears to be most severe – with development of pneumonia – in the second week of illness. In both children and adults, the chest x-ray findings are an interstitial pneumonitis, ground glass appearance, and/or patchy infiltrates.
Are some children at greater risk? Are children the source of community transmission? Will children become a greater part of the disease pattern as further cases are identified and further testing is available? We cannot answer many of these questions about COVID-19 in children as yet, but as you are aware, data are accumulating daily, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health are providing regular updates.
A report from China gave us some idea about community transmission and infection risk for children. The Shenzhen CDC identified 391 COVID-19 cases and 1,286 close contacts. Household contacts and those persons traveling with a case of the virus were at highest risk of acquisition. The secondary attack rates within households was 15%; children were as likely to become infected as adults (medRxiv preprint. 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.03.20028423).
What about pregnant women?
The data on pregnant women are even more limited. The concern about COVID-19 during pregnancy comes from our knowledge of adverse outcomes from other respiratory viral infections. For example, respiratory viral infections such as influenza have been associated with increased maternal risk of severe disease, and adverse neonatal outcomes, including low birth weight and preterm birth. The experience with SARS also is concerning for excess adverse maternal and neonatal complications such as spontaneous miscarriage, preterm delivery, intrauterine growth restriction, admission to the ICU, renal failure, and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy all were reported as complications of SARS infection during pregnancy.
Two studies on COVID-19 in pregnancy have been reported to date. In nine pregnant women reported by Chen et al., COVID-19 pneumonia was identified in the third trimester. The women presented with fever, cough, myalgia, sore throat, and/or malaise. Fetal distress was reported in two; all nine infants were born alive. Apgar scores were 8-10 at 1 minute. Five were found to have lymphopenia; three had increases in hepatic enzymes. None of the infants developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Amniotic fluid, cord blood, neonatal throat swab, and breast milk samples from six of the nine patients were tested for the novel coronavirus 2019, and all results were negative (Lancet. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]30360-3)https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30360-3/fulltext.
In a study by Zhu et al., nine pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 infection were identified during Jan. 20-Feb. 5, 2020. The onset of clinical symptoms in these women occurred before delivery in four cases, on the day of delivery in two cases, and after delivery in three cases. Of the 10 neonates (one set of twins) many had clinical symptoms, but none were proven to be COVID-19 positive in their pharyngeal swabs. Shortness of breath was observed in six, fever in two, tachycardia in one. GI symptoms such as feeding intolerance, bloating, GI bleed, and vomiting also were observed. Chest radiography showed abnormalities in seven neonates at admission. Thrombocytopenia and/or disseminated intravascular coagulopathy also was reported. Five neonates recovered and were discharged, one died, and four neonates remained in hospital in a stable condition. It is unclear if the illness in these infants was related to COVID-19 (Transl Pediatrics. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.21037/tp.2020.02.06)http://tp.amegroups.com/article/view/35919/28274.
In the limited experience to date, no evidence of virus has been found in the breast milk of women with COVID-19, which is consistent with the SARS experience. Current recommendations are to separate the infant from known COVID-19 infected mothers either in a different room or in the mother’s room using a six foot rule, a barrier curtain of some type, and mask and hand washing prior to any contact between mother and infant. If the mother desires to breastfeed her child, the same precautions – mask and hand washing – should be in place.
What about treatment?
There are no proven effective therapies and supportive care has been the mainstay to date. Clinical trials of remdesivir have been initiated both by Gilead (compassionate use, open label) and by the National Institutes of Health (randomized remdesivirhttps://www.drugs.com/history/remdesivir.html vs. placebo) in adults based on in vitro data suggesting activity again COVID-19. Lopinavir/ritonavir (combination protease inhibitors) also have been administered off label, but no results are available as yet.
Keeping up
I suggest several valuable resources to keep yourself abreast of the rapidly changing COVID-19 story. First the CDC website or your local Department of Health. These are being updated frequently and include advisories on personal protective equipment, clusters of cases in your local community, and current recommendations for mitigation of the epidemic. I have listened to Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Robert R. Redfield, MD, the director of the CDC almost daily. I trust their viewpoints and transparency about what is and what is not known, as well as the why and wherefore of their guidance, remembering that each day brings new information and new guidance.
Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and public health and senior attending physician at Boston Medical Center. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
A novel coronavirus, the causative agent of the current pandemic of viral respiratory illness and pneumonia, was first identified in Wuhan, Hubei, China. The disease has been given the name, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The virus at last report has spread to more than 100 countries. Much of what we suspect about this virus comes from work on other severe coronavirus respiratory disease outbreaks – Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). MERS-CoV was a viral respiratory disease, first reported in Saudi Arabia, that was identified in more than 27 additional countries. The disease was characterized by severe acute respiratory illness, including fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Among 2,499 cases, only two patients tested positive for MERS-CoV in the United States. SARS-CoV also caused a severe viral respiratory illness. SARS was first recognized in Asia in 2003 and was subsequently reported in approximately 25 countries. The last case reported was in 2004.
As of March 13, there are 137,066 cases worldwide of COVID-19 and 1,701 in the United States, according to the John Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 resource center.
What about children?
The remarkable observation is how few seriously ill children have been identified in the face of global spread. Unlike the H1N1 influenza epidemic of 2009, where older adults were relatively spared and children were a major target population, COVID-19 appears to be relatively infrequent in children or too mild to come to diagnosis, to date. Specifically, among China’s first approximately 44,000 cases, less than 2% were identified in children less than 20 years of age, and severe disease was uncommon with no deaths in children less than 10 years of age reported. One child, 13 months of age, with acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock was reported in China. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention webcast , children present with fever in about 50% of cases, cough, fatigue, and subsequently some (3%-30%) progress to shortness of breath. Some children and adults have presented with gastrointestinal disease initially. Viral RNA has been detected in respiratory secretions, blood, and stool of affected children; however, the samples were not cultured for virus so whether stool is a potential source for transmission is unclear. In adults, the disease appears to be most severe – with development of pneumonia – in the second week of illness. In both children and adults, the chest x-ray findings are an interstitial pneumonitis, ground glass appearance, and/or patchy infiltrates.
Are some children at greater risk? Are children the source of community transmission? Will children become a greater part of the disease pattern as further cases are identified and further testing is available? We cannot answer many of these questions about COVID-19 in children as yet, but as you are aware, data are accumulating daily, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health are providing regular updates.
A report from China gave us some idea about community transmission and infection risk for children. The Shenzhen CDC identified 391 COVID-19 cases and 1,286 close contacts. Household contacts and those persons traveling with a case of the virus were at highest risk of acquisition. The secondary attack rates within households was 15%; children were as likely to become infected as adults (medRxiv preprint. 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.03.20028423).
What about pregnant women?
The data on pregnant women are even more limited. The concern about COVID-19 during pregnancy comes from our knowledge of adverse outcomes from other respiratory viral infections. For example, respiratory viral infections such as influenza have been associated with increased maternal risk of severe disease, and adverse neonatal outcomes, including low birth weight and preterm birth. The experience with SARS also is concerning for excess adverse maternal and neonatal complications such as spontaneous miscarriage, preterm delivery, intrauterine growth restriction, admission to the ICU, renal failure, and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy all were reported as complications of SARS infection during pregnancy.
Two studies on COVID-19 in pregnancy have been reported to date. In nine pregnant women reported by Chen et al., COVID-19 pneumonia was identified in the third trimester. The women presented with fever, cough, myalgia, sore throat, and/or malaise. Fetal distress was reported in two; all nine infants were born alive. Apgar scores were 8-10 at 1 minute. Five were found to have lymphopenia; three had increases in hepatic enzymes. None of the infants developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Amniotic fluid, cord blood, neonatal throat swab, and breast milk samples from six of the nine patients were tested for the novel coronavirus 2019, and all results were negative (Lancet. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]30360-3)https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30360-3/fulltext.
In a study by Zhu et al., nine pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 infection were identified during Jan. 20-Feb. 5, 2020. The onset of clinical symptoms in these women occurred before delivery in four cases, on the day of delivery in two cases, and after delivery in three cases. Of the 10 neonates (one set of twins) many had clinical symptoms, but none were proven to be COVID-19 positive in their pharyngeal swabs. Shortness of breath was observed in six, fever in two, tachycardia in one. GI symptoms such as feeding intolerance, bloating, GI bleed, and vomiting also were observed. Chest radiography showed abnormalities in seven neonates at admission. Thrombocytopenia and/or disseminated intravascular coagulopathy also was reported. Five neonates recovered and were discharged, one died, and four neonates remained in hospital in a stable condition. It is unclear if the illness in these infants was related to COVID-19 (Transl Pediatrics. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.21037/tp.2020.02.06)http://tp.amegroups.com/article/view/35919/28274.
In the limited experience to date, no evidence of virus has been found in the breast milk of women with COVID-19, which is consistent with the SARS experience. Current recommendations are to separate the infant from known COVID-19 infected mothers either in a different room or in the mother’s room using a six foot rule, a barrier curtain of some type, and mask and hand washing prior to any contact between mother and infant. If the mother desires to breastfeed her child, the same precautions – mask and hand washing – should be in place.
What about treatment?
There are no proven effective therapies and supportive care has been the mainstay to date. Clinical trials of remdesivir have been initiated both by Gilead (compassionate use, open label) and by the National Institutes of Health (randomized remdesivirhttps://www.drugs.com/history/remdesivir.html vs. placebo) in adults based on in vitro data suggesting activity again COVID-19. Lopinavir/ritonavir (combination protease inhibitors) also have been administered off label, but no results are available as yet.
Keeping up
I suggest several valuable resources to keep yourself abreast of the rapidly changing COVID-19 story. First the CDC website or your local Department of Health. These are being updated frequently and include advisories on personal protective equipment, clusters of cases in your local community, and current recommendations for mitigation of the epidemic. I have listened to Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Robert R. Redfield, MD, the director of the CDC almost daily. I trust their viewpoints and transparency about what is and what is not known, as well as the why and wherefore of their guidance, remembering that each day brings new information and new guidance.
Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University and public health and senior attending physician at Boston Medical Center. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
Real-world data are a wake-up call
In this edition of “Applying research to practice,” I highlight a study revealing real-world information about the clinical care of breast cancer patients with deleterious germline mutations.
While germline testing among breast cancer patients is becoming more commonplace, it isn’t clear how test results influence patient care. To gain some insight, Allison W. Kurian, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues analyzed data on 20,568 women with stage 0-III breast cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and California (JAMA Oncol. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6400).
The researchers aimed to determine whether women with mutations in breast cancer–associated genes (BRCA1/2 or others) received guideline-concordant care to the same degree as women who lacked deleterious mutations. The authors evaluated guideline concordance with respect to three treatment modalities: surgery (bilateral vs. unilateral mastectomy in women who were eligible for unilateral surgery), radiotherapy after lumpectomy (for women aged less than 70 years with hormonally responsive, ErbB2-negative, stage I cancers), and chemotherapy (among women eligible for consideration of chemotherapy omission)
In alignment with guidelines, many clinicians correctly used genetic test results to guide surgical decisions. For example, 61.7% of women with BRCA mutations underwent bilateral mastectomy, compared with 24.3% who were mutation negative (odds ratio, 5.52). For other pathogenic variants (ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53), the rate of bilateral mastectomy was still elevated, albeit to a lesser degree (OR, 2.41).
In discord with guidelines, women with BRCA mutations were 78% less likely to receive radiotherapy after lumpectomy (OR, 0.22) and 76% more likely to receive chemotherapy for early-stage, hormone-positive disease (OR, 1.76), suggesting possible trends in under- and overtreatment, respectively. Chemotherapy utilization rates among mutation carriers and noncarriers became more similar after adjustment for clinical and demographic factors.
There are limits on the granularity of the SEER database, such that, if a patient had a mastectomy a year or more after lumpectomy in an effort to avoid radiotherapy, the database would not have reflected that. Clinical factors could have appropriately influenced chemotherapy receipt among patients with mutations, but those additional factors (including patient preference) would not be included in the SEER data.
The authors concluded that research should be conducted to confirm the results of this retrospective, population-based cohort analysis, in an effort to understand the decision-making process and consequences for long-term outcome.
How these findings should influence practice
With every new development, there are challenges – some expected, some unanticipated.
It is now feasible to obtain multigene panel testing reasonably inexpensively. There are concerns about undertesting of patients on the basis of family history alone. And some major professional organizations have endorsed routine gene panel testing for all breast cancer patients.
As a consequence of these factors, genetic test results are routinely available to clinicians who may lack formal training in clinical genetics. Whether these results influence the receipt of evidence-based clinical care is uncertain.
The information published by Dr. Kurian and colleagues is inherently limited by the methodology of a SEER database review. Among other limitations, as the authors comment:
- The genetic test results could have arrived after treatment decisions were made.
- Treatment delivered more than a year after diagnosis would not have been captured.
- There was selection of patients for genetic testing.
- There were few patients with particular germline mutations other than BRCA1/2 on whom to judge whether treatment was guideline concordant.
- The rationale for the treatment choices made by physicians and patients was not available.
- Impact of treatment choices on survival for carriers of deleterious mutations is uncertain.
Nonetheless, these data suggest a need to redouble efforts to educate patients, their family members, and health care professionals about evidence-based guidelines for care and the rationale for those recommendations.
Careful, prospective monitoring of any resultant differences in treatment outcome in patients treated with guideline-concordant and nonconcordant care is needed. When treatment choices appear to systematically deviate from published guidelines with no obvious rationale, it is a wake-up call for all of us.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations.
In this edition of “Applying research to practice,” I highlight a study revealing real-world information about the clinical care of breast cancer patients with deleterious germline mutations.
While germline testing among breast cancer patients is becoming more commonplace, it isn’t clear how test results influence patient care. To gain some insight, Allison W. Kurian, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues analyzed data on 20,568 women with stage 0-III breast cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and California (JAMA Oncol. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6400).
The researchers aimed to determine whether women with mutations in breast cancer–associated genes (BRCA1/2 or others) received guideline-concordant care to the same degree as women who lacked deleterious mutations. The authors evaluated guideline concordance with respect to three treatment modalities: surgery (bilateral vs. unilateral mastectomy in women who were eligible for unilateral surgery), radiotherapy after lumpectomy (for women aged less than 70 years with hormonally responsive, ErbB2-negative, stage I cancers), and chemotherapy (among women eligible for consideration of chemotherapy omission)
In alignment with guidelines, many clinicians correctly used genetic test results to guide surgical decisions. For example, 61.7% of women with BRCA mutations underwent bilateral mastectomy, compared with 24.3% who were mutation negative (odds ratio, 5.52). For other pathogenic variants (ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53), the rate of bilateral mastectomy was still elevated, albeit to a lesser degree (OR, 2.41).
In discord with guidelines, women with BRCA mutations were 78% less likely to receive radiotherapy after lumpectomy (OR, 0.22) and 76% more likely to receive chemotherapy for early-stage, hormone-positive disease (OR, 1.76), suggesting possible trends in under- and overtreatment, respectively. Chemotherapy utilization rates among mutation carriers and noncarriers became more similar after adjustment for clinical and demographic factors.
There are limits on the granularity of the SEER database, such that, if a patient had a mastectomy a year or more after lumpectomy in an effort to avoid radiotherapy, the database would not have reflected that. Clinical factors could have appropriately influenced chemotherapy receipt among patients with mutations, but those additional factors (including patient preference) would not be included in the SEER data.
The authors concluded that research should be conducted to confirm the results of this retrospective, population-based cohort analysis, in an effort to understand the decision-making process and consequences for long-term outcome.
How these findings should influence practice
With every new development, there are challenges – some expected, some unanticipated.
It is now feasible to obtain multigene panel testing reasonably inexpensively. There are concerns about undertesting of patients on the basis of family history alone. And some major professional organizations have endorsed routine gene panel testing for all breast cancer patients.
As a consequence of these factors, genetic test results are routinely available to clinicians who may lack formal training in clinical genetics. Whether these results influence the receipt of evidence-based clinical care is uncertain.
The information published by Dr. Kurian and colleagues is inherently limited by the methodology of a SEER database review. Among other limitations, as the authors comment:
- The genetic test results could have arrived after treatment decisions were made.
- Treatment delivered more than a year after diagnosis would not have been captured.
- There was selection of patients for genetic testing.
- There were few patients with particular germline mutations other than BRCA1/2 on whom to judge whether treatment was guideline concordant.
- The rationale for the treatment choices made by physicians and patients was not available.
- Impact of treatment choices on survival for carriers of deleterious mutations is uncertain.
Nonetheless, these data suggest a need to redouble efforts to educate patients, their family members, and health care professionals about evidence-based guidelines for care and the rationale for those recommendations.
Careful, prospective monitoring of any resultant differences in treatment outcome in patients treated with guideline-concordant and nonconcordant care is needed. When treatment choices appear to systematically deviate from published guidelines with no obvious rationale, it is a wake-up call for all of us.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations.
In this edition of “Applying research to practice,” I highlight a study revealing real-world information about the clinical care of breast cancer patients with deleterious germline mutations.
While germline testing among breast cancer patients is becoming more commonplace, it isn’t clear how test results influence patient care. To gain some insight, Allison W. Kurian, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues analyzed data on 20,568 women with stage 0-III breast cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries of Georgia and California (JAMA Oncol. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6400).
The researchers aimed to determine whether women with mutations in breast cancer–associated genes (BRCA1/2 or others) received guideline-concordant care to the same degree as women who lacked deleterious mutations. The authors evaluated guideline concordance with respect to three treatment modalities: surgery (bilateral vs. unilateral mastectomy in women who were eligible for unilateral surgery), radiotherapy after lumpectomy (for women aged less than 70 years with hormonally responsive, ErbB2-negative, stage I cancers), and chemotherapy (among women eligible for consideration of chemotherapy omission)
In alignment with guidelines, many clinicians correctly used genetic test results to guide surgical decisions. For example, 61.7% of women with BRCA mutations underwent bilateral mastectomy, compared with 24.3% who were mutation negative (odds ratio, 5.52). For other pathogenic variants (ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53), the rate of bilateral mastectomy was still elevated, albeit to a lesser degree (OR, 2.41).
In discord with guidelines, women with BRCA mutations were 78% less likely to receive radiotherapy after lumpectomy (OR, 0.22) and 76% more likely to receive chemotherapy for early-stage, hormone-positive disease (OR, 1.76), suggesting possible trends in under- and overtreatment, respectively. Chemotherapy utilization rates among mutation carriers and noncarriers became more similar after adjustment for clinical and demographic factors.
There are limits on the granularity of the SEER database, such that, if a patient had a mastectomy a year or more after lumpectomy in an effort to avoid radiotherapy, the database would not have reflected that. Clinical factors could have appropriately influenced chemotherapy receipt among patients with mutations, but those additional factors (including patient preference) would not be included in the SEER data.
The authors concluded that research should be conducted to confirm the results of this retrospective, population-based cohort analysis, in an effort to understand the decision-making process and consequences for long-term outcome.
How these findings should influence practice
With every new development, there are challenges – some expected, some unanticipated.
It is now feasible to obtain multigene panel testing reasonably inexpensively. There are concerns about undertesting of patients on the basis of family history alone. And some major professional organizations have endorsed routine gene panel testing for all breast cancer patients.
As a consequence of these factors, genetic test results are routinely available to clinicians who may lack formal training in clinical genetics. Whether these results influence the receipt of evidence-based clinical care is uncertain.
The information published by Dr. Kurian and colleagues is inherently limited by the methodology of a SEER database review. Among other limitations, as the authors comment:
- The genetic test results could have arrived after treatment decisions were made.
- Treatment delivered more than a year after diagnosis would not have been captured.
- There was selection of patients for genetic testing.
- There were few patients with particular germline mutations other than BRCA1/2 on whom to judge whether treatment was guideline concordant.
- The rationale for the treatment choices made by physicians and patients was not available.
- Impact of treatment choices on survival for carriers of deleterious mutations is uncertain.
Nonetheless, these data suggest a need to redouble efforts to educate patients, their family members, and health care professionals about evidence-based guidelines for care and the rationale for those recommendations.
Careful, prospective monitoring of any resultant differences in treatment outcome in patients treated with guideline-concordant and nonconcordant care is needed. When treatment choices appear to systematically deviate from published guidelines with no obvious rationale, it is a wake-up call for all of us.
Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations.
Hospital medicine physician leaders
The right skills and time to develop them
“When you get someone who knows what quality looks like and pair that with curiosity about new ways to think about leading, you end up with the people who are able to produce dramatic innovations in the field.”1
In medicine, a physician is trained to take charge in emergent situations and make potentially lifesaving efforts. However, when it comes to leading teams of individuals, not only must successful leaders have the right skills, they also need time to dedicate to the work of leadership.
To better understand current approaches to dedicated hospital medicine group (HMG) leadership time, let’s examine the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report. The survey, upon which the Report was based, examined two aspects of leadership: 1) how much dedicated time a leader receives to manage the group; and 2) how the leader’s time is compensated. Looking closely at the data displayed in graphs from the SoHM Report (Figures 1, 2, and 3), we can see that dedicated administrative time is directly proportional to the size of the group.
In my current role as a regional medical director in the Dallas-Fort Worth market, I oversee some programs where the size is greater than 30 full-time equivalents (FTEs), and requires a full-time administrative physician leader to manage the group. Their daily administrative duties include, but are not limited to, addressing physician performance and behaviors, managing team performance metrics, dealing with consultants’ expectations, attending and leading various committee meetings at the hospital or the system level, attending and presenting performance reviews, leading and preparing for team meetings, as well as addressing and being innovative in leading new initiatives from the hospital partner system.
Although physician leaders are paid more for their work, the 2018 SoHM Report reveals a decline in the premium year over year. One of the reasons for the payment decline that I have encountered in various groups is that their incentives for leading the group are based on performance, as opposed to receiving a fixed stipend. Another reason is the presence of dedicated administrative support or the inclusion of a performance improvement staffer, such as an additional nurse or advanced practice provider, in the group.
Evidence suggests that organizations and patients benefit when physicians take on leadership roles. Physician leaders play critical roles in providing high-quality patient care. How can the Society of Hospital Medicine help? Management degrees and leadership workshops have become a common pathway for many physicians, including myself. SHM provides one of the most thorough and relevant experiences through the SHM Leadership Academy. The focus of the Leadership Academy is on developing a broad set of additional leadership competencies across a spectrum of experience.5 As hospitalist physicians are often expected to fulfill a broader leadership void, we must pay attention to developing the leadership skills depicted in Figure 3. Hospital medicine is an ideal “proving ground” for future physician executives and leaders, as they often share the same characteristics required for success.
The leadership paths available in my organization, Sound Physicians, were recently highlighted in a New York Times article.3 Sound Physicians employs more than 3,000 physicians across the country, and has a pipeline for doctors to advance through structured rungs of leadership – emphasizing a different mix of clinical, strategic, and business skills at each stage, from individual practitioner to the C-suite. The training includes in-person and online courses, as well as an annual conference, to help doctors develop management and leadership competencies, and learn how to apply these skills within their organizations. Since introducing its leadership development program, the company reports less turnover, higher morale, and better growth. I personally have gone through the leadership training provided by Sound Physicians, and reflecting back, it has been a transformational experience for me. Leadership is a journey, not a destination, and as physicians we should strive to learn more from the health care leaders around us.
The administrative workload for hospital-based physician leaders will increase with the arrival of value-based programs and alternative payment models promoted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Lead hospitalist duties are not limited to daily operations, but can extend to leading the strategic vision of the hospital or health system. The 2020 SoHM Report will reflect these changes, as well as provide further information about how to manage and set expectations for physician leaders, based on group size and employment model.
Dr. Patel is a regional medical director with Sound Physicians. He manages more than 100 FTE hospitalists and advanced-practice providers (APPs) within multiple health systems and hospitals in the Texas market. He also serves as a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee and as a vice president of SHM North Texas Chapter.
References
1. Angood P and Birk S. The Value of Physician Leadership. Physician Exec. 2014 May-Jun;40(3):6-20.
2. Rice JA. Expanding the Need for Physician Leaders. Executive Insight, Advance Healthcare Network, Nov 16, 2011. Available at: http://healthcare-executive-insight.advanceweb.com/Features/Articles/Expanding-the-Need-for-Physician-Leaders.aspx.
3. Khullar D. Good leaders make good doctors. New York Times. 2019 Nov 21.
4. Beresford L. The State of Hospital Medicine in 2018. Hospitalist. 2019;23(1):1-11.
5. Harte B. Hospitalists can meet the demand for physician executives. Hospitalist. 2018 Nov 29.
The right skills and time to develop them
The right skills and time to develop them
“When you get someone who knows what quality looks like and pair that with curiosity about new ways to think about leading, you end up with the people who are able to produce dramatic innovations in the field.”1
In medicine, a physician is trained to take charge in emergent situations and make potentially lifesaving efforts. However, when it comes to leading teams of individuals, not only must successful leaders have the right skills, they also need time to dedicate to the work of leadership.
To better understand current approaches to dedicated hospital medicine group (HMG) leadership time, let’s examine the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report. The survey, upon which the Report was based, examined two aspects of leadership: 1) how much dedicated time a leader receives to manage the group; and 2) how the leader’s time is compensated. Looking closely at the data displayed in graphs from the SoHM Report (Figures 1, 2, and 3), we can see that dedicated administrative time is directly proportional to the size of the group.
In my current role as a regional medical director in the Dallas-Fort Worth market, I oversee some programs where the size is greater than 30 full-time equivalents (FTEs), and requires a full-time administrative physician leader to manage the group. Their daily administrative duties include, but are not limited to, addressing physician performance and behaviors, managing team performance metrics, dealing with consultants’ expectations, attending and leading various committee meetings at the hospital or the system level, attending and presenting performance reviews, leading and preparing for team meetings, as well as addressing and being innovative in leading new initiatives from the hospital partner system.
Although physician leaders are paid more for their work, the 2018 SoHM Report reveals a decline in the premium year over year. One of the reasons for the payment decline that I have encountered in various groups is that their incentives for leading the group are based on performance, as opposed to receiving a fixed stipend. Another reason is the presence of dedicated administrative support or the inclusion of a performance improvement staffer, such as an additional nurse or advanced practice provider, in the group.
Evidence suggests that organizations and patients benefit when physicians take on leadership roles. Physician leaders play critical roles in providing high-quality patient care. How can the Society of Hospital Medicine help? Management degrees and leadership workshops have become a common pathway for many physicians, including myself. SHM provides one of the most thorough and relevant experiences through the SHM Leadership Academy. The focus of the Leadership Academy is on developing a broad set of additional leadership competencies across a spectrum of experience.5 As hospitalist physicians are often expected to fulfill a broader leadership void, we must pay attention to developing the leadership skills depicted in Figure 3. Hospital medicine is an ideal “proving ground” for future physician executives and leaders, as they often share the same characteristics required for success.
The leadership paths available in my organization, Sound Physicians, were recently highlighted in a New York Times article.3 Sound Physicians employs more than 3,000 physicians across the country, and has a pipeline for doctors to advance through structured rungs of leadership – emphasizing a different mix of clinical, strategic, and business skills at each stage, from individual practitioner to the C-suite. The training includes in-person and online courses, as well as an annual conference, to help doctors develop management and leadership competencies, and learn how to apply these skills within their organizations. Since introducing its leadership development program, the company reports less turnover, higher morale, and better growth. I personally have gone through the leadership training provided by Sound Physicians, and reflecting back, it has been a transformational experience for me. Leadership is a journey, not a destination, and as physicians we should strive to learn more from the health care leaders around us.
The administrative workload for hospital-based physician leaders will increase with the arrival of value-based programs and alternative payment models promoted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Lead hospitalist duties are not limited to daily operations, but can extend to leading the strategic vision of the hospital or health system. The 2020 SoHM Report will reflect these changes, as well as provide further information about how to manage and set expectations for physician leaders, based on group size and employment model.
Dr. Patel is a regional medical director with Sound Physicians. He manages more than 100 FTE hospitalists and advanced-practice providers (APPs) within multiple health systems and hospitals in the Texas market. He also serves as a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee and as a vice president of SHM North Texas Chapter.
References
1. Angood P and Birk S. The Value of Physician Leadership. Physician Exec. 2014 May-Jun;40(3):6-20.
2. Rice JA. Expanding the Need for Physician Leaders. Executive Insight, Advance Healthcare Network, Nov 16, 2011. Available at: http://healthcare-executive-insight.advanceweb.com/Features/Articles/Expanding-the-Need-for-Physician-Leaders.aspx.
3. Khullar D. Good leaders make good doctors. New York Times. 2019 Nov 21.
4. Beresford L. The State of Hospital Medicine in 2018. Hospitalist. 2019;23(1):1-11.
5. Harte B. Hospitalists can meet the demand for physician executives. Hospitalist. 2018 Nov 29.
“When you get someone who knows what quality looks like and pair that with curiosity about new ways to think about leading, you end up with the people who are able to produce dramatic innovations in the field.”1
In medicine, a physician is trained to take charge in emergent situations and make potentially lifesaving efforts. However, when it comes to leading teams of individuals, not only must successful leaders have the right skills, they also need time to dedicate to the work of leadership.
To better understand current approaches to dedicated hospital medicine group (HMG) leadership time, let’s examine the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report. The survey, upon which the Report was based, examined two aspects of leadership: 1) how much dedicated time a leader receives to manage the group; and 2) how the leader’s time is compensated. Looking closely at the data displayed in graphs from the SoHM Report (Figures 1, 2, and 3), we can see that dedicated administrative time is directly proportional to the size of the group.
In my current role as a regional medical director in the Dallas-Fort Worth market, I oversee some programs where the size is greater than 30 full-time equivalents (FTEs), and requires a full-time administrative physician leader to manage the group. Their daily administrative duties include, but are not limited to, addressing physician performance and behaviors, managing team performance metrics, dealing with consultants’ expectations, attending and leading various committee meetings at the hospital or the system level, attending and presenting performance reviews, leading and preparing for team meetings, as well as addressing and being innovative in leading new initiatives from the hospital partner system.
Although physician leaders are paid more for their work, the 2018 SoHM Report reveals a decline in the premium year over year. One of the reasons for the payment decline that I have encountered in various groups is that their incentives for leading the group are based on performance, as opposed to receiving a fixed stipend. Another reason is the presence of dedicated administrative support or the inclusion of a performance improvement staffer, such as an additional nurse or advanced practice provider, in the group.
Evidence suggests that organizations and patients benefit when physicians take on leadership roles. Physician leaders play critical roles in providing high-quality patient care. How can the Society of Hospital Medicine help? Management degrees and leadership workshops have become a common pathway for many physicians, including myself. SHM provides one of the most thorough and relevant experiences through the SHM Leadership Academy. The focus of the Leadership Academy is on developing a broad set of additional leadership competencies across a spectrum of experience.5 As hospitalist physicians are often expected to fulfill a broader leadership void, we must pay attention to developing the leadership skills depicted in Figure 3. Hospital medicine is an ideal “proving ground” for future physician executives and leaders, as they often share the same characteristics required for success.
The leadership paths available in my organization, Sound Physicians, were recently highlighted in a New York Times article.3 Sound Physicians employs more than 3,000 physicians across the country, and has a pipeline for doctors to advance through structured rungs of leadership – emphasizing a different mix of clinical, strategic, and business skills at each stage, from individual practitioner to the C-suite. The training includes in-person and online courses, as well as an annual conference, to help doctors develop management and leadership competencies, and learn how to apply these skills within their organizations. Since introducing its leadership development program, the company reports less turnover, higher morale, and better growth. I personally have gone through the leadership training provided by Sound Physicians, and reflecting back, it has been a transformational experience for me. Leadership is a journey, not a destination, and as physicians we should strive to learn more from the health care leaders around us.
The administrative workload for hospital-based physician leaders will increase with the arrival of value-based programs and alternative payment models promoted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Lead hospitalist duties are not limited to daily operations, but can extend to leading the strategic vision of the hospital or health system. The 2020 SoHM Report will reflect these changes, as well as provide further information about how to manage and set expectations for physician leaders, based on group size and employment model.
Dr. Patel is a regional medical director with Sound Physicians. He manages more than 100 FTE hospitalists and advanced-practice providers (APPs) within multiple health systems and hospitals in the Texas market. He also serves as a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee and as a vice president of SHM North Texas Chapter.
References
1. Angood P and Birk S. The Value of Physician Leadership. Physician Exec. 2014 May-Jun;40(3):6-20.
2. Rice JA. Expanding the Need for Physician Leaders. Executive Insight, Advance Healthcare Network, Nov 16, 2011. Available at: http://healthcare-executive-insight.advanceweb.com/Features/Articles/Expanding-the-Need-for-Physician-Leaders.aspx.
3. Khullar D. Good leaders make good doctors. New York Times. 2019 Nov 21.
4. Beresford L. The State of Hospital Medicine in 2018. Hospitalist. 2019;23(1):1-11.
5. Harte B. Hospitalists can meet the demand for physician executives. Hospitalist. 2018 Nov 29.
Internist reports from COVID-19 front lines near Seattle
KENT, WASHINGTON – The first thing I learned in this outbreak is that my sense of alarm has been deadened by years of medical practice. As a primary care doctor working south of Seattle, in the University of Washington’s Kent neighborhood clinic, I have dealt with long hours, the sometimes-insurmountable problems of the patients I care for, and the constant, gnawing fear of missing something and doing harm. To get through my day, I’ve done my best to rationalize that fear, to explain it away.
I can’t explain how, when I heard the news of the coronavirus epidemic in China, I didn’t think it would affect me. I can’t explain how news of the first patient presenting to an urgent care north of Seattle didn’t cause me, or all health care providers, to think about how we would respond. I can’t explain why so many doctors were dismissive of the very real threat that was about to explode. I can’t explain why it took 6 weeks for the COVID-19 outbreak to seem real to me.
If you work in a doctor’s office, emergency department, hospital, or urgent care center and have not seen a coronavirus case yet, you may have time to think through what is likely to happen in your community. We did not activate a chain of command or decide how information was going to be communicated to the front line and back to leadership. Few of us ran worst-case scenarios.
By March 12, we had 376 confirmed cases, and likely more than a thousand are undetected. The moment of realization of the severity of the outbreak didn’t come to me until Saturday, Feb. 29. In the week prior, several patients had come into the clinic with symptoms and potential exposures, but not meeting the narrow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention testing criteria. They were all advised by the Washington Department of Health to go home. At the time, it seemed like decent advice. Frontline providers didn’t know that there had been two cases of community transmission weeks before, or that one was about to become the first death in Washington state. I still advised patients to quarantine themselves. In the absence of testing, we had to assume everyone was positive and should stay home until 72 hours after their symptoms resolved. Studying the state’s FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] intently, I wrote insistent letters to inflexible bosses, explaining that their employees needed to stay home.
I worked that Saturday. Half of my patients had coughs. Our team insisted that they wear masks. One woman refused, and I refused to see her until she did. In a customer service–oriented health care system, I had been schooled to accommodate almost any patient request. But I was not about to put my staff and other patients at risk. Reluctantly, she complied.
On my lunch break, my partner called me to tell me he was at the grocery store. “Why?” I asked, since we usually went together. It became clear he was worried about an outbreak. He had been following the news closely and tried to tell me how deadly this could get and how quickly the disease could spread. I brushed his fears aside, as more evidence of his sweet and overly cautious nature. “It’ll be fine,” I said with misplaced confidence.
Later that day, I heard about the first death and the outbreak at Life Care, a nursing home north of Seattle. I learned that firefighters who had responded to distress calls were under quarantine. I learned through an epidemiologist that there were likely hundreds of undetected cases throughout Washington.
On Monday, our clinic decided to convert all cases with symptoms into telemedicine visits. Luckily, we had been building the capacity to see and treat patients virtually for a while. We have ramped up quickly, but there have been bumps along the way. It’s difficult to convince those who are anxious about their symptoms to allow us to use telemedicine for everyone’s safety. It is unclear how much liability we are taking on as individual providers with this approach or who will speak up for us if something goes wrong.
Patients don’t seem to know where to get their information, and they have been turning to increasingly bizarre sources. For the poorest, who have had so much trouble accessing care, I cannot blame them for not knowing whom to trust. I post what I know on Twitter and Facebook, but I know I’m no match for cynical social media algorithms.
Testing was still not available at my clinic the first week of March, and it remains largely unavailable throughout much of the country. We have lost weeks of opportunity to contain this. Luckily, on March 4, the University of Washington was finally allowed to use their homegrown test and bypass the limited supply from the CDC. But our capacity at UW is still limited, and the test remained unavailable to the majority of those potentially showing symptoms until March 9.
I am used to being less worried than my patients. I am used to reassuring them. But over the first week of March, I had an eerie sense that my alarm far outstripped theirs. I got relatively few questions about coronavirus, even as the number of cases continued to rise. It wasn’t until the end of the week that I noticed a few were truly fearful. Patients started stealing the gloves and the hand sanitizer, and we had to zealously guard them. My hands are raw from washing.
Throughout this time, I have been grateful for a centralized drive with clear protocols. I am grateful for clear messages at the beginning and end of the day from our CEO. I hope that other clinics model this and have daily in-person meetings, because too much cannot be conveyed in an email when the situation changes hourly.
But our health system nationally was already stretched thin before, and providers have sacrificed a lot, especially in the most critical settings, to provide decent patient care. Now we are asked to risk our health and safety, and our family’s, and I worry about the erosion of trust and work conditions for those on the front lines. I also worry our patients won’t believe us when we have allowed the costs of care to continue to rise and ruin their lives. I worry about the millions of people without doctors to call because they have no insurance, and because so many primary care physicians have left unsustainable jobs.
I am grateful that few of my colleagues have been sick and that those that were called out. I am grateful for the new nurse practitioners in our clinic who took the lion’s share of possibly affected patients and triaged hundreds of phone calls, creating note and message templates that we all use. I am grateful that my clinic manager insisted on doing a drill with all the staff members.
I am grateful that we were reminded that we are a team and that if the call center and cleaning crews and front desk are excluded, then our protocols are useless. I am grateful that our registered nurses quickly shifted to triage. I am grateful that I have testing available.
This week, for the first time since I started working, multiple patients asked how I am doing and expressed their thanks. I am most grateful for them.
I can’t tell you what to do or what is going to happen, but I can tell you that you need to prepare now. You need to run drills and catch the holes in your plans before the pandemic reaches you. You need to be creative and honest about the flaws in your organization that this pandemic will inevitably expose. You need to meet with your team every day and remember that we are all going to be stretched even thinner than before.
Most of us will get through this, but many of us won’t. And for those who do, we need to be honest about our successes and failures. We need to build a system that can do better next time. Because this is not the last pandemic we will face.
Dr. Elisabeth Poorman is a general internist at a University of Washington neighborhood clinic in Kent. She completed her residency at Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance and specializes in addiction medicine. She also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
KENT, WASHINGTON – The first thing I learned in this outbreak is that my sense of alarm has been deadened by years of medical practice. As a primary care doctor working south of Seattle, in the University of Washington’s Kent neighborhood clinic, I have dealt with long hours, the sometimes-insurmountable problems of the patients I care for, and the constant, gnawing fear of missing something and doing harm. To get through my day, I’ve done my best to rationalize that fear, to explain it away.
I can’t explain how, when I heard the news of the coronavirus epidemic in China, I didn’t think it would affect me. I can’t explain how news of the first patient presenting to an urgent care north of Seattle didn’t cause me, or all health care providers, to think about how we would respond. I can’t explain why so many doctors were dismissive of the very real threat that was about to explode. I can’t explain why it took 6 weeks for the COVID-19 outbreak to seem real to me.
If you work in a doctor’s office, emergency department, hospital, or urgent care center and have not seen a coronavirus case yet, you may have time to think through what is likely to happen in your community. We did not activate a chain of command or decide how information was going to be communicated to the front line and back to leadership. Few of us ran worst-case scenarios.
By March 12, we had 376 confirmed cases, and likely more than a thousand are undetected. The moment of realization of the severity of the outbreak didn’t come to me until Saturday, Feb. 29. In the week prior, several patients had come into the clinic with symptoms and potential exposures, but not meeting the narrow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention testing criteria. They were all advised by the Washington Department of Health to go home. At the time, it seemed like decent advice. Frontline providers didn’t know that there had been two cases of community transmission weeks before, or that one was about to become the first death in Washington state. I still advised patients to quarantine themselves. In the absence of testing, we had to assume everyone was positive and should stay home until 72 hours after their symptoms resolved. Studying the state’s FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] intently, I wrote insistent letters to inflexible bosses, explaining that their employees needed to stay home.
I worked that Saturday. Half of my patients had coughs. Our team insisted that they wear masks. One woman refused, and I refused to see her until she did. In a customer service–oriented health care system, I had been schooled to accommodate almost any patient request. But I was not about to put my staff and other patients at risk. Reluctantly, she complied.
On my lunch break, my partner called me to tell me he was at the grocery store. “Why?” I asked, since we usually went together. It became clear he was worried about an outbreak. He had been following the news closely and tried to tell me how deadly this could get and how quickly the disease could spread. I brushed his fears aside, as more evidence of his sweet and overly cautious nature. “It’ll be fine,” I said with misplaced confidence.
Later that day, I heard about the first death and the outbreak at Life Care, a nursing home north of Seattle. I learned that firefighters who had responded to distress calls were under quarantine. I learned through an epidemiologist that there were likely hundreds of undetected cases throughout Washington.
On Monday, our clinic decided to convert all cases with symptoms into telemedicine visits. Luckily, we had been building the capacity to see and treat patients virtually for a while. We have ramped up quickly, but there have been bumps along the way. It’s difficult to convince those who are anxious about their symptoms to allow us to use telemedicine for everyone’s safety. It is unclear how much liability we are taking on as individual providers with this approach or who will speak up for us if something goes wrong.
Patients don’t seem to know where to get their information, and they have been turning to increasingly bizarre sources. For the poorest, who have had so much trouble accessing care, I cannot blame them for not knowing whom to trust. I post what I know on Twitter and Facebook, but I know I’m no match for cynical social media algorithms.
Testing was still not available at my clinic the first week of March, and it remains largely unavailable throughout much of the country. We have lost weeks of opportunity to contain this. Luckily, on March 4, the University of Washington was finally allowed to use their homegrown test and bypass the limited supply from the CDC. But our capacity at UW is still limited, and the test remained unavailable to the majority of those potentially showing symptoms until March 9.
I am used to being less worried than my patients. I am used to reassuring them. But over the first week of March, I had an eerie sense that my alarm far outstripped theirs. I got relatively few questions about coronavirus, even as the number of cases continued to rise. It wasn’t until the end of the week that I noticed a few were truly fearful. Patients started stealing the gloves and the hand sanitizer, and we had to zealously guard them. My hands are raw from washing.
Throughout this time, I have been grateful for a centralized drive with clear protocols. I am grateful for clear messages at the beginning and end of the day from our CEO. I hope that other clinics model this and have daily in-person meetings, because too much cannot be conveyed in an email when the situation changes hourly.
But our health system nationally was already stretched thin before, and providers have sacrificed a lot, especially in the most critical settings, to provide decent patient care. Now we are asked to risk our health and safety, and our family’s, and I worry about the erosion of trust and work conditions for those on the front lines. I also worry our patients won’t believe us when we have allowed the costs of care to continue to rise and ruin their lives. I worry about the millions of people without doctors to call because they have no insurance, and because so many primary care physicians have left unsustainable jobs.
I am grateful that few of my colleagues have been sick and that those that were called out. I am grateful for the new nurse practitioners in our clinic who took the lion’s share of possibly affected patients and triaged hundreds of phone calls, creating note and message templates that we all use. I am grateful that my clinic manager insisted on doing a drill with all the staff members.
I am grateful that we were reminded that we are a team and that if the call center and cleaning crews and front desk are excluded, then our protocols are useless. I am grateful that our registered nurses quickly shifted to triage. I am grateful that I have testing available.
This week, for the first time since I started working, multiple patients asked how I am doing and expressed their thanks. I am most grateful for them.
I can’t tell you what to do or what is going to happen, but I can tell you that you need to prepare now. You need to run drills and catch the holes in your plans before the pandemic reaches you. You need to be creative and honest about the flaws in your organization that this pandemic will inevitably expose. You need to meet with your team every day and remember that we are all going to be stretched even thinner than before.
Most of us will get through this, but many of us won’t. And for those who do, we need to be honest about our successes and failures. We need to build a system that can do better next time. Because this is not the last pandemic we will face.
Dr. Elisabeth Poorman is a general internist at a University of Washington neighborhood clinic in Kent. She completed her residency at Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance and specializes in addiction medicine. She also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
KENT, WASHINGTON – The first thing I learned in this outbreak is that my sense of alarm has been deadened by years of medical practice. As a primary care doctor working south of Seattle, in the University of Washington’s Kent neighborhood clinic, I have dealt with long hours, the sometimes-insurmountable problems of the patients I care for, and the constant, gnawing fear of missing something and doing harm. To get through my day, I’ve done my best to rationalize that fear, to explain it away.
I can’t explain how, when I heard the news of the coronavirus epidemic in China, I didn’t think it would affect me. I can’t explain how news of the first patient presenting to an urgent care north of Seattle didn’t cause me, or all health care providers, to think about how we would respond. I can’t explain why so many doctors were dismissive of the very real threat that was about to explode. I can’t explain why it took 6 weeks for the COVID-19 outbreak to seem real to me.
If you work in a doctor’s office, emergency department, hospital, or urgent care center and have not seen a coronavirus case yet, you may have time to think through what is likely to happen in your community. We did not activate a chain of command or decide how information was going to be communicated to the front line and back to leadership. Few of us ran worst-case scenarios.
By March 12, we had 376 confirmed cases, and likely more than a thousand are undetected. The moment of realization of the severity of the outbreak didn’t come to me until Saturday, Feb. 29. In the week prior, several patients had come into the clinic with symptoms and potential exposures, but not meeting the narrow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention testing criteria. They were all advised by the Washington Department of Health to go home. At the time, it seemed like decent advice. Frontline providers didn’t know that there had been two cases of community transmission weeks before, or that one was about to become the first death in Washington state. I still advised patients to quarantine themselves. In the absence of testing, we had to assume everyone was positive and should stay home until 72 hours after their symptoms resolved. Studying the state’s FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] intently, I wrote insistent letters to inflexible bosses, explaining that their employees needed to stay home.
I worked that Saturday. Half of my patients had coughs. Our team insisted that they wear masks. One woman refused, and I refused to see her until she did. In a customer service–oriented health care system, I had been schooled to accommodate almost any patient request. But I was not about to put my staff and other patients at risk. Reluctantly, she complied.
On my lunch break, my partner called me to tell me he was at the grocery store. “Why?” I asked, since we usually went together. It became clear he was worried about an outbreak. He had been following the news closely and tried to tell me how deadly this could get and how quickly the disease could spread. I brushed his fears aside, as more evidence of his sweet and overly cautious nature. “It’ll be fine,” I said with misplaced confidence.
Later that day, I heard about the first death and the outbreak at Life Care, a nursing home north of Seattle. I learned that firefighters who had responded to distress calls were under quarantine. I learned through an epidemiologist that there were likely hundreds of undetected cases throughout Washington.
On Monday, our clinic decided to convert all cases with symptoms into telemedicine visits. Luckily, we had been building the capacity to see and treat patients virtually for a while. We have ramped up quickly, but there have been bumps along the way. It’s difficult to convince those who are anxious about their symptoms to allow us to use telemedicine for everyone’s safety. It is unclear how much liability we are taking on as individual providers with this approach or who will speak up for us if something goes wrong.
Patients don’t seem to know where to get their information, and they have been turning to increasingly bizarre sources. For the poorest, who have had so much trouble accessing care, I cannot blame them for not knowing whom to trust. I post what I know on Twitter and Facebook, but I know I’m no match for cynical social media algorithms.
Testing was still not available at my clinic the first week of March, and it remains largely unavailable throughout much of the country. We have lost weeks of opportunity to contain this. Luckily, on March 4, the University of Washington was finally allowed to use their homegrown test and bypass the limited supply from the CDC. But our capacity at UW is still limited, and the test remained unavailable to the majority of those potentially showing symptoms until March 9.
I am used to being less worried than my patients. I am used to reassuring them. But over the first week of March, I had an eerie sense that my alarm far outstripped theirs. I got relatively few questions about coronavirus, even as the number of cases continued to rise. It wasn’t until the end of the week that I noticed a few were truly fearful. Patients started stealing the gloves and the hand sanitizer, and we had to zealously guard them. My hands are raw from washing.
Throughout this time, I have been grateful for a centralized drive with clear protocols. I am grateful for clear messages at the beginning and end of the day from our CEO. I hope that other clinics model this and have daily in-person meetings, because too much cannot be conveyed in an email when the situation changes hourly.
But our health system nationally was already stretched thin before, and providers have sacrificed a lot, especially in the most critical settings, to provide decent patient care. Now we are asked to risk our health and safety, and our family’s, and I worry about the erosion of trust and work conditions for those on the front lines. I also worry our patients won’t believe us when we have allowed the costs of care to continue to rise and ruin their lives. I worry about the millions of people without doctors to call because they have no insurance, and because so many primary care physicians have left unsustainable jobs.
I am grateful that few of my colleagues have been sick and that those that were called out. I am grateful for the new nurse practitioners in our clinic who took the lion’s share of possibly affected patients and triaged hundreds of phone calls, creating note and message templates that we all use. I am grateful that my clinic manager insisted on doing a drill with all the staff members.
I am grateful that we were reminded that we are a team and that if the call center and cleaning crews and front desk are excluded, then our protocols are useless. I am grateful that our registered nurses quickly shifted to triage. I am grateful that I have testing available.
This week, for the first time since I started working, multiple patients asked how I am doing and expressed their thanks. I am most grateful for them.
I can’t tell you what to do or what is going to happen, but I can tell you that you need to prepare now. You need to run drills and catch the holes in your plans before the pandemic reaches you. You need to be creative and honest about the flaws in your organization that this pandemic will inevitably expose. You need to meet with your team every day and remember that we are all going to be stretched even thinner than before.
Most of us will get through this, but many of us won’t. And for those who do, we need to be honest about our successes and failures. We need to build a system that can do better next time. Because this is not the last pandemic we will face.
Dr. Elisabeth Poorman is a general internist at a University of Washington neighborhood clinic in Kent. She completed her residency at Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance and specializes in addiction medicine. She also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
A 7-month-old male presents with perioral rash and fever
Patients with atopic dermatitis are at risk for developing the herpes simplex virus (HSV)–related skin complication “eczema herpeticum,” also known as Kaposi’s varicelliform eruption. Eczema herpeticum is characterized by cutaneous pain and vesicular skin lesions, most commonly secondary to infection with HSV-1. The condition may affect individuals with atopic dermatitis or other inflammatory skin disorders. Eczema herpeticum develops when the virus infects large areas of skin, rather than being confined to a small area as in the common cold sore. Eczema herpeticum often appears on the face and neck, although it can appear anywhere on the body. In some cases, the rash may be difficult to distinguish from a patient’s baseline eczema if the latter is poorly controlled. Skin symptoms of eczema herpeticum include clusters of small blisters that are itchy and painful; vesicles that appear red, purple, or black; purulent blisters; or crusting. Classically, the morphology of vesicles or crusted lesions shows a “cluster of grapes” appearance. Eczema herpeticum may present with a high fever, chills, and swollen lymph glands.
While a clinical diagnosis based on the history, physical findings, and morphologic appearance of the rash is reasonable, testing may confirm the diagnosis. The most sensitive and specific tests are polymerase chain reaction sequencing for HSV, direct fluorescent antibody stain, and/or viral culture, while Tzanck smear may show characteristic histologic changes. Treatment is with oral antiviral therapy and treatment of the eczema.
Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is a common viral illness usually affecting infants and children. The infection often involves the hands, feet, mouth, and sometimes, the genitals and buttocks. The viral exanthem is most commonly caused by the coxsackievirus, of the enterovirus family. Coxsackievirus A16 and enterovirus A71 are the serotypes that are most commonly implicated as the causative agents. HFMD initially presents with a low-grade fever, reduced appetite, and general malaise. About 1-2 days later, the child may develop painful mouth sores with an exanthem that involves the dorsum of the hands, soles of the feet, buttocks, legs, and arms. The exanthem consists of vesicles surrounded by a thin halo of erythema, eventually rupturing and forming superficial ulcers with a gray-yellow base and erythematous rim. The exanthem is itchy, and can be macular, papular, or vesicular. The lesions are nonpruritic, and typically not painful. The diagnosis of HFMD usually is made clinically, although a physician can swab the mouth or get a stool sample for polymerase chain reaction, which will show the virus; treatment is supportive. In children with atopic dermatitis, lesions also can tend to concentrate in areas previously or currently affected by the dermatitis, similar to eczema herpeticum, and the terms eczema coxsackium or atypical HFMD are applicable. In young adults, the disease may present with erythematous papulovesicular lesions on the face, oral mucosa, extensor surfaces of the upper and lower extremities, and palms and soles; confluent, hemorrhagic, and crusted lesions also can be seen on the extremities. Systemic symptoms usually subside in a few days; the skin lesions resolve without scarring in days to weeks.
Secondary bacterial infection is not uncommon in eczema herpeticum patients, reflecting common Staphylococcus aureus infection in atopic dermatitis patients. Streptococcus also may be seen as a concurrent infection. Treatment of secondary bacterial infection may be considered based on clinic context and culture.
Impetiginized eczema also is in the differential diagnosis of eczema herpeticum. S. aureus and Streptococci are the most important causative organisms. Lesions can manifest as a single red papule or macule that quickly becomes vesicular or eroded. Subsequently, the content dries, forming honey-colored crusts. Impetigo may resolve spontaneously, although in the context of infected eczema both topical anti-inflammatory agents (e.g. topical corticosteroids) along with systemic antibiotics may be a reasonable treatment option. Although our patient had honey-colored crusting, the wound culture showed normal bacterial flora.
Primary varicella infection causes acute fever and rash, with an initial exanthem of disseminated pruritic erythematous macules that progress beyond the papular stage, forming clear, fluid-filled vesicles (like dewdrops on a rose petal). In children, the rash presents on the stomach, back, and face, and then spreads to other parts of the body. Blisters also can arise inside the mouth.
In this patient, perioral HSV PCR 1 was positive, and wound culture showed normal oral flora with no organisms or white blood cells seen. The patient responded well to oral acyclovir, and treatment of his underlying atopic dermatitis with low-potency topical corticosteroids.
Dr. Bhatti is a research fellow in pediatric dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Neither of the physicians had relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].
Sources
Can Fam Physician. 2012 Dec;58(12):1358-61.
William L Weston, MD., William Howe, MD. UpToDate. Treatment of atopic dermatitis (eczema).
Christine Johnson, MD, Anna Wald, MD, MPH. UpToDate. Epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis of herpes simplex virus type 1 infection.
Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH. UpToDate. Atypical exanthems in children.
National Eczema Association. Eczema herpeticum.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptoms and diagnosis of hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD).
Patients with atopic dermatitis are at risk for developing the herpes simplex virus (HSV)–related skin complication “eczema herpeticum,” also known as Kaposi’s varicelliform eruption. Eczema herpeticum is characterized by cutaneous pain and vesicular skin lesions, most commonly secondary to infection with HSV-1. The condition may affect individuals with atopic dermatitis or other inflammatory skin disorders. Eczema herpeticum develops when the virus infects large areas of skin, rather than being confined to a small area as in the common cold sore. Eczema herpeticum often appears on the face and neck, although it can appear anywhere on the body. In some cases, the rash may be difficult to distinguish from a patient’s baseline eczema if the latter is poorly controlled. Skin symptoms of eczema herpeticum include clusters of small blisters that are itchy and painful; vesicles that appear red, purple, or black; purulent blisters; or crusting. Classically, the morphology of vesicles or crusted lesions shows a “cluster of grapes” appearance. Eczema herpeticum may present with a high fever, chills, and swollen lymph glands.
While a clinical diagnosis based on the history, physical findings, and morphologic appearance of the rash is reasonable, testing may confirm the diagnosis. The most sensitive and specific tests are polymerase chain reaction sequencing for HSV, direct fluorescent antibody stain, and/or viral culture, while Tzanck smear may show characteristic histologic changes. Treatment is with oral antiviral therapy and treatment of the eczema.
Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is a common viral illness usually affecting infants and children. The infection often involves the hands, feet, mouth, and sometimes, the genitals and buttocks. The viral exanthem is most commonly caused by the coxsackievirus, of the enterovirus family. Coxsackievirus A16 and enterovirus A71 are the serotypes that are most commonly implicated as the causative agents. HFMD initially presents with a low-grade fever, reduced appetite, and general malaise. About 1-2 days later, the child may develop painful mouth sores with an exanthem that involves the dorsum of the hands, soles of the feet, buttocks, legs, and arms. The exanthem consists of vesicles surrounded by a thin halo of erythema, eventually rupturing and forming superficial ulcers with a gray-yellow base and erythematous rim. The exanthem is itchy, and can be macular, papular, or vesicular. The lesions are nonpruritic, and typically not painful. The diagnosis of HFMD usually is made clinically, although a physician can swab the mouth or get a stool sample for polymerase chain reaction, which will show the virus; treatment is supportive. In children with atopic dermatitis, lesions also can tend to concentrate in areas previously or currently affected by the dermatitis, similar to eczema herpeticum, and the terms eczema coxsackium or atypical HFMD are applicable. In young adults, the disease may present with erythematous papulovesicular lesions on the face, oral mucosa, extensor surfaces of the upper and lower extremities, and palms and soles; confluent, hemorrhagic, and crusted lesions also can be seen on the extremities. Systemic symptoms usually subside in a few days; the skin lesions resolve without scarring in days to weeks.
Secondary bacterial infection is not uncommon in eczema herpeticum patients, reflecting common Staphylococcus aureus infection in atopic dermatitis patients. Streptococcus also may be seen as a concurrent infection. Treatment of secondary bacterial infection may be considered based on clinic context and culture.
Impetiginized eczema also is in the differential diagnosis of eczema herpeticum. S. aureus and Streptococci are the most important causative organisms. Lesions can manifest as a single red papule or macule that quickly becomes vesicular or eroded. Subsequently, the content dries, forming honey-colored crusts. Impetigo may resolve spontaneously, although in the context of infected eczema both topical anti-inflammatory agents (e.g. topical corticosteroids) along with systemic antibiotics may be a reasonable treatment option. Although our patient had honey-colored crusting, the wound culture showed normal bacterial flora.
Primary varicella infection causes acute fever and rash, with an initial exanthem of disseminated pruritic erythematous macules that progress beyond the papular stage, forming clear, fluid-filled vesicles (like dewdrops on a rose petal). In children, the rash presents on the stomach, back, and face, and then spreads to other parts of the body. Blisters also can arise inside the mouth.
In this patient, perioral HSV PCR 1 was positive, and wound culture showed normal oral flora with no organisms or white blood cells seen. The patient responded well to oral acyclovir, and treatment of his underlying atopic dermatitis with low-potency topical corticosteroids.
Dr. Bhatti is a research fellow in pediatric dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Neither of the physicians had relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].
Sources
Can Fam Physician. 2012 Dec;58(12):1358-61.
William L Weston, MD., William Howe, MD. UpToDate. Treatment of atopic dermatitis (eczema).
Christine Johnson, MD, Anna Wald, MD, MPH. UpToDate. Epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis of herpes simplex virus type 1 infection.
Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH. UpToDate. Atypical exanthems in children.
National Eczema Association. Eczema herpeticum.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptoms and diagnosis of hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD).
Patients with atopic dermatitis are at risk for developing the herpes simplex virus (HSV)–related skin complication “eczema herpeticum,” also known as Kaposi’s varicelliform eruption. Eczema herpeticum is characterized by cutaneous pain and vesicular skin lesions, most commonly secondary to infection with HSV-1. The condition may affect individuals with atopic dermatitis or other inflammatory skin disorders. Eczema herpeticum develops when the virus infects large areas of skin, rather than being confined to a small area as in the common cold sore. Eczema herpeticum often appears on the face and neck, although it can appear anywhere on the body. In some cases, the rash may be difficult to distinguish from a patient’s baseline eczema if the latter is poorly controlled. Skin symptoms of eczema herpeticum include clusters of small blisters that are itchy and painful; vesicles that appear red, purple, or black; purulent blisters; or crusting. Classically, the morphology of vesicles or crusted lesions shows a “cluster of grapes” appearance. Eczema herpeticum may present with a high fever, chills, and swollen lymph glands.
While a clinical diagnosis based on the history, physical findings, and morphologic appearance of the rash is reasonable, testing may confirm the diagnosis. The most sensitive and specific tests are polymerase chain reaction sequencing for HSV, direct fluorescent antibody stain, and/or viral culture, while Tzanck smear may show characteristic histologic changes. Treatment is with oral antiviral therapy and treatment of the eczema.
Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is a common viral illness usually affecting infants and children. The infection often involves the hands, feet, mouth, and sometimes, the genitals and buttocks. The viral exanthem is most commonly caused by the coxsackievirus, of the enterovirus family. Coxsackievirus A16 and enterovirus A71 are the serotypes that are most commonly implicated as the causative agents. HFMD initially presents with a low-grade fever, reduced appetite, and general malaise. About 1-2 days later, the child may develop painful mouth sores with an exanthem that involves the dorsum of the hands, soles of the feet, buttocks, legs, and arms. The exanthem consists of vesicles surrounded by a thin halo of erythema, eventually rupturing and forming superficial ulcers with a gray-yellow base and erythematous rim. The exanthem is itchy, and can be macular, papular, or vesicular. The lesions are nonpruritic, and typically not painful. The diagnosis of HFMD usually is made clinically, although a physician can swab the mouth or get a stool sample for polymerase chain reaction, which will show the virus; treatment is supportive. In children with atopic dermatitis, lesions also can tend to concentrate in areas previously or currently affected by the dermatitis, similar to eczema herpeticum, and the terms eczema coxsackium or atypical HFMD are applicable. In young adults, the disease may present with erythematous papulovesicular lesions on the face, oral mucosa, extensor surfaces of the upper and lower extremities, and palms and soles; confluent, hemorrhagic, and crusted lesions also can be seen on the extremities. Systemic symptoms usually subside in a few days; the skin lesions resolve without scarring in days to weeks.
Secondary bacterial infection is not uncommon in eczema herpeticum patients, reflecting common Staphylococcus aureus infection in atopic dermatitis patients. Streptococcus also may be seen as a concurrent infection. Treatment of secondary bacterial infection may be considered based on clinic context and culture.
Impetiginized eczema also is in the differential diagnosis of eczema herpeticum. S. aureus and Streptococci are the most important causative organisms. Lesions can manifest as a single red papule or macule that quickly becomes vesicular or eroded. Subsequently, the content dries, forming honey-colored crusts. Impetigo may resolve spontaneously, although in the context of infected eczema both topical anti-inflammatory agents (e.g. topical corticosteroids) along with systemic antibiotics may be a reasonable treatment option. Although our patient had honey-colored crusting, the wound culture showed normal bacterial flora.
Primary varicella infection causes acute fever and rash, with an initial exanthem of disseminated pruritic erythematous macules that progress beyond the papular stage, forming clear, fluid-filled vesicles (like dewdrops on a rose petal). In children, the rash presents on the stomach, back, and face, and then spreads to other parts of the body. Blisters also can arise inside the mouth.
In this patient, perioral HSV PCR 1 was positive, and wound culture showed normal oral flora with no organisms or white blood cells seen. The patient responded well to oral acyclovir, and treatment of his underlying atopic dermatitis with low-potency topical corticosteroids.
Dr. Bhatti is a research fellow in pediatric dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Neither of the physicians had relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].
Sources
Can Fam Physician. 2012 Dec;58(12):1358-61.
William L Weston, MD., William Howe, MD. UpToDate. Treatment of atopic dermatitis (eczema).
Christine Johnson, MD, Anna Wald, MD, MPH. UpToDate. Epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis of herpes simplex virus type 1 infection.
Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH. UpToDate. Atypical exanthems in children.
National Eczema Association. Eczema herpeticum.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptoms and diagnosis of hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD).
The role of medication in autism spectrum disorder
Efforts toward early identification and treatment are an important facet of the public health work in autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
The prevalence of ASD is rising. With the most recent estimate from the Centers from Disease Control and Prevention of 1 in 59* children aged 8 years,1 it is important for pediatric health care providers to have an understanding of current recommendations for treatment so they can counsel and guide affected families. ASD is a heterogeneous condition, so this article seeks to touch on broad principles, recognizing that clinicians must take into account the full clinical picture of each individual and family.
It is important to acknowledge that while there is no cure for ASD, there are treatment modalities that have an evidence base for addressing specific areas that may be impaired in children with autism. While it is beyond the scope of this article to review all of the potential areas of intervention in children with ASD, it is important to be keep in mind a few important principles.
1. The best evidenced treatment for addressing challenging and problematic behavior as well as improving a host of outcomes in children with ASD is itself behavioral in nature. These treatments are based on the principles of applied behavioral analysis,2 an educational and therapeutic approach which involves looking at antecedents and consequences of behaviors. This approach also looks to shape, motivate, and reinforce functional behaviors while discouraging harmful and disruptive ones.
2. Because communication often is impaired in children with ASD, providers always should investigate for possible medical causes of pain or discomfort that might explain sudden behavior change, as well as environmental changes that could be involved.
3. – because children with ASD often are particularly sensitive to medication side effects.
Irritability/aggression/extreme mood lability
There are only two medications with Food and Drug Administration labeling for an autism specific condition, and those are aripiprazole and risperidone, two second-generation antipsychotic agents approved for irritability associated with ASD on the basis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating their efficacy.3,4 Included under the umbrella of irritability are aggression, deliberate self-injurious behavior, extreme temper tantrums, and quick and extreme mood changes. For aripiprazole the approved ages are 6-17 years; a dosing range of 2-15 mg/day is recommended. For risperidone, the approved age range is 5-17 years; the recommended dosing range is 0.25-4 mg/day. Prior to starting either of these medications, a cardiac history should be obtained, and baseline laboratory values, particularly lipid levels and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) are recommended. All second-generation antipsychotics carry the risk of tardive dyskinesia (a movement disorder), as well as risk of weight gain and metabolic effects. Baseline weight prior to medication initiation with routine follow-up measurement is encouraged. In light of the burden of potential side effects, these medications tend to be reserved by clinicians for circumstances where there is a significant impact on functioning. Both medications are available in liquid form for children with difficulty swallowing pills.
ADHD
There are positive RCTs of methylphenidate in co-occurring ASD and ADHD,5 making it the preferred first line agent for treatment. Amphetamine salt based stimulant preparations do not have any RCTs in co-occurring ASD, but theoretically should be similarly effective. Again, the principle of starting low and going slow is applicable. Second line are the alpha 2 adrenergic agonists guanfacine and clonidine, both of whose long-acting formulations are approved for treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents without ASD, as well as atomoxetine, a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor approved for ADHD. Guanfacine and atomoxetine have the stronger evidence base in the co-occurring condition. None of the second-line medications come in liquid preparation, although the immediate-release forms of guanfacine and clonidine both can be crushed and are used in clinical practice when the extended-release forms are not practicable.
Anxiety disorders and depression
Repetitive behaviors and insistence on sameness are broad headings that can be thought of as similar to obsessive compulsive disorder in children without ASD. However, controlled studies of SSRIs and clomipramine (a tricyclic antidepressant) have not shown a clear benefit in these behaviors in children with autism. There are no RCTs looking specifically at treatment of anxiety disorders in children with ASD, but expert consensus is that pharmacologic treatment is similar to that of children without ASD, with the SSRIs fluoxetine and sertraline the first-line agents due to the robust evidence for these two medications in treatment of anxiety disorders in children.6 Especially for kids with higher functioning ASD, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) should be considered and has some evidence for the co-occurring condition. Similarly, there are no RCTs for co-occurring depression in ASD, and clinical practice is to treat it as you would depression in the non-ASD population. Be aware that the studies of SSRIs in children with ASD reported higher than typical rates of behavioral activation on these medications, and again the principle of starting low and going slow is emphasized. Fluoxetine and sertraline both come in liquid form.
Insomnia
Insomnia is a common occurrence in children with ASD, and studies suggest melatonin can be effective, with immediate release clonidine a consideration with some limited evidence, if melatonin is not successful.
Finally I would be remiss in not mentioning that there is preliminary evidence from review7 and meta-analysis8 articles to suggest that regular exercise for individuals with ASD has a positive effect on multiple symptom domains, suggesting that this is an important additional treatment recommendation for children and families.
In conclusion, identification and treatment of ASD and co-occurring syndromes is often challenging, and while specialty referral often will be necessary, it is hoped that this overview provides a helpful frame of reference for primary care providers who encounter these conditions in clinical practice.
For further reading on this important subject, I recommend the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Practice Parameter for the Assessment and Treatment of Children and Adolescents with ASD and the Parents Medication Guide for Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Dr. Hoffnung is a pediatric psychiatrist at the University of Vermont Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor of psychiatry at the Robert Larner, M.D. College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, both in Burlington. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
References
1. MMWR Surveill Summ 2018;67(No. SS-6):1–23*
2. National Standards Project, Phase 2. National Autism Center 2015.
3. N Engl J Med. 2002 Aug 1;347(5):314-21.
4. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009 Nov;48(11):1110-9.
5. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Nov;62(11):1266-74.
6. Pediatrics. 2016 Feb;137(Supplement 2):S115-S123.
7. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2010 Dec;4(4):565-76.
8. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2012;6(1):46-57.
*This article was updated 4/2/2020.
Efforts toward early identification and treatment are an important facet of the public health work in autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
The prevalence of ASD is rising. With the most recent estimate from the Centers from Disease Control and Prevention of 1 in 59* children aged 8 years,1 it is important for pediatric health care providers to have an understanding of current recommendations for treatment so they can counsel and guide affected families. ASD is a heterogeneous condition, so this article seeks to touch on broad principles, recognizing that clinicians must take into account the full clinical picture of each individual and family.
It is important to acknowledge that while there is no cure for ASD, there are treatment modalities that have an evidence base for addressing specific areas that may be impaired in children with autism. While it is beyond the scope of this article to review all of the potential areas of intervention in children with ASD, it is important to be keep in mind a few important principles.
1. The best evidenced treatment for addressing challenging and problematic behavior as well as improving a host of outcomes in children with ASD is itself behavioral in nature. These treatments are based on the principles of applied behavioral analysis,2 an educational and therapeutic approach which involves looking at antecedents and consequences of behaviors. This approach also looks to shape, motivate, and reinforce functional behaviors while discouraging harmful and disruptive ones.
2. Because communication often is impaired in children with ASD, providers always should investigate for possible medical causes of pain or discomfort that might explain sudden behavior change, as well as environmental changes that could be involved.
3. – because children with ASD often are particularly sensitive to medication side effects.
Irritability/aggression/extreme mood lability
There are only two medications with Food and Drug Administration labeling for an autism specific condition, and those are aripiprazole and risperidone, two second-generation antipsychotic agents approved for irritability associated with ASD on the basis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating their efficacy.3,4 Included under the umbrella of irritability are aggression, deliberate self-injurious behavior, extreme temper tantrums, and quick and extreme mood changes. For aripiprazole the approved ages are 6-17 years; a dosing range of 2-15 mg/day is recommended. For risperidone, the approved age range is 5-17 years; the recommended dosing range is 0.25-4 mg/day. Prior to starting either of these medications, a cardiac history should be obtained, and baseline laboratory values, particularly lipid levels and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) are recommended. All second-generation antipsychotics carry the risk of tardive dyskinesia (a movement disorder), as well as risk of weight gain and metabolic effects. Baseline weight prior to medication initiation with routine follow-up measurement is encouraged. In light of the burden of potential side effects, these medications tend to be reserved by clinicians for circumstances where there is a significant impact on functioning. Both medications are available in liquid form for children with difficulty swallowing pills.
ADHD
There are positive RCTs of methylphenidate in co-occurring ASD and ADHD,5 making it the preferred first line agent for treatment. Amphetamine salt based stimulant preparations do not have any RCTs in co-occurring ASD, but theoretically should be similarly effective. Again, the principle of starting low and going slow is applicable. Second line are the alpha 2 adrenergic agonists guanfacine and clonidine, both of whose long-acting formulations are approved for treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents without ASD, as well as atomoxetine, a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor approved for ADHD. Guanfacine and atomoxetine have the stronger evidence base in the co-occurring condition. None of the second-line medications come in liquid preparation, although the immediate-release forms of guanfacine and clonidine both can be crushed and are used in clinical practice when the extended-release forms are not practicable.
Anxiety disorders and depression
Repetitive behaviors and insistence on sameness are broad headings that can be thought of as similar to obsessive compulsive disorder in children without ASD. However, controlled studies of SSRIs and clomipramine (a tricyclic antidepressant) have not shown a clear benefit in these behaviors in children with autism. There are no RCTs looking specifically at treatment of anxiety disorders in children with ASD, but expert consensus is that pharmacologic treatment is similar to that of children without ASD, with the SSRIs fluoxetine and sertraline the first-line agents due to the robust evidence for these two medications in treatment of anxiety disorders in children.6 Especially for kids with higher functioning ASD, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) should be considered and has some evidence for the co-occurring condition. Similarly, there are no RCTs for co-occurring depression in ASD, and clinical practice is to treat it as you would depression in the non-ASD population. Be aware that the studies of SSRIs in children with ASD reported higher than typical rates of behavioral activation on these medications, and again the principle of starting low and going slow is emphasized. Fluoxetine and sertraline both come in liquid form.
Insomnia
Insomnia is a common occurrence in children with ASD, and studies suggest melatonin can be effective, with immediate release clonidine a consideration with some limited evidence, if melatonin is not successful.
Finally I would be remiss in not mentioning that there is preliminary evidence from review7 and meta-analysis8 articles to suggest that regular exercise for individuals with ASD has a positive effect on multiple symptom domains, suggesting that this is an important additional treatment recommendation for children and families.
In conclusion, identification and treatment of ASD and co-occurring syndromes is often challenging, and while specialty referral often will be necessary, it is hoped that this overview provides a helpful frame of reference for primary care providers who encounter these conditions in clinical practice.
For further reading on this important subject, I recommend the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Practice Parameter for the Assessment and Treatment of Children and Adolescents with ASD and the Parents Medication Guide for Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Dr. Hoffnung is a pediatric psychiatrist at the University of Vermont Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor of psychiatry at the Robert Larner, M.D. College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, both in Burlington. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
References
1. MMWR Surveill Summ 2018;67(No. SS-6):1–23*
2. National Standards Project, Phase 2. National Autism Center 2015.
3. N Engl J Med. 2002 Aug 1;347(5):314-21.
4. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009 Nov;48(11):1110-9.
5. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Nov;62(11):1266-74.
6. Pediatrics. 2016 Feb;137(Supplement 2):S115-S123.
7. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2010 Dec;4(4):565-76.
8. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2012;6(1):46-57.
*This article was updated 4/2/2020.
Efforts toward early identification and treatment are an important facet of the public health work in autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
The prevalence of ASD is rising. With the most recent estimate from the Centers from Disease Control and Prevention of 1 in 59* children aged 8 years,1 it is important for pediatric health care providers to have an understanding of current recommendations for treatment so they can counsel and guide affected families. ASD is a heterogeneous condition, so this article seeks to touch on broad principles, recognizing that clinicians must take into account the full clinical picture of each individual and family.
It is important to acknowledge that while there is no cure for ASD, there are treatment modalities that have an evidence base for addressing specific areas that may be impaired in children with autism. While it is beyond the scope of this article to review all of the potential areas of intervention in children with ASD, it is important to be keep in mind a few important principles.
1. The best evidenced treatment for addressing challenging and problematic behavior as well as improving a host of outcomes in children with ASD is itself behavioral in nature. These treatments are based on the principles of applied behavioral analysis,2 an educational and therapeutic approach which involves looking at antecedents and consequences of behaviors. This approach also looks to shape, motivate, and reinforce functional behaviors while discouraging harmful and disruptive ones.
2. Because communication often is impaired in children with ASD, providers always should investigate for possible medical causes of pain or discomfort that might explain sudden behavior change, as well as environmental changes that could be involved.
3. – because children with ASD often are particularly sensitive to medication side effects.
Irritability/aggression/extreme mood lability
There are only two medications with Food and Drug Administration labeling for an autism specific condition, and those are aripiprazole and risperidone, two second-generation antipsychotic agents approved for irritability associated with ASD on the basis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating their efficacy.3,4 Included under the umbrella of irritability are aggression, deliberate self-injurious behavior, extreme temper tantrums, and quick and extreme mood changes. For aripiprazole the approved ages are 6-17 years; a dosing range of 2-15 mg/day is recommended. For risperidone, the approved age range is 5-17 years; the recommended dosing range is 0.25-4 mg/day. Prior to starting either of these medications, a cardiac history should be obtained, and baseline laboratory values, particularly lipid levels and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) are recommended. All second-generation antipsychotics carry the risk of tardive dyskinesia (a movement disorder), as well as risk of weight gain and metabolic effects. Baseline weight prior to medication initiation with routine follow-up measurement is encouraged. In light of the burden of potential side effects, these medications tend to be reserved by clinicians for circumstances where there is a significant impact on functioning. Both medications are available in liquid form for children with difficulty swallowing pills.
ADHD
There are positive RCTs of methylphenidate in co-occurring ASD and ADHD,5 making it the preferred first line agent for treatment. Amphetamine salt based stimulant preparations do not have any RCTs in co-occurring ASD, but theoretically should be similarly effective. Again, the principle of starting low and going slow is applicable. Second line are the alpha 2 adrenergic agonists guanfacine and clonidine, both of whose long-acting formulations are approved for treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents without ASD, as well as atomoxetine, a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor approved for ADHD. Guanfacine and atomoxetine have the stronger evidence base in the co-occurring condition. None of the second-line medications come in liquid preparation, although the immediate-release forms of guanfacine and clonidine both can be crushed and are used in clinical practice when the extended-release forms are not practicable.
Anxiety disorders and depression
Repetitive behaviors and insistence on sameness are broad headings that can be thought of as similar to obsessive compulsive disorder in children without ASD. However, controlled studies of SSRIs and clomipramine (a tricyclic antidepressant) have not shown a clear benefit in these behaviors in children with autism. There are no RCTs looking specifically at treatment of anxiety disorders in children with ASD, but expert consensus is that pharmacologic treatment is similar to that of children without ASD, with the SSRIs fluoxetine and sertraline the first-line agents due to the robust evidence for these two medications in treatment of anxiety disorders in children.6 Especially for kids with higher functioning ASD, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) should be considered and has some evidence for the co-occurring condition. Similarly, there are no RCTs for co-occurring depression in ASD, and clinical practice is to treat it as you would depression in the non-ASD population. Be aware that the studies of SSRIs in children with ASD reported higher than typical rates of behavioral activation on these medications, and again the principle of starting low and going slow is emphasized. Fluoxetine and sertraline both come in liquid form.
Insomnia
Insomnia is a common occurrence in children with ASD, and studies suggest melatonin can be effective, with immediate release clonidine a consideration with some limited evidence, if melatonin is not successful.
Finally I would be remiss in not mentioning that there is preliminary evidence from review7 and meta-analysis8 articles to suggest that regular exercise for individuals with ASD has a positive effect on multiple symptom domains, suggesting that this is an important additional treatment recommendation for children and families.
In conclusion, identification and treatment of ASD and co-occurring syndromes is often challenging, and while specialty referral often will be necessary, it is hoped that this overview provides a helpful frame of reference for primary care providers who encounter these conditions in clinical practice.
For further reading on this important subject, I recommend the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Practice Parameter for the Assessment and Treatment of Children and Adolescents with ASD and the Parents Medication Guide for Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Dr. Hoffnung is a pediatric psychiatrist at the University of Vermont Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor of psychiatry at the Robert Larner, M.D. College of Medicine at the University of Vermont, both in Burlington. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].
References
1. MMWR Surveill Summ 2018;67(No. SS-6):1–23*
2. National Standards Project, Phase 2. National Autism Center 2015.
3. N Engl J Med. 2002 Aug 1;347(5):314-21.
4. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009 Nov;48(11):1110-9.
5. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Nov;62(11):1266-74.
6. Pediatrics. 2016 Feb;137(Supplement 2):S115-S123.
7. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2010 Dec;4(4):565-76.
8. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2012;6(1):46-57.
*This article was updated 4/2/2020.
Medical identity theft
In his book, “Scam Me If You Can,” fraud expert Frank Abagnale relates the case of a 5-year-old boy whose pediatrician’s computer was hacked, compromising his name, birth date, Social Security number, insurance information, and medical records. The result was a bureaucratic nightmare that may well continue for the rest of that unfortunate young patient’s life. One can only speculate on the difficulties he might have as adult in obtaining a line of credit, or in proving his medical identity to physicians and hospitals.
– your Social Security number, bank account numbers, etc. – sells for about $25 on the black market; add health insurance and medical records, and the price can jump to $1,000 or more. That’s because there is a far greater potential yield from medical identity theft – and once your personal information and medical records are breached, they are in the Cloud for the rest of your life, available to anyone who wants to buy them. Older patients are particularly vulnerable: Medicare billing scams cost taxpayers more than $60 billion a year.
If your office’s computer system does not have effective fraud protection, you could be held liable for any fraud committed with information stolen from it – and if the information is resold years later and reused to commit more fraud, you’ll be liable for that, too. That’s why I strongly recommend that you invest in high-quality security technology and software, so that in the event of a breach, the security company will at least share in the fault and the liability. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or industry mentioned in this column.)
Even with adequate protection, breaches can still occur, so all medical offices should have a breach response plan in place, covering how to halt security breaches, and how to handle any lost or stolen data. Your computer and security vendors can help with formulating such a plan. Patients affected by a breach need to be contacted as well, so they may put a freeze on accounts or send out fraud alerts.
Patients also need to be aware of the risks. If your EHR includes an online portal to communicate protected information to patients, it may be secure on your end, but patients are unlikely to have similar protection on their home computers. If you offer online patient portal services, you should make your patients aware of measures they can take to protect their data once it arrives on their computers or phones.
Patients should also be warned of the risks that come with sharing medical information with others. If they are asked to reveal medical data via phone or email, they need to ask who is requesting it, and why. Any unsolicited calls inquiring about their medical information, from someone who can’t or won’t confirm their identity, should be considered extremely suspicious.
We tell our patients to protect their insurance numbers as carefully as they guard their Social Security number and other valuable data, and to shred any medical paperwork they no longer need, including labels on prescription bottles. And if they see something on an Explanation of Benefits that doesn’t look right, they should question it immediately. We encourage them to take advantage of the free services at MyMedicare.gov, including Medicare Summary Notices provided every 3 months (if any services or medical supplies are received during that period), to make sure they’re being billed only for services they have received.
Your staff should be made aware of the potential for “friendly fraud,” which is defined as theft of identity and medical information by patients’ friends or family members. (According to some studies, as much as 50% of all medical identity theft may be committed this way.) Staffers should never divulge insurance numbers, diagnoses, lab reports, or any other privileged information to family or friends, whether by phone, fax, mail, or in person, without written permission from the patient. And when callers claiming to be patients request information about themselves, your employees should be alert for “red flags.” For example, legitimate patients won’t stumble over simple questions (such as “What is your birth date?”) or request test results or diagnoses that they should already know about.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
In his book, “Scam Me If You Can,” fraud expert Frank Abagnale relates the case of a 5-year-old boy whose pediatrician’s computer was hacked, compromising his name, birth date, Social Security number, insurance information, and medical records. The result was a bureaucratic nightmare that may well continue for the rest of that unfortunate young patient’s life. One can only speculate on the difficulties he might have as adult in obtaining a line of credit, or in proving his medical identity to physicians and hospitals.
– your Social Security number, bank account numbers, etc. – sells for about $25 on the black market; add health insurance and medical records, and the price can jump to $1,000 or more. That’s because there is a far greater potential yield from medical identity theft – and once your personal information and medical records are breached, they are in the Cloud for the rest of your life, available to anyone who wants to buy them. Older patients are particularly vulnerable: Medicare billing scams cost taxpayers more than $60 billion a year.
If your office’s computer system does not have effective fraud protection, you could be held liable for any fraud committed with information stolen from it – and if the information is resold years later and reused to commit more fraud, you’ll be liable for that, too. That’s why I strongly recommend that you invest in high-quality security technology and software, so that in the event of a breach, the security company will at least share in the fault and the liability. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or industry mentioned in this column.)
Even with adequate protection, breaches can still occur, so all medical offices should have a breach response plan in place, covering how to halt security breaches, and how to handle any lost or stolen data. Your computer and security vendors can help with formulating such a plan. Patients affected by a breach need to be contacted as well, so they may put a freeze on accounts or send out fraud alerts.
Patients also need to be aware of the risks. If your EHR includes an online portal to communicate protected information to patients, it may be secure on your end, but patients are unlikely to have similar protection on their home computers. If you offer online patient portal services, you should make your patients aware of measures they can take to protect their data once it arrives on their computers or phones.
Patients should also be warned of the risks that come with sharing medical information with others. If they are asked to reveal medical data via phone or email, they need to ask who is requesting it, and why. Any unsolicited calls inquiring about their medical information, from someone who can’t or won’t confirm their identity, should be considered extremely suspicious.
We tell our patients to protect their insurance numbers as carefully as they guard their Social Security number and other valuable data, and to shred any medical paperwork they no longer need, including labels on prescription bottles. And if they see something on an Explanation of Benefits that doesn’t look right, they should question it immediately. We encourage them to take advantage of the free services at MyMedicare.gov, including Medicare Summary Notices provided every 3 months (if any services or medical supplies are received during that period), to make sure they’re being billed only for services they have received.
Your staff should be made aware of the potential for “friendly fraud,” which is defined as theft of identity and medical information by patients’ friends or family members. (According to some studies, as much as 50% of all medical identity theft may be committed this way.) Staffers should never divulge insurance numbers, diagnoses, lab reports, or any other privileged information to family or friends, whether by phone, fax, mail, or in person, without written permission from the patient. And when callers claiming to be patients request information about themselves, your employees should be alert for “red flags.” For example, legitimate patients won’t stumble over simple questions (such as “What is your birth date?”) or request test results or diagnoses that they should already know about.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
In his book, “Scam Me If You Can,” fraud expert Frank Abagnale relates the case of a 5-year-old boy whose pediatrician’s computer was hacked, compromising his name, birth date, Social Security number, insurance information, and medical records. The result was a bureaucratic nightmare that may well continue for the rest of that unfortunate young patient’s life. One can only speculate on the difficulties he might have as adult in obtaining a line of credit, or in proving his medical identity to physicians and hospitals.
– your Social Security number, bank account numbers, etc. – sells for about $25 on the black market; add health insurance and medical records, and the price can jump to $1,000 or more. That’s because there is a far greater potential yield from medical identity theft – and once your personal information and medical records are breached, they are in the Cloud for the rest of your life, available to anyone who wants to buy them. Older patients are particularly vulnerable: Medicare billing scams cost taxpayers more than $60 billion a year.
If your office’s computer system does not have effective fraud protection, you could be held liable for any fraud committed with information stolen from it – and if the information is resold years later and reused to commit more fraud, you’ll be liable for that, too. That’s why I strongly recommend that you invest in high-quality security technology and software, so that in the event of a breach, the security company will at least share in the fault and the liability. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or industry mentioned in this column.)
Even with adequate protection, breaches can still occur, so all medical offices should have a breach response plan in place, covering how to halt security breaches, and how to handle any lost or stolen data. Your computer and security vendors can help with formulating such a plan. Patients affected by a breach need to be contacted as well, so they may put a freeze on accounts or send out fraud alerts.
Patients also need to be aware of the risks. If your EHR includes an online portal to communicate protected information to patients, it may be secure on your end, but patients are unlikely to have similar protection on their home computers. If you offer online patient portal services, you should make your patients aware of measures they can take to protect their data once it arrives on their computers or phones.
Patients should also be warned of the risks that come with sharing medical information with others. If they are asked to reveal medical data via phone or email, they need to ask who is requesting it, and why. Any unsolicited calls inquiring about their medical information, from someone who can’t or won’t confirm their identity, should be considered extremely suspicious.
We tell our patients to protect their insurance numbers as carefully as they guard their Social Security number and other valuable data, and to shred any medical paperwork they no longer need, including labels on prescription bottles. And if they see something on an Explanation of Benefits that doesn’t look right, they should question it immediately. We encourage them to take advantage of the free services at MyMedicare.gov, including Medicare Summary Notices provided every 3 months (if any services or medical supplies are received during that period), to make sure they’re being billed only for services they have received.
Your staff should be made aware of the potential for “friendly fraud,” which is defined as theft of identity and medical information by patients’ friends or family members. (According to some studies, as much as 50% of all medical identity theft may be committed this way.) Staffers should never divulge insurance numbers, diagnoses, lab reports, or any other privileged information to family or friends, whether by phone, fax, mail, or in person, without written permission from the patient. And when callers claiming to be patients request information about themselves, your employees should be alert for “red flags.” For example, legitimate patients won’t stumble over simple questions (such as “What is your birth date?”) or request test results or diagnoses that they should already know about.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
Does misplaced faith in modern medicine run at odds against healthier lifestyles?
Recently, a study in the Journal of the American Heart Association found that taking statins and blood pressure medications doesn’t lead to healthier lifestyles.
This should surprise no one practicing medicine today. With absolutely no scientific data to back up the next statement, I’m willing to bet a study on oral antiglycemics for type 2 diabetes would yield similar results.
The problem here is that these drugs don’t change human nature, and I’m not belittling their ability to reduce morbidity and mortality.
Developed nations nowadays live in a world of plenty. For most of us, there’s not only no shortage of food options, but the majority of what’s out there is the worst stuff for your health. Salty, dense calories, high-fat, sweetened – for most of us that’s a normal day of eating. It tastes good. Two million years of evolution have programmed us to eat similar stuff because in the wild it sustains survival.
In the city and suburbs, however, that’s not the case.
Food manufacturers make it and stores sell it because, quite bluntly, it makes money. The profit margin for unhealthy stuff is higher than that for fruits and vegetables. If you’re trying to run a successful business, which one would you choose to sell?
As long as people are going to eat unhealthy stuff, others will sell it to them. All the medical breakthroughs in the world won’t change that.
Same with exercise. Some people love to exercise. Some people catch the bug to do it consistently. But most try for a few weeks, usually in January-February, then give up because they don’t have time, or the will, or both.
Medical breakthroughs won’t fix that, either.
There’s also, I suspect, a component of misplaced faith in modern medicine. Like the mysterious “anti-calories” in a can of diet soda. You really do encounter people who think that drinking a diet soda and having a slice of chocolate cake will cancel each other out. Any doctor or nutritionist will scoff at this, but it’s amazing how many people think that doing one good thing (health wise) means you can equally do one bad thing at no penalty. Humans love magical thinking like that.
Unintentionally, the medications contribute to this belief. People figure if they’re lowering blood sugar or lipids, maybe they can eat more steak and ice cream. That’s an unintended consequence of modern medicine. It’s not even limited to nonmedical people. When Lipitor came to market in the late 1990s, one of my attendings called it “a license to eat.” Sadly, as the new study proves, he wasn’t that far from the truth.
People want an easy cure. A pill that makes it all better. That’s human nature. But the real problem, for all the great work we’ve done in medications, is that many patients don’t want to be an active participant in their own care. Exercising and maintaining a healthy diet are hard work, in spite of all the evidence showing their benefits (especially when combined with modern medicine, which is the whole idea in the first place). So it’s much easier for them to place all the responsibility on doctors and medications, and just take a simple pill to fix everything.
As this study shows, it doesn’t work that way.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Recently, a study in the Journal of the American Heart Association found that taking statins and blood pressure medications doesn’t lead to healthier lifestyles.
This should surprise no one practicing medicine today. With absolutely no scientific data to back up the next statement, I’m willing to bet a study on oral antiglycemics for type 2 diabetes would yield similar results.
The problem here is that these drugs don’t change human nature, and I’m not belittling their ability to reduce morbidity and mortality.
Developed nations nowadays live in a world of plenty. For most of us, there’s not only no shortage of food options, but the majority of what’s out there is the worst stuff for your health. Salty, dense calories, high-fat, sweetened – for most of us that’s a normal day of eating. It tastes good. Two million years of evolution have programmed us to eat similar stuff because in the wild it sustains survival.
In the city and suburbs, however, that’s not the case.
Food manufacturers make it and stores sell it because, quite bluntly, it makes money. The profit margin for unhealthy stuff is higher than that for fruits and vegetables. If you’re trying to run a successful business, which one would you choose to sell?
As long as people are going to eat unhealthy stuff, others will sell it to them. All the medical breakthroughs in the world won’t change that.
Same with exercise. Some people love to exercise. Some people catch the bug to do it consistently. But most try for a few weeks, usually in January-February, then give up because they don’t have time, or the will, or both.
Medical breakthroughs won’t fix that, either.
There’s also, I suspect, a component of misplaced faith in modern medicine. Like the mysterious “anti-calories” in a can of diet soda. You really do encounter people who think that drinking a diet soda and having a slice of chocolate cake will cancel each other out. Any doctor or nutritionist will scoff at this, but it’s amazing how many people think that doing one good thing (health wise) means you can equally do one bad thing at no penalty. Humans love magical thinking like that.
Unintentionally, the medications contribute to this belief. People figure if they’re lowering blood sugar or lipids, maybe they can eat more steak and ice cream. That’s an unintended consequence of modern medicine. It’s not even limited to nonmedical people. When Lipitor came to market in the late 1990s, one of my attendings called it “a license to eat.” Sadly, as the new study proves, he wasn’t that far from the truth.
People want an easy cure. A pill that makes it all better. That’s human nature. But the real problem, for all the great work we’ve done in medications, is that many patients don’t want to be an active participant in their own care. Exercising and maintaining a healthy diet are hard work, in spite of all the evidence showing their benefits (especially when combined with modern medicine, which is the whole idea in the first place). So it’s much easier for them to place all the responsibility on doctors and medications, and just take a simple pill to fix everything.
As this study shows, it doesn’t work that way.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Recently, a study in the Journal of the American Heart Association found that taking statins and blood pressure medications doesn’t lead to healthier lifestyles.
This should surprise no one practicing medicine today. With absolutely no scientific data to back up the next statement, I’m willing to bet a study on oral antiglycemics for type 2 diabetes would yield similar results.
The problem here is that these drugs don’t change human nature, and I’m not belittling their ability to reduce morbidity and mortality.
Developed nations nowadays live in a world of plenty. For most of us, there’s not only no shortage of food options, but the majority of what’s out there is the worst stuff for your health. Salty, dense calories, high-fat, sweetened – for most of us that’s a normal day of eating. It tastes good. Two million years of evolution have programmed us to eat similar stuff because in the wild it sustains survival.
In the city and suburbs, however, that’s not the case.
Food manufacturers make it and stores sell it because, quite bluntly, it makes money. The profit margin for unhealthy stuff is higher than that for fruits and vegetables. If you’re trying to run a successful business, which one would you choose to sell?
As long as people are going to eat unhealthy stuff, others will sell it to them. All the medical breakthroughs in the world won’t change that.
Same with exercise. Some people love to exercise. Some people catch the bug to do it consistently. But most try for a few weeks, usually in January-February, then give up because they don’t have time, or the will, or both.
Medical breakthroughs won’t fix that, either.
There’s also, I suspect, a component of misplaced faith in modern medicine. Like the mysterious “anti-calories” in a can of diet soda. You really do encounter people who think that drinking a diet soda and having a slice of chocolate cake will cancel each other out. Any doctor or nutritionist will scoff at this, but it’s amazing how many people think that doing one good thing (health wise) means you can equally do one bad thing at no penalty. Humans love magical thinking like that.
Unintentionally, the medications contribute to this belief. People figure if they’re lowering blood sugar or lipids, maybe they can eat more steak and ice cream. That’s an unintended consequence of modern medicine. It’s not even limited to nonmedical people. When Lipitor came to market in the late 1990s, one of my attendings called it “a license to eat.” Sadly, as the new study proves, he wasn’t that far from the truth.
People want an easy cure. A pill that makes it all better. That’s human nature. But the real problem, for all the great work we’ve done in medications, is that many patients don’t want to be an active participant in their own care. Exercising and maintaining a healthy diet are hard work, in spite of all the evidence showing their benefits (especially when combined with modern medicine, which is the whole idea in the first place). So it’s much easier for them to place all the responsibility on doctors and medications, and just take a simple pill to fix everything.
As this study shows, it doesn’t work that way.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.