Infectious Diseases

A new study from Orange County, California, shows how Candida auris, an emerging pathogen, was successfully identified and contained in long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) and ventilator-capable skilled-nursing facilities (vSNFs).

Lead author Ellora Karmarkar, MD, MSc, formerly an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and currently with the California Department of Public Health, said in an interview that the prospective surveillance of urine cultures for C. auris was prompted by “seeing what was happening in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois [being] pretty alarming for a lot of the health officials in California, [who] know that LTACHs are high-risk facilities because they take care of really sick people. Some of those people are there for a very long time.”

Therefore, the study authors decided to focus their investigations there, rather than in acute care hospitals, which were believed to be at lower risk for C. auris outbreaks.

The Orange County Health Department, working with the California Department of Health and the CDC, asked labs to prospectively identify all Candida isolates in urines from LTACHs between September 2018 and February 2019. Normally, labs do not speciate Candida from nonsterile body sites.

Dan Diekema, MD, an epidemiologist and clinical microbiologist at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization, “Acute care hospitals really ought to be moving toward doing species identification of Candida from nonsterile sites if they really want to have a better chance of detecting this early.”

The OCHD also screened LTACH and vSNF patients with composite cultures from the axilla-groin or nasal swabs. Screening was undertaken because 5%-10% of colonized patients later develop invasive infections, and 30%-60% die.

The first bloodstream infection was detected in May 2019. Per the report, published online Sept. 7 in Annals of Internal Medicine, “As of 1 January 2020, of 182 patients, 22 (12%) died within 30 days of C. auris identification; 47 (26%) died within 90 days. One of 47 deaths was attributed to C. auris.” Whole-genome sequencing showed that the isolates were all closely related in clade III.

Experts conducted extensive education in infection control at the LTACHs, and communication among the LTACHs and between the long-term facilities and acute care hospitals was improved. As a result, receiving facilities accepting transfers began culturing their newly admitted patients and quickly identified 4 of 99 patients with C. auris who had no known history of colonization. By October 2019, the outbreak was contained in two facilities, down from the nine where C. auris was initially found.

Dr. Diekema noted, “The challenge, of course, for a new emerging MDRO [multidrug-resistant organism] like Candida auris, is that the initial approach, in general, has to be almost passive, when you have not seen the organism. ... Passive surveillance means that you just carefully monitor your clinical cultures, and the first time you detect the MDRO of concern, then you begin doing the point prevalence surveys. ... This [prospective] kind of approach is really good for how we should move forward with both initial detection and containment of MDRO spread.”

Many outbreak studies are confined to a particular institution. Authors of an accompanying editorial commented that this study “underlines the importance of proactive protocols for outbreak investigations and containment measures across the entirety of the health care network serving at-risk patients.”

In her research, Dr. Karmarkar observed that, “some of these facilities don’t have the same infrastructure and infection prevention and control that an acute care hospital might.”

She said in an interview that, “one of the challenges was that people were so focused on COVID that they forgot about the MDROs. ... Some of the things that we recommend to help control Candida auris are also excellent practices for every other organism including COVID care. ... What I appreciated about this investigation is that every facility that we went to was so open to learning, so happy to have us there. They’re very interested in learning about Candida auris and understanding what they could do to control it.”

While recent attention has been on the frightening levels of multidrug resistance in C. auris, Dr. Karmarkar concluded that the “central message in our investigation is that with the right effort, the right approach, and the right team this is an intervenable issue. It’s not inevitable if the attention is focused on it to pick it up early and then try to contain it.”

Dr. Karmarkar reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Diekema reports research funding from bioMerieux and consulting fees from Opgen.

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

A new study from Orange County, California, shows how Candida auris, an emerging pathogen, was successfully identified and contained in long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) and ventilator-capable skilled-nursing facilities (vSNFs).

Lead author Ellora Karmarkar, MD, MSc, formerly an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and currently with the California Department of Public Health, said in an interview that the prospective surveillance of urine cultures for C. auris was prompted by “seeing what was happening in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois [being] pretty alarming for a lot of the health officials in California, [who] know that LTACHs are high-risk facilities because they take care of really sick people. Some of those people are there for a very long time.”

Therefore, the study authors decided to focus their investigations there, rather than in acute care hospitals, which were believed to be at lower risk for C. auris outbreaks.

The Orange County Health Department, working with the California Department of Health and the CDC, asked labs to prospectively identify all Candida isolates in urines from LTACHs between September 2018 and February 2019. Normally, labs do not speciate Candida from nonsterile body sites.

Dan Diekema, MD, an epidemiologist and clinical microbiologist at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization, “Acute care hospitals really ought to be moving toward doing species identification of Candida from nonsterile sites if they really want to have a better chance of detecting this early.”

The OCHD also screened LTACH and vSNF patients with composite cultures from the axilla-groin or nasal swabs. Screening was undertaken because 5%-10% of colonized patients later develop invasive infections, and 30%-60% die.

The first bloodstream infection was detected in May 2019. Per the report, published online Sept. 7 in Annals of Internal Medicine, “As of 1 January 2020, of 182 patients, 22 (12%) died within 30 days of C. auris identification; 47 (26%) died within 90 days. One of 47 deaths was attributed to C. auris.” Whole-genome sequencing showed that the isolates were all closely related in clade III.

Experts conducted extensive education in infection control at the LTACHs, and communication among the LTACHs and between the long-term facilities and acute care hospitals was improved. As a result, receiving facilities accepting transfers began culturing their newly admitted patients and quickly identified 4 of 99 patients with C. auris who had no known history of colonization. By October 2019, the outbreak was contained in two facilities, down from the nine where C. auris was initially found.

Dr. Diekema noted, “The challenge, of course, for a new emerging MDRO [multidrug-resistant organism] like Candida auris, is that the initial approach, in general, has to be almost passive, when you have not seen the organism. ... Passive surveillance means that you just carefully monitor your clinical cultures, and the first time you detect the MDRO of concern, then you begin doing the point prevalence surveys. ... This [prospective] kind of approach is really good for how we should move forward with both initial detection and containment of MDRO spread.”

Many outbreak studies are confined to a particular institution. Authors of an accompanying editorial commented that this study “underlines the importance of proactive protocols for outbreak investigations and containment measures across the entirety of the health care network serving at-risk patients.”

In her research, Dr. Karmarkar observed that, “some of these facilities don’t have the same infrastructure and infection prevention and control that an acute care hospital might.”

She said in an interview that, “one of the challenges was that people were so focused on COVID that they forgot about the MDROs. ... Some of the things that we recommend to help control Candida auris are also excellent practices for every other organism including COVID care. ... What I appreciated about this investigation is that every facility that we went to was so open to learning, so happy to have us there. They’re very interested in learning about Candida auris and understanding what they could do to control it.”

While recent attention has been on the frightening levels of multidrug resistance in C. auris, Dr. Karmarkar concluded that the “central message in our investigation is that with the right effort, the right approach, and the right team this is an intervenable issue. It’s not inevitable if the attention is focused on it to pick it up early and then try to contain it.”

Dr. Karmarkar reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Diekema reports research funding from bioMerieux and consulting fees from Opgen.

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

A new study from Orange County, California, shows how Candida auris, an emerging pathogen, was successfully identified and contained in long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) and ventilator-capable skilled-nursing facilities (vSNFs).

Lead author Ellora Karmarkar, MD, MSc, formerly an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and currently with the California Department of Public Health, said in an interview that the prospective surveillance of urine cultures for C. auris was prompted by “seeing what was happening in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois [being] pretty alarming for a lot of the health officials in California, [who] know that LTACHs are high-risk facilities because they take care of really sick people. Some of those people are there for a very long time.”

Therefore, the study authors decided to focus their investigations there, rather than in acute care hospitals, which were believed to be at lower risk for C. auris outbreaks.

The Orange County Health Department, working with the California Department of Health and the CDC, asked labs to prospectively identify all Candida isolates in urines from LTACHs between September 2018 and February 2019. Normally, labs do not speciate Candida from nonsterile body sites.

Dan Diekema, MD, an epidemiologist and clinical microbiologist at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization, “Acute care hospitals really ought to be moving toward doing species identification of Candida from nonsterile sites if they really want to have a better chance of detecting this early.”

The OCHD also screened LTACH and vSNF patients with composite cultures from the axilla-groin or nasal swabs. Screening was undertaken because 5%-10% of colonized patients later develop invasive infections, and 30%-60% die.

The first bloodstream infection was detected in May 2019. Per the report, published online Sept. 7 in Annals of Internal Medicine, “As of 1 January 2020, of 182 patients, 22 (12%) died within 30 days of C. auris identification; 47 (26%) died within 90 days. One of 47 deaths was attributed to C. auris.” Whole-genome sequencing showed that the isolates were all closely related in clade III.

Experts conducted extensive education in infection control at the LTACHs, and communication among the LTACHs and between the long-term facilities and acute care hospitals was improved. As a result, receiving facilities accepting transfers began culturing their newly admitted patients and quickly identified 4 of 99 patients with C. auris who had no known history of colonization. By October 2019, the outbreak was contained in two facilities, down from the nine where C. auris was initially found.

Dr. Diekema noted, “The challenge, of course, for a new emerging MDRO [multidrug-resistant organism] like Candida auris, is that the initial approach, in general, has to be almost passive, when you have not seen the organism. ... Passive surveillance means that you just carefully monitor your clinical cultures, and the first time you detect the MDRO of concern, then you begin doing the point prevalence surveys. ... This [prospective] kind of approach is really good for how we should move forward with both initial detection and containment of MDRO spread.”

Many outbreak studies are confined to a particular institution. Authors of an accompanying editorial commented that this study “underlines the importance of proactive protocols for outbreak investigations and containment measures across the entirety of the health care network serving at-risk patients.”

In her research, Dr. Karmarkar observed that, “some of these facilities don’t have the same infrastructure and infection prevention and control that an acute care hospital might.”

She said in an interview that, “one of the challenges was that people were so focused on COVID that they forgot about the MDROs. ... Some of the things that we recommend to help control Candida auris are also excellent practices for every other organism including COVID care. ... What I appreciated about this investigation is that every facility that we went to was so open to learning, so happy to have us there. They’re very interested in learning about Candida auris and understanding what they could do to control it.”

While recent attention has been on the frightening levels of multidrug resistance in C. auris, Dr. Karmarkar concluded that the “central message in our investigation is that with the right effort, the right approach, and the right team this is an intervenable issue. It’s not inevitable if the attention is focused on it to pick it up early and then try to contain it.”

Dr. Karmarkar reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Diekema reports research funding from bioMerieux and consulting fees from Opgen.

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

Weekly cases of COVID-19 in children dropped for the first time since June, and daily hospitalizations appear to be falling, even as the pace of vaccinations continues to slow among the youngest eligible recipients, according to new data.

Despite the 3.3% decline from the previous week’s record high, the new-case count still topped 243,000 for the week of Sept. 3-9, putting the total number of cases in children at almost 5.3 million since the pandemic began. Children’s share of all COVID cases for Sept. 3-9, nearly 29%, is the highest recorded for a single week, based on a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hospitalizations seem to have peaked on Sept. 4, when the rate for children aged 0-17 years reached 0.51 per 100,000 population. The admission rate for confirmed COVID-19 has dropped steadily since then and was down to 0.45 per 100,000 on Sept. 11, the last day for which preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were available.

On the prevention side, fully vaccinated children aged 12-17 years represented 5.5% of all Americans who had completed the vaccine regimen as of Sept. 13. Vaccine initiation, however, has dropped for 5 consecutive weeks in 12- to 15-year-olds and in 4 of the last 5 weeks among 16- and 17-year-olds, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Just under 199,000 children aged 12-15 received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine during the week of Sept. 7-13. That’s down by 18.5% from the week before and by 51.6% since Aug. 9, the last week that vaccine initiation increased for the age group. Among 16- and 17-year-olds, the 83,000 new recipients that week was a decrease of 25.7% from the previous week and a decline of 47% since the summer peak of Aug. 9, the CDC data show.

Those newest recipients bring at-least-one-dose status to 52.0% of those aged 12-15 and 59.9% of the 16- and 17-year-olds, while 40.3% and 48.9% were fully vaccinated as of Sept. 13. Corresponding figures for some of the older groups are 61.6%/49.7% (age 18-24 years), 73.8%/63.1% (40-49 years), and 95.1%/84.5% (65-74 years), the CDC said.

Vaccine coverage for children at the state level deviates considerably from the national averages. The highest rates for children aged 12-17 are to be found in Vermont, where 76% have received at least one dose, the AAP reported in a separate analysis. Massachusetts is just below that but also comes in at 76% by virtue of a rounding error. The other states in the top five are Connecticut (74%), Hawaii (73%), and Rhode Island (71%).

The lowest vaccination rate for children comes from Wyoming (29%), which is preceded by North Dakota (33%), West Virginia (33%), Alabama (33%), and Mississippi (34%). the AAP said based on data from the CDC, which does not include Idaho.

In a bit of a side note, West Virginia’s Republican governor, Jim Justice, recently said this about vaccine reluctance in his state: “For God’s sakes a livin’, how difficult is this to understand? Why in the world do we have to come up with these crazy ideas – and they’re crazy ideas – that the vaccine’s got something in it and it’s tracing people wherever they go? And the same very people that are saying that are carrying their cellphones around. I mean, come on. Come on.”

Over the last 3 weeks, the District of Columbia has had the largest increase in children having received at least one dose: 10 percentage points, as it went from 58% to 68%. The next-largest improvement – 7 percentage points – occurred in Georgia (34% to 41%), New Mexico (61% to 68%), New York (55% to 62%), and Washington (57% to 64%), the AAP said in its weekly vaccination trends report.

[email protected]

Weekly cases of COVID-19 in children dropped for the first time since June, and daily hospitalizations appear to be falling, even as the pace of vaccinations continues to slow among the youngest eligible recipients, according to new data.

Despite the 3.3% decline from the previous week’s record high, the new-case count still topped 243,000 for the week of Sept. 3-9, putting the total number of cases in children at almost 5.3 million since the pandemic began. Children’s share of all COVID cases for Sept. 3-9, nearly 29%, is the highest recorded for a single week, based on a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hospitalizations seem to have peaked on Sept. 4, when the rate for children aged 0-17 years reached 0.51 per 100,000 population. The admission rate for confirmed COVID-19 has dropped steadily since then and was down to 0.45 per 100,000 on Sept. 11, the last day for which preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were available.

On the prevention side, fully vaccinated children aged 12-17 years represented 5.5% of all Americans who had completed the vaccine regimen as of Sept. 13. Vaccine initiation, however, has dropped for 5 consecutive weeks in 12- to 15-year-olds and in 4 of the last 5 weeks among 16- and 17-year-olds, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Just under 199,000 children aged 12-15 received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine during the week of Sept. 7-13. That’s down by 18.5% from the week before and by 51.6% since Aug. 9, the last week that vaccine initiation increased for the age group. Among 16- and 17-year-olds, the 83,000 new recipients that week was a decrease of 25.7% from the previous week and a decline of 47% since the summer peak of Aug. 9, the CDC data show.

Those newest recipients bring at-least-one-dose status to 52.0% of those aged 12-15 and 59.9% of the 16- and 17-year-olds, while 40.3% and 48.9% were fully vaccinated as of Sept. 13. Corresponding figures for some of the older groups are 61.6%/49.7% (age 18-24 years), 73.8%/63.1% (40-49 years), and 95.1%/84.5% (65-74 years), the CDC said.

Vaccine coverage for children at the state level deviates considerably from the national averages. The highest rates for children aged 12-17 are to be found in Vermont, where 76% have received at least one dose, the AAP reported in a separate analysis. Massachusetts is just below that but also comes in at 76% by virtue of a rounding error. The other states in the top five are Connecticut (74%), Hawaii (73%), and Rhode Island (71%).

The lowest vaccination rate for children comes from Wyoming (29%), which is preceded by North Dakota (33%), West Virginia (33%), Alabama (33%), and Mississippi (34%). the AAP said based on data from the CDC, which does not include Idaho.

In a bit of a side note, West Virginia’s Republican governor, Jim Justice, recently said this about vaccine reluctance in his state: “For God’s sakes a livin’, how difficult is this to understand? Why in the world do we have to come up with these crazy ideas – and they’re crazy ideas – that the vaccine’s got something in it and it’s tracing people wherever they go? And the same very people that are saying that are carrying their cellphones around. I mean, come on. Come on.”

Over the last 3 weeks, the District of Columbia has had the largest increase in children having received at least one dose: 10 percentage points, as it went from 58% to 68%. The next-largest improvement – 7 percentage points – occurred in Georgia (34% to 41%), New Mexico (61% to 68%), New York (55% to 62%), and Washington (57% to 64%), the AAP said in its weekly vaccination trends report.

[email protected]

Weekly cases of COVID-19 in children dropped for the first time since June, and daily hospitalizations appear to be falling, even as the pace of vaccinations continues to slow among the youngest eligible recipients, according to new data.

Despite the 3.3% decline from the previous week’s record high, the new-case count still topped 243,000 for the week of Sept. 3-9, putting the total number of cases in children at almost 5.3 million since the pandemic began. Children’s share of all COVID cases for Sept. 3-9, nearly 29%, is the highest recorded for a single week, based on a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hospitalizations seem to have peaked on Sept. 4, when the rate for children aged 0-17 years reached 0.51 per 100,000 population. The admission rate for confirmed COVID-19 has dropped steadily since then and was down to 0.45 per 100,000 on Sept. 11, the last day for which preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were available.

On the prevention side, fully vaccinated children aged 12-17 years represented 5.5% of all Americans who had completed the vaccine regimen as of Sept. 13. Vaccine initiation, however, has dropped for 5 consecutive weeks in 12- to 15-year-olds and in 4 of the last 5 weeks among 16- and 17-year-olds, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Just under 199,000 children aged 12-15 received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine during the week of Sept. 7-13. That’s down by 18.5% from the week before and by 51.6% since Aug. 9, the last week that vaccine initiation increased for the age group. Among 16- and 17-year-olds, the 83,000 new recipients that week was a decrease of 25.7% from the previous week and a decline of 47% since the summer peak of Aug. 9, the CDC data show.

Those newest recipients bring at-least-one-dose status to 52.0% of those aged 12-15 and 59.9% of the 16- and 17-year-olds, while 40.3% and 48.9% were fully vaccinated as of Sept. 13. Corresponding figures for some of the older groups are 61.6%/49.7% (age 18-24 years), 73.8%/63.1% (40-49 years), and 95.1%/84.5% (65-74 years), the CDC said.

Vaccine coverage for children at the state level deviates considerably from the national averages. The highest rates for children aged 12-17 are to be found in Vermont, where 76% have received at least one dose, the AAP reported in a separate analysis. Massachusetts is just below that but also comes in at 76% by virtue of a rounding error. The other states in the top five are Connecticut (74%), Hawaii (73%), and Rhode Island (71%).

The lowest vaccination rate for children comes from Wyoming (29%), which is preceded by North Dakota (33%), West Virginia (33%), Alabama (33%), and Mississippi (34%). the AAP said based on data from the CDC, which does not include Idaho.

In a bit of a side note, West Virginia’s Republican governor, Jim Justice, recently said this about vaccine reluctance in his state: “For God’s sakes a livin’, how difficult is this to understand? Why in the world do we have to come up with these crazy ideas – and they’re crazy ideas – that the vaccine’s got something in it and it’s tracing people wherever they go? And the same very people that are saying that are carrying their cellphones around. I mean, come on. Come on.”

Over the last 3 weeks, the District of Columbia has had the largest increase in children having received at least one dose: 10 percentage points, as it went from 58% to 68%. The next-largest improvement – 7 percentage points – occurred in Georgia (34% to 41%), New Mexico (61% to 68%), New York (55% to 62%), and Washington (57% to 64%), the AAP said in its weekly vaccination trends report.

[email protected]

Another study has shown an association between antibiotic use and an increased risk for colon cancer.

The latest data come from a Swedish population study. Investigators analyzed data from more than 40,000 colorectal cancer patients and 200,000 cancer-free control persons.

Sheep purple/flickr/CC BY 2.0 /en.wikipedia/CC BY-SA 4.0

They found that moderate use of antibiotics increased the risk for proximal colon cancer by 9% and that very high antibiotic use increased the risk by 17%.

In contrast, the risk for rectal cancer was reduced by 4% with moderate use and 9% with very high use, but this association was confined to women.

Antibiotic use was categorized as no use (no reported use of antibiotics during the study period), low (use during a period of 1-10 days), moderate (11-60 days), high (61-180 days), and very high (>180 days).

The study, led by Sophia Harlid, PhD, department of radiation sciences, oncology, Umeå University, Sweden, was published online on Sept. 1 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The results complement findings from a recent study from Scotland, which found that a history of antibiotic use among individuals younger than 50 appeared to increase the risk of developing colon cancer but not rectal cancer by 49%.

The new data from Sweden “strengthen prior evidence and provide new insights into site-specific carcinogenesis as well as indirect support for the role of gut microbiota,” lead author Dr. Dr. Harlid commented in an interview.

“The positive associations between antibiotics use and proximal colon cancer began at the lowest level of antibiotics use, providing a potential justification for reducing antibiotics prescriptions in clinical practice,” she added.

In their article, the team suggests that the increased risk could be a result of antibiotics having a “disruptive effect” on the gut microbiome.

The finding of an increased risk for cancer in the proximal colon but not further along the alimentary tract “is consistent with a high microbial impact in the proximal colon and a decreasing concentration of short-chain fatty acids along the colon,” the authors comment.

This results “in higher bacterial activity, biofilm formation, and fermentation in the proximal compared with the distal colon and rectum.”

A further analysis showed that the use of quinolones and sulfonamides and/or trimethoprims was associated with an increased risk for proximal colon cancer, whereas use of nitrofurantoins, macrolides and/or lincosamides, and metronidazoles and/or tinidazoles was inversely associated with rectal cancer.

Details of the study findings

For their study, the team analyzed complete-population data from Swedish national registers for the period July 1, 2005 to Dec. 31, 2016.

They matched case patients who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer from Jan. 1, 2010 to Dec. 31, 2016 with cancer-free control persons in a 1:5 ratio. Data on antibiotic use were extracted from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register.

Other variables, such as socioeconomic factors and health care utilization, were obtained from the Swedish Inpatient Register and the Longitudinal Integration Database for Health Insurance and Labor Market Studies.

The team identified 40,545 patients with colorectal cancer cases; there were 202,720 control persons. Just over half (52.9%) of the participants were men; the mean age at cancer diagnosis was 72 years. Among the cases, 36.4% were proximal colon cancers, 29.3% were distal colon cancers, and 33.0% rectal cancers.

Control patients were more likely to have been prescribed no antibiotics, at 22.4% versus 18.7% for case patients. Case patients were more likely than control persons to have used antibiotics for more than 2 months, at 20.8% versus 19.3% (P < .001).

Overall, antibiotic use was positively associated with colorectal cancer. In comparison with no use, the odds ratio for moderate use was 1.15; for very high use, it was 1.17 (P < .001 for trend).

Excluding all antibiotic use during the 2 years prior to a colorectal cancer diagnosis attenuated the association, such that it was no longer significant for very high use versus no antibiotic use.

Applying this cutoff to the remaining analyses, the team found that the dose-response relationship between antibiotic use and colorectal cancer was largely confined to proximal colon cancer, at an odds ratio of 1.09 for moderate use and 1.17 for very high use in comparison with no use (P < .001 for trend).

For distal colon cancer, the relationship was “close to null.”

There was a slight inverse relationship between rectal cancer and antibiotic use, at an odds rate of 0.96 for moderate use and 0.91 for very high use versus no use (P < .001 for trend). This association was found in women only, whereas the other associations were seen in both men and women.

The study was supported by the Lion’s Cancer Research Foundation, Umeå University, and Region Västerbotten. Dr. Harlid has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Three coauthors report various relationships with industry, as noted in the original article.

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

Another study has shown an association between antibiotic use and an increased risk for colon cancer.

The latest data come from a Swedish population study. Investigators analyzed data from more than 40,000 colorectal cancer patients and 200,000 cancer-free control persons.

Sheep purple/flickr/CC BY 2.0 /en.wikipedia/CC BY-SA 4.0

They found that moderate use of antibiotics increased the risk for proximal colon cancer by 9% and that very high antibiotic use increased the risk by 17%.

In contrast, the risk for rectal cancer was reduced by 4% with moderate use and 9% with very high use, but this association was confined to women.

Antibiotic use was categorized as no use (no reported use of antibiotics during the study period), low (use during a period of 1-10 days), moderate (11-60 days), high (61-180 days), and very high (>180 days).

The study, led by Sophia Harlid, PhD, department of radiation sciences, oncology, Umeå University, Sweden, was published online on Sept. 1 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The results complement findings from a recent study from Scotland, which found that a history of antibiotic use among individuals younger than 50 appeared to increase the risk of developing colon cancer but not rectal cancer by 49%.

The new data from Sweden “strengthen prior evidence and provide new insights into site-specific carcinogenesis as well as indirect support for the role of gut microbiota,” lead author Dr. Dr. Harlid commented in an interview.

“The positive associations between antibiotics use and proximal colon cancer began at the lowest level of antibiotics use, providing a potential justification for reducing antibiotics prescriptions in clinical practice,” she added.

In their article, the team suggests that the increased risk could be a result of antibiotics having a “disruptive effect” on the gut microbiome.

The finding of an increased risk for cancer in the proximal colon but not further along the alimentary tract “is consistent with a high microbial impact in the proximal colon and a decreasing concentration of short-chain fatty acids along the colon,” the authors comment.

This results “in higher bacterial activity, biofilm formation, and fermentation in the proximal compared with the distal colon and rectum.”

A further analysis showed that the use of quinolones and sulfonamides and/or trimethoprims was associated with an increased risk for proximal colon cancer, whereas use of nitrofurantoins, macrolides and/or lincosamides, and metronidazoles and/or tinidazoles was inversely associated with rectal cancer.

Details of the study findings

For their study, the team analyzed complete-population data from Swedish national registers for the period July 1, 2005 to Dec. 31, 2016.

They matched case patients who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer from Jan. 1, 2010 to Dec. 31, 2016 with cancer-free control persons in a 1:5 ratio. Data on antibiotic use were extracted from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register.

Other variables, such as socioeconomic factors and health care utilization, were obtained from the Swedish Inpatient Register and the Longitudinal Integration Database for Health Insurance and Labor Market Studies.

The team identified 40,545 patients with colorectal cancer cases; there were 202,720 control persons. Just over half (52.9%) of the participants were men; the mean age at cancer diagnosis was 72 years. Among the cases, 36.4% were proximal colon cancers, 29.3% were distal colon cancers, and 33.0% rectal cancers.

Control patients were more likely to have been prescribed no antibiotics, at 22.4% versus 18.7% for case patients. Case patients were more likely than control persons to have used antibiotics for more than 2 months, at 20.8% versus 19.3% (P < .001).

Overall, antibiotic use was positively associated with colorectal cancer. In comparison with no use, the odds ratio for moderate use was 1.15; for very high use, it was 1.17 (P < .001 for trend).

Excluding all antibiotic use during the 2 years prior to a colorectal cancer diagnosis attenuated the association, such that it was no longer significant for very high use versus no antibiotic use.

Applying this cutoff to the remaining analyses, the team found that the dose-response relationship between antibiotic use and colorectal cancer was largely confined to proximal colon cancer, at an odds ratio of 1.09 for moderate use and 1.17 for very high use in comparison with no use (P < .001 for trend).

For distal colon cancer, the relationship was “close to null.”

There was a slight inverse relationship between rectal cancer and antibiotic use, at an odds rate of 0.96 for moderate use and 0.91 for very high use versus no use (P < .001 for trend). This association was found in women only, whereas the other associations were seen in both men and women.

The study was supported by the Lion’s Cancer Research Foundation, Umeå University, and Region Västerbotten. Dr. Harlid has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Three coauthors report various relationships with industry, as noted in the original article.

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

Another study has shown an association between antibiotic use and an increased risk for colon cancer.

The latest data come from a Swedish population study. Investigators analyzed data from more than 40,000 colorectal cancer patients and 200,000 cancer-free control persons.

Sheep purple/flickr/CC BY 2.0 /en.wikipedia/CC BY-SA 4.0

They found that moderate use of antibiotics increased the risk for proximal colon cancer by 9% and that very high antibiotic use increased the risk by 17%.

In contrast, the risk for rectal cancer was reduced by 4% with moderate use and 9% with very high use, but this association was confined to women.

Antibiotic use was categorized as no use (no reported use of antibiotics during the study period), low (use during a period of 1-10 days), moderate (11-60 days), high (61-180 days), and very high (>180 days).

The study, led by Sophia Harlid, PhD, department of radiation sciences, oncology, Umeå University, Sweden, was published online on Sept. 1 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The results complement findings from a recent study from Scotland, which found that a history of antibiotic use among individuals younger than 50 appeared to increase the risk of developing colon cancer but not rectal cancer by 49%.

The new data from Sweden “strengthen prior evidence and provide new insights into site-specific carcinogenesis as well as indirect support for the role of gut microbiota,” lead author Dr. Dr. Harlid commented in an interview.

“The positive associations between antibiotics use and proximal colon cancer began at the lowest level of antibiotics use, providing a potential justification for reducing antibiotics prescriptions in clinical practice,” she added.

In their article, the team suggests that the increased risk could be a result of antibiotics having a “disruptive effect” on the gut microbiome.

The finding of an increased risk for cancer in the proximal colon but not further along the alimentary tract “is consistent with a high microbial impact in the proximal colon and a decreasing concentration of short-chain fatty acids along the colon,” the authors comment.

This results “in higher bacterial activity, biofilm formation, and fermentation in the proximal compared with the distal colon and rectum.”

A further analysis showed that the use of quinolones and sulfonamides and/or trimethoprims was associated with an increased risk for proximal colon cancer, whereas use of nitrofurantoins, macrolides and/or lincosamides, and metronidazoles and/or tinidazoles was inversely associated with rectal cancer.

Details of the study findings

For their study, the team analyzed complete-population data from Swedish national registers for the period July 1, 2005 to Dec. 31, 2016.

They matched case patients who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer from Jan. 1, 2010 to Dec. 31, 2016 with cancer-free control persons in a 1:5 ratio. Data on antibiotic use were extracted from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register.

Other variables, such as socioeconomic factors and health care utilization, were obtained from the Swedish Inpatient Register and the Longitudinal Integration Database for Health Insurance and Labor Market Studies.

The team identified 40,545 patients with colorectal cancer cases; there were 202,720 control persons. Just over half (52.9%) of the participants were men; the mean age at cancer diagnosis was 72 years. Among the cases, 36.4% were proximal colon cancers, 29.3% were distal colon cancers, and 33.0% rectal cancers.

Control patients were more likely to have been prescribed no antibiotics, at 22.4% versus 18.7% for case patients. Case patients were more likely than control persons to have used antibiotics for more than 2 months, at 20.8% versus 19.3% (P < .001).

Overall, antibiotic use was positively associated with colorectal cancer. In comparison with no use, the odds ratio for moderate use was 1.15; for very high use, it was 1.17 (P < .001 for trend).

Excluding all antibiotic use during the 2 years prior to a colorectal cancer diagnosis attenuated the association, such that it was no longer significant for very high use versus no antibiotic use.

Applying this cutoff to the remaining analyses, the team found that the dose-response relationship between antibiotic use and colorectal cancer was largely confined to proximal colon cancer, at an odds ratio of 1.09 for moderate use and 1.17 for very high use in comparison with no use (P < .001 for trend).

For distal colon cancer, the relationship was “close to null.”

There was a slight inverse relationship between rectal cancer and antibiotic use, at an odds rate of 0.96 for moderate use and 0.91 for very high use versus no use (P < .001 for trend). This association was found in women only, whereas the other associations were seen in both men and women.

The study was supported by the Lion’s Cancer Research Foundation, Umeå University, and Region Västerbotten. Dr. Harlid has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Three coauthors report various relationships with industry, as noted in the original article.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has updated its 2014 statement on screening asymptomatic individuals for chlamydia and gonorrhea infection.

Published online in JAMA, the 2021 version recommends that all sexually active women aged 24 years or younger and at-risk women 25 years or older should be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

As in 2014, the task force made no screening recommendation for men owing to inconclusive evidence of benefit.

With cases of sexually transmitted infections reaching all-time highs, Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues noted that chlamydia and gonorrhea are among the most common STIs in this country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019 saw approximately 1.8 million reported cases of chlamydia and more than 600,000 of gonorrhea.

In the current analysis of 27 observational and randomized studies comprising 179,515 patients, the USPSTF panel found that, compared with no screening, chlamydia screening was significantly associated with a reduced risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in young women in 2 out of 4 trials.

The authors cautioned, however, that the magnitude of benefit was relatively small. No studies reported on screening effectiveness in men, except for one reporting rates of epididymitis, and no studies were done on pregnant women for any outcome.

The largest and newest study, the Australian Chlamydia Control Effectiveness Pilot trial of 2018, assessed chlamydia screening against usual care in 180,355 men and women aged 16-29 years in 130 rural Australian primary care clinics. Screening was associated with a reduced risk of hospital-diagnosed PID: the absolute risk was 0.24% for screening versus 0.38% for usual care (unadjusted risk ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.0). It was not, however, significantly associated with a reduced risk of clinic-diagnosed PID, with an absolute risk of 0.45% versus 0.39% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-18). Nor did it correlate with a risk reduction for clinic-diagnosed epididymitis: 0.26% vs. 0.27% (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.4).

While risk prediction criteria apart from age were only minimally accurate, testing for asymptomatic chlamydial and gonococcal infections was highly accurate at most anatomical sites, including urine and self-collected specimens, the investigators observed. Age 22 years or younger alone versus multi-item risk criteria demonstrated similar discrimination in a study that included symptomatic and asymptomatic women.

Sensitivity of chlamydial testing was similar at endocervical (89%-100%) and self- and clinician-collected vaginal (90%-100%) sites for women and at meatal (100%), urethral (99%), and rectal (92%) sites for men. It was lower, however, at pharyngeal sites (69.2%) for men who have sex with men (MSM).

Sensitivity of gonococcal testing was 89% or greater for all anatomical samples. False-positive and false-negative testing rates were low across anatomical sites and collection methods.

“Effectiveness of screening in men and during pregnancy, optimal screening intervals, and adverse effects of screening require further evaluation, Dr. Cantor and associates concluded.

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, and Jodie Dionne-Odom, MD, MSPH, of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, called the guidelines “timely” and “powerful agents of change” that “influence a wide spectrum of health-based metrics, from quality assurance measures to criteria for financial reimbursement.”

They pointed out that men who have sex with men are experiencing historically high rates of gonorrhea, with most infections occurring extragenitally at the pharynx or rectum. In 2019 CDC data, MSM had substantially higher rates of gonorrhea than men who had sex only with women. They recommended that guidelines for men consider STI risk because of sexual relations with men, women, or both.

“Comprehensive screening guidelines for common STIs like chlamydia and gonorrhea could incorporate the limited evidence base for MSM, whether it is regular practice or not,” they wrote, with the same approach for women who have sex with women but may be at risk for chlamydia, particularly if they also have sex with men.

In their view, these latest guidelines appropriately prioritize high-level clinically based data. They pointed, however, to recent progress in understanding the pathogenesis of upper reproductive tract infection in women and the sexual networks behind the current resurgence of STIs in the United States in the failure to manage exposed sex partners.

“Considering these critical advances in the evolution of clinic-based screening guidelines is a work in progress,” they wrote, “the dialogue among basic scientists, clinical trial investigators, and public health professionals to inform the next version of updated USPSTF chlamydia and gonorrhea screening guidelines should start now.”

In the opinion of Jennifer L. Reed, MD, MS, a professor of pediatrics and an emergency medicine physician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and not involved in the updated statement, the recommendations are very reasonable. “The highest rates of infection occur in females 15-24 years of age, and therefore asymptomatic screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea is imperative at least annually or more often if they are high risk,” she said in an interview.

“I would hope that providers increase their asymptomatic screening as a result of these recommendations and highly consider it in the younger men,” Dr. Reed added. “I see a very high rate of gonorrhea and chlamydia infections.” Her center is studying the implementation of gonorrhea and chlamydia asymptomatic screening for adolescents in the pediatric emergency department, a high-risk patient population that will benefit from STI screening opportunities in nontraditional settings.

This research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Department of Health & Human Services under a contract to support the USPSTF. One statement coauthor reported personal fees from Insmed, Paratek, RedHill, and Spero, as well as grants from Insmed. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Dionne-Odom reported grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Development. Dr. Reed reported a grant from NIH/NICHD for a pragmatic trial of improving STI detection in the pediatric ED.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has updated its 2014 statement on screening asymptomatic individuals for chlamydia and gonorrhea infection.

Published online in JAMA, the 2021 version recommends that all sexually active women aged 24 years or younger and at-risk women 25 years or older should be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

As in 2014, the task force made no screening recommendation for men owing to inconclusive evidence of benefit.

With cases of sexually transmitted infections reaching all-time highs, Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues noted that chlamydia and gonorrhea are among the most common STIs in this country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019 saw approximately 1.8 million reported cases of chlamydia and more than 600,000 of gonorrhea.

In the current analysis of 27 observational and randomized studies comprising 179,515 patients, the USPSTF panel found that, compared with no screening, chlamydia screening was significantly associated with a reduced risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in young women in 2 out of 4 trials.

The authors cautioned, however, that the magnitude of benefit was relatively small. No studies reported on screening effectiveness in men, except for one reporting rates of epididymitis, and no studies were done on pregnant women for any outcome.

The largest and newest study, the Australian Chlamydia Control Effectiveness Pilot trial of 2018, assessed chlamydia screening against usual care in 180,355 men and women aged 16-29 years in 130 rural Australian primary care clinics. Screening was associated with a reduced risk of hospital-diagnosed PID: the absolute risk was 0.24% for screening versus 0.38% for usual care (unadjusted risk ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.0). It was not, however, significantly associated with a reduced risk of clinic-diagnosed PID, with an absolute risk of 0.45% versus 0.39% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-18). Nor did it correlate with a risk reduction for clinic-diagnosed epididymitis: 0.26% vs. 0.27% (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.4).

While risk prediction criteria apart from age were only minimally accurate, testing for asymptomatic chlamydial and gonococcal infections was highly accurate at most anatomical sites, including urine and self-collected specimens, the investigators observed. Age 22 years or younger alone versus multi-item risk criteria demonstrated similar discrimination in a study that included symptomatic and asymptomatic women.

Sensitivity of chlamydial testing was similar at endocervical (89%-100%) and self- and clinician-collected vaginal (90%-100%) sites for women and at meatal (100%), urethral (99%), and rectal (92%) sites for men. It was lower, however, at pharyngeal sites (69.2%) for men who have sex with men (MSM).

Sensitivity of gonococcal testing was 89% or greater for all anatomical samples. False-positive and false-negative testing rates were low across anatomical sites and collection methods.

“Effectiveness of screening in men and during pregnancy, optimal screening intervals, and adverse effects of screening require further evaluation, Dr. Cantor and associates concluded.

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, and Jodie Dionne-Odom, MD, MSPH, of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, called the guidelines “timely” and “powerful agents of change” that “influence a wide spectrum of health-based metrics, from quality assurance measures to criteria for financial reimbursement.”

They pointed out that men who have sex with men are experiencing historically high rates of gonorrhea, with most infections occurring extragenitally at the pharynx or rectum. In 2019 CDC data, MSM had substantially higher rates of gonorrhea than men who had sex only with women. They recommended that guidelines for men consider STI risk because of sexual relations with men, women, or both.

“Comprehensive screening guidelines for common STIs like chlamydia and gonorrhea could incorporate the limited evidence base for MSM, whether it is regular practice or not,” they wrote, with the same approach for women who have sex with women but may be at risk for chlamydia, particularly if they also have sex with men.

In their view, these latest guidelines appropriately prioritize high-level clinically based data. They pointed, however, to recent progress in understanding the pathogenesis of upper reproductive tract infection in women and the sexual networks behind the current resurgence of STIs in the United States in the failure to manage exposed sex partners.

“Considering these critical advances in the evolution of clinic-based screening guidelines is a work in progress,” they wrote, “the dialogue among basic scientists, clinical trial investigators, and public health professionals to inform the next version of updated USPSTF chlamydia and gonorrhea screening guidelines should start now.”

In the opinion of Jennifer L. Reed, MD, MS, a professor of pediatrics and an emergency medicine physician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and not involved in the updated statement, the recommendations are very reasonable. “The highest rates of infection occur in females 15-24 years of age, and therefore asymptomatic screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea is imperative at least annually or more often if they are high risk,” she said in an interview.

“I would hope that providers increase their asymptomatic screening as a result of these recommendations and highly consider it in the younger men,” Dr. Reed added. “I see a very high rate of gonorrhea and chlamydia infections.” Her center is studying the implementation of gonorrhea and chlamydia asymptomatic screening for adolescents in the pediatric emergency department, a high-risk patient population that will benefit from STI screening opportunities in nontraditional settings.

This research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Department of Health & Human Services under a contract to support the USPSTF. One statement coauthor reported personal fees from Insmed, Paratek, RedHill, and Spero, as well as grants from Insmed. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Dionne-Odom reported grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Development. Dr. Reed reported a grant from NIH/NICHD for a pragmatic trial of improving STI detection in the pediatric ED.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has updated its 2014 statement on screening asymptomatic individuals for chlamydia and gonorrhea infection.

Published online in JAMA, the 2021 version recommends that all sexually active women aged 24 years or younger and at-risk women 25 years or older should be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

As in 2014, the task force made no screening recommendation for men owing to inconclusive evidence of benefit.

With cases of sexually transmitted infections reaching all-time highs, Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues noted that chlamydia and gonorrhea are among the most common STIs in this country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019 saw approximately 1.8 million reported cases of chlamydia and more than 600,000 of gonorrhea.

In the current analysis of 27 observational and randomized studies comprising 179,515 patients, the USPSTF panel found that, compared with no screening, chlamydia screening was significantly associated with a reduced risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in young women in 2 out of 4 trials.

The authors cautioned, however, that the magnitude of benefit was relatively small. No studies reported on screening effectiveness in men, except for one reporting rates of epididymitis, and no studies were done on pregnant women for any outcome.

The largest and newest study, the Australian Chlamydia Control Effectiveness Pilot trial of 2018, assessed chlamydia screening against usual care in 180,355 men and women aged 16-29 years in 130 rural Australian primary care clinics. Screening was associated with a reduced risk of hospital-diagnosed PID: the absolute risk was 0.24% for screening versus 0.38% for usual care (unadjusted risk ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.0). It was not, however, significantly associated with a reduced risk of clinic-diagnosed PID, with an absolute risk of 0.45% versus 0.39% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-18). Nor did it correlate with a risk reduction for clinic-diagnosed epididymitis: 0.26% vs. 0.27% (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.4).

While risk prediction criteria apart from age were only minimally accurate, testing for asymptomatic chlamydial and gonococcal infections was highly accurate at most anatomical sites, including urine and self-collected specimens, the investigators observed. Age 22 years or younger alone versus multi-item risk criteria demonstrated similar discrimination in a study that included symptomatic and asymptomatic women.

Sensitivity of chlamydial testing was similar at endocervical (89%-100%) and self- and clinician-collected vaginal (90%-100%) sites for women and at meatal (100%), urethral (99%), and rectal (92%) sites for men. It was lower, however, at pharyngeal sites (69.2%) for men who have sex with men (MSM).

Sensitivity of gonococcal testing was 89% or greater for all anatomical samples. False-positive and false-negative testing rates were low across anatomical sites and collection methods.

“Effectiveness of screening in men and during pregnancy, optimal screening intervals, and adverse effects of screening require further evaluation, Dr. Cantor and associates concluded.

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, and Jodie Dionne-Odom, MD, MSPH, of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, called the guidelines “timely” and “powerful agents of change” that “influence a wide spectrum of health-based metrics, from quality assurance measures to criteria for financial reimbursement.”

They pointed out that men who have sex with men are experiencing historically high rates of gonorrhea, with most infections occurring extragenitally at the pharynx or rectum. In 2019 CDC data, MSM had substantially higher rates of gonorrhea than men who had sex only with women. They recommended that guidelines for men consider STI risk because of sexual relations with men, women, or both.

“Comprehensive screening guidelines for common STIs like chlamydia and gonorrhea could incorporate the limited evidence base for MSM, whether it is regular practice or not,” they wrote, with the same approach for women who have sex with women but may be at risk for chlamydia, particularly if they also have sex with men.

In their view, these latest guidelines appropriately prioritize high-level clinically based data. They pointed, however, to recent progress in understanding the pathogenesis of upper reproductive tract infection in women and the sexual networks behind the current resurgence of STIs in the United States in the failure to manage exposed sex partners.

“Considering these critical advances in the evolution of clinic-based screening guidelines is a work in progress,” they wrote, “the dialogue among basic scientists, clinical trial investigators, and public health professionals to inform the next version of updated USPSTF chlamydia and gonorrhea screening guidelines should start now.”

In the opinion of Jennifer L. Reed, MD, MS, a professor of pediatrics and an emergency medicine physician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and not involved in the updated statement, the recommendations are very reasonable. “The highest rates of infection occur in females 15-24 years of age, and therefore asymptomatic screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea is imperative at least annually or more often if they are high risk,” she said in an interview.

“I would hope that providers increase their asymptomatic screening as a result of these recommendations and highly consider it in the younger men,” Dr. Reed added. “I see a very high rate of gonorrhea and chlamydia infections.” Her center is studying the implementation of gonorrhea and chlamydia asymptomatic screening for adolescents in the pediatric emergency department, a high-risk patient population that will benefit from STI screening opportunities in nontraditional settings.

This research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Department of Health & Human Services under a contract to support the USPSTF. One statement coauthor reported personal fees from Insmed, Paratek, RedHill, and Spero, as well as grants from Insmed. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Dionne-Odom reported grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Development. Dr. Reed reported a grant from NIH/NICHD for a pragmatic trial of improving STI detection in the pediatric ED.
 

Pediatric urine sampling should be used more frequently than current guidelines suggest for ruling out urinary tract infection (UTI), according to a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies in ambulatory care (Ann Fam Med 2021;19:437-46).

“Urine sampling is often restricted to children with clinical features such as pain while urinating, frequent urination or children presenting with fever without any abnormalities found on clinical examination,” said lead author Jan Y. Verbakel, MD, PhD, from the University of Leuven (Belgium) in an interview. “Our study findings suggest that, in children, pain while urinating or frequent urination are less accurate than in adults and increase the probability of UTI only moderately.”

Urine sampling “should be applied more broadly in ambulatory care, given that appropriate sampling techniques are available,” he and his coauthors advised in the paper.

Methods and results

The analysis included 35 studies, involving a total of 78,427 patients, which provided information on 58 clinical features and 6 prediction rules of UTI, compared with urine culture. For urine sampling, most studies used catheterization (n = 23), suprapubic aspiration (n = 17), or midstream catch (n = 14), and fewer studies used clean catch (n = 7), bag specimens (n = 5), or diaper pads (n = 2).

The study showed that only three features substantially decreased the likelihood of UTI: being circumcised, the presence of stridor, and the presence of diaper rash. “In febrile children, finding an apparent source of infection decreased the probability of UTI; however, this was not useful for ruling out UTI by itself,” the authors noted.

Additionally, they found that red flags for UTI were cloudy or malodorous urine, hematuria, no fluid intake, suprapubic tenderness, and loin tenderness.

Study implications

“We recommend to sample urine in children that have one or more features that increase the probability of UTI … and less so pain while urinating, frequent urination, urgency, bed wetting, or previous UTI history,” said Dr. Verbakel, who is also a researcher at the University of Oxford (England).

In terms of prediction rules, the analysis showed the Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection in Young Children (DUTY) score, Gorelick Scale score, and UTIcalc might be useful to identify which children should have urine sampling, the authors stated in the paper.

Specifically, a DUTY clean-catch score of less than one point was useful for ruling out UTI in children aged less than 5 years, and in girls aged less than 3 years with unexplained fever. The Gorelick Scale score was useful for ruling out UTI when less than two of five variables were present.

“The present meta-analyses confirm that few clinical features are useful for diagnosing or ruling out UTI without further urine analysis. Signs and symptoms combined in a clinical prediction rule, such as with the DUTY or UTIcalc score, might increase accuracy for ruling out UTI; however, these should be validated externally,” Dr. Verbakel said in an interview.

Is urine sampling guideline too broad?

Commenting on the new paper, Martin Koyle, MD, former division chief of urology at the Hospital for Sick Children and professor of surgery at the University of Toronto, expressed concern that unexplained fever is not included as a “differentiating” red flag.

“Many contemporary guidelines define fever as an important diagnostic symptom, as the goal truly is to differentiate lower urinary tract from actual kidney infection, the latter thought to be more important for severity of illness, and potential for developing kidney damage,” he said in an interview. “It begs the question as to which nonfebrile patients who don’t have symptoms related to the respiratory tract for instance [for example, stridor], should be under suspicion for an afebrile urinary tract infection, and have their urine sampled. This paper does not answer that question.”

Dr. Koyle added that an overly broad guideline for urine sampling could come at a cost, and he raised the following questions.

“Will there be an overdiagnosis based on urines alone? Will this lead to overtreatment, often unnecessary, just because there is a positive urine specimen or asymptomatic bacteriuria? Will overtreatment lead to resistant bacteria and side effects related to antibiotics? Will such treatment actually prevent clinical illness and/or renal damage?”

The study authors and Dr. Koyle reported no conflicts of interest.

Pediatric urine sampling should be used more frequently than current guidelines suggest for ruling out urinary tract infection (UTI), according to a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies in ambulatory care (Ann Fam Med 2021;19:437-46).

“Urine sampling is often restricted to children with clinical features such as pain while urinating, frequent urination or children presenting with fever without any abnormalities found on clinical examination,” said lead author Jan Y. Verbakel, MD, PhD, from the University of Leuven (Belgium) in an interview. “Our study findings suggest that, in children, pain while urinating or frequent urination are less accurate than in adults and increase the probability of UTI only moderately.”

Urine sampling “should be applied more broadly in ambulatory care, given that appropriate sampling techniques are available,” he and his coauthors advised in the paper.

Methods and results

The analysis included 35 studies, involving a total of 78,427 patients, which provided information on 58 clinical features and 6 prediction rules of UTI, compared with urine culture. For urine sampling, most studies used catheterization (n = 23), suprapubic aspiration (n = 17), or midstream catch (n = 14), and fewer studies used clean catch (n = 7), bag specimens (n = 5), or diaper pads (n = 2).

The study showed that only three features substantially decreased the likelihood of UTI: being circumcised, the presence of stridor, and the presence of diaper rash. “In febrile children, finding an apparent source of infection decreased the probability of UTI; however, this was not useful for ruling out UTI by itself,” the authors noted.

Additionally, they found that red flags for UTI were cloudy or malodorous urine, hematuria, no fluid intake, suprapubic tenderness, and loin tenderness.

Study implications

“We recommend to sample urine in children that have one or more features that increase the probability of UTI … and less so pain while urinating, frequent urination, urgency, bed wetting, or previous UTI history,” said Dr. Verbakel, who is also a researcher at the University of Oxford (England).

In terms of prediction rules, the analysis showed the Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection in Young Children (DUTY) score, Gorelick Scale score, and UTIcalc might be useful to identify which children should have urine sampling, the authors stated in the paper.

Specifically, a DUTY clean-catch score of less than one point was useful for ruling out UTI in children aged less than 5 years, and in girls aged less than 3 years with unexplained fever. The Gorelick Scale score was useful for ruling out UTI when less than two of five variables were present.

“The present meta-analyses confirm that few clinical features are useful for diagnosing or ruling out UTI without further urine analysis. Signs and symptoms combined in a clinical prediction rule, such as with the DUTY or UTIcalc score, might increase accuracy for ruling out UTI; however, these should be validated externally,” Dr. Verbakel said in an interview.

Is urine sampling guideline too broad?

Commenting on the new paper, Martin Koyle, MD, former division chief of urology at the Hospital for Sick Children and professor of surgery at the University of Toronto, expressed concern that unexplained fever is not included as a “differentiating” red flag.

“Many contemporary guidelines define fever as an important diagnostic symptom, as the goal truly is to differentiate lower urinary tract from actual kidney infection, the latter thought to be more important for severity of illness, and potential for developing kidney damage,” he said in an interview. “It begs the question as to which nonfebrile patients who don’t have symptoms related to the respiratory tract for instance [for example, stridor], should be under suspicion for an afebrile urinary tract infection, and have their urine sampled. This paper does not answer that question.”

Dr. Koyle added that an overly broad guideline for urine sampling could come at a cost, and he raised the following questions.

“Will there be an overdiagnosis based on urines alone? Will this lead to overtreatment, often unnecessary, just because there is a positive urine specimen or asymptomatic bacteriuria? Will overtreatment lead to resistant bacteria and side effects related to antibiotics? Will such treatment actually prevent clinical illness and/or renal damage?”

The study authors and Dr. Koyle reported no conflicts of interest.

Pediatric urine sampling should be used more frequently than current guidelines suggest for ruling out urinary tract infection (UTI), according to a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies in ambulatory care (Ann Fam Med 2021;19:437-46).

“Urine sampling is often restricted to children with clinical features such as pain while urinating, frequent urination or children presenting with fever without any abnormalities found on clinical examination,” said lead author Jan Y. Verbakel, MD, PhD, from the University of Leuven (Belgium) in an interview. “Our study findings suggest that, in children, pain while urinating or frequent urination are less accurate than in adults and increase the probability of UTI only moderately.”

Urine sampling “should be applied more broadly in ambulatory care, given that appropriate sampling techniques are available,” he and his coauthors advised in the paper.

Methods and results

The analysis included 35 studies, involving a total of 78,427 patients, which provided information on 58 clinical features and 6 prediction rules of UTI, compared with urine culture. For urine sampling, most studies used catheterization (n = 23), suprapubic aspiration (n = 17), or midstream catch (n = 14), and fewer studies used clean catch (n = 7), bag specimens (n = 5), or diaper pads (n = 2).

The study showed that only three features substantially decreased the likelihood of UTI: being circumcised, the presence of stridor, and the presence of diaper rash. “In febrile children, finding an apparent source of infection decreased the probability of UTI; however, this was not useful for ruling out UTI by itself,” the authors noted.

Additionally, they found that red flags for UTI were cloudy or malodorous urine, hematuria, no fluid intake, suprapubic tenderness, and loin tenderness.

Study implications

“We recommend to sample urine in children that have one or more features that increase the probability of UTI … and less so pain while urinating, frequent urination, urgency, bed wetting, or previous UTI history,” said Dr. Verbakel, who is also a researcher at the University of Oxford (England).

In terms of prediction rules, the analysis showed the Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection in Young Children (DUTY) score, Gorelick Scale score, and UTIcalc might be useful to identify which children should have urine sampling, the authors stated in the paper.

Specifically, a DUTY clean-catch score of less than one point was useful for ruling out UTI in children aged less than 5 years, and in girls aged less than 3 years with unexplained fever. The Gorelick Scale score was useful for ruling out UTI when less than two of five variables were present.

“The present meta-analyses confirm that few clinical features are useful for diagnosing or ruling out UTI without further urine analysis. Signs and symptoms combined in a clinical prediction rule, such as with the DUTY or UTIcalc score, might increase accuracy for ruling out UTI; however, these should be validated externally,” Dr. Verbakel said in an interview.

Is urine sampling guideline too broad?

Commenting on the new paper, Martin Koyle, MD, former division chief of urology at the Hospital for Sick Children and professor of surgery at the University of Toronto, expressed concern that unexplained fever is not included as a “differentiating” red flag.

“Many contemporary guidelines define fever as an important diagnostic symptom, as the goal truly is to differentiate lower urinary tract from actual kidney infection, the latter thought to be more important for severity of illness, and potential for developing kidney damage,” he said in an interview. “It begs the question as to which nonfebrile patients who don’t have symptoms related to the respiratory tract for instance [for example, stridor], should be under suspicion for an afebrile urinary tract infection, and have their urine sampled. This paper does not answer that question.”

Dr. Koyle added that an overly broad guideline for urine sampling could come at a cost, and he raised the following questions.

“Will there be an overdiagnosis based on urines alone? Will this lead to overtreatment, often unnecessary, just because there is a positive urine specimen or asymptomatic bacteriuria? Will overtreatment lead to resistant bacteria and side effects related to antibiotics? Will such treatment actually prevent clinical illness and/or renal damage?”

The study authors and Dr. Koyle reported no conflicts of interest.

Virtual care (VC) has emerged as an effective mode of health care delivery especially in settings where significant barriers to traditional in-person visits exist; a large systematic review supports feasibility of telemedicine in primary care and suggests that telemedicine is at least as effective as traditional care.¹ Nevertheless, broad adoption of VC into practice has lagged, impeded by government and private insurance reimbursement requirements as well as the persistent belief that care can best be delivered in person.^2-4 Before the COVID-19 pandemic, states that enacted parity legislation that required private insurance companies to provide reimbursement coverage for telehealth services saw a significant increase in the number of outpatient telehealth visits (about ≥ 30% odds compared with nonparity states).³

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person medical appointments were converted to VC visits to reduce increased exposure risks to patients and health care workers.⁵ Prior government and private sector policies were suspended, and payment restrictions lifted, enabling adoption of VC modalities to rapidly accommodate the emergent need and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for virtual care.^6-11

The CDC guidelines on managing operations during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need to provide care in the safest way for patients and health care personnel and emphasized the importance of optimizing telehealth services. The federal government facilitated telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic via temporary measures under the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. This included Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act flexibility to use everyday technology for VC visits, regulatory changes to deliver services to Medicare and Medicaid patients, permission of telehealth services across state lines, and prescribing of controlled substances via telehealth without an in-person medical evaluation.⁷

In response, health care providers (HCPs) and health care organizations created or expanded on existing telehealth infrastructure, developing virtual urgent care centers and telephone-based programs to evaluate patients remotely via screening questions that triaged them to a correct level of response, with possible subsequent virtual physician evaluation if indicated.^12,13

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) also shifted to a VC model in response to COVID-19 guided by a unique perspective from a well-developed prior VC experience.^14-16 As a federally funded system, the VHA depends on workload documentation for budgeting. Since 2015, the VHA has provided workload credit and incentivized HCPs (via pay for performance) for the use of VC, including telephone visits, video visits, and secure messaging. These incentives resulted in higher rates of telehealth utilization before the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the private sector (with 4.2% and 0.7% of visits within the VHA being telephone and video visits, respectively, compared with telehealth utilization rates of 1.0% for Medicare recipients and 1.1% in an all-payer database).¹⁶

Historically, VHA care has successfully transitioned from in-person care models to exclusively virtual modalities to prevent suspension of medical services during natural disasters. Studies performed during these periods, specifically during the 2017 hurricane season (during which multiple VHA hospitals were closed or had limited in-person service available), supported telehealth as an efficient health care delivery method, and even recommended expanding telehealth services within non-VHA environments to accommodate needs of the general public during crises and postdisaster health care delivery.¹⁷

Armed with both a well-established telehealth infrastructure and prior knowledge gained from successful systemwide implementation of virtual care during times of disaster, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS) primary care quickly transitioned to a VC model in response to COVID-19.¹⁶ Early in the pandemic, a rapid transition to virtual care (RTVC) model was developed, including implementation of virtual respiratory urgent clinics (VRUCs), defined as virtual respiratory symptom triage clinics, staffed by primary care providers (PCPs) aimed at minimizing patient and health care worker exposure risk.

Methods

VACHS consists of 8 primary care sites, including a major tertiary care center, a smaller medical center with full ambulatory services, and 6 community-based outpatient clinics with only primary care and mental health. There are 80 individual PCPs delivering care to 58,058 veterans. VRUCs were established during the COVID-19 pandemic to cover patients across the entire health care system, using a rotational schedule of VA PCPs.

COVID-19 Urgent Clinics Program

Within the first few weeks of the pandemic, VACHS primary care established VRUCS to provide expeditious virtual assessment of respiratory or flu-like symptoms. Using the established telehealth system, the intervention aimed to provide emergent screening, testing, and care to those with potential COVID-19 infections. The model also was designed to minimize exposures to the health care workforce and patients.

Retrospective analysis was performed using information obtained from the electronic health record (EHR) database to describe the characteristics of patients who received care through the VRUCs, such as demographics, era of military service, COVID-19 testing rates and results, as well as subsequent emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions. A secondary aim included collection of additional qualitative data via a random sample chart review.

Virtual clinics were established January 22, 2020, and data were analyzed over the next 3 months. Data were retrieved and analyzed from the EHR, and codes were used to categorize the VRUCs.

Results

A total of 445 unique patients used these clinics during this period. Unique patients were defined as individual patients (some may have used a clinic more than once but were counted only once). Of this group, 82% were male, and 48% served in the Gulf War era (1990 to present). A total of 51% of patients received a COVID-19 test (clinics began before wide testing availability), and 10% tested positive. Of all patients using the clinics, approximately 5% were admitted to the hospital, and 18% had at least 1 subsequent ED visit (Table).

A secondary aim included review of a random sample of 99 patient charts to gain additional information regarding whether the patient was given appropriate isolation precautions, was in a high-exposure occupation (eg, could expose a large number of people), and whether there was appropriate documentation of goals of care, health care proxy or referral to social work to discuss advance directives. In addition, we calculated the average length of time between patients’ initial contact with the health care system call center and the return call by the PCP (wait time).Of charts reviewed, the majority (71%) had documentation of appropriate isolation precautions. Although 25% of patients had documentation of a high-risk profession with potential to expose many people, more than half of the patients had no documentation of occupation. Most patients (86%) had no updated documentation regarding goals of care, health care proxy, or advance directives in their urgent care VC visit. The average time between the patient initiating contact with the health care system call center and a return call to the patient from a PCP was 104 minutes (excluding calls received after 3:30 pm).

Discussion

This analysis adds to the growing literature on use of VC during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we describe the population of patients who used VRUCs within a large health care system in a RTVC. This analysis was limited by lack of available testing during the initial phase of the pandemic, which contributed to the lower than expected rates of testing and test positivity in patients managed via VRUCs. In addition, chart review data are limited as the data includes only what was documented during the visit and not the entire discussion during the encounter.

Several important outcomes from this analysis can be applied to interventions in the future, which may have large public health implications: Several hundred patients who reported respiratory symptoms were expeditiously evaluated by a PCP using VC. The average wait time to full clinical assessment was about 1.5 hours. This short duration between contact and evaluation permitted early education about isolation precautions, which may have minimized spread. In addition, this innovation kept patients out of the medical center, eliminating chains of transmission to other vulnerable patients and health care workers.

Our retrospective chart review also revealed that more than half the patients were not queried about their occupation, but of those that were asked, a significant number were in high-risk professions potentially exposing large numbers of people. This would be an important aspect to add to future templated notes to minimize work-related exposures. Also, we identified that few HCPs discussed goals of care with patients. Given the nature of COVID-19 and potential for rapid decompensation especially in vulnerable patients, this also would be important to include in the future.

Conclusions

VC urgent care clinics to address possible COVID-19 symptoms facilitated expeditious PCP assessment while keeping potentially contagious patients outside of high-risk health care environments. Streamlining and optimizing clinical VC assessments will be imperative to future management of COVID-19 and potentially to other future infectious pandemics. This includes development of templated notes incorporating counseling regarding appropriate isolation, questions about high-contact occupations, and goals of care discussions.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Robert F. Walsh, MHA.

Virtual care (VC) has emerged as an effective mode of health care delivery especially in settings where significant barriers to traditional in-person visits exist; a large systematic review supports feasibility of telemedicine in primary care and suggests that telemedicine is at least as effective as traditional care.¹ Nevertheless, broad adoption of VC into practice has lagged, impeded by government and private insurance reimbursement requirements as well as the persistent belief that care can best be delivered in person.^2-4 Before the COVID-19 pandemic, states that enacted parity legislation that required private insurance companies to provide reimbursement coverage for telehealth services saw a significant increase in the number of outpatient telehealth visits (about ≥ 30% odds compared with nonparity states).³

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person medical appointments were converted to VC visits to reduce increased exposure risks to patients and health care workers.⁵ Prior government and private sector policies were suspended, and payment restrictions lifted, enabling adoption of VC modalities to rapidly accommodate the emergent need and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for virtual care.^6-11

The CDC guidelines on managing operations during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need to provide care in the safest way for patients and health care personnel and emphasized the importance of optimizing telehealth services. The federal government facilitated telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic via temporary measures under the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. This included Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act flexibility to use everyday technology for VC visits, regulatory changes to deliver services to Medicare and Medicaid patients, permission of telehealth services across state lines, and prescribing of controlled substances via telehealth without an in-person medical evaluation.⁷

In response, health care providers (HCPs) and health care organizations created or expanded on existing telehealth infrastructure, developing virtual urgent care centers and telephone-based programs to evaluate patients remotely via screening questions that triaged them to a correct level of response, with possible subsequent virtual physician evaluation if indicated.^12,13

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) also shifted to a VC model in response to COVID-19 guided by a unique perspective from a well-developed prior VC experience.^14-16 As a federally funded system, the VHA depends on workload documentation for budgeting. Since 2015, the VHA has provided workload credit and incentivized HCPs (via pay for performance) for the use of VC, including telephone visits, video visits, and secure messaging. These incentives resulted in higher rates of telehealth utilization before the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the private sector (with 4.2% and 0.7% of visits within the VHA being telephone and video visits, respectively, compared with telehealth utilization rates of 1.0% for Medicare recipients and 1.1% in an all-payer database).¹⁶

Historically, VHA care has successfully transitioned from in-person care models to exclusively virtual modalities to prevent suspension of medical services during natural disasters. Studies performed during these periods, specifically during the 2017 hurricane season (during which multiple VHA hospitals were closed or had limited in-person service available), supported telehealth as an efficient health care delivery method, and even recommended expanding telehealth services within non-VHA environments to accommodate needs of the general public during crises and postdisaster health care delivery.¹⁷

Armed with both a well-established telehealth infrastructure and prior knowledge gained from successful systemwide implementation of virtual care during times of disaster, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS) primary care quickly transitioned to a VC model in response to COVID-19.¹⁶ Early in the pandemic, a rapid transition to virtual care (RTVC) model was developed, including implementation of virtual respiratory urgent clinics (VRUCs), defined as virtual respiratory symptom triage clinics, staffed by primary care providers (PCPs) aimed at minimizing patient and health care worker exposure risk.

Methods

VACHS consists of 8 primary care sites, including a major tertiary care center, a smaller medical center with full ambulatory services, and 6 community-based outpatient clinics with only primary care and mental health. There are 80 individual PCPs delivering care to 58,058 veterans. VRUCs were established during the COVID-19 pandemic to cover patients across the entire health care system, using a rotational schedule of VA PCPs.

COVID-19 Urgent Clinics Program

Within the first few weeks of the pandemic, VACHS primary care established VRUCS to provide expeditious virtual assessment of respiratory or flu-like symptoms. Using the established telehealth system, the intervention aimed to provide emergent screening, testing, and care to those with potential COVID-19 infections. The model also was designed to minimize exposures to the health care workforce and patients.

Retrospective analysis was performed using information obtained from the electronic health record (EHR) database to describe the characteristics of patients who received care through the VRUCs, such as demographics, era of military service, COVID-19 testing rates and results, as well as subsequent emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions. A secondary aim included collection of additional qualitative data via a random sample chart review.

Virtual clinics were established January 22, 2020, and data were analyzed over the next 3 months. Data were retrieved and analyzed from the EHR, and codes were used to categorize the VRUCs.

Results

A total of 445 unique patients used these clinics during this period. Unique patients were defined as individual patients (some may have used a clinic more than once but were counted only once). Of this group, 82% were male, and 48% served in the Gulf War era (1990 to present). A total of 51% of patients received a COVID-19 test (clinics began before wide testing availability), and 10% tested positive. Of all patients using the clinics, approximately 5% were admitted to the hospital, and 18% had at least 1 subsequent ED visit (Table).

A secondary aim included review of a random sample of 99 patient charts to gain additional information regarding whether the patient was given appropriate isolation precautions, was in a high-exposure occupation (eg, could expose a large number of people), and whether there was appropriate documentation of goals of care, health care proxy or referral to social work to discuss advance directives. In addition, we calculated the average length of time between patients’ initial contact with the health care system call center and the return call by the PCP (wait time).Of charts reviewed, the majority (71%) had documentation of appropriate isolation precautions. Although 25% of patients had documentation of a high-risk profession with potential to expose many people, more than half of the patients had no documentation of occupation. Most patients (86%) had no updated documentation regarding goals of care, health care proxy, or advance directives in their urgent care VC visit. The average time between the patient initiating contact with the health care system call center and a return call to the patient from a PCP was 104 minutes (excluding calls received after 3:30 pm).

Discussion

This analysis adds to the growing literature on use of VC during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we describe the population of patients who used VRUCs within a large health care system in a RTVC. This analysis was limited by lack of available testing during the initial phase of the pandemic, which contributed to the lower than expected rates of testing and test positivity in patients managed via VRUCs. In addition, chart review data are limited as the data includes only what was documented during the visit and not the entire discussion during the encounter.

Several important outcomes from this analysis can be applied to interventions in the future, which may have large public health implications: Several hundred patients who reported respiratory symptoms were expeditiously evaluated by a PCP using VC. The average wait time to full clinical assessment was about 1.5 hours. This short duration between contact and evaluation permitted early education about isolation precautions, which may have minimized spread. In addition, this innovation kept patients out of the medical center, eliminating chains of transmission to other vulnerable patients and health care workers.

Our retrospective chart review also revealed that more than half the patients were not queried about their occupation, but of those that were asked, a significant number were in high-risk professions potentially exposing large numbers of people. This would be an important aspect to add to future templated notes to minimize work-related exposures. Also, we identified that few HCPs discussed goals of care with patients. Given the nature of COVID-19 and potential for rapid decompensation especially in vulnerable patients, this also would be important to include in the future.

Conclusions

VC urgent care clinics to address possible COVID-19 symptoms facilitated expeditious PCP assessment while keeping potentially contagious patients outside of high-risk health care environments. Streamlining and optimizing clinical VC assessments will be imperative to future management of COVID-19 and potentially to other future infectious pandemics. This includes development of templated notes incorporating counseling regarding appropriate isolation, questions about high-contact occupations, and goals of care discussions.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Robert F. Walsh, MHA.

Virtual care (VC) has emerged as an effective mode of health care delivery especially in settings where significant barriers to traditional in-person visits exist; a large systematic review supports feasibility of telemedicine in primary care and suggests that telemedicine is at least as effective as traditional care.¹ Nevertheless, broad adoption of VC into practice has lagged, impeded by government and private insurance reimbursement requirements as well as the persistent belief that care can best be delivered in person.^2-4 Before the COVID-19 pandemic, states that enacted parity legislation that required private insurance companies to provide reimbursement coverage for telehealth services saw a significant increase in the number of outpatient telehealth visits (about ≥ 30% odds compared with nonparity states).³

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person medical appointments were converted to VC visits to reduce increased exposure risks to patients and health care workers.⁵ Prior government and private sector policies were suspended, and payment restrictions lifted, enabling adoption of VC modalities to rapidly accommodate the emergent need and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for virtual care.^6-11

The CDC guidelines on managing operations during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need to provide care in the safest way for patients and health care personnel and emphasized the importance of optimizing telehealth services. The federal government facilitated telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic via temporary measures under the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. This included Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act flexibility to use everyday technology for VC visits, regulatory changes to deliver services to Medicare and Medicaid patients, permission of telehealth services across state lines, and prescribing of controlled substances via telehealth without an in-person medical evaluation.⁷

In response, health care providers (HCPs) and health care organizations created or expanded on existing telehealth infrastructure, developing virtual urgent care centers and telephone-based programs to evaluate patients remotely via screening questions that triaged them to a correct level of response, with possible subsequent virtual physician evaluation if indicated.^12,13

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) also shifted to a VC model in response to COVID-19 guided by a unique perspective from a well-developed prior VC experience.^14-16 As a federally funded system, the VHA depends on workload documentation for budgeting. Since 2015, the VHA has provided workload credit and incentivized HCPs (via pay for performance) for the use of VC, including telephone visits, video visits, and secure messaging. These incentives resulted in higher rates of telehealth utilization before the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the private sector (with 4.2% and 0.7% of visits within the VHA being telephone and video visits, respectively, compared with telehealth utilization rates of 1.0% for Medicare recipients and 1.1% in an all-payer database).¹⁶

Historically, VHA care has successfully transitioned from in-person care models to exclusively virtual modalities to prevent suspension of medical services during natural disasters. Studies performed during these periods, specifically during the 2017 hurricane season (during which multiple VHA hospitals were closed or had limited in-person service available), supported telehealth as an efficient health care delivery method, and even recommended expanding telehealth services within non-VHA environments to accommodate needs of the general public during crises and postdisaster health care delivery.¹⁷

Armed with both a well-established telehealth infrastructure and prior knowledge gained from successful systemwide implementation of virtual care during times of disaster, US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS) primary care quickly transitioned to a VC model in response to COVID-19.¹⁶ Early in the pandemic, a rapid transition to virtual care (RTVC) model was developed, including implementation of virtual respiratory urgent clinics (VRUCs), defined as virtual respiratory symptom triage clinics, staffed by primary care providers (PCPs) aimed at minimizing patient and health care worker exposure risk.

Methods

VACHS consists of 8 primary care sites, including a major tertiary care center, a smaller medical center with full ambulatory services, and 6 community-based outpatient clinics with only primary care and mental health. There are 80 individual PCPs delivering care to 58,058 veterans. VRUCs were established during the COVID-19 pandemic to cover patients across the entire health care system, using a rotational schedule of VA PCPs.

COVID-19 Urgent Clinics Program

Within the first few weeks of the pandemic, VACHS primary care established VRUCS to provide expeditious virtual assessment of respiratory or flu-like symptoms. Using the established telehealth system, the intervention aimed to provide emergent screening, testing, and care to those with potential COVID-19 infections. The model also was designed to minimize exposures to the health care workforce and patients.

Retrospective analysis was performed using information obtained from the electronic health record (EHR) database to describe the characteristics of patients who received care through the VRUCs, such as demographics, era of military service, COVID-19 testing rates and results, as well as subsequent emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions. A secondary aim included collection of additional qualitative data via a random sample chart review.

Virtual clinics were established January 22, 2020, and data were analyzed over the next 3 months. Data were retrieved and analyzed from the EHR, and codes were used to categorize the VRUCs.

Results

A total of 445 unique patients used these clinics during this period. Unique patients were defined as individual patients (some may have used a clinic more than once but were counted only once). Of this group, 82% were male, and 48% served in the Gulf War era (1990 to present). A total of 51% of patients received a COVID-19 test (clinics began before wide testing availability), and 10% tested positive. Of all patients using the clinics, approximately 5% were admitted to the hospital, and 18% had at least 1 subsequent ED visit (Table).

A secondary aim included review of a random sample of 99 patient charts to gain additional information regarding whether the patient was given appropriate isolation precautions, was in a high-exposure occupation (eg, could expose a large number of people), and whether there was appropriate documentation of goals of care, health care proxy or referral to social work to discuss advance directives. In addition, we calculated the average length of time between patients’ initial contact with the health care system call center and the return call by the PCP (wait time).Of charts reviewed, the majority (71%) had documentation of appropriate isolation precautions. Although 25% of patients had documentation of a high-risk profession with potential to expose many people, more than half of the patients had no documentation of occupation. Most patients (86%) had no updated documentation regarding goals of care, health care proxy, or advance directives in their urgent care VC visit. The average time between the patient initiating contact with the health care system call center and a return call to the patient from a PCP was 104 minutes (excluding calls received after 3:30 pm).

Discussion

This analysis adds to the growing literature on use of VC during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we describe the population of patients who used VRUCs within a large health care system in a RTVC. This analysis was limited by lack of available testing during the initial phase of the pandemic, which contributed to the lower than expected rates of testing and test positivity in patients managed via VRUCs. In addition, chart review data are limited as the data includes only what was documented during the visit and not the entire discussion during the encounter.

Several important outcomes from this analysis can be applied to interventions in the future, which may have large public health implications: Several hundred patients who reported respiratory symptoms were expeditiously evaluated by a PCP using VC. The average wait time to full clinical assessment was about 1.5 hours. This short duration between contact and evaluation permitted early education about isolation precautions, which may have minimized spread. In addition, this innovation kept patients out of the medical center, eliminating chains of transmission to other vulnerable patients and health care workers.

Our retrospective chart review also revealed that more than half the patients were not queried about their occupation, but of those that were asked, a significant number were in high-risk professions potentially exposing large numbers of people. This would be an important aspect to add to future templated notes to minimize work-related exposures. Also, we identified that few HCPs discussed goals of care with patients. Given the nature of COVID-19 and potential for rapid decompensation especially in vulnerable patients, this also would be important to include in the future.

Conclusions

VC urgent care clinics to address possible COVID-19 symptoms facilitated expeditious PCP assessment while keeping potentially contagious patients outside of high-risk health care environments. Streamlining and optimizing clinical VC assessments will be imperative to future management of COVID-19 and potentially to other future infectious pandemics. This includes development of templated notes incorporating counseling regarding appropriate isolation, questions about high-contact occupations, and goals of care discussions.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Robert F. Walsh, MHA.

Several weeks ago, I received a call from my brother who, though not a health care professional, wanted me to know he thought the public was being too critical of scientists and physicians who “are giving us the best advice they can about COVID. People think they should have all the answers. But this virus is complicated, and they don’t always know what is going to happen next.” What makes his charitable read of the public health situation remarkable is that he is a COVID-19 survivor of one of the first reported cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome, which several expert neurologists believe is the result of COVID-19. Like so many other COVID-19 long-haul patients, he is left with lingering symptoms and residual deficits.¹

I use this personal story as the overture to this piece on why I am changing my opinion regarding a COVID-19 mandate for federal practitioners. In June I raised ethical concerns about compelling vaccination especially for service members of color based on a current and historical climate of mistrust and discrimination in health care that compulsory vaccination could exacerbate.² Instead, I followed the lead of Secretary of Defense J. Lloyd Austin III and advocated continued education and encouragement for vaccine-hesitant troops.³ So in 2 months what has so radically changed to lead Secretary Austin and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Denis R. McDonough to mandate vaccination for their workforce?^4,5

I am calling the change the Delta Factor. This is not to be confused with the spy-thrillers that ironically involved rescuing a scientist! The Delta Factor is a catch-all phrase to cover the protean public health impacts of the devastating COVID-19 Delta variant now ravaging the country. Depending on the area of the country as of mid-August, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that 80% to > 90% of new cases were the Delta variant.⁶ An increasing number of these cases sadly are in children.⁷

According to the CDC, the Delta variant is more than twice as contagious as index or subsequent strains: making it about as contagious as chicken pox. The unvaccinated are the most susceptible to Delta and may develop more serious illness and risk of death than with other strains. Those who are fully vaccinated can still contract the virus although usually with milder cases. More worrisome is that individuals with these breakthrough infections have the same viral load as those without vaccinations, rendering them vectors of transmission, although for a shorter time than unvaccinated persons.⁸

The VA first mandated vaccination among its health care employees in July and then expanded it to all staff in August.⁹ The US Department of Defense (DoD) mandatory vaccination was announced prior to US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) full approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.¹⁰ Secretary Austin asked President Biden to grant a waiver to permit mandatory vaccination even without full FDA approval, and Biden has indicated his support, but the full approval expedited the time line for implementation.¹¹

Both agencies directly referenced Delta as a primary reason for their vaccination mandates. The VA argued that the mandate was necessary to protect the safety of veterans, while the DoD noted that vaccination was essential to ensure the health of the fighting force. In his initial announcement, Secretary McDonough explicitly mentioned the Delta variant as a primary reason for his decision. noting “it’s the best way to keep veterans safe, especially as the Delta variant spreads across the country.”⁴ Similarly, Secretary Austin declared, “We will also be keeping a close eye on infection rates, which are on the rise now due to the Delta variant and the impact these rates might have on our readiness.”⁵

VA and DoD leadership emphasized the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and urged employees to voluntarily obtain the vaccine or obtain a religious or medical exemption. Those without such an exemption must adhere to masking, testing, and other restrictions.⁵ As anticipated in the earlier editorial, there has been opposition to the mandate from the workforce of the 2 agencies and their political supporters some of whom view vaccine mandates as violations of personal liberty and bodily integrity and for whom rampant disinformation has amplified entrenched distrust of the government.¹²

The decision to shift from voluntary to mandatory vaccination of federal employees responsible for the health care of veterans and the defense of citizens, which may seem draconian to some, is grounded in core public health ethical and legal principles. The first is the doctrine of the least restrictive alternative, which dictates that implemented public health policies should have the least infringement on individual liberties as possible.¹³ A corollary is that less coercive methods should be reasonably attempted before moving to more restrictive policies. Both agencies have struggled somewhat unsuccessfully to vaccinate employees even with extensive education, persuasion, and incentives. In July, the active-duty vaccination rates ranged from 58 to 77%; among VA employees it ranged from 59 to 85%, depending on the facility.¹⁴

Finally and most important, for a vaccine or other public health intervention to be ethically mandated it must have a high probability of attaining a serious purpose: here preventing the harms of sickness and death especially in the most vulnerable. In July, the White House COVID-19 Response Team reported that “preliminary data from several states over the last few months suggest that 99.5% of deaths from COVID-19 in the United States were in unvaccinated people” and were preventable.¹⁵ Ethically, even as mandates are implemented across the federal workforce, efforts to educate, encourage, and empower vaccination especially among disenfranchised cohorts must continue. But as a recently leaked CDC internal document acknowledged about the Delta Factor, “the war has changed” and so has my opinion about mandating vaccination among those upon whose service depends the life and security of us all.¹⁶

Several weeks ago, I received a call from my brother who, though not a health care professional, wanted me to know he thought the public was being too critical of scientists and physicians who “are giving us the best advice they can about COVID. People think they should have all the answers. But this virus is complicated, and they don’t always know what is going to happen next.” What makes his charitable read of the public health situation remarkable is that he is a COVID-19 survivor of one of the first reported cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome, which several expert neurologists believe is the result of COVID-19. Like so many other COVID-19 long-haul patients, he is left with lingering symptoms and residual deficits.¹

I use this personal story as the overture to this piece on why I am changing my opinion regarding a COVID-19 mandate for federal practitioners. In June I raised ethical concerns about compelling vaccination especially for service members of color based on a current and historical climate of mistrust and discrimination in health care that compulsory vaccination could exacerbate.² Instead, I followed the lead of Secretary of Defense J. Lloyd Austin III and advocated continued education and encouragement for vaccine-hesitant troops.³ So in 2 months what has so radically changed to lead Secretary Austin and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Denis R. McDonough to mandate vaccination for their workforce?^4,5

I am calling the change the Delta Factor. This is not to be confused with the spy-thrillers that ironically involved rescuing a scientist! The Delta Factor is a catch-all phrase to cover the protean public health impacts of the devastating COVID-19 Delta variant now ravaging the country. Depending on the area of the country as of mid-August, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that 80% to > 90% of new cases were the Delta variant.⁶ An increasing number of these cases sadly are in children.⁷

According to the CDC, the Delta variant is more than twice as contagious as index or subsequent strains: making it about as contagious as chicken pox. The unvaccinated are the most susceptible to Delta and may develop more serious illness and risk of death than with other strains. Those who are fully vaccinated can still contract the virus although usually with milder cases. More worrisome is that individuals with these breakthrough infections have the same viral load as those without vaccinations, rendering them vectors of transmission, although for a shorter time than unvaccinated persons.⁸

The VA first mandated vaccination among its health care employees in July and then expanded it to all staff in August.⁹ The US Department of Defense (DoD) mandatory vaccination was announced prior to US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) full approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.¹⁰ Secretary Austin asked President Biden to grant a waiver to permit mandatory vaccination even without full FDA approval, and Biden has indicated his support, but the full approval expedited the time line for implementation.¹¹

Both agencies directly referenced Delta as a primary reason for their vaccination mandates. The VA argued that the mandate was necessary to protect the safety of veterans, while the DoD noted that vaccination was essential to ensure the health of the fighting force. In his initial announcement, Secretary McDonough explicitly mentioned the Delta variant as a primary reason for his decision. noting “it’s the best way to keep veterans safe, especially as the Delta variant spreads across the country.”⁴ Similarly, Secretary Austin declared, “We will also be keeping a close eye on infection rates, which are on the rise now due to the Delta variant and the impact these rates might have on our readiness.”⁵

VA and DoD leadership emphasized the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and urged employees to voluntarily obtain the vaccine or obtain a religious or medical exemption. Those without such an exemption must adhere to masking, testing, and other restrictions.⁵ As anticipated in the earlier editorial, there has been opposition to the mandate from the workforce of the 2 agencies and their political supporters some of whom view vaccine mandates as violations of personal liberty and bodily integrity and for whom rampant disinformation has amplified entrenched distrust of the government.¹²

The decision to shift from voluntary to mandatory vaccination of federal employees responsible for the health care of veterans and the defense of citizens, which may seem draconian to some, is grounded in core public health ethical and legal principles. The first is the doctrine of the least restrictive alternative, which dictates that implemented public health policies should have the least infringement on individual liberties as possible.¹³ A corollary is that less coercive methods should be reasonably attempted before moving to more restrictive policies. Both agencies have struggled somewhat unsuccessfully to vaccinate employees even with extensive education, persuasion, and incentives. In July, the active-duty vaccination rates ranged from 58 to 77%; among VA employees it ranged from 59 to 85%, depending on the facility.¹⁴

Finally and most important, for a vaccine or other public health intervention to be ethically mandated it must have a high probability of attaining a serious purpose: here preventing the harms of sickness and death especially in the most vulnerable. In July, the White House COVID-19 Response Team reported that “preliminary data from several states over the last few months suggest that 99.5% of deaths from COVID-19 in the United States were in unvaccinated people” and were preventable.¹⁵ Ethically, even as mandates are implemented across the federal workforce, efforts to educate, encourage, and empower vaccination especially among disenfranchised cohorts must continue. But as a recently leaked CDC internal document acknowledged about the Delta Factor, “the war has changed” and so has my opinion about mandating vaccination among those upon whose service depends the life and security of us all.¹⁶

Several weeks ago, I received a call from my brother who, though not a health care professional, wanted me to know he thought the public was being too critical of scientists and physicians who “are giving us the best advice they can about COVID. People think they should have all the answers. But this virus is complicated, and they don’t always know what is going to happen next.” What makes his charitable read of the public health situation remarkable is that he is a COVID-19 survivor of one of the first reported cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome, which several expert neurologists believe is the result of COVID-19. Like so many other COVID-19 long-haul patients, he is left with lingering symptoms and residual deficits.¹

I use this personal story as the overture to this piece on why I am changing my opinion regarding a COVID-19 mandate for federal practitioners. In June I raised ethical concerns about compelling vaccination especially for service members of color based on a current and historical climate of mistrust and discrimination in health care that compulsory vaccination could exacerbate.² Instead, I followed the lead of Secretary of Defense J. Lloyd Austin III and advocated continued education and encouragement for vaccine-hesitant troops.³ So in 2 months what has so radically changed to lead Secretary Austin and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Denis R. McDonough to mandate vaccination for their workforce?^4,5

I am calling the change the Delta Factor. This is not to be confused with the spy-thrillers that ironically involved rescuing a scientist! The Delta Factor is a catch-all phrase to cover the protean public health impacts of the devastating COVID-19 Delta variant now ravaging the country. Depending on the area of the country as of mid-August, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that 80% to > 90% of new cases were the Delta variant.⁶ An increasing number of these cases sadly are in children.⁷

According to the CDC, the Delta variant is more than twice as contagious as index or subsequent strains: making it about as contagious as chicken pox. The unvaccinated are the most susceptible to Delta and may develop more serious illness and risk of death than with other strains. Those who are fully vaccinated can still contract the virus although usually with milder cases. More worrisome is that individuals with these breakthrough infections have the same viral load as those without vaccinations, rendering them vectors of transmission, although for a shorter time than unvaccinated persons.⁸

The VA first mandated vaccination among its health care employees in July and then expanded it to all staff in August.⁹ The US Department of Defense (DoD) mandatory vaccination was announced prior to US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) full approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.¹⁰ Secretary Austin asked President Biden to grant a waiver to permit mandatory vaccination even without full FDA approval, and Biden has indicated his support, but the full approval expedited the time line for implementation.¹¹

Both agencies directly referenced Delta as a primary reason for their vaccination mandates. The VA argued that the mandate was necessary to protect the safety of veterans, while the DoD noted that vaccination was essential to ensure the health of the fighting force. In his initial announcement, Secretary McDonough explicitly mentioned the Delta variant as a primary reason for his decision. noting “it’s the best way to keep veterans safe, especially as the Delta variant spreads across the country.”⁴ Similarly, Secretary Austin declared, “We will also be keeping a close eye on infection rates, which are on the rise now due to the Delta variant and the impact these rates might have on our readiness.”⁵

VA and DoD leadership emphasized the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and urged employees to voluntarily obtain the vaccine or obtain a religious or medical exemption. Those without such an exemption must adhere to masking, testing, and other restrictions.⁵ As anticipated in the earlier editorial, there has been opposition to the mandate from the workforce of the 2 agencies and their political supporters some of whom view vaccine mandates as violations of personal liberty and bodily integrity and for whom rampant disinformation has amplified entrenched distrust of the government.¹²

The decision to shift from voluntary to mandatory vaccination of federal employees responsible for the health care of veterans and the defense of citizens, which may seem draconian to some, is grounded in core public health ethical and legal principles. The first is the doctrine of the least restrictive alternative, which dictates that implemented public health policies should have the least infringement on individual liberties as possible.¹³ A corollary is that less coercive methods should be reasonably attempted before moving to more restrictive policies. Both agencies have struggled somewhat unsuccessfully to vaccinate employees even with extensive education, persuasion, and incentives. In July, the active-duty vaccination rates ranged from 58 to 77%; among VA employees it ranged from 59 to 85%, depending on the facility.¹⁴

Finally and most important, for a vaccine or other public health intervention to be ethically mandated it must have a high probability of attaining a serious purpose: here preventing the harms of sickness and death especially in the most vulnerable. In July, the White House COVID-19 Response Team reported that “preliminary data from several states over the last few months suggest that 99.5% of deaths from COVID-19 in the United States were in unvaccinated people” and were preventable.¹⁵ Ethically, even as mandates are implemented across the federal workforce, efforts to educate, encourage, and empower vaccination especially among disenfranchised cohorts must continue. But as a recently leaked CDC internal document acknowledged about the Delta Factor, “the war has changed” and so has my opinion about mandating vaccination among those upon whose service depends the life and security of us all.¹⁶

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly being used by critical care physicians to augment the physical examination and guide clinical decision making, and several protocols have been established to standardize the POCUS evaluation.¹ During the COVID-19 pandemic, POCUS has been a valuable tool as standard imaging techniques were used judiciously to minimize exposure of personnel and use of personal protective equipment (PPE).²

In the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New York Harbor Healthcare System (VANYHHS) intensive care unit (ICU) on initial clinical examination included POCUS, which was helpful to examine deep vein thromboses, cardiac function, and the presence and extent of pneumonia. An international expert consensus on the use of POCUS for COVID-19 published in December 2020 called for further studies defining the role of lung and cardiac ultrasound in risk stratification, outcomes, and clinical management.³

The objective of this study was to review POCUS findings and correlate them with severity of illness and 30-day outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Methods

The study was submitted to and reviewed by the VANYHHS Research and Development committee and study approval and informed consent waiver was granted. The study was a retrospective chart review of patients admitted to the VANYHHS ICU between March and April 2020, a tertiary health care center designated as a COVID-19 hospital.

Patients admitted to the ICU aged > 18 years with a diagnosis of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, diagnosis of COVID-19, and documentation of POCUS findings in the chart were included in the study. A patient was considered to have a COVID-19 diagnosis following a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test documented in the electronic health record (EHR). Acute respiratory failure was defined as hypoxemia < 94% and the need for either supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula > 2 L/min, high flow nasal cannula, noninvasive ventilation, or mechanical ventilation.

To minimize personnel exposure, initial patient evaluations and POCUS examinations were performed by the most senior personnel (ie, fellowship trained, board-certified pulmonary critical care attending physicians or pulmonary and critical care fellowship trainees). Three members of the team had certification in advanced critical care echocardiography by the National Board of Echocardiography and oversaw POCUS imaging. POCUS examinations were performed with a GE Heathcare Venue POCUS or handheld unit. After use, ultrasound probes and ultrasound units were disinfected with wipes designated by the manufacturer and US Environmental Protection Agency for use during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The POCUS protocol used by members of the team was as follows: POCUS lung—at least 2 anterior fields and 1 posterior/lateral field looking at the costophrenic angle on each hemithorax with a phased array or curvilinear probe. A linear probe was used to look for subpleural changes per physician discretion.^4,5 Lung ultrasound findings in anterior lung fields were documented as A lines, B lines (as defined by the bedside lung ultrasound in emergency [BLUE] protocol)anterior pleural abnormalities or consolidations.^4,5 The costophrenic point findings were documented as presence of consolidation or pleural effusion.

The POCUS cardiac examination consisted of parasternal long and short axis views, apical 4 chamber view, subcostal and inferior vena cava (IVC) view. Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction was visually estimated as reduced or normal. Right ventricular (RV) dilation was considered present if RV size approached or exceeded LV size in the apical 4 chamber view. RV dysfunction was considered present if in addition there was flattening of interventricular septum, RV free wall hypokinesis or reduced tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE).⁶ IVC was documented as collapsible or plethoric by size and respirophasic variability (2 cm and 50%). Other POCUS examinations including venous compression were done at the discretion of the treating physician.⁷ POCUS was also used for the placement of central and arterial lines and to guide fluid management.⁸

The VA EHR and Venue image local archives were reviewed for patient demographics, laboratory findings, imaging studies and outcomes. All ICU attending physician and fellow notes were reviewed for POCUS lung, cardiac and vascular findings. The chart was also reviewed for management changes as a result of POCUS findings. Patients who had at minimum a POCUS lung or cardiac examination documented in the EHR were included in the study. For patients with serial POCUS the most severe findings were included.

Patients were divided into 2 groups based on 30-day outcome: discharge home vs mortality for comparison. POCUS findings were also compared by need for mechanical ventilation. Patients still hospitalized or transferred to other facilities were excluded from the analysis. A Student t test was used for comparison between the groups for continuous normally distributed variables. Linear and stepwise regression models were used to evaluate univariate and multivariate associations of baseline characteristics, biomarker, and ultrasound findings with patient outcomes. Analyses were performed using R 4.0.2 statistical software.

Results

Eighty-two patients were admitted to the VANYHHS ICU in March and April 2020, including 12 nonveterans. Sixty-four had COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure. POCUS findings were documented in 43 (67%) patients. Thirty-nine patients had documented lung examinations, and 25 patients had documented cardiac examinations. Patients were divided into 2 groups by 30-day outcome (discharge home vs mortality) for statistical analysis. Five patients who were either still hospitalized or had been transferred to another facility were excluded.

Baseline characteristics of patients included in the study stratified by 30-day outcomes are shown in Table 1. The study group was predominantly male (95%). Patients with poor 30-day outcomes were older, had higher white blood cell counts, more severe hypoxemia, higher rates of mechanical ventilation and RV dilation (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). RV dilation was an independent predictor of mortality (odds ratio [OR], 12.0; P = .048).

Discussion

POCUS identified both lung and cardiac features that were associated with worse outcomes. While lung ultrasound abnormalities were very prevalent and associated with worse PaO₂ to FiO₂ ratios, the presence of RV dilation was associated most clearly with mortality and poor 30-day outcomes in the critical care setting.

Lung ultrasound abnormalities were pervasive in patients with acute respiratory failure and COVID-19. On linear regression we found that presence with bilateral B lines and pleural thickening was predictive of a lower PaO₂/FiO₂ (coefficient, -70; P = .005). Our study found that B lines with pleural irregularities, otherwise known as a B’ profile per the BLUE protocol, was seen in patients with severe COVID-19. Thus severe acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 has similar lung ultrasound findings as non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).^4,5 Based on prior lung ultrasound studies in ARDS, lung ultrasound findings can be used as an alternate to chest radiography for the diagnosis of ARDS in COVID-19 and predict the severity of ARDS.⁹ This has particular implications in overwhelmed and resource poor health care settings.

We found no difference in 30-day mortality based on lung ultrasound findings or profile, probably because of small sample size or because the findings were tabulated as profiles and not differentiated further with lung ultrasound scores.^10,11 However, there was a significant difference in RV dilation between the 2 groups by 30 days and its presence was found to be a predictor of mortality even when controlled for hypertension and diabetes mellitus (P = .048) with an OR of 12. RV dysfunction in patients with ARDS on mechanical ventilation ranges from 22 to 25% and is typically associated with high driving pressures.^12-14 The mechanism is thought to be multifactorial including hypoxemic vasoconstriction in the pulmonary vasculature in addition to the increased transpulmonary pressure.¹⁵ While all of the above are at play in COVID-19 infection, there is reported damage to the pulmonary vascular endothelium and resultant hypercoagulability and thrombosis that further increases the RV afterload.¹⁶

While RV strain and dysfunction indices done by an echocardiographer would be ideal, given the surge in infections and hospitalizations and strain on health care resources, POCUS by the treating or examining clinician was considered the only feasible way to screen a large number of patients.¹⁷ Identification of RV dilation could influence clinical management including workup for venous thromboembolic disease and optimization of lung protective strategies. Further studies are needed to understand the particular etiology and pathophysiology of COVID-19 associated RV dilation. Given increased thrombosis events in COVID-19 infection we believe a POCUS vascular examination should be included as part of evaluation especially in the presence of increased D-dimers and has been discussed above for its important role in working up RV dilation.¹⁸

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. It was retrospective in nature and involved a small group of individuals. There was some variation in POCUS examinations done at the discretion of the examining physician. We did not have a blinded observer independently review all images. Since RV dilation was documented only when RV size approached or exceeded LV size in the apical 4 chamber view representing moderate or severe dilation, we may be underreporting the prevalence in critically ill patients.

Conclusions

POCUS is an invaluable adjunct to clinical evaluation and procedures in patients with severe COVID-19 with the ability to identity patients at risk for worse outcomes. B lines with pleural thickening is a sign of severe ARDS and RV dilatation is predictive of mortality. POCUS should be made available to the treating physician for monitoring and risk stratification and can be incorporated into management algorithms.

Additional point-of-care ultrasound videos.

Acknowledgments

We thank frontline healthcare workers and intensive care unit staff of the US Department of Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System (NYHHS) for their dedication to the care of veterans and civilians during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City. The authors acknowledge the NYHHS research and development committee and administration for their support.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly being used by critical care physicians to augment the physical examination and guide clinical decision making, and several protocols have been established to standardize the POCUS evaluation.¹ During the COVID-19 pandemic, POCUS has been a valuable tool as standard imaging techniques were used judiciously to minimize exposure of personnel and use of personal protective equipment (PPE).²

In the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New York Harbor Healthcare System (VANYHHS) intensive care unit (ICU) on initial clinical examination included POCUS, which was helpful to examine deep vein thromboses, cardiac function, and the presence and extent of pneumonia. An international expert consensus on the use of POCUS for COVID-19 published in December 2020 called for further studies defining the role of lung and cardiac ultrasound in risk stratification, outcomes, and clinical management.³

The objective of this study was to review POCUS findings and correlate them with severity of illness and 30-day outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Methods

The study was submitted to and reviewed by the VANYHHS Research and Development committee and study approval and informed consent waiver was granted. The study was a retrospective chart review of patients admitted to the VANYHHS ICU between March and April 2020, a tertiary health care center designated as a COVID-19 hospital.

Patients admitted to the ICU aged > 18 years with a diagnosis of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, diagnosis of COVID-19, and documentation of POCUS findings in the chart were included in the study. A patient was considered to have a COVID-19 diagnosis following a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test documented in the electronic health record (EHR). Acute respiratory failure was defined as hypoxemia < 94% and the need for either supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula > 2 L/min, high flow nasal cannula, noninvasive ventilation, or mechanical ventilation.

To minimize personnel exposure, initial patient evaluations and POCUS examinations were performed by the most senior personnel (ie, fellowship trained, board-certified pulmonary critical care attending physicians or pulmonary and critical care fellowship trainees). Three members of the team had certification in advanced critical care echocardiography by the National Board of Echocardiography and oversaw POCUS imaging. POCUS examinations were performed with a GE Heathcare Venue POCUS or handheld unit. After use, ultrasound probes and ultrasound units were disinfected with wipes designated by the manufacturer and US Environmental Protection Agency for use during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The POCUS protocol used by members of the team was as follows: POCUS lung—at least 2 anterior fields and 1 posterior/lateral field looking at the costophrenic angle on each hemithorax with a phased array or curvilinear probe. A linear probe was used to look for subpleural changes per physician discretion.^4,5 Lung ultrasound findings in anterior lung fields were documented as A lines, B lines (as defined by the bedside lung ultrasound in emergency [BLUE] protocol)anterior pleural abnormalities or consolidations.^4,5 The costophrenic point findings were documented as presence of consolidation or pleural effusion.

The POCUS cardiac examination consisted of parasternal long and short axis views, apical 4 chamber view, subcostal and inferior vena cava (IVC) view. Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction was visually estimated as reduced or normal. Right ventricular (RV) dilation was considered present if RV size approached or exceeded LV size in the apical 4 chamber view. RV dysfunction was considered present if in addition there was flattening of interventricular septum, RV free wall hypokinesis or reduced tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE).⁶ IVC was documented as collapsible or plethoric by size and respirophasic variability (2 cm and 50%). Other POCUS examinations including venous compression were done at the discretion of the treating physician.⁷ POCUS was also used for the placement of central and arterial lines and to guide fluid management.⁸

The VA EHR and Venue image local archives were reviewed for patient demographics, laboratory findings, imaging studies and outcomes. All ICU attending physician and fellow notes were reviewed for POCUS lung, cardiac and vascular findings. The chart was also reviewed for management changes as a result of POCUS findings. Patients who had at minimum a POCUS lung or cardiac examination documented in the EHR were included in the study. For patients with serial POCUS the most severe findings were included.

Patients were divided into 2 groups based on 30-day outcome: discharge home vs mortality for comparison. POCUS findings were also compared by need for mechanical ventilation. Patients still hospitalized or transferred to other facilities were excluded from the analysis. A Student t test was used for comparison between the groups for continuous normally distributed variables. Linear and stepwise regression models were used to evaluate univariate and multivariate associations of baseline characteristics, biomarker, and ultrasound findings with patient outcomes. Analyses were performed using R 4.0.2 statistical software.

Results

Eighty-two patients were admitted to the VANYHHS ICU in March and April 2020, including 12 nonveterans. Sixty-four had COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure. POCUS findings were documented in 43 (67%) patients. Thirty-nine patients had documented lung examinations, and 25 patients had documented cardiac examinations. Patients were divided into 2 groups by 30-day outcome (discharge home vs mortality) for statistical analysis. Five patients who were either still hospitalized or had been transferred to another facility were excluded.

Baseline characteristics of patients included in the study stratified by 30-day outcomes are shown in Table 1. The study group was predominantly male (95%). Patients with poor 30-day outcomes were older, had higher white blood cell counts, more severe hypoxemia, higher rates of mechanical ventilation and RV dilation (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). RV dilation was an independent predictor of mortality (odds ratio [OR], 12.0; P = .048).

Discussion

POCUS identified both lung and cardiac features that were associated with worse outcomes. While lung ultrasound abnormalities were very prevalent and associated with worse PaO₂ to FiO₂ ratios, the presence of RV dilation was associated most clearly with mortality and poor 30-day outcomes in the critical care setting.

Lung ultrasound abnormalities were pervasive in patients with acute respiratory failure and COVID-19. On linear regression we found that presence with bilateral B lines and pleural thickening was predictive of a lower PaO₂/FiO₂ (coefficient, -70; P = .005). Our study found that B lines with pleural irregularities, otherwise known as a B’ profile per the BLUE protocol, was seen in patients with severe COVID-19. Thus severe acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 has similar lung ultrasound findings as non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).^4,5 Based on prior lung ultrasound studies in ARDS, lung ultrasound findings can be used as an alternate to chest radiography for the diagnosis of ARDS in COVID-19 and predict the severity of ARDS.⁹ This has particular implications in overwhelmed and resource poor health care settings.

We found no difference in 30-day mortality based on lung ultrasound findings or profile, probably because of small sample size or because the findings were tabulated as profiles and not differentiated further with lung ultrasound scores.^10,11 However, there was a significant difference in RV dilation between the 2 groups by 30 days and its presence was found to be a predictor of mortality even when controlled for hypertension and diabetes mellitus (P = .048) with an OR of 12. RV dysfunction in patients with ARDS on mechanical ventilation ranges from 22 to 25% and is typically associated with high driving pressures.^12-14 The mechanism is thought to be multifactorial including hypoxemic vasoconstriction in the pulmonary vasculature in addition to the increased transpulmonary pressure.¹⁵ While all of the above are at play in COVID-19 infection, there is reported damage to the pulmonary vascular endothelium and resultant hypercoagulability and thrombosis that further increases the RV afterload.¹⁶

While RV strain and dysfunction indices done by an echocardiographer would be ideal, given the surge in infections and hospitalizations and strain on health care resources, POCUS by the treating or examining clinician was considered the only feasible way to screen a large number of patients.¹⁷ Identification of RV dilation could influence clinical management including workup for venous thromboembolic disease and optimization of lung protective strategies. Further studies are needed to understand the particular etiology and pathophysiology of COVID-19 associated RV dilation. Given increased thrombosis events in COVID-19 infection we believe a POCUS vascular examination should be included as part of evaluation especially in the presence of increased D-dimers and has been discussed above for its important role in working up RV dilation.¹⁸

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. It was retrospective in nature and involved a small group of individuals. There was some variation in POCUS examinations done at the discretion of the examining physician. We did not have a blinded observer independently review all images. Since RV dilation was documented only when RV size approached or exceeded LV size in the apical 4 chamber view representing moderate or severe dilation, we may be underreporting the prevalence in critically ill patients.

Conclusions

POCUS is an invaluable adjunct to clinical evaluation and procedures in patients with severe COVID-19 with the ability to identity patients at risk for worse outcomes. B lines with pleural thickening is a sign of severe ARDS and RV dilatation is predictive of mortality. POCUS should be made available to the treating physician for monitoring and risk stratification and can be incorporated into management algorithms.

Additional point-of-care ultrasound videos.

Acknowledgments

We thank frontline healthcare workers and intensive care unit staff of the US Department of Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System (NYHHS) for their dedication to the care of veterans and civilians during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City. The authors acknowledge the NYHHS research and development committee and administration for their support.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly being used by critical care physicians to augment the physical examination and guide clinical decision making, and several protocols have been established to standardize the POCUS evaluation.¹ During the COVID-19 pandemic, POCUS has been a valuable tool as standard imaging techniques were used judiciously to minimize exposure of personnel and use of personal protective equipment (PPE).²

In the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New York Harbor Healthcare System (VANYHHS) intensive care unit (ICU) on initial clinical examination included POCUS, which was helpful to examine deep vein thromboses, cardiac function, and the presence and extent of pneumonia. An international expert consensus on the use of POCUS for COVID-19 published in December 2020 called for further studies defining the role of lung and cardiac ultrasound in risk stratification, outcomes, and clinical management.³

The objective of this study was to review POCUS findings and correlate them with severity of illness and 30-day outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Methods

The study was submitted to and reviewed by the VANYHHS Research and Development committee and study approval and informed consent waiver was granted. The study was a retrospective chart review of patients admitted to the VANYHHS ICU between March and April 2020, a tertiary health care center designated as a COVID-19 hospital.

Patients admitted to the ICU aged > 18 years with a diagnosis of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, diagnosis of COVID-19, and documentation of POCUS findings in the chart were included in the study. A patient was considered to have a COVID-19 diagnosis following a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test documented in the electronic health record (EHR). Acute respiratory failure was defined as hypoxemia < 94% and the need for either supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula > 2 L/min, high flow nasal cannula, noninvasive ventilation, or mechanical ventilation.

To minimize personnel exposure, initial patient evaluations and POCUS examinations were performed by the most senior personnel (ie, fellowship trained, board-certified pulmonary critical care attending physicians or pulmonary and critical care fellowship trainees). Three members of the team had certification in advanced critical care echocardiography by the National Board of Echocardiography and oversaw POCUS imaging. POCUS examinations were performed with a GE Heathcare Venue POCUS or handheld unit. After use, ultrasound probes and ultrasound units were disinfected with wipes designated by the manufacturer and US Environmental Protection Agency for use during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The POCUS protocol used by members of the team was as follows: POCUS lung—at least 2 anterior fields and 1 posterior/lateral field looking at the costophrenic angle on each hemithorax with a phased array or curvilinear probe. A linear probe was used to look for subpleural changes per physician discretion.^4,5 Lung ultrasound findings in anterior lung fields were documented as A lines, B lines (as defined by the bedside lung ultrasound in emergency [BLUE] protocol)anterior pleural abnormalities or consolidations.^4,5 The costophrenic point findings were documented as presence of consolidation or pleural effusion.

The POCUS cardiac examination consisted of parasternal long and short axis views, apical 4 chamber view, subcostal and inferior vena cava (IVC) view. Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction was visually estimated as reduced or normal. Right ventricular (RV) dilation was considered present if RV size approached or exceeded LV size in the apical 4 chamber view. RV dysfunction was considered present if in addition there was flattening of interventricular septum, RV free wall hypokinesis or reduced tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE).⁶ IVC was documented as collapsible or plethoric by size and respirophasic variability (2 cm and 50%). Other POCUS examinations including venous compression were done at the discretion of the treating physician.⁷ POCUS was also used for the placement of central and arterial lines and to guide fluid management.⁸

The VA EHR and Venue image local archives were reviewed for patient demographics, laboratory findings, imaging studies and outcomes. All ICU attending physician and fellow notes were reviewed for POCUS lung, cardiac and vascular findings. The chart was also reviewed for management changes as a result of POCUS findings. Patients who had at minimum a POCUS lung or cardiac examination documented in the EHR were included in the study. For patients with serial POCUS the most severe findings were included.

Patients were divided into 2 groups based on 30-day outcome: discharge home vs mortality for comparison. POCUS findings were also compared by need for mechanical ventilation. Patients still hospitalized or transferred to other facilities were excluded from the analysis. A Student t test was used for comparison between the groups for continuous normally distributed variables. Linear and stepwise regression models were used to evaluate univariate and multivariate associations of baseline characteristics, biomarker, and ultrasound findings with patient outcomes. Analyses were performed using R 4.0.2 statistical software.

Results

Eighty-two patients were admitted to the VANYHHS ICU in March and April 2020, including 12 nonveterans. Sixty-four had COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure. POCUS findings were documented in 43 (67%) patients. Thirty-nine patients had documented lung examinations, and 25 patients had documented cardiac examinations. Patients were divided into 2 groups by 30-day outcome (discharge home vs mortality) for statistical analysis. Five patients who were either still hospitalized or had been transferred to another facility were excluded.

Baseline characteristics of patients included in the study stratified by 30-day outcomes are shown in Table 1. The study group was predominantly male (95%). Patients with poor 30-day outcomes were older, had higher white blood cell counts, more severe hypoxemia, higher rates of mechanical ventilation and RV dilation (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). RV dilation was an independent predictor of mortality (odds ratio [OR], 12.0; P = .048).

Discussion

POCUS identified both lung and cardiac features that were associated with worse outcomes. While lung ultrasound abnormalities were very prevalent and associated with worse PaO₂ to FiO₂ ratios, the presence of RV dilation was associated most clearly with mortality and poor 30-day outcomes in the critical care setting.

Lung ultrasound abnormalities were pervasive in patients with acute respiratory failure and COVID-19. On linear regression we found that presence with bilateral B lines and pleural thickening was predictive of a lower PaO₂/FiO₂ (coefficient, -70; P = .005). Our study found that B lines with pleural irregularities, otherwise known as a B’ profile per the BLUE protocol, was seen in patients with severe COVID-19. Thus severe acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 has similar lung ultrasound findings as non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).^4,5 Based on prior lung ultrasound studies in ARDS, lung ultrasound findings can be used as an alternate to chest radiography for the diagnosis of ARDS in COVID-19 and predict the severity of ARDS.⁹ This has particular implications in overwhelmed and resource poor health care settings.

We found no difference in 30-day mortality based on lung ultrasound findings or profile, probably because of small sample size or because the findings were tabulated as profiles and not differentiated further with lung ultrasound scores.^10,11 However, there was a significant difference in RV dilation between the 2 groups by 30 days and its presence was found to be a predictor of mortality even when controlled for hypertension and diabetes mellitus (P = .048) with an OR of 12. RV dysfunction in patients with ARDS on mechanical ventilation ranges from 22 to 25% and is typically associated with high driving pressures.^12-14 The mechanism is thought to be multifactorial including hypoxemic vasoconstriction in the pulmonary vasculature in addition to the increased transpulmonary pressure.¹⁵ While all of the above are at play in COVID-19 infection, there is reported damage to the pulmonary vascular endothelium and resultant hypercoagulability and thrombosis that further increases the RV afterload.¹⁶

While RV strain and dysfunction indices done by an echocardiographer would be ideal, given the surge in infections and hospitalizations and strain on health care resources, POCUS by the treating or examining clinician was considered the only feasible way to screen a large number of patients.¹⁷ Identification of RV dilation could influence clinical management including workup for venous thromboembolic disease and optimization of lung protective strategies. Further studies are needed to understand the particular etiology and pathophysiology of COVID-19 associated RV dilation. Given increased thrombosis events in COVID-19 infection we believe a POCUS vascular examination should be included as part of evaluation especially in the presence of increased D-dimers and has been discussed above for its important role in working up RV dilation.¹⁸

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. It was retrospective in nature and involved a small group of individuals. There was some variation in POCUS examinations done at the discretion of the examining physician. We did not have a blinded observer independently review all images. Since RV dilation was documented only when RV size approached or exceeded LV size in the apical 4 chamber view representing moderate or severe dilation, we may be underreporting the prevalence in critically ill patients.

Conclusions

POCUS is an invaluable adjunct to clinical evaluation and procedures in patients with severe COVID-19 with the ability to identity patients at risk for worse outcomes. B lines with pleural thickening is a sign of severe ARDS and RV dilatation is predictive of mortality. POCUS should be made available to the treating physician for monitoring and risk stratification and can be incorporated into management algorithms.

Additional point-of-care ultrasound videos.

Acknowledgments

We thank frontline healthcare workers and intensive care unit staff of the US Department of Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System (NYHHS) for their dedication to the care of veterans and civilians during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City. The authors acknowledge the NYHHS research and development committee and administration for their support.

Patients can now receive their COVID-19 vaccine and flu shot during the same visit, according to updated recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Esben H/iStock/Getty Images

Previously, the CDC recommended that people receive their COVID-19 vaccinations alone and schedule any other vaccinations at least 2 weeks before or after their COVID-19 immunization. “This was out of an abundance of caution during a period when these vaccines were new and not due to any known safety or immunogenicity concerns,” the CDC guidance states. “However, substantial data have now been collected regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized by FDA.”

The guidance allowing for coadministration of COVID-19 vaccines with other immunizations, including the flu shot, was issued in mid-May 2021, and was restated in influenza vaccine recommendations released Aug. 27. The American Academy of Pediatrics soon followed suit, announcing that, for children eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine (age 12 and older), AAP recommendations allow for both the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines to be administered during the same visit.

Although there is limited data around giving COVID-19 vaccines with other vaccines, “extensive experience with non–COVID-19 vaccines has demonstrated that immunogenicity and adverse-event profiles are generally similar when vaccines are administered simultaneously as when they are administered alone,” the recommendations state. If administering other immunizations along with COVID-19 vaccines, providers should separate injection sites by at least 1 inch, the CDC recommends, and influenza vaccines that are more likely to cause a local reaction, like high-dose or the adjuvanted inactivated flu vaccine, should be administered in different limbs, if possible.

Whether someone should get their flu vaccine at the same time or separate from a COVID-19 vaccination or booster is a matter of personal preference as well as convenience, Susan Coffin, MD, MPH, an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “It basically boils down to: Will you be able to get your flu shot without any difficulty in 2 weeks’ time?” she said. “We don’t want inconvenience or difficulties in access to get the way of people getting their flu shot this year.”

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

Patients can now receive their COVID-19 vaccine and flu shot during the same visit, according to updated recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Esben H/iStock/Getty Images

Previously, the CDC recommended that people receive their COVID-19 vaccinations alone and schedule any other vaccinations at least 2 weeks before or after their COVID-19 immunization. “This was out of an abundance of caution during a period when these vaccines were new and not due to any known safety or immunogenicity concerns,” the CDC guidance states. “However, substantial data have now been collected regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized by FDA.”

The guidance allowing for coadministration of COVID-19 vaccines with other immunizations, including the flu shot, was issued in mid-May 2021, and was restated in influenza vaccine recommendations released Aug. 27. The American Academy of Pediatrics soon followed suit, announcing that, for children eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine (age 12 and older), AAP recommendations allow for both the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines to be administered during the same visit.

Although there is limited data around giving COVID-19 vaccines with other vaccines, “extensive experience with non–COVID-19 vaccines has demonstrated that immunogenicity and adverse-event profiles are generally similar when vaccines are administered simultaneously as when they are administered alone,” the recommendations state. If administering other immunizations along with COVID-19 vaccines, providers should separate injection sites by at least 1 inch, the CDC recommends, and influenza vaccines that are more likely to cause a local reaction, like high-dose or the adjuvanted inactivated flu vaccine, should be administered in different limbs, if possible.

Whether someone should get their flu vaccine at the same time or separate from a COVID-19 vaccination or booster is a matter of personal preference as well as convenience, Susan Coffin, MD, MPH, an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “It basically boils down to: Will you be able to get your flu shot without any difficulty in 2 weeks’ time?” she said. “We don’t want inconvenience or difficulties in access to get the way of people getting their flu shot this year.”

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

Patients can now receive their COVID-19 vaccine and flu shot during the same visit, according to updated recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Esben H/iStock/Getty Images

Previously, the CDC recommended that people receive their COVID-19 vaccinations alone and schedule any other vaccinations at least 2 weeks before or after their COVID-19 immunization. “This was out of an abundance of caution during a period when these vaccines were new and not due to any known safety or immunogenicity concerns,” the CDC guidance states. “However, substantial data have now been collected regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized by FDA.”

The guidance allowing for coadministration of COVID-19 vaccines with other immunizations, including the flu shot, was issued in mid-May 2021, and was restated in influenza vaccine recommendations released Aug. 27. The American Academy of Pediatrics soon followed suit, announcing that, for children eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine (age 12 and older), AAP recommendations allow for both the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines to be administered during the same visit.

Although there is limited data around giving COVID-19 vaccines with other vaccines, “extensive experience with non–COVID-19 vaccines has demonstrated that immunogenicity and adverse-event profiles are generally similar when vaccines are administered simultaneously as when they are administered alone,” the recommendations state. If administering other immunizations along with COVID-19 vaccines, providers should separate injection sites by at least 1 inch, the CDC recommends, and influenza vaccines that are more likely to cause a local reaction, like high-dose or the adjuvanted inactivated flu vaccine, should be administered in different limbs, if possible.

Whether someone should get their flu vaccine at the same time or separate from a COVID-19 vaccination or booster is a matter of personal preference as well as convenience, Susan Coffin, MD, MPH, an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “It basically boils down to: Will you be able to get your flu shot without any difficulty in 2 weeks’ time?” she said. “We don’t want inconvenience or difficulties in access to get the way of people getting their flu shot this year.”

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

Three primary care boards have issued a joint statement backing the Federation of State Medical Boards’ recent statement saying that, if physicians spread misinformation about COVID-19, their medical license could be suspended or revoked.

Leaders of the American Board of Family Medicine, the American Board of Internal Medicine, and the American Board of Pediatrics said Sept. 9 that they support FSMB’s position.

“We also want all physicians certified by our boards to know that such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective Board to take action that could put their certification at risk,” a statement read. 

“Expertise matters, and board-certified physicians have demonstrated that they have stayed current in their field. Spreading misinformation or falsehoods to the public during a time of a public health emergency goes against everything our boards and our community of board-certified physicians stand for,” the leaders wrote.

“The evidence that we have safe, effective, and widely available vaccines against COVID-19 is overwhelming. We are particularly concerned about physicians who use their authority to denigrate vaccination at a time when vaccines continue to demonstrate excellent effectiveness against severe illness, hospitalization, and death.”
 

Small number spread false information

However, a small number of doctors continue to spread misinformation against the vaccines and communicate other false information surrounding COVID-19.

Some of the misinformation spreaders have had ultra-viral reach.

Among them is Daniel Stock, MD, a family physician in Indiana who has come out against COVID-19 vaccines. At a recent meeting of the Mt. Vernon Community School board in Indiana, he gave a speech urging the board to ignore the prevailing recommendations around COVID-19, such as test-and-trace measures.

Forbes reported in August that versions of the video of Stock›s speech on Facebook “have collected a total of 90 million engagements – a metric encompassing things such as comments, likes and shares – according to data collected by Media Matters for America, a liberal tech-watchdog group.”

This news organization published a story in August asking whether physicians who spread such information should lose their license and the question drew rapid-fire comments.

Commenters who argued with potential disciplinary actions raised questions about where the line will be drawn between misinformation and deeply held beliefs in terms of care.

Several comments centered on ivermectin, which is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19 but is enthusiastically supported as a COVID-19 treatment by a group of physicians called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, whose website includes requests for donations.

Some cited free speech protections.
 

‘Not consistent with standards’

As for ivermectin, David G. Nichols, MD, president and CEO of the American Board of Pediatrics, gave this news organization an example: “Spreading the notion that one would not need to get vaccinated because if you get sick you could take ivermectin is a very dangerous statement. That is not consistent with the standards of professionalism required for certification or licensure.”

Ivermectin, he noted, is not an approved treatment for COVID-19.

“To say that it is or has any benefit is a false statement. We’re not willing to allow individuals who make false statements to devalue the terrific work of tens of thousands of physicians across the United States doing work under very difficult circumstances,” Dr. Nichols said.

He continued: “To suggest treatments that are known not to be effective in exchange for treatment that is known to be effective is dangerous – and ivermectin falls under that category.”

Asked whether such suggestions could result in suspension or revocation of a physician’s license, Dr. Nichols said, “It’s the kind of thing that would certainly trigger a review.”

He said the standard for separating misinformation from personal beliefs is based on whether there is scientific evidence to support the belief.

The boards are not, with this statement, attempting to referee legitimate scientific debate, he said.

The misinformation the boards are referring to, Dr. Nichols said, is “where the evidence is 100% on one side and zero on another. And the zero is not only that the opinions or beliefs are unsupported or unsubstantiated, they are indeed harmful if followed. That’s the distinction we’re trying to make here.”

As for free-speech arguments, he said, “Free speech is a constitutional right. You can say whatever you want. The issue here is you do not have the right to expect continued professional sanction of a board certificate if you are lying to the public.”

The board statement also said: “We all look to board-certified physicians to provide outstanding care and guidance; providing misinformation about a lethal disease is unethical, unprofessional, and dangerous. In times of medical emergency, the community of expert physicians committed to science and evidence collectively shares a responsibility for giving the public the most accurate and timely health information available, so they can make decisions that work best for themselves and their families.”

In addition to Dr. Nichols, the statement was signed by Warren Newton, MD, MPH, president and CEO of the American Board of Family Medicine, and Richard J. Baron, MD, president and CEO of the American Board of Internal Medicine.

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

Three primary care boards have issued a joint statement backing the Federation of State Medical Boards’ recent statement saying that, if physicians spread misinformation about COVID-19, their medical license could be suspended or revoked.

Leaders of the American Board of Family Medicine, the American Board of Internal Medicine, and the American Board of Pediatrics said Sept. 9 that they support FSMB’s position.

“We also want all physicians certified by our boards to know that such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective Board to take action that could put their certification at risk,” a statement read. 

“Expertise matters, and board-certified physicians have demonstrated that they have stayed current in their field. Spreading misinformation or falsehoods to the public during a time of a public health emergency goes against everything our boards and our community of board-certified physicians stand for,” the leaders wrote.

“The evidence that we have safe, effective, and widely available vaccines against COVID-19 is overwhelming. We are particularly concerned about physicians who use their authority to denigrate vaccination at a time when vaccines continue to demonstrate excellent effectiveness against severe illness, hospitalization, and death.”
 

Small number spread false information

However, a small number of doctors continue to spread misinformation against the vaccines and communicate other false information surrounding COVID-19.

Some of the misinformation spreaders have had ultra-viral reach.

Among them is Daniel Stock, MD, a family physician in Indiana who has come out against COVID-19 vaccines. At a recent meeting of the Mt. Vernon Community School board in Indiana, he gave a speech urging the board to ignore the prevailing recommendations around COVID-19, such as test-and-trace measures.

Forbes reported in August that versions of the video of Stock›s speech on Facebook “have collected a total of 90 million engagements – a metric encompassing things such as comments, likes and shares – according to data collected by Media Matters for America, a liberal tech-watchdog group.”

This news organization published a story in August asking whether physicians who spread such information should lose their license and the question drew rapid-fire comments.

Commenters who argued with potential disciplinary actions raised questions about where the line will be drawn between misinformation and deeply held beliefs in terms of care.

Several comments centered on ivermectin, which is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19 but is enthusiastically supported as a COVID-19 treatment by a group of physicians called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, whose website includes requests for donations.

Some cited free speech protections.
 

‘Not consistent with standards’

As for ivermectin, David G. Nichols, MD, president and CEO of the American Board of Pediatrics, gave this news organization an example: “Spreading the notion that one would not need to get vaccinated because if you get sick you could take ivermectin is a very dangerous statement. That is not consistent with the standards of professionalism required for certification or licensure.”

Ivermectin, he noted, is not an approved treatment for COVID-19.

“To say that it is or has any benefit is a false statement. We’re not willing to allow individuals who make false statements to devalue the terrific work of tens of thousands of physicians across the United States doing work under very difficult circumstances,” Dr. Nichols said.

He continued: “To suggest treatments that are known not to be effective in exchange for treatment that is known to be effective is dangerous – and ivermectin falls under that category.”

Asked whether such suggestions could result in suspension or revocation of a physician’s license, Dr. Nichols said, “It’s the kind of thing that would certainly trigger a review.”

He said the standard for separating misinformation from personal beliefs is based on whether there is scientific evidence to support the belief.

The boards are not, with this statement, attempting to referee legitimate scientific debate, he said.

The misinformation the boards are referring to, Dr. Nichols said, is “where the evidence is 100% on one side and zero on another. And the zero is not only that the opinions or beliefs are unsupported or unsubstantiated, they are indeed harmful if followed. That’s the distinction we’re trying to make here.”

As for free-speech arguments, he said, “Free speech is a constitutional right. You can say whatever you want. The issue here is you do not have the right to expect continued professional sanction of a board certificate if you are lying to the public.”

The board statement also said: “We all look to board-certified physicians to provide outstanding care and guidance; providing misinformation about a lethal disease is unethical, unprofessional, and dangerous. In times of medical emergency, the community of expert physicians committed to science and evidence collectively shares a responsibility for giving the public the most accurate and timely health information available, so they can make decisions that work best for themselves and their families.”

In addition to Dr. Nichols, the statement was signed by Warren Newton, MD, MPH, president and CEO of the American Board of Family Medicine, and Richard J. Baron, MD, president and CEO of the American Board of Internal Medicine.

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

Three primary care boards have issued a joint statement backing the Federation of State Medical Boards’ recent statement saying that, if physicians spread misinformation about COVID-19, their medical license could be suspended or revoked.

Leaders of the American Board of Family Medicine, the American Board of Internal Medicine, and the American Board of Pediatrics said Sept. 9 that they support FSMB’s position.

“We also want all physicians certified by our boards to know that such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective Board to take action that could put their certification at risk,” a statement read. 

“Expertise matters, and board-certified physicians have demonstrated that they have stayed current in their field. Spreading misinformation or falsehoods to the public during a time of a public health emergency goes against everything our boards and our community of board-certified physicians stand for,” the leaders wrote.

“The evidence that we have safe, effective, and widely available vaccines against COVID-19 is overwhelming. We are particularly concerned about physicians who use their authority to denigrate vaccination at a time when vaccines continue to demonstrate excellent effectiveness against severe illness, hospitalization, and death.”
 

Small number spread false information

However, a small number of doctors continue to spread misinformation against the vaccines and communicate other false information surrounding COVID-19.

Some of the misinformation spreaders have had ultra-viral reach.

Among them is Daniel Stock, MD, a family physician in Indiana who has come out against COVID-19 vaccines. At a recent meeting of the Mt. Vernon Community School board in Indiana, he gave a speech urging the board to ignore the prevailing recommendations around COVID-19, such as test-and-trace measures.

Forbes reported in August that versions of the video of Stock›s speech on Facebook “have collected a total of 90 million engagements – a metric encompassing things such as comments, likes and shares – according to data collected by Media Matters for America, a liberal tech-watchdog group.”

This news organization published a story in August asking whether physicians who spread such information should lose their license and the question drew rapid-fire comments.

Commenters who argued with potential disciplinary actions raised questions about where the line will be drawn between misinformation and deeply held beliefs in terms of care.

Several comments centered on ivermectin, which is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19 but is enthusiastically supported as a COVID-19 treatment by a group of physicians called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, whose website includes requests for donations.

Some cited free speech protections.
 

‘Not consistent with standards’

As for ivermectin, David G. Nichols, MD, president and CEO of the American Board of Pediatrics, gave this news organization an example: “Spreading the notion that one would not need to get vaccinated because if you get sick you could take ivermectin is a very dangerous statement. That is not consistent with the standards of professionalism required for certification or licensure.”

Ivermectin, he noted, is not an approved treatment for COVID-19.

“To say that it is or has any benefit is a false statement. We’re not willing to allow individuals who make false statements to devalue the terrific work of tens of thousands of physicians across the United States doing work under very difficult circumstances,” Dr. Nichols said.

He continued: “To suggest treatments that are known not to be effective in exchange for treatment that is known to be effective is dangerous – and ivermectin falls under that category.”

Asked whether such suggestions could result in suspension or revocation of a physician’s license, Dr. Nichols said, “It’s the kind of thing that would certainly trigger a review.”

He said the standard for separating misinformation from personal beliefs is based on whether there is scientific evidence to support the belief.

The boards are not, with this statement, attempting to referee legitimate scientific debate, he said.

The misinformation the boards are referring to, Dr. Nichols said, is “where the evidence is 100% on one side and zero on another. And the zero is not only that the opinions or beliefs are unsupported or unsubstantiated, they are indeed harmful if followed. That’s the distinction we’re trying to make here.”

As for free-speech arguments, he said, “Free speech is a constitutional right. You can say whatever you want. The issue here is you do not have the right to expect continued professional sanction of a board certificate if you are lying to the public.”

The board statement also said: “We all look to board-certified physicians to provide outstanding care and guidance; providing misinformation about a lethal disease is unethical, unprofessional, and dangerous. In times of medical emergency, the community of expert physicians committed to science and evidence collectively shares a responsibility for giving the public the most accurate and timely health information available, so they can make decisions that work best for themselves and their families.”

In addition to Dr. Nichols, the statement was signed by Warren Newton, MD, MPH, president and CEO of the American Board of Family Medicine, and Richard J. Baron, MD, president and CEO of the American Board of Internal Medicine.

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