Troy Brown, RN

A novel intrauterine device that uses suction to compress the uterus to control postpartum hemorrhage has received high marks for effectiveness and ease of use, researchers say.

Calling this approach “a stroke of brilliance,” James Byrne, MD, said in an interview that it is much quicker and much simpler than other techniques for managing postpartum hemorrhage and is less risky as well.

“This device can be placed in the uterus within a minute or so and does not need any initial anesthesia and would not be associated with the delay needed for a surgical approach,” Dr. Byrne explained. Dr. Byrne, who was not involved in the study, is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif.

To test the efficacy and safety of the device (Jada System, Alydia Health), Mary E. D’Alton, MD, and colleagues conducted a prospective, observational treatment study in 12 U.S. medical centers. They reported their findings in an article published online Sept. 9 in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

“The Jada System (novel intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage-control device) was specifically designed to offer rapid treatment by applying low-level intrauterine vacuum to facilitate the physiologic forces of uterine contractions to constrict myometrial blood vessels and achieve hemostasis,” Dr. D’Alton, from New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, and colleagues wrote.

“The device had a low rate of adverse events during this study, all of which were expected risks and resolved with treatment without serious clinical sequelae. Investigators, all first-time users of the device, found the system easy to use, which suggests that, after device education and with availability of a quick reference guide outlining steps, there is a minimal learning curve for use,” they added.

Alydia Health, the company that developed the device, funded this study and supported the research staff, who recruited participants and gathered follow-up data on them. On Sept. 9, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted 510(k) clearance for the device, according to a company news release.
 

Effective, safe

The multicenter study included 107 patients (mean age, 29.7 years) with postpartum hemorrhage or abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding, 106 of whom received any study treatment with the device attached to vacuum. More than half (57%) of the participants were White, and just fewer than one-quarter (24%) were Black.

Treatment was successful in 94% (100/106) of participants, with “definitive control of abnormal bleeding” occurring in a median of 3 minutes after attachment to vacuum.

Eight adverse events were judged to have been possibly related to the device or procedure: four cases of endometritis, and one case each of presumed endometritis, bacterial vaginosis, vaginal candidiasis, and disruption of a vaginal laceration repair. The eight adverse events were identified as potential risks, and all resolved without serious clinical consequences.

Thirty-five patients required transfusions of 1-3 U of red blood cells, and five patients required at least 4 U of red blood cells.
 

Uterine atony most frequent culprit

As many as 80% of postpartum hemorrhages are caused by uterine atony, according to the authors.

Dr. Byrne explained that the uterus is a muscular organ that contains many “spiral arteries” that are “squeezed” by the uterus as it tightens down after childbirth, which prevents them from bleeding excessively.

“With uterine atony, the uterus muscle doesn’t squeeze effectively, and therefore it’s not one or two arteries, it’s hundreds and hundreds of small arteries and capillaries [and] arterioles all bleeding; it’s a wide area of uterus,” he continued.

When medications alone are ineffective at controlling bleeding, tamponade is often added to put outward pressure on the inner wall of the uterus for 12-24 hours. Although tamponade is effective in approximately 87% of atony-related cases of postpartum hemorrhage, the use of outward pressure on the uterine walls “is counterintuitive if the ultimate goal is uterine contraction,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Byrne said he and his colleagues saw this device several years ago, and they felt at the time that it appeared to be “more intuitive to use vacuum to compress the uterus inward compared to the nonetheless valuable and effective Bakri balloon and other techniques that expand the uterus outward.”

The fact that there is no need for prophylactic antibiotics also sets the vacuum device apart from the Bakri balloon, use of which routinely involves administration of prophylactic antibiotics, Dr. Byrne said.

In the current study, 64% of participants were obese, which makes management of postpartum hemorrhage “really challenging” because it’s difficult to effectively massage the uterus through adipose tissue, Dr. Byrne explained. Patients with obesity “also have different hemodynamics for how effectively [injected medications will] be delivered to the uterus,” he added.

“A device like this that could be placed and works so efficiently – even with an obese patient – that’s actually very powerful,” Dr. Byrne said.
 

Quick placement, almost immediate improvement

The discomfort experienced during placement of the device is similar to that experienced during sweeping of the uterus, Dr. Byrne explained. “You’d want a patient comfortable, ideally with an epidural already active, but if it’s an emergency, you wouldn’t have to wait for that; you could sweep the uterus quickly, place this, initiate suction, and it would all be so quick you could usually talk a patient through it and get it done,” Dr. Byrne continued.

Almost all of the investigators (98%) said the device was easy to use, and 97% said they would recommend it.

The vacuum device is made of medical-grade silicone and consists of an oval-shaped intrauterine loop at one end and a vacuum connector at the other end that can be attached to a standard suction cannister. On the inner side of the intrauterine loop are 20 vacuum pores covered by a shield that protects uterine tissue and prevents the vacuum pores from clogging with tissue or clotted blood.

Before insertion of the vacuum device, the clinician manually sweeps the uterus to identify retained placental fragments and to assess the uterine cavity. The distal end of the device is inserted into the uterus, and a cervical seal, positioned just outside the cervical os, is filled with 60 to 120 cc of sterile fluid. The proximal end is attached to low-level vacuum at a pressure of 80 ± 10 mm Hg. The device is left in place with continued suction for at least 1 hour after bleeding is controlled, at which time the suction is disconnected and the cervical seal is emptied. The device remains in place for at least 30 minutes, during which the patient is observed closely.

“It looks like 75%-80% of cases stop bleeding within 5 minutes. ... Then you stop the pressure after an hour [and] wait at least 30 minutes. You could actually have this out of the patient’s body within 2 hours,” Dr. Byrne said.

Dr. Byrne has disclosed no such financial relationships.
 

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

A novel intrauterine device that uses suction to compress the uterus to control postpartum hemorrhage has received high marks for effectiveness and ease of use, researchers say.

Calling this approach “a stroke of brilliance,” James Byrne, MD, said in an interview that it is much quicker and much simpler than other techniques for managing postpartum hemorrhage and is less risky as well.

“This device can be placed in the uterus within a minute or so and does not need any initial anesthesia and would not be associated with the delay needed for a surgical approach,” Dr. Byrne explained. Dr. Byrne, who was not involved in the study, is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif.

To test the efficacy and safety of the device (Jada System, Alydia Health), Mary E. D’Alton, MD, and colleagues conducted a prospective, observational treatment study in 12 U.S. medical centers. They reported their findings in an article published online Sept. 9 in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

“The Jada System (novel intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage-control device) was specifically designed to offer rapid treatment by applying low-level intrauterine vacuum to facilitate the physiologic forces of uterine contractions to constrict myometrial blood vessels and achieve hemostasis,” Dr. D’Alton, from New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, and colleagues wrote.

“The device had a low rate of adverse events during this study, all of which were expected risks and resolved with treatment without serious clinical sequelae. Investigators, all first-time users of the device, found the system easy to use, which suggests that, after device education and with availability of a quick reference guide outlining steps, there is a minimal learning curve for use,” they added.

Alydia Health, the company that developed the device, funded this study and supported the research staff, who recruited participants and gathered follow-up data on them. On Sept. 9, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted 510(k) clearance for the device, according to a company news release.
 

Effective, safe

The multicenter study included 107 patients (mean age, 29.7 years) with postpartum hemorrhage or abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding, 106 of whom received any study treatment with the device attached to vacuum. More than half (57%) of the participants were White, and just fewer than one-quarter (24%) were Black.

Treatment was successful in 94% (100/106) of participants, with “definitive control of abnormal bleeding” occurring in a median of 3 minutes after attachment to vacuum.

Eight adverse events were judged to have been possibly related to the device or procedure: four cases of endometritis, and one case each of presumed endometritis, bacterial vaginosis, vaginal candidiasis, and disruption of a vaginal laceration repair. The eight adverse events were identified as potential risks, and all resolved without serious clinical consequences.

Thirty-five patients required transfusions of 1-3 U of red blood cells, and five patients required at least 4 U of red blood cells.
 

Uterine atony most frequent culprit

As many as 80% of postpartum hemorrhages are caused by uterine atony, according to the authors.

Dr. Byrne explained that the uterus is a muscular organ that contains many “spiral arteries” that are “squeezed” by the uterus as it tightens down after childbirth, which prevents them from bleeding excessively.

“With uterine atony, the uterus muscle doesn’t squeeze effectively, and therefore it’s not one or two arteries, it’s hundreds and hundreds of small arteries and capillaries [and] arterioles all bleeding; it’s a wide area of uterus,” he continued.

When medications alone are ineffective at controlling bleeding, tamponade is often added to put outward pressure on the inner wall of the uterus for 12-24 hours. Although tamponade is effective in approximately 87% of atony-related cases of postpartum hemorrhage, the use of outward pressure on the uterine walls “is counterintuitive if the ultimate goal is uterine contraction,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Byrne said he and his colleagues saw this device several years ago, and they felt at the time that it appeared to be “more intuitive to use vacuum to compress the uterus inward compared to the nonetheless valuable and effective Bakri balloon and other techniques that expand the uterus outward.”

The fact that there is no need for prophylactic antibiotics also sets the vacuum device apart from the Bakri balloon, use of which routinely involves administration of prophylactic antibiotics, Dr. Byrne said.

In the current study, 64% of participants were obese, which makes management of postpartum hemorrhage “really challenging” because it’s difficult to effectively massage the uterus through adipose tissue, Dr. Byrne explained. Patients with obesity “also have different hemodynamics for how effectively [injected medications will] be delivered to the uterus,” he added.

“A device like this that could be placed and works so efficiently – even with an obese patient – that’s actually very powerful,” Dr. Byrne said.
 

Quick placement, almost immediate improvement

The discomfort experienced during placement of the device is similar to that experienced during sweeping of the uterus, Dr. Byrne explained. “You’d want a patient comfortable, ideally with an epidural already active, but if it’s an emergency, you wouldn’t have to wait for that; you could sweep the uterus quickly, place this, initiate suction, and it would all be so quick you could usually talk a patient through it and get it done,” Dr. Byrne continued.

Almost all of the investigators (98%) said the device was easy to use, and 97% said they would recommend it.

The vacuum device is made of medical-grade silicone and consists of an oval-shaped intrauterine loop at one end and a vacuum connector at the other end that can be attached to a standard suction cannister. On the inner side of the intrauterine loop are 20 vacuum pores covered by a shield that protects uterine tissue and prevents the vacuum pores from clogging with tissue or clotted blood.

Before insertion of the vacuum device, the clinician manually sweeps the uterus to identify retained placental fragments and to assess the uterine cavity. The distal end of the device is inserted into the uterus, and a cervical seal, positioned just outside the cervical os, is filled with 60 to 120 cc of sterile fluid. The proximal end is attached to low-level vacuum at a pressure of 80 ± 10 mm Hg. The device is left in place with continued suction for at least 1 hour after bleeding is controlled, at which time the suction is disconnected and the cervical seal is emptied. The device remains in place for at least 30 minutes, during which the patient is observed closely.

“It looks like 75%-80% of cases stop bleeding within 5 minutes. ... Then you stop the pressure after an hour [and] wait at least 30 minutes. You could actually have this out of the patient’s body within 2 hours,” Dr. Byrne said.

Dr. Byrne has disclosed no such financial relationships.
 

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

A novel intrauterine device that uses suction to compress the uterus to control postpartum hemorrhage has received high marks for effectiveness and ease of use, researchers say.

Calling this approach “a stroke of brilliance,” James Byrne, MD, said in an interview that it is much quicker and much simpler than other techniques for managing postpartum hemorrhage and is less risky as well.

“This device can be placed in the uterus within a minute or so and does not need any initial anesthesia and would not be associated with the delay needed for a surgical approach,” Dr. Byrne explained. Dr. Byrne, who was not involved in the study, is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif.

To test the efficacy and safety of the device (Jada System, Alydia Health), Mary E. D’Alton, MD, and colleagues conducted a prospective, observational treatment study in 12 U.S. medical centers. They reported their findings in an article published online Sept. 9 in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

“The Jada System (novel intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage-control device) was specifically designed to offer rapid treatment by applying low-level intrauterine vacuum to facilitate the physiologic forces of uterine contractions to constrict myometrial blood vessels and achieve hemostasis,” Dr. D’Alton, from New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, and colleagues wrote.

“The device had a low rate of adverse events during this study, all of which were expected risks and resolved with treatment without serious clinical sequelae. Investigators, all first-time users of the device, found the system easy to use, which suggests that, after device education and with availability of a quick reference guide outlining steps, there is a minimal learning curve for use,” they added.

Alydia Health, the company that developed the device, funded this study and supported the research staff, who recruited participants and gathered follow-up data on them. On Sept. 9, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted 510(k) clearance for the device, according to a company news release.
 

Effective, safe

The multicenter study included 107 patients (mean age, 29.7 years) with postpartum hemorrhage or abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding, 106 of whom received any study treatment with the device attached to vacuum. More than half (57%) of the participants were White, and just fewer than one-quarter (24%) were Black.

Treatment was successful in 94% (100/106) of participants, with “definitive control of abnormal bleeding” occurring in a median of 3 minutes after attachment to vacuum.

Eight adverse events were judged to have been possibly related to the device or procedure: four cases of endometritis, and one case each of presumed endometritis, bacterial vaginosis, vaginal candidiasis, and disruption of a vaginal laceration repair. The eight adverse events were identified as potential risks, and all resolved without serious clinical consequences.

Thirty-five patients required transfusions of 1-3 U of red blood cells, and five patients required at least 4 U of red blood cells.
 

Uterine atony most frequent culprit

As many as 80% of postpartum hemorrhages are caused by uterine atony, according to the authors.

Dr. Byrne explained that the uterus is a muscular organ that contains many “spiral arteries” that are “squeezed” by the uterus as it tightens down after childbirth, which prevents them from bleeding excessively.

“With uterine atony, the uterus muscle doesn’t squeeze effectively, and therefore it’s not one or two arteries, it’s hundreds and hundreds of small arteries and capillaries [and] arterioles all bleeding; it’s a wide area of uterus,” he continued.

When medications alone are ineffective at controlling bleeding, tamponade is often added to put outward pressure on the inner wall of the uterus for 12-24 hours. Although tamponade is effective in approximately 87% of atony-related cases of postpartum hemorrhage, the use of outward pressure on the uterine walls “is counterintuitive if the ultimate goal is uterine contraction,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Byrne said he and his colleagues saw this device several years ago, and they felt at the time that it appeared to be “more intuitive to use vacuum to compress the uterus inward compared to the nonetheless valuable and effective Bakri balloon and other techniques that expand the uterus outward.”

The fact that there is no need for prophylactic antibiotics also sets the vacuum device apart from the Bakri balloon, use of which routinely involves administration of prophylactic antibiotics, Dr. Byrne said.

In the current study, 64% of participants were obese, which makes management of postpartum hemorrhage “really challenging” because it’s difficult to effectively massage the uterus through adipose tissue, Dr. Byrne explained. Patients with obesity “also have different hemodynamics for how effectively [injected medications will] be delivered to the uterus,” he added.

“A device like this that could be placed and works so efficiently – even with an obese patient – that’s actually very powerful,” Dr. Byrne said.
 

Quick placement, almost immediate improvement

The discomfort experienced during placement of the device is similar to that experienced during sweeping of the uterus, Dr. Byrne explained. “You’d want a patient comfortable, ideally with an epidural already active, but if it’s an emergency, you wouldn’t have to wait for that; you could sweep the uterus quickly, place this, initiate suction, and it would all be so quick you could usually talk a patient through it and get it done,” Dr. Byrne continued.

Almost all of the investigators (98%) said the device was easy to use, and 97% said they would recommend it.

The vacuum device is made of medical-grade silicone and consists of an oval-shaped intrauterine loop at one end and a vacuum connector at the other end that can be attached to a standard suction cannister. On the inner side of the intrauterine loop are 20 vacuum pores covered by a shield that protects uterine tissue and prevents the vacuum pores from clogging with tissue or clotted blood.

Before insertion of the vacuum device, the clinician manually sweeps the uterus to identify retained placental fragments and to assess the uterine cavity. The distal end of the device is inserted into the uterus, and a cervical seal, positioned just outside the cervical os, is filled with 60 to 120 cc of sterile fluid. The proximal end is attached to low-level vacuum at a pressure of 80 ± 10 mm Hg. The device is left in place with continued suction for at least 1 hour after bleeding is controlled, at which time the suction is disconnected and the cervical seal is emptied. The device remains in place for at least 30 minutes, during which the patient is observed closely.

“It looks like 75%-80% of cases stop bleeding within 5 minutes. ... Then you stop the pressure after an hour [and] wait at least 30 minutes. You could actually have this out of the patient’s body within 2 hours,” Dr. Byrne said.

Dr. Byrne has disclosed no such financial relationships.
 

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

Two COVID-19 vaccines are entering phase 3 clinical trials, according to data presented at a virtual meeting of vaccine and infectious disease experts.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday held its third meeting this summer to discuss the vaccines and plan how initial vaccines will be allocated, inasmuch as supplies will likely be limited at first. Vaccines are expected to be more available as production ramps up and as more than one vaccine become available, but vaccine allocation initially will need to take place in phases.

Considerations include first getting the vaccine to individuals who need it the most, such as healthcare personnel and essential workers, as well as those at higher risk for severe illness or death, including the elderly, those with underlying conditions, and certain racial and ethnic minorities. Other factors include storage requirements that might be difficult to meet in certain settings and the fact that both vaccines must be given in two doses.

Vaccine allocation models

The group presented two possible models for allocating initial vaccine supplies.

The first population model considers risk status within each age group on the basis of underlying health conditions and occupational group, with priority given to healthcare personnel (paid or unpaid) and essential workers. The model considers partial reopening and social distancing, expected vaccine efficacy, prevaccination immunity, mortality, and the direct and indirect benefits of vaccination.

In this model, COVID-19 infections and deaths were reduced when healthcare personnel, essential workers, or adults with underlying conditions were vaccinated. There were smaller differences between the groups with respect to the impact of vaccination. Declines in infections were “more modest” and declines in deaths were greater when adults aged 65 years and older were vaccinated in comparison with other age groups.

The second model focused on vaccination of nursing home healthcare personnel and residents. Vaccinating nursing home healthcare personnel reduced infections and deaths more than vaccinating nursing home residents.

In settings such as long-term care facilities and correction facilities, where people gather in groups, cases increase first among staff. The vaccine working group suggests that vaccinating staff may also benefit individuals living in those facilities.

The working group expects that from 15 to 45 million doses of vaccine will be available by the end of December, depending on which vaccine is approved by then or whether both are approved.

Supplies won’t be nearly enough to vaccinate everyone: There are approximately 17 to 20 million healthcare workers in the United States and 60 to 80 million essential workers who do not work in healthcare. More than 100 million adults have underlying medical conditions that put them at higher risk for hospitalization and death, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And approximately 53 million adults are aged 65 years or older.

The group reviewed promising early data for two vaccines under development.

The mRNA-1273 vaccine, made by Moderna with support from two federal agencies, is moving into phase 3 clinical trials – enrollment into the COVID-19 Efficacy and Safety (COVE) study is ongoing, according to Jacqueline M. Miller, MD, senior vice president and therapeutic area head of infectious diseases. The study’s primary objective will be to determine whether two doses can prevent symptomatic COVID-19, according to an NIH news release.

A second mRNA vaccine, BNT 162b2, made by Pfizer and BioNTech, is entering phase 2/3 trials. Nearly 20% of people enrolled are Black or Hispanic persons, and 4% are Asian persons. The team is also trying to recruit Native American participants, Nicholas Kitchin, MD, senior director in Pfizer’s vaccine clinical research and development group, said in a presentation to the advisory committee.

‘Ultra-cold’ temperatures required for storage

Both vaccines require storage at lower temperatures than is usually needed for vaccines. One vaccine must be distributed and stored at -20° C, and the other must be stored, distributed, and handled at -70° C.

This issue stands out most to ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. He says the “ultra-cold” temperatures required for storage and transportation of the vaccines will be a “significant problem” for those in rural areas.

High-risk populations such as meat processors and agricultural workers “may have to wait until we have a more stable vaccine that can be transported and delivered more or less at room temperature,” Romero explained. He is the chief medical officer at the Arkansas Department of Health and is a professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, both in Little Rock.

The advisory committee will meet again on September 22. At that time, they’ll vote on an interim plan for prioritization of the first COVID-19 vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two COVID-19 vaccines are entering phase 3 clinical trials, according to data presented at a virtual meeting of vaccine and infectious disease experts.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday held its third meeting this summer to discuss the vaccines and plan how initial vaccines will be allocated, inasmuch as supplies will likely be limited at first. Vaccines are expected to be more available as production ramps up and as more than one vaccine become available, but vaccine allocation initially will need to take place in phases.

Considerations include first getting the vaccine to individuals who need it the most, such as healthcare personnel and essential workers, as well as those at higher risk for severe illness or death, including the elderly, those with underlying conditions, and certain racial and ethnic minorities. Other factors include storage requirements that might be difficult to meet in certain settings and the fact that both vaccines must be given in two doses.

Vaccine allocation models

The group presented two possible models for allocating initial vaccine supplies.

The first population model considers risk status within each age group on the basis of underlying health conditions and occupational group, with priority given to healthcare personnel (paid or unpaid) and essential workers. The model considers partial reopening and social distancing, expected vaccine efficacy, prevaccination immunity, mortality, and the direct and indirect benefits of vaccination.

In this model, COVID-19 infections and deaths were reduced when healthcare personnel, essential workers, or adults with underlying conditions were vaccinated. There were smaller differences between the groups with respect to the impact of vaccination. Declines in infections were “more modest” and declines in deaths were greater when adults aged 65 years and older were vaccinated in comparison with other age groups.

The second model focused on vaccination of nursing home healthcare personnel and residents. Vaccinating nursing home healthcare personnel reduced infections and deaths more than vaccinating nursing home residents.

In settings such as long-term care facilities and correction facilities, where people gather in groups, cases increase first among staff. The vaccine working group suggests that vaccinating staff may also benefit individuals living in those facilities.

The working group expects that from 15 to 45 million doses of vaccine will be available by the end of December, depending on which vaccine is approved by then or whether both are approved.

Supplies won’t be nearly enough to vaccinate everyone: There are approximately 17 to 20 million healthcare workers in the United States and 60 to 80 million essential workers who do not work in healthcare. More than 100 million adults have underlying medical conditions that put them at higher risk for hospitalization and death, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And approximately 53 million adults are aged 65 years or older.

The group reviewed promising early data for two vaccines under development.

The mRNA-1273 vaccine, made by Moderna with support from two federal agencies, is moving into phase 3 clinical trials – enrollment into the COVID-19 Efficacy and Safety (COVE) study is ongoing, according to Jacqueline M. Miller, MD, senior vice president and therapeutic area head of infectious diseases. The study’s primary objective will be to determine whether two doses can prevent symptomatic COVID-19, according to an NIH news release.

A second mRNA vaccine, BNT 162b2, made by Pfizer and BioNTech, is entering phase 2/3 trials. Nearly 20% of people enrolled are Black or Hispanic persons, and 4% are Asian persons. The team is also trying to recruit Native American participants, Nicholas Kitchin, MD, senior director in Pfizer’s vaccine clinical research and development group, said in a presentation to the advisory committee.

‘Ultra-cold’ temperatures required for storage

Both vaccines require storage at lower temperatures than is usually needed for vaccines. One vaccine must be distributed and stored at -20° C, and the other must be stored, distributed, and handled at -70° C.

This issue stands out most to ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. He says the “ultra-cold” temperatures required for storage and transportation of the vaccines will be a “significant problem” for those in rural areas.

High-risk populations such as meat processors and agricultural workers “may have to wait until we have a more stable vaccine that can be transported and delivered more or less at room temperature,” Romero explained. He is the chief medical officer at the Arkansas Department of Health and is a professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, both in Little Rock.

The advisory committee will meet again on September 22. At that time, they’ll vote on an interim plan for prioritization of the first COVID-19 vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two COVID-19 vaccines are entering phase 3 clinical trials, according to data presented at a virtual meeting of vaccine and infectious disease experts.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday held its third meeting this summer to discuss the vaccines and plan how initial vaccines will be allocated, inasmuch as supplies will likely be limited at first. Vaccines are expected to be more available as production ramps up and as more than one vaccine become available, but vaccine allocation initially will need to take place in phases.

Considerations include first getting the vaccine to individuals who need it the most, such as healthcare personnel and essential workers, as well as those at higher risk for severe illness or death, including the elderly, those with underlying conditions, and certain racial and ethnic minorities. Other factors include storage requirements that might be difficult to meet in certain settings and the fact that both vaccines must be given in two doses.

Vaccine allocation models

The group presented two possible models for allocating initial vaccine supplies.

The first population model considers risk status within each age group on the basis of underlying health conditions and occupational group, with priority given to healthcare personnel (paid or unpaid) and essential workers. The model considers partial reopening and social distancing, expected vaccine efficacy, prevaccination immunity, mortality, and the direct and indirect benefits of vaccination.

In this model, COVID-19 infections and deaths were reduced when healthcare personnel, essential workers, or adults with underlying conditions were vaccinated. There were smaller differences between the groups with respect to the impact of vaccination. Declines in infections were “more modest” and declines in deaths were greater when adults aged 65 years and older were vaccinated in comparison with other age groups.

The second model focused on vaccination of nursing home healthcare personnel and residents. Vaccinating nursing home healthcare personnel reduced infections and deaths more than vaccinating nursing home residents.

In settings such as long-term care facilities and correction facilities, where people gather in groups, cases increase first among staff. The vaccine working group suggests that vaccinating staff may also benefit individuals living in those facilities.

The working group expects that from 15 to 45 million doses of vaccine will be available by the end of December, depending on which vaccine is approved by then or whether both are approved.

Supplies won’t be nearly enough to vaccinate everyone: There are approximately 17 to 20 million healthcare workers in the United States and 60 to 80 million essential workers who do not work in healthcare. More than 100 million adults have underlying medical conditions that put them at higher risk for hospitalization and death, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And approximately 53 million adults are aged 65 years or older.

The group reviewed promising early data for two vaccines under development.

The mRNA-1273 vaccine, made by Moderna with support from two federal agencies, is moving into phase 3 clinical trials – enrollment into the COVID-19 Efficacy and Safety (COVE) study is ongoing, according to Jacqueline M. Miller, MD, senior vice president and therapeutic area head of infectious diseases. The study’s primary objective will be to determine whether two doses can prevent symptomatic COVID-19, according to an NIH news release.

A second mRNA vaccine, BNT 162b2, made by Pfizer and BioNTech, is entering phase 2/3 trials. Nearly 20% of people enrolled are Black or Hispanic persons, and 4% are Asian persons. The team is also trying to recruit Native American participants, Nicholas Kitchin, MD, senior director in Pfizer’s vaccine clinical research and development group, said in a presentation to the advisory committee.

‘Ultra-cold’ temperatures required for storage

Both vaccines require storage at lower temperatures than is usually needed for vaccines. One vaccine must be distributed and stored at -20° C, and the other must be stored, distributed, and handled at -70° C.

This issue stands out most to ACIP Chair Jose Romero, MD. He says the “ultra-cold” temperatures required for storage and transportation of the vaccines will be a “significant problem” for those in rural areas.

High-risk populations such as meat processors and agricultural workers “may have to wait until we have a more stable vaccine that can be transported and delivered more or less at room temperature,” Romero explained. He is the chief medical officer at the Arkansas Department of Health and is a professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, both in Little Rock.

The advisory committee will meet again on September 22. At that time, they’ll vote on an interim plan for prioritization of the first COVID-19 vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with chronic leg edema and recurrent cellulitis, risk for future cellulitis is reduced by 77% by wearing compression stockings or wraps, researchers report. The effect was so striking that the randomized controlled trial was stopped early and all patients in the study were given the therapy.

“In a climate of increasing antibiotic resistance, we are delighted to have discovered a nondrug management strategy that has such a dramatic impact on the risk of cellulitis,” senior author Bernie Bissett, PhD, from the Discipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, the University of Canberra, Australia, said in an interview.

“We hope this leads to a shift in preventative medical strategy for patients with chronic edema and cellulitis around the world,” she said.

Lead author Elizabeth Webb, MPH, from the Physiotherapy Department at Calvary Public Hospital Bruce, in Bruce, Australia, and colleagues report their findings in an article published online August 12 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Bisset explained that Webb is a “leading lymphedema physiotherapist” and a PhD candidate at the University of Canberra. She added that this is the first study to show that “compression therapy dramatically reduces the risk of cellulitis for patients with chronic edema.”

Penicillin is often given preventively; some research suggests effectiveness wanes after the antibiotic is stopped.

For the current trial, Ms. Webb and colleagues enrolled 84 adults with chronic edema of the leg and recurrent cellulitis. They randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive leg compression therapy plus education about preventing cellulitis (compression group; n = 41) or education only (control group; n = 43).

Compression therapy consisted of wearing knee-high stockings that applied maximum compression at the ankles. The compression gradually decreased up the legs. In addition, 26 patients were treated with “therapist-applied compression bandaging” for 3 to 5 days before receiving the stockings.

Participants underwent follow-up assessments every 6 months for a maximum of 3 years or until 45 episodes of cellulitis, the primary outcome, occurred. Those in the control group crossed over to the compression group once they experienced cellulitis.

The trial was stopped early for reasons of efficacy. “The statistical analysis plan prespecified that after 23 episodes of cellulitis had occurred, an independent data monitoring committee would review the results of the interim analysis and recommend whether the trial should stop early,” the authors write.

At the time of the monitoring committee’s review, six patients (15%) who wore compression stockings and 17 (40%) in the control group had experienced a cellulitis episode (hazard ratio, 0.23; P = .002; relative risk [post hoc analysis], 0.37; P = .02). On the basis of those findings, the researchers stopped the study, and patients in the control group were started on compression therapy.

“Clinicians should definitely consider referring their patients to a skilled lymphedema therapist who can individually prescribe and fit compression garments,” Dr. Bissett said. “In our study, these were well tolerated and reduced the risk of another episode of cellulitis by a huge 77%,” she added.

Secondary outcomes included hospitalization related to cellulitis and quality-of-life assessments.

Three patients (7%) in the compression group and six (14%) in the control group were admitted to the hospital for cellulitis (hazard ratio, 0.38). There were no differences in quality of life outcomes between the treatment groups.

The authors say compression therapy has the potential to decrease cellulitis risk by reducing edema, boosting immune response and skin integrity, and protecting the skin.

“Patients with a history of leg swelling (chronic edema) and previous episodes of cellulitis are ideal candidates for this compression therapy,” Dr. Bissett said.

“Given the lack of side effects of the therapy in our study and the potential to reduce other skin problems in these patients, compression therapy is an ideal prophylactic strategy,” she said.

The authors note several study limitations, including a lack of blinding. In addition, patients in the study had to have access to lymphedema specialists, who might be unavailable to patients outside the study. This could have influenced adherence and limit generalizability. Difficulty putting on and taking off compression garments often leads patients to be less adherent to compression therapy, but 88% of patients in this study wore them at least 4 days per week.

Dr. Bissett said compression therapy would be useful for primary care physicians to consider for patients with chronic edema.

“Primary care physicians are highly likely to encounter patients with chronic edema in their day-to-day practice. We can now confidently say that referral to lymphedema therapists for compression therapy should be a first line of defense against future episodes of cellulitis in this vulnerable patient group,” she explained.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with chronic leg edema and recurrent cellulitis, risk for future cellulitis is reduced by 77% by wearing compression stockings or wraps, researchers report. The effect was so striking that the randomized controlled trial was stopped early and all patients in the study were given the therapy.

“In a climate of increasing antibiotic resistance, we are delighted to have discovered a nondrug management strategy that has such a dramatic impact on the risk of cellulitis,” senior author Bernie Bissett, PhD, from the Discipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, the University of Canberra, Australia, said in an interview.

“We hope this leads to a shift in preventative medical strategy for patients with chronic edema and cellulitis around the world,” she said.

Lead author Elizabeth Webb, MPH, from the Physiotherapy Department at Calvary Public Hospital Bruce, in Bruce, Australia, and colleagues report their findings in an article published online August 12 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Bisset explained that Webb is a “leading lymphedema physiotherapist” and a PhD candidate at the University of Canberra. She added that this is the first study to show that “compression therapy dramatically reduces the risk of cellulitis for patients with chronic edema.”

Penicillin is often given preventively; some research suggests effectiveness wanes after the antibiotic is stopped.

For the current trial, Ms. Webb and colleagues enrolled 84 adults with chronic edema of the leg and recurrent cellulitis. They randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive leg compression therapy plus education about preventing cellulitis (compression group; n = 41) or education only (control group; n = 43).

Compression therapy consisted of wearing knee-high stockings that applied maximum compression at the ankles. The compression gradually decreased up the legs. In addition, 26 patients were treated with “therapist-applied compression bandaging” for 3 to 5 days before receiving the stockings.

Participants underwent follow-up assessments every 6 months for a maximum of 3 years or until 45 episodes of cellulitis, the primary outcome, occurred. Those in the control group crossed over to the compression group once they experienced cellulitis.

The trial was stopped early for reasons of efficacy. “The statistical analysis plan prespecified that after 23 episodes of cellulitis had occurred, an independent data monitoring committee would review the results of the interim analysis and recommend whether the trial should stop early,” the authors write.

At the time of the monitoring committee’s review, six patients (15%) who wore compression stockings and 17 (40%) in the control group had experienced a cellulitis episode (hazard ratio, 0.23; P = .002; relative risk [post hoc analysis], 0.37; P = .02). On the basis of those findings, the researchers stopped the study, and patients in the control group were started on compression therapy.

“Clinicians should definitely consider referring their patients to a skilled lymphedema therapist who can individually prescribe and fit compression garments,” Dr. Bissett said. “In our study, these were well tolerated and reduced the risk of another episode of cellulitis by a huge 77%,” she added.

Secondary outcomes included hospitalization related to cellulitis and quality-of-life assessments.

Three patients (7%) in the compression group and six (14%) in the control group were admitted to the hospital for cellulitis (hazard ratio, 0.38). There were no differences in quality of life outcomes between the treatment groups.

The authors say compression therapy has the potential to decrease cellulitis risk by reducing edema, boosting immune response and skin integrity, and protecting the skin.

“Patients with a history of leg swelling (chronic edema) and previous episodes of cellulitis are ideal candidates for this compression therapy,” Dr. Bissett said.

“Given the lack of side effects of the therapy in our study and the potential to reduce other skin problems in these patients, compression therapy is an ideal prophylactic strategy,” she said.

The authors note several study limitations, including a lack of blinding. In addition, patients in the study had to have access to lymphedema specialists, who might be unavailable to patients outside the study. This could have influenced adherence and limit generalizability. Difficulty putting on and taking off compression garments often leads patients to be less adherent to compression therapy, but 88% of patients in this study wore them at least 4 days per week.

Dr. Bissett said compression therapy would be useful for primary care physicians to consider for patients with chronic edema.

“Primary care physicians are highly likely to encounter patients with chronic edema in their day-to-day practice. We can now confidently say that referral to lymphedema therapists for compression therapy should be a first line of defense against future episodes of cellulitis in this vulnerable patient group,” she explained.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with chronic leg edema and recurrent cellulitis, risk for future cellulitis is reduced by 77% by wearing compression stockings or wraps, researchers report. The effect was so striking that the randomized controlled trial was stopped early and all patients in the study were given the therapy.

“In a climate of increasing antibiotic resistance, we are delighted to have discovered a nondrug management strategy that has such a dramatic impact on the risk of cellulitis,” senior author Bernie Bissett, PhD, from the Discipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, the University of Canberra, Australia, said in an interview.

“We hope this leads to a shift in preventative medical strategy for patients with chronic edema and cellulitis around the world,” she said.

Lead author Elizabeth Webb, MPH, from the Physiotherapy Department at Calvary Public Hospital Bruce, in Bruce, Australia, and colleagues report their findings in an article published online August 12 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Bisset explained that Webb is a “leading lymphedema physiotherapist” and a PhD candidate at the University of Canberra. She added that this is the first study to show that “compression therapy dramatically reduces the risk of cellulitis for patients with chronic edema.”

Penicillin is often given preventively; some research suggests effectiveness wanes after the antibiotic is stopped.

For the current trial, Ms. Webb and colleagues enrolled 84 adults with chronic edema of the leg and recurrent cellulitis. They randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive leg compression therapy plus education about preventing cellulitis (compression group; n = 41) or education only (control group; n = 43).

Compression therapy consisted of wearing knee-high stockings that applied maximum compression at the ankles. The compression gradually decreased up the legs. In addition, 26 patients were treated with “therapist-applied compression bandaging” for 3 to 5 days before receiving the stockings.

Participants underwent follow-up assessments every 6 months for a maximum of 3 years or until 45 episodes of cellulitis, the primary outcome, occurred. Those in the control group crossed over to the compression group once they experienced cellulitis.

The trial was stopped early for reasons of efficacy. “The statistical analysis plan prespecified that after 23 episodes of cellulitis had occurred, an independent data monitoring committee would review the results of the interim analysis and recommend whether the trial should stop early,” the authors write.

At the time of the monitoring committee’s review, six patients (15%) who wore compression stockings and 17 (40%) in the control group had experienced a cellulitis episode (hazard ratio, 0.23; P = .002; relative risk [post hoc analysis], 0.37; P = .02). On the basis of those findings, the researchers stopped the study, and patients in the control group were started on compression therapy.

“Clinicians should definitely consider referring their patients to a skilled lymphedema therapist who can individually prescribe and fit compression garments,” Dr. Bissett said. “In our study, these were well tolerated and reduced the risk of another episode of cellulitis by a huge 77%,” she added.

Secondary outcomes included hospitalization related to cellulitis and quality-of-life assessments.

Three patients (7%) in the compression group and six (14%) in the control group were admitted to the hospital for cellulitis (hazard ratio, 0.38). There were no differences in quality of life outcomes between the treatment groups.

The authors say compression therapy has the potential to decrease cellulitis risk by reducing edema, boosting immune response and skin integrity, and protecting the skin.

“Patients with a history of leg swelling (chronic edema) and previous episodes of cellulitis are ideal candidates for this compression therapy,” Dr. Bissett said.

“Given the lack of side effects of the therapy in our study and the potential to reduce other skin problems in these patients, compression therapy is an ideal prophylactic strategy,” she said.

The authors note several study limitations, including a lack of blinding. In addition, patients in the study had to have access to lymphedema specialists, who might be unavailable to patients outside the study. This could have influenced adherence and limit generalizability. Difficulty putting on and taking off compression garments often leads patients to be less adherent to compression therapy, but 88% of patients in this study wore them at least 4 days per week.

Dr. Bissett said compression therapy would be useful for primary care physicians to consider for patients with chronic edema.

“Primary care physicians are highly likely to encounter patients with chronic edema in their day-to-day practice. We can now confidently say that referral to lymphedema therapists for compression therapy should be a first line of defense against future episodes of cellulitis in this vulnerable patient group,” she explained.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Combining specimens from several low-risk inpatients in a single test for SARS-CoV-2 infection allowed hospital staff to stretch testing supplies and provide test results quickly for many more patients than they might have otherwise, researchers found.

“We believe this strategy conserved [personal protective equipment (PPE)], led to a marked reduction in staff and patient anxiety, and improved patient care,” wrote David Mastrianni, MD, and colleagues from Saratoga Hospital in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. “Our impression is that testing all admitted patients has also been reassuring to our community.”

The researchers published their findings July 20 in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

“What was really important about this study was they were actually able to implement pooled testing after communication with the [Food and Drug Administration],” Samir S. Shah, MD, MSCE, SFHM, the journal’s editor-in-chief, said in an interview.

“Pooled testing combines samples from multiple people within a single test. The benefit is, if the test is negative [you know that] everyone whose sample was combined … is negative. So you’ve effectively tested anywhere from three to five people with the resources required for only one test,” Dr. Shah continued.

The challenge is that, if the test is positive, everyone in that testing group must be retested individually because one or more of them has the infection, said Dr. Shah, director of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Dr. Mastrianni said early in the pandemic they started getting the “New York surge” at their hospital, located approximately 3 hours from New York City. They wanted to test all of the inpatients at their hospital for COVID-19 and they had a rapid in-house test that worked well, “but we just didn’t have enough cartridges, and we couldn’t get deliveries, and we started pooling.” In fact, they ran out of testing supplies at one point during the study but were able to replenish their supply in about a day, he noted.

For the current study, all patients admitted to the hospital, including those admitted for observation, underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2. Staff in the emergency department designated patients as low risk if they had no symptoms or other clinical evidence of COVID-19; those patients underwent pooled testing.

Patients with clinical evidence of COVID-19, such as respiratory symptoms or laboratory or radiographic findings consistent with infection, were considered high risk and were tested on an individual basis and thus excluded from the current analysis.

The pooled testing strategy required some patients to be held in the emergency department until there were three available for pooled testing. On several occasions when this was not practical, specimens from two patients were pooled.

Between April 17 and May 11, clinicians tested 530 patients via pooled testing using 179 cartridges (172 with swabs from three patients and 7 with swabs from two patients). There were four positive pooled tests, which necessitated the use of an additional 11 cartridges. Overall, the testing used 190 cartridges, which is 340 fewer than would have been used if all patients had been tested individually. 

Among the low-risk patients, the positive rate was 0.8% (4/530). No patients from pools that were negative tested positive later during their hospitalization or developed evidence of the infection.
 

Team effort, flexibility needed

Dr. Mastrianni said he expected their study to find that pooled testing saved testing resources, but he “was surprised by the complexity of the logistics in the hospital, and how it really required getting everybody to work together. …There were a lot of details, and it really took a lot of teamwork.”

The nursing supervisor in the emergency department was in charge of the batch and coordinated with the laboratory, he explained. There were many moving parts to manage, including monitoring how many patients were being admitted, what their conditions were, whether they were high or low risk, and where they would house those patients as the emergency department became increasingly busy. “It’s a lot for them, but they’ve adapted really well,” Dr. Mastrianni said.

Pooling tests seems to work best for three to five patients at a time; larger batches increase the chance of having a positive test, and thus identifying the sick individual(s) becomes more challenging and expensive, Dr. Shah said.

“It’s a fine line between having a pool large enough that you save on testing supplies and testing costs but not having the pool so large that you dramatically increase your likelihood of having a positive test,” Dr. Shah said.

Hospitals will likely need to be flexible and adapt as the local positivity rate changes and supply levels vary, according to the authors.

“Pooled testing is mainly dependent on the COVID-19 positive rate in the population of interest in addition to the sensitivity of the [reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)] method used for COVID-19 testing,” said Baha Abdalhamid, MD, PhD, of the department of pathology and microbiology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

“Each laboratory and hospital needs to do their own validation testing because it is dependent on the positive rate of COVID-19,” added Dr. Abdalhamid, who was not involved in the current study.

It’s important for clinicians to “do a good history to find who’s high risk and who’s low risk,” Dr. Mastrianni said. Clinicians also need to remember that, although a patient may test negative initially, they may still have COVID-19, he warned. That test reflects a single point in time, and a patient could be infected and not yet be ill, so clinicians need to be alert to a change in the patient’s status.
 

Best for settings with low-risk individuals

“Pooled COVID-19 testing is a straightforward, cost-effective, and efficient approach,” Dr. Abdalhamid said. He and his colleagues found pooled testing could increase testing capability by 69% or more when the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection is 10% or lower.

He said the approach would be helpful in other settings “as long as the positive rate is equal to or less than 10%. Asymptomatic population or surveillance groups such as students, athletes, and military service members are [an] interesting population to test using pooling testing because we expect these populations to have low positive rates, which makes pooled testing ideal.” 
 

Benefit outweighs risk

“There is risk of missing specimens with low concentration of the virus,” Dr. Abdalhamid cautioned. “These specimens might be missed due to the dilution factor of pooling [false-negative specimens]. We did not have a single false-negative specimen in our proof-of-concept study. In addition, there are practical approaches to deal with false-negative pooled specimens.

“The benefit definitely outweighs the risk of false-negative specimens because false-negative results rarely occur, if any. In addition, there is significant saving of time, reagents, and supplies in [a] pooled specimens approach as well as expansion of the test for higher number of patients,” Dr. Abdalhamid continued. 

Dr. Mastrianni’s hospital currently has enough testing cartridges, but they are continuing to conduct pooled testing to conserve resources for the benefit of their own hospital and for the nation as a whole, he said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Abdalhamid and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Combining specimens from several low-risk inpatients in a single test for SARS-CoV-2 infection allowed hospital staff to stretch testing supplies and provide test results quickly for many more patients than they might have otherwise, researchers found.

“We believe this strategy conserved [personal protective equipment (PPE)], led to a marked reduction in staff and patient anxiety, and improved patient care,” wrote David Mastrianni, MD, and colleagues from Saratoga Hospital in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. “Our impression is that testing all admitted patients has also been reassuring to our community.”

The researchers published their findings July 20 in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

“What was really important about this study was they were actually able to implement pooled testing after communication with the [Food and Drug Administration],” Samir S. Shah, MD, MSCE, SFHM, the journal’s editor-in-chief, said in an interview.

“Pooled testing combines samples from multiple people within a single test. The benefit is, if the test is negative [you know that] everyone whose sample was combined … is negative. So you’ve effectively tested anywhere from three to five people with the resources required for only one test,” Dr. Shah continued.

The challenge is that, if the test is positive, everyone in that testing group must be retested individually because one or more of them has the infection, said Dr. Shah, director of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Dr. Mastrianni said early in the pandemic they started getting the “New York surge” at their hospital, located approximately 3 hours from New York City. They wanted to test all of the inpatients at their hospital for COVID-19 and they had a rapid in-house test that worked well, “but we just didn’t have enough cartridges, and we couldn’t get deliveries, and we started pooling.” In fact, they ran out of testing supplies at one point during the study but were able to replenish their supply in about a day, he noted.

For the current study, all patients admitted to the hospital, including those admitted for observation, underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2. Staff in the emergency department designated patients as low risk if they had no symptoms or other clinical evidence of COVID-19; those patients underwent pooled testing.

Patients with clinical evidence of COVID-19, such as respiratory symptoms or laboratory or radiographic findings consistent with infection, were considered high risk and were tested on an individual basis and thus excluded from the current analysis.

The pooled testing strategy required some patients to be held in the emergency department until there were three available for pooled testing. On several occasions when this was not practical, specimens from two patients were pooled.

Between April 17 and May 11, clinicians tested 530 patients via pooled testing using 179 cartridges (172 with swabs from three patients and 7 with swabs from two patients). There were four positive pooled tests, which necessitated the use of an additional 11 cartridges. Overall, the testing used 190 cartridges, which is 340 fewer than would have been used if all patients had been tested individually. 

Among the low-risk patients, the positive rate was 0.8% (4/530). No patients from pools that were negative tested positive later during their hospitalization or developed evidence of the infection.
 

Team effort, flexibility needed

Dr. Mastrianni said he expected their study to find that pooled testing saved testing resources, but he “was surprised by the complexity of the logistics in the hospital, and how it really required getting everybody to work together. …There were a lot of details, and it really took a lot of teamwork.”

The nursing supervisor in the emergency department was in charge of the batch and coordinated with the laboratory, he explained. There were many moving parts to manage, including monitoring how many patients were being admitted, what their conditions were, whether they were high or low risk, and where they would house those patients as the emergency department became increasingly busy. “It’s a lot for them, but they’ve adapted really well,” Dr. Mastrianni said.

Pooling tests seems to work best for three to five patients at a time; larger batches increase the chance of having a positive test, and thus identifying the sick individual(s) becomes more challenging and expensive, Dr. Shah said.

“It’s a fine line between having a pool large enough that you save on testing supplies and testing costs but not having the pool so large that you dramatically increase your likelihood of having a positive test,” Dr. Shah said.

Hospitals will likely need to be flexible and adapt as the local positivity rate changes and supply levels vary, according to the authors.

“Pooled testing is mainly dependent on the COVID-19 positive rate in the population of interest in addition to the sensitivity of the [reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)] method used for COVID-19 testing,” said Baha Abdalhamid, MD, PhD, of the department of pathology and microbiology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

“Each laboratory and hospital needs to do their own validation testing because it is dependent on the positive rate of COVID-19,” added Dr. Abdalhamid, who was not involved in the current study.

It’s important for clinicians to “do a good history to find who’s high risk and who’s low risk,” Dr. Mastrianni said. Clinicians also need to remember that, although a patient may test negative initially, they may still have COVID-19, he warned. That test reflects a single point in time, and a patient could be infected and not yet be ill, so clinicians need to be alert to a change in the patient’s status.
 

Best for settings with low-risk individuals

“Pooled COVID-19 testing is a straightforward, cost-effective, and efficient approach,” Dr. Abdalhamid said. He and his colleagues found pooled testing could increase testing capability by 69% or more when the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection is 10% or lower.

He said the approach would be helpful in other settings “as long as the positive rate is equal to or less than 10%. Asymptomatic population or surveillance groups such as students, athletes, and military service members are [an] interesting population to test using pooling testing because we expect these populations to have low positive rates, which makes pooled testing ideal.” 
 

Benefit outweighs risk

“There is risk of missing specimens with low concentration of the virus,” Dr. Abdalhamid cautioned. “These specimens might be missed due to the dilution factor of pooling [false-negative specimens]. We did not have a single false-negative specimen in our proof-of-concept study. In addition, there are practical approaches to deal with false-negative pooled specimens.

“The benefit definitely outweighs the risk of false-negative specimens because false-negative results rarely occur, if any. In addition, there is significant saving of time, reagents, and supplies in [a] pooled specimens approach as well as expansion of the test for higher number of patients,” Dr. Abdalhamid continued. 

Dr. Mastrianni’s hospital currently has enough testing cartridges, but they are continuing to conduct pooled testing to conserve resources for the benefit of their own hospital and for the nation as a whole, he said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Abdalhamid and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Combining specimens from several low-risk inpatients in a single test for SARS-CoV-2 infection allowed hospital staff to stretch testing supplies and provide test results quickly for many more patients than they might have otherwise, researchers found.

“We believe this strategy conserved [personal protective equipment (PPE)], led to a marked reduction in staff and patient anxiety, and improved patient care,” wrote David Mastrianni, MD, and colleagues from Saratoga Hospital in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. “Our impression is that testing all admitted patients has also been reassuring to our community.”

The researchers published their findings July 20 in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

“What was really important about this study was they were actually able to implement pooled testing after communication with the [Food and Drug Administration],” Samir S. Shah, MD, MSCE, SFHM, the journal’s editor-in-chief, said in an interview.

“Pooled testing combines samples from multiple people within a single test. The benefit is, if the test is negative [you know that] everyone whose sample was combined … is negative. So you’ve effectively tested anywhere from three to five people with the resources required for only one test,” Dr. Shah continued.

The challenge is that, if the test is positive, everyone in that testing group must be retested individually because one or more of them has the infection, said Dr. Shah, director of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Dr. Mastrianni said early in the pandemic they started getting the “New York surge” at their hospital, located approximately 3 hours from New York City. They wanted to test all of the inpatients at their hospital for COVID-19 and they had a rapid in-house test that worked well, “but we just didn’t have enough cartridges, and we couldn’t get deliveries, and we started pooling.” In fact, they ran out of testing supplies at one point during the study but were able to replenish their supply in about a day, he noted.

For the current study, all patients admitted to the hospital, including those admitted for observation, underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2. Staff in the emergency department designated patients as low risk if they had no symptoms or other clinical evidence of COVID-19; those patients underwent pooled testing.

Patients with clinical evidence of COVID-19, such as respiratory symptoms or laboratory or radiographic findings consistent with infection, were considered high risk and were tested on an individual basis and thus excluded from the current analysis.

The pooled testing strategy required some patients to be held in the emergency department until there were three available for pooled testing. On several occasions when this was not practical, specimens from two patients were pooled.

Between April 17 and May 11, clinicians tested 530 patients via pooled testing using 179 cartridges (172 with swabs from three patients and 7 with swabs from two patients). There were four positive pooled tests, which necessitated the use of an additional 11 cartridges. Overall, the testing used 190 cartridges, which is 340 fewer than would have been used if all patients had been tested individually. 

Among the low-risk patients, the positive rate was 0.8% (4/530). No patients from pools that were negative tested positive later during their hospitalization or developed evidence of the infection.
 

Team effort, flexibility needed

Dr. Mastrianni said he expected their study to find that pooled testing saved testing resources, but he “was surprised by the complexity of the logistics in the hospital, and how it really required getting everybody to work together. …There were a lot of details, and it really took a lot of teamwork.”

The nursing supervisor in the emergency department was in charge of the batch and coordinated with the laboratory, he explained. There were many moving parts to manage, including monitoring how many patients were being admitted, what their conditions were, whether they were high or low risk, and where they would house those patients as the emergency department became increasingly busy. “It’s a lot for them, but they’ve adapted really well,” Dr. Mastrianni said.

Pooling tests seems to work best for three to five patients at a time; larger batches increase the chance of having a positive test, and thus identifying the sick individual(s) becomes more challenging and expensive, Dr. Shah said.

“It’s a fine line between having a pool large enough that you save on testing supplies and testing costs but not having the pool so large that you dramatically increase your likelihood of having a positive test,” Dr. Shah said.

Hospitals will likely need to be flexible and adapt as the local positivity rate changes and supply levels vary, according to the authors.

“Pooled testing is mainly dependent on the COVID-19 positive rate in the population of interest in addition to the sensitivity of the [reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)] method used for COVID-19 testing,” said Baha Abdalhamid, MD, PhD, of the department of pathology and microbiology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

“Each laboratory and hospital needs to do their own validation testing because it is dependent on the positive rate of COVID-19,” added Dr. Abdalhamid, who was not involved in the current study.

It’s important for clinicians to “do a good history to find who’s high risk and who’s low risk,” Dr. Mastrianni said. Clinicians also need to remember that, although a patient may test negative initially, they may still have COVID-19, he warned. That test reflects a single point in time, and a patient could be infected and not yet be ill, so clinicians need to be alert to a change in the patient’s status.
 

Best for settings with low-risk individuals

“Pooled COVID-19 testing is a straightforward, cost-effective, and efficient approach,” Dr. Abdalhamid said. He and his colleagues found pooled testing could increase testing capability by 69% or more when the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection is 10% or lower.

He said the approach would be helpful in other settings “as long as the positive rate is equal to or less than 10%. Asymptomatic population or surveillance groups such as students, athletes, and military service members are [an] interesting population to test using pooling testing because we expect these populations to have low positive rates, which makes pooled testing ideal.” 
 

Benefit outweighs risk

“There is risk of missing specimens with low concentration of the virus,” Dr. Abdalhamid cautioned. “These specimens might be missed due to the dilution factor of pooling [false-negative specimens]. We did not have a single false-negative specimen in our proof-of-concept study. In addition, there are practical approaches to deal with false-negative pooled specimens.

“The benefit definitely outweighs the risk of false-negative specimens because false-negative results rarely occur, if any. In addition, there is significant saving of time, reagents, and supplies in [a] pooled specimens approach as well as expansion of the test for higher number of patients,” Dr. Abdalhamid continued. 

Dr. Mastrianni’s hospital currently has enough testing cartridges, but they are continuing to conduct pooled testing to conserve resources for the benefit of their own hospital and for the nation as a whole, he said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Abdalhamid and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An intervention designed to prevent serious fall injuries among older adults was less effective than researchers expected but did identify important ways for clinicians to help, including screening all older patients for fall risk and deprescribing certain medications when possible.

The study was conducted by Shalender Bhasin, MD, MBBS, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues on behalf of the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) trial investigators and was published online July 8 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients are often unaware of their increased risk until they have fallen for the first time, and they often underestimate how many of their risk factors can be improved, Dr. Bhasin said in an interview.

“Fall injuries are a very important cause of injury-related deaths among older adults, and these are preventable. Yet they are so difficult; for 30 years the rates of fall injuries have not declined,” he said.

Using a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial, the researchers studied the clinical effectiveness of a “patient-centered intervention that combined elements of practice redesign (reconfiguration of workflow to improve quality of care) and an evidence-based, multifactorial, individually tailored intervention implemented by specially trained nurses in primary care settings,” the authors explained.

Participants in the intervention group worked with trained nurses (fall care managers) to identify their risk factors and determine which risks they wanted to modify. Participants in the control group received their typical care and a pamphlet with information on falls and were encouraged to talk with their primary care physicians (who received the results on risk factor screening) about fall prevention. Those in the intervention group also received the pamphlet.

Fall care managers evaluated patients’ home environments and in some cases visited the patient’s home, Dr. Bhasin said.

The researchers enrolled community-dwelling adults aged 70 years or older who were at higher risk for fall injuries from 86 primary care practices across 10 U.S. health care systems. Half of the practices were randomly assigned to provide the intervention to their patients; the other half of the practices provided enhanced usual care.

The researchers defined patients with increased risk for fall injuries as those who had suffered a fall-related injury at least twice during the previous year or those whose difficulties with balance or walking made them fearful of falling. Serious fall injuries were defined as falls that cause a fracture (other than a thoracic or lumbar vertebral fracture), joint dislocation, a cut needing closure, or falls that resulted in hospital admission for a “head injury, sprain or strain, bruising or swelling, or other serious injury,” they explained.

Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar for both groups of patients (mean age, 80 years; 62.0% women); 38.9% had experienced a fall-related injury during the previous year, and 35.1% had suffered at least two falls during the previous year.

The researchers hypothesized that serious fall injuries would be 20% lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group, but that was not the case.

The findings showed no significant difference between the intervention group (4.9 events per 100 person-years of follow-up) and the control group (5.3 events per 100 person-years of follow-up) for the rate of first adjudicated serious fall injury (hazard ratio, 0.92; P = .25). Results were similar in a practice-level analysis and a sensitivity analysis adjusted for participant-level covariates.

However, there was a difference in rates of first participant-reported fall injury, which was a secondary endpoint, at 25.6 events per 100 person-years of follow-up among participants in the intervention group versus 28.6 events among those in the control group (HR, 0.90; P = .004).

There were no significant differences between the groups for rates of all adjudicated serious fall injuries and all patient-reported fall injuries. Bone fractures and injuries resulting in hospitalization were the most frequent types of adjudicated serious fall injuries.

Rates of serious adverse events resulting in hospitalization were similar for the intervention group and the control group (32.8 and 33.3 hospitalizations per 100 person-years of follow-up, respectively), as well as rates of death (3.3 deaths per 100 person-years of follow-up in both groups).
 

Simple steps can help

“The most important thing clinicians can do is a quick screen for fall injury risk,” Dr. Bhasin said in an interview. The screening tool he uses consists of three questions and can be completed in less than a minute. Clinicians should share that information with patients, he continued.

“Just recognizing that they are at risk for falls, patients are much more motivated to take action,” Dr. Bhasin added.

The top three risk factors identified among trial participants were trouble with strength, gait, or balance; osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency; and impaired vision. “The use of certain medications, postural hypotension, problems with feet or footwear, and home safety hazards were less commonly identified, and the use of certain medications was the least commonly prioritized,” the authors wrote.

It is vital that clinicians help patients implement changes, Dr. Bhasin said. He noted that many patients encounter barriers that prevent them from taking action, including transportation or insurance problems and lack of access to exercise programs in the community.

Deprescribing medications such as sleep medications and benzodiazepines is also a key piece of the puzzle, he added. “They’re pretty huge risks, and yet it is so hard to get people off these medications.”

Future research will focus on how to improve the intervention’s effectiveness and also will test the strategy among those with cognitive impairments who have even higher risk for fall injuries, Dr. Bhasin said.
 

Falls remain common

A report published online July 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report underscores the prevalence of fall-related injuries: In 2018, more than one quarter (27.5%) of adults 65 years or older said they had fallen at least once during the previous year (35.6 million falls), and 10.2% said they had experienced a fall-related injury (8.4 million fall-related injuries). The percentage of adults who reported a fall increased during 2012-2016, then decreased during 2016-2018.

Briana Moreland, MPH, from Synergy America and the Division of Injury Prevention at National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and colleagues wrote that older adults and health care providers can work together to reduce fall risk.

“CDC created the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths and Injuries (STEADI) initiative, which offers tools and resources for health care providers to screen their older patients for fall risk, assess modifiable fall risk factors, and to intervene with evidence-based fall prevention interventions (https://www.cdc.gov/steadi). These include medication management, vision screening, home modifications, referral to physical therapists who can address problems with gait, strength, and balance, and referral to effective community-based fall prevention programs,” Ms. Moreland and colleagues explain.

Dr. Bhasin has received grants from the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) during the conduct of the study. He has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AbbVie; grants from Transition Therapeutics, Alivegen, and Metro International Biotechnology; and personal fees from OPKO outside the submitted work. A coauthor received grants from the NIA and PCORI during the conduct of the study and is co-owner of Lynx Health, and another Peduzzi received grants and other compensation from NIA-PCORI during the conduct of the study. Two other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The remaining authors report a variety of relevant financial relationships; a complete list is available on the journal’s website. The authors of the article in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An intervention designed to prevent serious fall injuries among older adults was less effective than researchers expected but did identify important ways for clinicians to help, including screening all older patients for fall risk and deprescribing certain medications when possible.

The study was conducted by Shalender Bhasin, MD, MBBS, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues on behalf of the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) trial investigators and was published online July 8 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients are often unaware of their increased risk until they have fallen for the first time, and they often underestimate how many of their risk factors can be improved, Dr. Bhasin said in an interview.

“Fall injuries are a very important cause of injury-related deaths among older adults, and these are preventable. Yet they are so difficult; for 30 years the rates of fall injuries have not declined,” he said.

Using a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial, the researchers studied the clinical effectiveness of a “patient-centered intervention that combined elements of practice redesign (reconfiguration of workflow to improve quality of care) and an evidence-based, multifactorial, individually tailored intervention implemented by specially trained nurses in primary care settings,” the authors explained.

Participants in the intervention group worked with trained nurses (fall care managers) to identify their risk factors and determine which risks they wanted to modify. Participants in the control group received their typical care and a pamphlet with information on falls and were encouraged to talk with their primary care physicians (who received the results on risk factor screening) about fall prevention. Those in the intervention group also received the pamphlet.

Fall care managers evaluated patients’ home environments and in some cases visited the patient’s home, Dr. Bhasin said.

The researchers enrolled community-dwelling adults aged 70 years or older who were at higher risk for fall injuries from 86 primary care practices across 10 U.S. health care systems. Half of the practices were randomly assigned to provide the intervention to their patients; the other half of the practices provided enhanced usual care.

The researchers defined patients with increased risk for fall injuries as those who had suffered a fall-related injury at least twice during the previous year or those whose difficulties with balance or walking made them fearful of falling. Serious fall injuries were defined as falls that cause a fracture (other than a thoracic or lumbar vertebral fracture), joint dislocation, a cut needing closure, or falls that resulted in hospital admission for a “head injury, sprain or strain, bruising or swelling, or other serious injury,” they explained.

Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar for both groups of patients (mean age, 80 years; 62.0% women); 38.9% had experienced a fall-related injury during the previous year, and 35.1% had suffered at least two falls during the previous year.

The researchers hypothesized that serious fall injuries would be 20% lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group, but that was not the case.

The findings showed no significant difference between the intervention group (4.9 events per 100 person-years of follow-up) and the control group (5.3 events per 100 person-years of follow-up) for the rate of first adjudicated serious fall injury (hazard ratio, 0.92; P = .25). Results were similar in a practice-level analysis and a sensitivity analysis adjusted for participant-level covariates.

However, there was a difference in rates of first participant-reported fall injury, which was a secondary endpoint, at 25.6 events per 100 person-years of follow-up among participants in the intervention group versus 28.6 events among those in the control group (HR, 0.90; P = .004).

There were no significant differences between the groups for rates of all adjudicated serious fall injuries and all patient-reported fall injuries. Bone fractures and injuries resulting in hospitalization were the most frequent types of adjudicated serious fall injuries.

Rates of serious adverse events resulting in hospitalization were similar for the intervention group and the control group (32.8 and 33.3 hospitalizations per 100 person-years of follow-up, respectively), as well as rates of death (3.3 deaths per 100 person-years of follow-up in both groups).
 

Simple steps can help

“The most important thing clinicians can do is a quick screen for fall injury risk,” Dr. Bhasin said in an interview. The screening tool he uses consists of three questions and can be completed in less than a minute. Clinicians should share that information with patients, he continued.

“Just recognizing that they are at risk for falls, patients are much more motivated to take action,” Dr. Bhasin added.

The top three risk factors identified among trial participants were trouble with strength, gait, or balance; osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency; and impaired vision. “The use of certain medications, postural hypotension, problems with feet or footwear, and home safety hazards were less commonly identified, and the use of certain medications was the least commonly prioritized,” the authors wrote.

It is vital that clinicians help patients implement changes, Dr. Bhasin said. He noted that many patients encounter barriers that prevent them from taking action, including transportation or insurance problems and lack of access to exercise programs in the community.

Deprescribing medications such as sleep medications and benzodiazepines is also a key piece of the puzzle, he added. “They’re pretty huge risks, and yet it is so hard to get people off these medications.”

Future research will focus on how to improve the intervention’s effectiveness and also will test the strategy among those with cognitive impairments who have even higher risk for fall injuries, Dr. Bhasin said.
 

Falls remain common

A report published online July 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report underscores the prevalence of fall-related injuries: In 2018, more than one quarter (27.5%) of adults 65 years or older said they had fallen at least once during the previous year (35.6 million falls), and 10.2% said they had experienced a fall-related injury (8.4 million fall-related injuries). The percentage of adults who reported a fall increased during 2012-2016, then decreased during 2016-2018.

Briana Moreland, MPH, from Synergy America and the Division of Injury Prevention at National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and colleagues wrote that older adults and health care providers can work together to reduce fall risk.

“CDC created the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths and Injuries (STEADI) initiative, which offers tools and resources for health care providers to screen their older patients for fall risk, assess modifiable fall risk factors, and to intervene with evidence-based fall prevention interventions (https://www.cdc.gov/steadi). These include medication management, vision screening, home modifications, referral to physical therapists who can address problems with gait, strength, and balance, and referral to effective community-based fall prevention programs,” Ms. Moreland and colleagues explain.

Dr. Bhasin has received grants from the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) during the conduct of the study. He has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AbbVie; grants from Transition Therapeutics, Alivegen, and Metro International Biotechnology; and personal fees from OPKO outside the submitted work. A coauthor received grants from the NIA and PCORI during the conduct of the study and is co-owner of Lynx Health, and another Peduzzi received grants and other compensation from NIA-PCORI during the conduct of the study. Two other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The remaining authors report a variety of relevant financial relationships; a complete list is available on the journal’s website. The authors of the article in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An intervention designed to prevent serious fall injuries among older adults was less effective than researchers expected but did identify important ways for clinicians to help, including screening all older patients for fall risk and deprescribing certain medications when possible.

The study was conducted by Shalender Bhasin, MD, MBBS, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues on behalf of the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) trial investigators and was published online July 8 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients are often unaware of their increased risk until they have fallen for the first time, and they often underestimate how many of their risk factors can be improved, Dr. Bhasin said in an interview.

“Fall injuries are a very important cause of injury-related deaths among older adults, and these are preventable. Yet they are so difficult; for 30 years the rates of fall injuries have not declined,” he said.

Using a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial, the researchers studied the clinical effectiveness of a “patient-centered intervention that combined elements of practice redesign (reconfiguration of workflow to improve quality of care) and an evidence-based, multifactorial, individually tailored intervention implemented by specially trained nurses in primary care settings,” the authors explained.

Participants in the intervention group worked with trained nurses (fall care managers) to identify their risk factors and determine which risks they wanted to modify. Participants in the control group received their typical care and a pamphlet with information on falls and were encouraged to talk with their primary care physicians (who received the results on risk factor screening) about fall prevention. Those in the intervention group also received the pamphlet.

Fall care managers evaluated patients’ home environments and in some cases visited the patient’s home, Dr. Bhasin said.

The researchers enrolled community-dwelling adults aged 70 years or older who were at higher risk for fall injuries from 86 primary care practices across 10 U.S. health care systems. Half of the practices were randomly assigned to provide the intervention to their patients; the other half of the practices provided enhanced usual care.

The researchers defined patients with increased risk for fall injuries as those who had suffered a fall-related injury at least twice during the previous year or those whose difficulties with balance or walking made them fearful of falling. Serious fall injuries were defined as falls that cause a fracture (other than a thoracic or lumbar vertebral fracture), joint dislocation, a cut needing closure, or falls that resulted in hospital admission for a “head injury, sprain or strain, bruising or swelling, or other serious injury,” they explained.

Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar for both groups of patients (mean age, 80 years; 62.0% women); 38.9% had experienced a fall-related injury during the previous year, and 35.1% had suffered at least two falls during the previous year.

The researchers hypothesized that serious fall injuries would be 20% lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group, but that was not the case.

The findings showed no significant difference between the intervention group (4.9 events per 100 person-years of follow-up) and the control group (5.3 events per 100 person-years of follow-up) for the rate of first adjudicated serious fall injury (hazard ratio, 0.92; P = .25). Results were similar in a practice-level analysis and a sensitivity analysis adjusted for participant-level covariates.

However, there was a difference in rates of first participant-reported fall injury, which was a secondary endpoint, at 25.6 events per 100 person-years of follow-up among participants in the intervention group versus 28.6 events among those in the control group (HR, 0.90; P = .004).

There were no significant differences between the groups for rates of all adjudicated serious fall injuries and all patient-reported fall injuries. Bone fractures and injuries resulting in hospitalization were the most frequent types of adjudicated serious fall injuries.

Rates of serious adverse events resulting in hospitalization were similar for the intervention group and the control group (32.8 and 33.3 hospitalizations per 100 person-years of follow-up, respectively), as well as rates of death (3.3 deaths per 100 person-years of follow-up in both groups).
 

Simple steps can help

“The most important thing clinicians can do is a quick screen for fall injury risk,” Dr. Bhasin said in an interview. The screening tool he uses consists of three questions and can be completed in less than a minute. Clinicians should share that information with patients, he continued.

“Just recognizing that they are at risk for falls, patients are much more motivated to take action,” Dr. Bhasin added.

The top three risk factors identified among trial participants were trouble with strength, gait, or balance; osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency; and impaired vision. “The use of certain medications, postural hypotension, problems with feet or footwear, and home safety hazards were less commonly identified, and the use of certain medications was the least commonly prioritized,” the authors wrote.

It is vital that clinicians help patients implement changes, Dr. Bhasin said. He noted that many patients encounter barriers that prevent them from taking action, including transportation or insurance problems and lack of access to exercise programs in the community.

Deprescribing medications such as sleep medications and benzodiazepines is also a key piece of the puzzle, he added. “They’re pretty huge risks, and yet it is so hard to get people off these medications.”

Future research will focus on how to improve the intervention’s effectiveness and also will test the strategy among those with cognitive impairments who have even higher risk for fall injuries, Dr. Bhasin said.
 

Falls remain common

A report published online July 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report underscores the prevalence of fall-related injuries: In 2018, more than one quarter (27.5%) of adults 65 years or older said they had fallen at least once during the previous year (35.6 million falls), and 10.2% said they had experienced a fall-related injury (8.4 million fall-related injuries). The percentage of adults who reported a fall increased during 2012-2016, then decreased during 2016-2018.

Briana Moreland, MPH, from Synergy America and the Division of Injury Prevention at National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and colleagues wrote that older adults and health care providers can work together to reduce fall risk.

“CDC created the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths and Injuries (STEADI) initiative, which offers tools and resources for health care providers to screen their older patients for fall risk, assess modifiable fall risk factors, and to intervene with evidence-based fall prevention interventions (https://www.cdc.gov/steadi). These include medication management, vision screening, home modifications, referral to physical therapists who can address problems with gait, strength, and balance, and referral to effective community-based fall prevention programs,” Ms. Moreland and colleagues explain.

Dr. Bhasin has received grants from the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) during the conduct of the study. He has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AbbVie; grants from Transition Therapeutics, Alivegen, and Metro International Biotechnology; and personal fees from OPKO outside the submitted work. A coauthor received grants from the NIA and PCORI during the conduct of the study and is co-owner of Lynx Health, and another Peduzzi received grants and other compensation from NIA-PCORI during the conduct of the study. Two other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The remaining authors report a variety of relevant financial relationships; a complete list is available on the journal’s website. The authors of the article in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In its first media briefing on coronavirus in more than 3 months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that the COVID-19 pandemic is not over, and large gatherings pose a high risk for COVID-19 transmission.

Robert Redfield, MD, Director, CDC, and Jay C. Butler, MD, Deputy Director of Infectious Diseases and COVID-19 Response Incident Manager, CDC, discussed two new sets of CDC guidance on deciding to go out and attending group gatherings.

“We recognize that we’re all getting tired of staying at home; people long for the life that they had back in December, and as we head into the summer months, we know that Americans will be looking forward to reconnecting with family and friends and being able to attend events, and we want that to occur as safely as possible,” Butler said.

“Our recommendations evolved based on new information that becomes available, but it continues to be extremely important that we embrace the recommendations of social distancing, handwashing, and wearing a face covering when we’re in public as some of the key defenses that we have against this virus,” Redfield explained.

“The pandemic is not over and it’s important to recognize that. While COVID-19 is still making headlines everywhere, we know the pandemic hasn’t affected everyone everywhere in the same way,” Butler said.

He noted that it is important to prepare for next fall and winter, when we can expect influenza season to complicate matters. “If anything, we must be overly-prepared for what we might face later this year,” he continued, adding that it is important to get vaccinated against influenza. “[F]lu and COVID-19 could be circulating together as we move into the fall and winter months,” he concluded.

Americans Mostly Following Guidelines

The agency also presented data from an article published online June 12 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that “underscores the fact that American people have taken mitigation efforts seriously…and it demonstrates our collective spirit in responding to the pandemic,” Butler said.

In it, the researchers describe representative panel surveys conducted among 4042 adults aged 18 years or older in New York City and Los Angeles — the two most populous cities in the United States — and “broadly across the United States” during May 5 to May 12, 2020.

Most respondents supported stay-at-home orders and nonessential business closures (United States, 79.5%; New York City, 86.7%; Los Angeles, 81.5%) and always or often wore cloth face coverings in public (United States, 74.1%; New York City, 89.6%; Los Angeles, 89.8%). Respondents also agreed that nonessential workers should remain at home (United States, 67.3%; New York City, 76.6%; Los Angeles, 69.1%), report Mark É. Czeisler, from Monash University and Austin Health, both in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues.

There was wide support with public health guidelines: more than 87% of individuals in each area agreed that individuals should keep six feet of distance between themselves and others, and more than 82% in each area said that people should limit gatherings to fewer than 10 individuals.

At the time the survey was conducted, most were against indoor dining at restaurants (United States, 66.6%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 71.8%).

Adherence “Widespread,” Survey Finds

Most respondents said they were adhering to COVID-19 mitigation guidance, including self-isolating (United States, 77.3%; New York City, 84.6%; Los Angeles, 83.0%) and “always or often” kept at least six feet between themselves and others (New York City, 85.7%; Los Angeles, 82.6%).

More than 85% of respondents in each of the three cohorts said they always or often avoided groups of 10 or more individuals.

About 90% of respondents said they had been in a public area during the last week, with 74.1% of those saying they always or often covered their face in public; respondents in New York City (89.6%) and Los Angeles (89.8%) had higher percentages of this behavior compared with respondents from the United States overall.

Most respondents felt that restrictions in their state were balanced or too lax (United States, 84.3%; New York City, 89.7%; Los Angeles, 79.7%) and said they would feel unsafe if restrictions were eased nationwide at that time (United States, 74.3%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 73.4%). However, some individuals who said they would feel unsafe still wanted community mitigation strategies eased and were willing to accept risks resulting from lifting restrictions (United States, 17.1%; New York City, 12.6%; Los Angeles, 12.7%).

“Reported prevalence of self-isolation and feeling safe if community mitigation strategies were lifted differed significantly by age, employment status, and essential worker status among adults in the U.S. survey cohort,” the authors write.

Reports of self-isolation were highest among persons aged 18 to 24 years (92.3%) and lowest among those aged 45 to 54 years (71.5%). Yet, young adults aged 18 to 24 years (43.1%) were more than twice as likely to say they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with adults aged 65 years or older (19.2%).

Almost half (47.2%) of employed respondents in the US cohort were essential workers; essential workers were “significantly less likely” to report self-isolating when compared with nonessential workers (63.1% vs 80.6%). Some 37.7% of essential workers said they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with 23.7% of nonessential workers.

“Respondents who were male, employed, or essential workers were significantly more likely to report having been in public areas in the past week. Among respondents who had been in public areas during the preceding week, significantly higher percentages of women, adults aged ≥ 65 years, retired persons, and those living in urban areas reported wearing cloth face coverings,” the authors explain.

The findings are subject to several limitations, including self-reporting and the fact that some respondents may have known someone who tested positive for COVID-19 or died from it, the authors note. Respondents were not representative of the US population and the findings may not be generalizable.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its first media briefing on coronavirus in more than 3 months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that the COVID-19 pandemic is not over, and large gatherings pose a high risk for COVID-19 transmission.

Robert Redfield, MD, Director, CDC, and Jay C. Butler, MD, Deputy Director of Infectious Diseases and COVID-19 Response Incident Manager, CDC, discussed two new sets of CDC guidance on deciding to go out and attending group gatherings.

“We recognize that we’re all getting tired of staying at home; people long for the life that they had back in December, and as we head into the summer months, we know that Americans will be looking forward to reconnecting with family and friends and being able to attend events, and we want that to occur as safely as possible,” Butler said.

“Our recommendations evolved based on new information that becomes available, but it continues to be extremely important that we embrace the recommendations of social distancing, handwashing, and wearing a face covering when we’re in public as some of the key defenses that we have against this virus,” Redfield explained.

“The pandemic is not over and it’s important to recognize that. While COVID-19 is still making headlines everywhere, we know the pandemic hasn’t affected everyone everywhere in the same way,” Butler said.

He noted that it is important to prepare for next fall and winter, when we can expect influenza season to complicate matters. “If anything, we must be overly-prepared for what we might face later this year,” he continued, adding that it is important to get vaccinated against influenza. “[F]lu and COVID-19 could be circulating together as we move into the fall and winter months,” he concluded.

Americans Mostly Following Guidelines

The agency also presented data from an article published online June 12 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that “underscores the fact that American people have taken mitigation efforts seriously…and it demonstrates our collective spirit in responding to the pandemic,” Butler said.

In it, the researchers describe representative panel surveys conducted among 4042 adults aged 18 years or older in New York City and Los Angeles — the two most populous cities in the United States — and “broadly across the United States” during May 5 to May 12, 2020.

Most respondents supported stay-at-home orders and nonessential business closures (United States, 79.5%; New York City, 86.7%; Los Angeles, 81.5%) and always or often wore cloth face coverings in public (United States, 74.1%; New York City, 89.6%; Los Angeles, 89.8%). Respondents also agreed that nonessential workers should remain at home (United States, 67.3%; New York City, 76.6%; Los Angeles, 69.1%), report Mark É. Czeisler, from Monash University and Austin Health, both in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues.

There was wide support with public health guidelines: more than 87% of individuals in each area agreed that individuals should keep six feet of distance between themselves and others, and more than 82% in each area said that people should limit gatherings to fewer than 10 individuals.

At the time the survey was conducted, most were against indoor dining at restaurants (United States, 66.6%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 71.8%).

Adherence “Widespread,” Survey Finds

Most respondents said they were adhering to COVID-19 mitigation guidance, including self-isolating (United States, 77.3%; New York City, 84.6%; Los Angeles, 83.0%) and “always or often” kept at least six feet between themselves and others (New York City, 85.7%; Los Angeles, 82.6%).

More than 85% of respondents in each of the three cohorts said they always or often avoided groups of 10 or more individuals.

About 90% of respondents said they had been in a public area during the last week, with 74.1% of those saying they always or often covered their face in public; respondents in New York City (89.6%) and Los Angeles (89.8%) had higher percentages of this behavior compared with respondents from the United States overall.

Most respondents felt that restrictions in their state were balanced or too lax (United States, 84.3%; New York City, 89.7%; Los Angeles, 79.7%) and said they would feel unsafe if restrictions were eased nationwide at that time (United States, 74.3%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 73.4%). However, some individuals who said they would feel unsafe still wanted community mitigation strategies eased and were willing to accept risks resulting from lifting restrictions (United States, 17.1%; New York City, 12.6%; Los Angeles, 12.7%).

“Reported prevalence of self-isolation and feeling safe if community mitigation strategies were lifted differed significantly by age, employment status, and essential worker status among adults in the U.S. survey cohort,” the authors write.

Reports of self-isolation were highest among persons aged 18 to 24 years (92.3%) and lowest among those aged 45 to 54 years (71.5%). Yet, young adults aged 18 to 24 years (43.1%) were more than twice as likely to say they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with adults aged 65 years or older (19.2%).

Almost half (47.2%) of employed respondents in the US cohort were essential workers; essential workers were “significantly less likely” to report self-isolating when compared with nonessential workers (63.1% vs 80.6%). Some 37.7% of essential workers said they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with 23.7% of nonessential workers.

“Respondents who were male, employed, or essential workers were significantly more likely to report having been in public areas in the past week. Among respondents who had been in public areas during the preceding week, significantly higher percentages of women, adults aged ≥ 65 years, retired persons, and those living in urban areas reported wearing cloth face coverings,” the authors explain.

The findings are subject to several limitations, including self-reporting and the fact that some respondents may have known someone who tested positive for COVID-19 or died from it, the authors note. Respondents were not representative of the US population and the findings may not be generalizable.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its first media briefing on coronavirus in more than 3 months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that the COVID-19 pandemic is not over, and large gatherings pose a high risk for COVID-19 transmission.

Robert Redfield, MD, Director, CDC, and Jay C. Butler, MD, Deputy Director of Infectious Diseases and COVID-19 Response Incident Manager, CDC, discussed two new sets of CDC guidance on deciding to go out and attending group gatherings.

“We recognize that we’re all getting tired of staying at home; people long for the life that they had back in December, and as we head into the summer months, we know that Americans will be looking forward to reconnecting with family and friends and being able to attend events, and we want that to occur as safely as possible,” Butler said.

“Our recommendations evolved based on new information that becomes available, but it continues to be extremely important that we embrace the recommendations of social distancing, handwashing, and wearing a face covering when we’re in public as some of the key defenses that we have against this virus,” Redfield explained.

“The pandemic is not over and it’s important to recognize that. While COVID-19 is still making headlines everywhere, we know the pandemic hasn’t affected everyone everywhere in the same way,” Butler said.

He noted that it is important to prepare for next fall and winter, when we can expect influenza season to complicate matters. “If anything, we must be overly-prepared for what we might face later this year,” he continued, adding that it is important to get vaccinated against influenza. “[F]lu and COVID-19 could be circulating together as we move into the fall and winter months,” he concluded.

Americans Mostly Following Guidelines

The agency also presented data from an article published online June 12 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that “underscores the fact that American people have taken mitigation efforts seriously…and it demonstrates our collective spirit in responding to the pandemic,” Butler said.

In it, the researchers describe representative panel surveys conducted among 4042 adults aged 18 years or older in New York City and Los Angeles — the two most populous cities in the United States — and “broadly across the United States” during May 5 to May 12, 2020.

Most respondents supported stay-at-home orders and nonessential business closures (United States, 79.5%; New York City, 86.7%; Los Angeles, 81.5%) and always or often wore cloth face coverings in public (United States, 74.1%; New York City, 89.6%; Los Angeles, 89.8%). Respondents also agreed that nonessential workers should remain at home (United States, 67.3%; New York City, 76.6%; Los Angeles, 69.1%), report Mark É. Czeisler, from Monash University and Austin Health, both in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues.

There was wide support with public health guidelines: more than 87% of individuals in each area agreed that individuals should keep six feet of distance between themselves and others, and more than 82% in each area said that people should limit gatherings to fewer than 10 individuals.

At the time the survey was conducted, most were against indoor dining at restaurants (United States, 66.6%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 71.8%).

Adherence “Widespread,” Survey Finds

Most respondents said they were adhering to COVID-19 mitigation guidance, including self-isolating (United States, 77.3%; New York City, 84.6%; Los Angeles, 83.0%) and “always or often” kept at least six feet between themselves and others (New York City, 85.7%; Los Angeles, 82.6%).

More than 85% of respondents in each of the three cohorts said they always or often avoided groups of 10 or more individuals.

About 90% of respondents said they had been in a public area during the last week, with 74.1% of those saying they always or often covered their face in public; respondents in New York City (89.6%) and Los Angeles (89.8%) had higher percentages of this behavior compared with respondents from the United States overall.

Most respondents felt that restrictions in their state were balanced or too lax (United States, 84.3%; New York City, 89.7%; Los Angeles, 79.7%) and said they would feel unsafe if restrictions were eased nationwide at that time (United States, 74.3%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 73.4%). However, some individuals who said they would feel unsafe still wanted community mitigation strategies eased and were willing to accept risks resulting from lifting restrictions (United States, 17.1%; New York City, 12.6%; Los Angeles, 12.7%).

“Reported prevalence of self-isolation and feeling safe if community mitigation strategies were lifted differed significantly by age, employment status, and essential worker status among adults in the U.S. survey cohort,” the authors write.

Reports of self-isolation were highest among persons aged 18 to 24 years (92.3%) and lowest among those aged 45 to 54 years (71.5%). Yet, young adults aged 18 to 24 years (43.1%) were more than twice as likely to say they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with adults aged 65 years or older (19.2%).

Almost half (47.2%) of employed respondents in the US cohort were essential workers; essential workers were “significantly less likely” to report self-isolating when compared with nonessential workers (63.1% vs 80.6%). Some 37.7% of essential workers said they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with 23.7% of nonessential workers.

“Respondents who were male, employed, or essential workers were significantly more likely to report having been in public areas in the past week. Among respondents who had been in public areas during the preceding week, significantly higher percentages of women, adults aged ≥ 65 years, retired persons, and those living in urban areas reported wearing cloth face coverings,” the authors explain.

The findings are subject to several limitations, including self-reporting and the fact that some respondents may have known someone who tested positive for COVID-19 or died from it, the authors note. Respondents were not representative of the US population and the findings may not be generalizable.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with COVID-19 are more likely to develop severe illness and require intensive care than previously realized, data from a single-center study suggest.

Jerry Y. Chao, MD, of the department of anesthesiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues reported their findings in an article published online May 11 in the Journal of Pediatrics.

“Thankfully most children with COVID-19 fare well, and some do not have any symptoms at all, but this research is a sobering reminder that children are not immune to this virus and some do require a higher level of care,” senior author Shivanand S. Medar, MD, FAAP, attending physician, Cardiac Intensive Care, Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, and assistant professor of pediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said in a Montefiore Medical Center news release.

The study included 67 patients aged 1 month to 21 years (median, 13.1 years) who were treated for COVID-19 at a tertiary care children’s hospital between March 15 and April 13. Of those, 21 (31.3%) were treated as outpatients.

“As the number of patients screened for COVID-19 was restricted during the first weeks of the outbreak because of limited testing availability, the number of mildly symptomatic patients is not known, and therefore these 21 patients are not included in the analysis,” the authors wrote.

Of the 46 hospitalized patients, 33 (72%) were admitted to a general pediatric medical ward, and 13 (28%) were admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).

Almost one-third (14 children; 30.4%) of the admitted patients were obese, and almost one-quarter (11 children; 24.4%) had asthma, but neither factor was associated with an increased risk for PICU admission.

“We know that in adults, obesity is a risk factor for more severe disease, however, surprisingly, our study found that children admitted to the intensive care unit did not have a higher prevalence of obesity than those on the general unit,” Dr. Chao said in the news release.

Three of the PICU patients (25%) had preexisting seizure disorders, as did one (3%) patient on the general medical unit. “There was no significant difference in the usage of ibuprofen prior to hospitalization among patients admitted to medical unit compared with those admitted to the PICU,” the authors wrote.

Platelet counts were lower in patients admitted to the PICU compared with those on the general medical unit; however, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and pro–brain natriuretic peptide levels were all elevated in patients admitted to the PICU compared with those admitted to the general medical unit.

Patients admitted to the PICU were more likely to need high-flow nasal cannula. Ten (77%) patients in the PICU developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and six (46.2%) of them needed “invasive mechanical ventilation for a median of 9 days.”

The only clinical symptom significantly linked to PICU admission was shortness of breath (92.3% vs 30.3%; P < .001).

Eight (61.5%) of the 13 patients treated in the PICU were discharged to home; four (30.7%) were still hospitalized and receiving ventilatory support on day 14. One patient had metastatic cancer and died as a result of the cancer after life-sustaining therapy was withdrawn.

Those admitted to the PICU were more likely to receive treatment with remdesivir via compassionate use compared with those treated in the general medical unit. Seven (53.8%) patients in the PICU developed severe sepsis and septic shock syndromes.

The average hospital stay was 4 days longer for the children admitted to the PICU than for the children admitted to the general medical unit.

Cough (63%) and fever (60.9%) were the most frequently reported symptoms at admission. The median duration of symptoms before admission was 3 days. None of the children had traveled to an area affected by COVID-19 before becoming ill, and only 20 (43.5%) children were confirmed to have had contact with someone with COVID-19. “The lack of a known sick contact reported in our study may have implications for how healthcare providers identify and screen for potential cases,” the authors explained.

Although children are believed to experience milder SARS-CoV-2 illness, these results and those of an earlier study suggest that some pediatric patients develop illness severe enough to require PICU admission. “This subset had significantly higher markers of inflammation (CRP, pro-BNP, procalcitonin) compared with patients in the medical unit. Inflammation likely contributed to the high rate of ARDS we observed, although serum levels of IL-6 and other cytokines linked to ARDS were not determined,” the authors wrote.

A retrospective cohort study found that of 177 children and young adults treated in a single center, patients younger than 1 year and older than 15 years were more likely to become critically ill with COVID-19 (J Pediatr. 2020 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.05.007).

Each of the two age groups accounted for 32% of the hospitalized patients.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Children with COVID-19 are more likely to develop severe illness and require intensive care than previously realized, data from a single-center study suggest.

Jerry Y. Chao, MD, of the department of anesthesiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues reported their findings in an article published online May 11 in the Journal of Pediatrics.

“Thankfully most children with COVID-19 fare well, and some do not have any symptoms at all, but this research is a sobering reminder that children are not immune to this virus and some do require a higher level of care,” senior author Shivanand S. Medar, MD, FAAP, attending physician, Cardiac Intensive Care, Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, and assistant professor of pediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said in a Montefiore Medical Center news release.

The study included 67 patients aged 1 month to 21 years (median, 13.1 years) who were treated for COVID-19 at a tertiary care children’s hospital between March 15 and April 13. Of those, 21 (31.3%) were treated as outpatients.

“As the number of patients screened for COVID-19 was restricted during the first weeks of the outbreak because of limited testing availability, the number of mildly symptomatic patients is not known, and therefore these 21 patients are not included in the analysis,” the authors wrote.

Of the 46 hospitalized patients, 33 (72%) were admitted to a general pediatric medical ward, and 13 (28%) were admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).

Almost one-third (14 children; 30.4%) of the admitted patients were obese, and almost one-quarter (11 children; 24.4%) had asthma, but neither factor was associated with an increased risk for PICU admission.

“We know that in adults, obesity is a risk factor for more severe disease, however, surprisingly, our study found that children admitted to the intensive care unit did not have a higher prevalence of obesity than those on the general unit,” Dr. Chao said in the news release.

Three of the PICU patients (25%) had preexisting seizure disorders, as did one (3%) patient on the general medical unit. “There was no significant difference in the usage of ibuprofen prior to hospitalization among patients admitted to medical unit compared with those admitted to the PICU,” the authors wrote.

Platelet counts were lower in patients admitted to the PICU compared with those on the general medical unit; however, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and pro–brain natriuretic peptide levels were all elevated in patients admitted to the PICU compared with those admitted to the general medical unit.

Patients admitted to the PICU were more likely to need high-flow nasal cannula. Ten (77%) patients in the PICU developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and six (46.2%) of them needed “invasive mechanical ventilation for a median of 9 days.”

The only clinical symptom significantly linked to PICU admission was shortness of breath (92.3% vs 30.3%; P < .001).

Eight (61.5%) of the 13 patients treated in the PICU were discharged to home; four (30.7%) were still hospitalized and receiving ventilatory support on day 14. One patient had metastatic cancer and died as a result of the cancer after life-sustaining therapy was withdrawn.

Those admitted to the PICU were more likely to receive treatment with remdesivir via compassionate use compared with those treated in the general medical unit. Seven (53.8%) patients in the PICU developed severe sepsis and septic shock syndromes.

The average hospital stay was 4 days longer for the children admitted to the PICU than for the children admitted to the general medical unit.

Cough (63%) and fever (60.9%) were the most frequently reported symptoms at admission. The median duration of symptoms before admission was 3 days. None of the children had traveled to an area affected by COVID-19 before becoming ill, and only 20 (43.5%) children were confirmed to have had contact with someone with COVID-19. “The lack of a known sick contact reported in our study may have implications for how healthcare providers identify and screen for potential cases,” the authors explained.

Although children are believed to experience milder SARS-CoV-2 illness, these results and those of an earlier study suggest that some pediatric patients develop illness severe enough to require PICU admission. “This subset had significantly higher markers of inflammation (CRP, pro-BNP, procalcitonin) compared with patients in the medical unit. Inflammation likely contributed to the high rate of ARDS we observed, although serum levels of IL-6 and other cytokines linked to ARDS were not determined,” the authors wrote.

A retrospective cohort study found that of 177 children and young adults treated in a single center, patients younger than 1 year and older than 15 years were more likely to become critically ill with COVID-19 (J Pediatr. 2020 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.05.007).

Each of the two age groups accounted for 32% of the hospitalized patients.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Children with COVID-19 are more likely to develop severe illness and require intensive care than previously realized, data from a single-center study suggest.

Jerry Y. Chao, MD, of the department of anesthesiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues reported their findings in an article published online May 11 in the Journal of Pediatrics.

“Thankfully most children with COVID-19 fare well, and some do not have any symptoms at all, but this research is a sobering reminder that children are not immune to this virus and some do require a higher level of care,” senior author Shivanand S. Medar, MD, FAAP, attending physician, Cardiac Intensive Care, Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, and assistant professor of pediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said in a Montefiore Medical Center news release.

The study included 67 patients aged 1 month to 21 years (median, 13.1 years) who were treated for COVID-19 at a tertiary care children’s hospital between March 15 and April 13. Of those, 21 (31.3%) were treated as outpatients.

“As the number of patients screened for COVID-19 was restricted during the first weeks of the outbreak because of limited testing availability, the number of mildly symptomatic patients is not known, and therefore these 21 patients are not included in the analysis,” the authors wrote.

Of the 46 hospitalized patients, 33 (72%) were admitted to a general pediatric medical ward, and 13 (28%) were admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).

Almost one-third (14 children; 30.4%) of the admitted patients were obese, and almost one-quarter (11 children; 24.4%) had asthma, but neither factor was associated with an increased risk for PICU admission.

“We know that in adults, obesity is a risk factor for more severe disease, however, surprisingly, our study found that children admitted to the intensive care unit did not have a higher prevalence of obesity than those on the general unit,” Dr. Chao said in the news release.

Three of the PICU patients (25%) had preexisting seizure disorders, as did one (3%) patient on the general medical unit. “There was no significant difference in the usage of ibuprofen prior to hospitalization among patients admitted to medical unit compared with those admitted to the PICU,” the authors wrote.

Platelet counts were lower in patients admitted to the PICU compared with those on the general medical unit; however, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and pro–brain natriuretic peptide levels were all elevated in patients admitted to the PICU compared with those admitted to the general medical unit.

Patients admitted to the PICU were more likely to need high-flow nasal cannula. Ten (77%) patients in the PICU developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and six (46.2%) of them needed “invasive mechanical ventilation for a median of 9 days.”

The only clinical symptom significantly linked to PICU admission was shortness of breath (92.3% vs 30.3%; P < .001).

Eight (61.5%) of the 13 patients treated in the PICU were discharged to home; four (30.7%) were still hospitalized and receiving ventilatory support on day 14. One patient had metastatic cancer and died as a result of the cancer after life-sustaining therapy was withdrawn.

Those admitted to the PICU were more likely to receive treatment with remdesivir via compassionate use compared with those treated in the general medical unit. Seven (53.8%) patients in the PICU developed severe sepsis and septic shock syndromes.

The average hospital stay was 4 days longer for the children admitted to the PICU than for the children admitted to the general medical unit.

Cough (63%) and fever (60.9%) were the most frequently reported symptoms at admission. The median duration of symptoms before admission was 3 days. None of the children had traveled to an area affected by COVID-19 before becoming ill, and only 20 (43.5%) children were confirmed to have had contact with someone with COVID-19. “The lack of a known sick contact reported in our study may have implications for how healthcare providers identify and screen for potential cases,” the authors explained.

Although children are believed to experience milder SARS-CoV-2 illness, these results and those of an earlier study suggest that some pediatric patients develop illness severe enough to require PICU admission. “This subset had significantly higher markers of inflammation (CRP, pro-BNP, procalcitonin) compared with patients in the medical unit. Inflammation likely contributed to the high rate of ARDS we observed, although serum levels of IL-6 and other cytokines linked to ARDS were not determined,” the authors wrote.

A retrospective cohort study found that of 177 children and young adults treated in a single center, patients younger than 1 year and older than 15 years were more likely to become critically ill with COVID-19 (J Pediatr. 2020 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.05.007).

Each of the two age groups accounted for 32% of the hospitalized patients.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Health care providers fail to ask one in five prenatal patients and one in eight postpartum patients about depression, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although the prevalence of screening has risen in recent years, many women could be suffering in silence.

“[U]ndetected and untreated perinatal depression can have negative health consequences for the mothers and their babies,” said coauthor Jean Y. Ko, PhD, from the division of reproductive health at the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Dr. Ko and colleagues reported their findings in an article published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The researchers analyzed self-reported data on postpartum depressive symptoms (PDS) collected in 2018 by the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS). Participants were stratified on the basis of location and maternal and infant characteristics, including age, race/ethnicity, and education level. Women who had recently given birth to one or more live infants answered questions about whether they had been screened by health care providers for depression during perinatal visits.

The prevalence of PDS among women from 31 PRAMS sites was 13.2%. States with lower prevalences included Illinois (9.7%), Massachusetts (10.3%), and Wisconsin (10.5%); states with higher prevalences included Mississippi (23.5%), West Virginia (19.4%), and Michigan (16.4%).

Some groups were at higher risk for PDS than others. The prevalence was greater than 20% among women who were aged 19 years or younger, were of American Indian or Alaska Native ethnicity, smoked during the perinatal period, experienced perinatal depression, or whose infant died after birth.

Depressive symptoms were also more common among women who received assistance from the Women, Infants, and Children program; were Medicaid beneficiaries at the time of delivery; smoked cigarettes during the last trimester of pregnancy; breastfed their infants for fewer than 8 weeks; or had experienced intimate partner violence while pregnant or before.
 

Small rise in screening

Overall, 79.1% of women said a health care provider had inquired about depression during the prenatal period. Prenatal screening for depression was lowest in Puerto Rico (50.7%), Mississippi (69.4%), Utah (69.5%), and Kentucky (69.5%) and was highest in Alaska (90.7%), Minnesota (90.6%), and Maine (90.5%).

Among 22 continuously reporting sites, the prevalence of prenatal depression screening rose significantly from 76.2% in 2016 to 79.3% in 2018 (P < .05) .

“It is unclear what might account for this small increase,” Dr. Ko said. “There may be additional factors, such as women may be becoming more comfortable reporting symptoms of depression. With continued awareness about the need to screen every pregnant and postpartum woman for depression, we can expect things to continue to improve.”

Overall, 90.1% of respondents reported a postpartum visit; of those, 87.4% said a health care provider had asked about depression during that visit.

Screening during the postpartum period was highest in Vermont (96.2%), Minnesota (95.9%), and Maine (95.5%) and was lowest in Puerto Rico (50.7%), New York City (73.1%), and Louisiana (75.0%).

Among the 22 sites that reported continuously, the prevalence of screening for postpartum depression rose significantly from 84.1% to 88.0% (P < .05), “with an average annual percentage point increase of 1.8%,” the authors wrote.
 

‘Missed opportunities’

“PRAMS responses are reported an average of 4 months postpartum, which suggests persistence of [depressive] symptoms,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Ko said that mental health conditions play a role in approximately 9% of pregnancy-related deaths and that not asking about depression represents “missed opportunities to potentially identify and treat women with depression.” The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening all adults for depression, including women during pregnancy and the postpartum period, she added.

When asked what can be done to improve screening that has not already been tried, Dr. Ko said the CDC is currently evaluating a study called the Program in Support of Moms (PRISM), which “is designed to help obstetrics and gynecology practices address the significant public health issue of depression during and after pregnancy. PRISM aims to close gaps in health care delivery to ensure that women with depression during and after pregnancy receive the best treatment, which can result in improvement in their symptoms.”

Dr. Ko added that the Health Resources and Services Administration has funded seven states to begin “programs to support providers to screen, assess, refer, and treat pregnant and postpartum women for depression and other behavioral health conditions. States can use initiatives like Healthy Start, home visiting, and Title V Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant programs as levers to improve screening and address maternal depression.

“Screening is just one part of addressing perinatal depression. Health care providers need to refer women to appropriate resources in order to get the proper diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up care for management of depression,” Dr. Ko concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Health care providers fail to ask one in five prenatal patients and one in eight postpartum patients about depression, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although the prevalence of screening has risen in recent years, many women could be suffering in silence.

“[U]ndetected and untreated perinatal depression can have negative health consequences for the mothers and their babies,” said coauthor Jean Y. Ko, PhD, from the division of reproductive health at the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Dr. Ko and colleagues reported their findings in an article published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The researchers analyzed self-reported data on postpartum depressive symptoms (PDS) collected in 2018 by the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS). Participants were stratified on the basis of location and maternal and infant characteristics, including age, race/ethnicity, and education level. Women who had recently given birth to one or more live infants answered questions about whether they had been screened by health care providers for depression during perinatal visits.

The prevalence of PDS among women from 31 PRAMS sites was 13.2%. States with lower prevalences included Illinois (9.7%), Massachusetts (10.3%), and Wisconsin (10.5%); states with higher prevalences included Mississippi (23.5%), West Virginia (19.4%), and Michigan (16.4%).

Some groups were at higher risk for PDS than others. The prevalence was greater than 20% among women who were aged 19 years or younger, were of American Indian or Alaska Native ethnicity, smoked during the perinatal period, experienced perinatal depression, or whose infant died after birth.

Depressive symptoms were also more common among women who received assistance from the Women, Infants, and Children program; were Medicaid beneficiaries at the time of delivery; smoked cigarettes during the last trimester of pregnancy; breastfed their infants for fewer than 8 weeks; or had experienced intimate partner violence while pregnant or before.
 

Small rise in screening

Overall, 79.1% of women said a health care provider had inquired about depression during the prenatal period. Prenatal screening for depression was lowest in Puerto Rico (50.7%), Mississippi (69.4%), Utah (69.5%), and Kentucky (69.5%) and was highest in Alaska (90.7%), Minnesota (90.6%), and Maine (90.5%).

Among 22 continuously reporting sites, the prevalence of prenatal depression screening rose significantly from 76.2% in 2016 to 79.3% in 2018 (P < .05) .

“It is unclear what might account for this small increase,” Dr. Ko said. “There may be additional factors, such as women may be becoming more comfortable reporting symptoms of depression. With continued awareness about the need to screen every pregnant and postpartum woman for depression, we can expect things to continue to improve.”

Overall, 90.1% of respondents reported a postpartum visit; of those, 87.4% said a health care provider had asked about depression during that visit.

Screening during the postpartum period was highest in Vermont (96.2%), Minnesota (95.9%), and Maine (95.5%) and was lowest in Puerto Rico (50.7%), New York City (73.1%), and Louisiana (75.0%).

Among the 22 sites that reported continuously, the prevalence of screening for postpartum depression rose significantly from 84.1% to 88.0% (P < .05), “with an average annual percentage point increase of 1.8%,” the authors wrote.
 

‘Missed opportunities’

“PRAMS responses are reported an average of 4 months postpartum, which suggests persistence of [depressive] symptoms,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Ko said that mental health conditions play a role in approximately 9% of pregnancy-related deaths and that not asking about depression represents “missed opportunities to potentially identify and treat women with depression.” The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening all adults for depression, including women during pregnancy and the postpartum period, she added.

When asked what can be done to improve screening that has not already been tried, Dr. Ko said the CDC is currently evaluating a study called the Program in Support of Moms (PRISM), which “is designed to help obstetrics and gynecology practices address the significant public health issue of depression during and after pregnancy. PRISM aims to close gaps in health care delivery to ensure that women with depression during and after pregnancy receive the best treatment, which can result in improvement in their symptoms.”

Dr. Ko added that the Health Resources and Services Administration has funded seven states to begin “programs to support providers to screen, assess, refer, and treat pregnant and postpartum women for depression and other behavioral health conditions. States can use initiatives like Healthy Start, home visiting, and Title V Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant programs as levers to improve screening and address maternal depression.

“Screening is just one part of addressing perinatal depression. Health care providers need to refer women to appropriate resources in order to get the proper diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up care for management of depression,” Dr. Ko concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Health care providers fail to ask one in five prenatal patients and one in eight postpartum patients about depression, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although the prevalence of screening has risen in recent years, many women could be suffering in silence.

“[U]ndetected and untreated perinatal depression can have negative health consequences for the mothers and their babies,” said coauthor Jean Y. Ko, PhD, from the division of reproductive health at the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Dr. Ko and colleagues reported their findings in an article published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The researchers analyzed self-reported data on postpartum depressive symptoms (PDS) collected in 2018 by the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS). Participants were stratified on the basis of location and maternal and infant characteristics, including age, race/ethnicity, and education level. Women who had recently given birth to one or more live infants answered questions about whether they had been screened by health care providers for depression during perinatal visits.

The prevalence of PDS among women from 31 PRAMS sites was 13.2%. States with lower prevalences included Illinois (9.7%), Massachusetts (10.3%), and Wisconsin (10.5%); states with higher prevalences included Mississippi (23.5%), West Virginia (19.4%), and Michigan (16.4%).

Some groups were at higher risk for PDS than others. The prevalence was greater than 20% among women who were aged 19 years or younger, were of American Indian or Alaska Native ethnicity, smoked during the perinatal period, experienced perinatal depression, or whose infant died after birth.

Depressive symptoms were also more common among women who received assistance from the Women, Infants, and Children program; were Medicaid beneficiaries at the time of delivery; smoked cigarettes during the last trimester of pregnancy; breastfed their infants for fewer than 8 weeks; or had experienced intimate partner violence while pregnant or before.
 

Small rise in screening

Overall, 79.1% of women said a health care provider had inquired about depression during the prenatal period. Prenatal screening for depression was lowest in Puerto Rico (50.7%), Mississippi (69.4%), Utah (69.5%), and Kentucky (69.5%) and was highest in Alaska (90.7%), Minnesota (90.6%), and Maine (90.5%).

Among 22 continuously reporting sites, the prevalence of prenatal depression screening rose significantly from 76.2% in 2016 to 79.3% in 2018 (P < .05) .

“It is unclear what might account for this small increase,” Dr. Ko said. “There may be additional factors, such as women may be becoming more comfortable reporting symptoms of depression. With continued awareness about the need to screen every pregnant and postpartum woman for depression, we can expect things to continue to improve.”

Overall, 90.1% of respondents reported a postpartum visit; of those, 87.4% said a health care provider had asked about depression during that visit.

Screening during the postpartum period was highest in Vermont (96.2%), Minnesota (95.9%), and Maine (95.5%) and was lowest in Puerto Rico (50.7%), New York City (73.1%), and Louisiana (75.0%).

Among the 22 sites that reported continuously, the prevalence of screening for postpartum depression rose significantly from 84.1% to 88.0% (P < .05), “with an average annual percentage point increase of 1.8%,” the authors wrote.
 

‘Missed opportunities’

“PRAMS responses are reported an average of 4 months postpartum, which suggests persistence of [depressive] symptoms,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Ko said that mental health conditions play a role in approximately 9% of pregnancy-related deaths and that not asking about depression represents “missed opportunities to potentially identify and treat women with depression.” The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening all adults for depression, including women during pregnancy and the postpartum period, she added.

When asked what can be done to improve screening that has not already been tried, Dr. Ko said the CDC is currently evaluating a study called the Program in Support of Moms (PRISM), which “is designed to help obstetrics and gynecology practices address the significant public health issue of depression during and after pregnancy. PRISM aims to close gaps in health care delivery to ensure that women with depression during and after pregnancy receive the best treatment, which can result in improvement in their symptoms.”

Dr. Ko added that the Health Resources and Services Administration has funded seven states to begin “programs to support providers to screen, assess, refer, and treat pregnant and postpartum women for depression and other behavioral health conditions. States can use initiatives like Healthy Start, home visiting, and Title V Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant programs as levers to improve screening and address maternal depression.

“Screening is just one part of addressing perinatal depression. Health care providers need to refer women to appropriate resources in order to get the proper diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up care for management of depression,” Dr. Ko concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Differences are emerging between chest imaging findings in adults and children with COVID-19 pneumonia, according to a new international consensus statement published online April 23 in Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging.

“Chest imaging plays an important role in evaluation of pediatric patients with COVID-19, however there is currently little information available describing imaging manifestations of pediatric COVID-19 and even less discussing utilization of imaging studies in pediatric patients,” write Alexandra M. Foust, DO, from the Department of Radiology, Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

The authors wrote the consensus statement to help clinicians evaluate children with potential COVID-19, interpret chest imaging findings, and determine the best treatment for these patients.

As a dedicated pediatric radiologist in tertiary care, senior author Edward Y. Lee, MD, MPH, also from Boston Children’s Hospital, said he works with many international pediatric chest radiologists, and the document provides an international perspective. Information on chest imaging for pediatric patients with COVID-19 is scarce, and clinicians are clamoring for information to inform clinical decisions, he said. He noted that the recommendations are practical and easy to use.

The first step in evaluating a child with suspected COVID-19 is to consider the larger clinical picture. “You really have to look at the patient as a person, and when you look at them, [consider] their underlying risk factors – some people we know are prone to have more serious infection from COVID-19 because they have underlying medical problems,” Lee said.

Certain findings on chest x-ray (CXR) are more specific for COVID-19 pneumonia, whereas CT is better for characterizing and confirming and for differentiating one lung infection from another, Lee explained.
 

Structured reporting

Toward this end, the authors developed tables that provide standardized language to describe imaging findings in patients with suspected COVID-19 pneumonia. Advantages of this type of “structured reporting” include improved understanding and clarity between the radiologist and the ordering provider.

The authors note that structured reporting is likely to be most useful in regions where COVID-19 is highly prevalent. The COVID-19 imaging presentation in children overlaps with some other ailments, including influenza, e-cigarette vaping–associated lung injury, and eosinophilic lung disease. Thus, the use of structured reporting in low-incidence settings could lead to false positive findings.

Commonly seen CXR findings in children with COVID-19 pneumonia include bilaterally distributed peripheral and/or subpleural ground-glass opacities (GGOs) and/or consolidation. Nonspecific findings include “unilateral peripheral or peripheral and central ground-glass opacities and/or consolidation; bilateral peribronchial thickening and/or peribronchial opacities; and multifocal or diffuse GGOs and/or consolidation without specific distribution.”

On CT, commonly seen findings in pediatric COVID-19 pneumonia include “bilateral, peripheral and/or subpleural GGOs and/or consolidation in lower lobe predominant pattern; and ‘halo’ sign early” in the disease course. Indeterminate CT findings include “unilateral peripheral or peripheral and central GGOs and/or consolidation; bilateral peribronchial thickening and/or peribronchial opacities; multivocal or diffuse GGOs and/or consolidation without specific distribution; and ‘crazy paving’ sign.”
 

Imaging recommendations

Initial chest imaging is not generally recommended for screening of symptomatic or asymptomatic children with suspected COVID-19, nor for children with mild clinical symptoms unless the child is at risk for disease progression or worsens clinically.

An initial CXR may be appropriate for children with moderate to severe clinical symptoms – regardless of whether they have COVID-19 – and the patient may undergo a chest CT if the results could influence clinical management.

A repeat reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for COVID-19 should be considered for children with moderate to severe symptoms whose initial laboratory result was negative but whose chest imaging findings are consistent with COVID-19.

Chest imaging may be used as a first step in the workup for suspected COVID-19 patients in resource-constrained environments where rapid triage may be needed to spare other resources, such as hospital beds and staffing.

It may be appropriate to conduct sequential CXR examinations for pediatric patients with COVID-19 to assess therapeutic response, evaluate clinical worsening, or determine positioning of life support devices, according to the authors.

Post-recovery follow-up chest imaging is not recommended for asymptomatic pediatric patients after recovery from disease that followed a mild course. Post-recovery imaging may be appropriate for asymptomatic children who initially had moderate to severe illness; the decision should be based on clinical concern that the patient may develop long-term lung injury.

Post-recovery follow-up imaging may be appropriate for children whose symptoms persist or worsen regardless of initial illness severity.

Lee and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Differences are emerging between chest imaging findings in adults and children with COVID-19 pneumonia, according to a new international consensus statement published online April 23 in Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging.

“Chest imaging plays an important role in evaluation of pediatric patients with COVID-19, however there is currently little information available describing imaging manifestations of pediatric COVID-19 and even less discussing utilization of imaging studies in pediatric patients,” write Alexandra M. Foust, DO, from the Department of Radiology, Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

The authors wrote the consensus statement to help clinicians evaluate children with potential COVID-19, interpret chest imaging findings, and determine the best treatment for these patients.

As a dedicated pediatric radiologist in tertiary care, senior author Edward Y. Lee, MD, MPH, also from Boston Children’s Hospital, said he works with many international pediatric chest radiologists, and the document provides an international perspective. Information on chest imaging for pediatric patients with COVID-19 is scarce, and clinicians are clamoring for information to inform clinical decisions, he said. He noted that the recommendations are practical and easy to use.

The first step in evaluating a child with suspected COVID-19 is to consider the larger clinical picture. “You really have to look at the patient as a person, and when you look at them, [consider] their underlying risk factors – some people we know are prone to have more serious infection from COVID-19 because they have underlying medical problems,” Lee said.

Certain findings on chest x-ray (CXR) are more specific for COVID-19 pneumonia, whereas CT is better for characterizing and confirming and for differentiating one lung infection from another, Lee explained.
 

Structured reporting

Toward this end, the authors developed tables that provide standardized language to describe imaging findings in patients with suspected COVID-19 pneumonia. Advantages of this type of “structured reporting” include improved understanding and clarity between the radiologist and the ordering provider.

The authors note that structured reporting is likely to be most useful in regions where COVID-19 is highly prevalent. The COVID-19 imaging presentation in children overlaps with some other ailments, including influenza, e-cigarette vaping–associated lung injury, and eosinophilic lung disease. Thus, the use of structured reporting in low-incidence settings could lead to false positive findings.

Commonly seen CXR findings in children with COVID-19 pneumonia include bilaterally distributed peripheral and/or subpleural ground-glass opacities (GGOs) and/or consolidation. Nonspecific findings include “unilateral peripheral or peripheral and central ground-glass opacities and/or consolidation; bilateral peribronchial thickening and/or peribronchial opacities; and multifocal or diffuse GGOs and/or consolidation without specific distribution.”

On CT, commonly seen findings in pediatric COVID-19 pneumonia include “bilateral, peripheral and/or subpleural GGOs and/or consolidation in lower lobe predominant pattern; and ‘halo’ sign early” in the disease course. Indeterminate CT findings include “unilateral peripheral or peripheral and central GGOs and/or consolidation; bilateral peribronchial thickening and/or peribronchial opacities; multivocal or diffuse GGOs and/or consolidation without specific distribution; and ‘crazy paving’ sign.”
 

Imaging recommendations

Initial chest imaging is not generally recommended for screening of symptomatic or asymptomatic children with suspected COVID-19, nor for children with mild clinical symptoms unless the child is at risk for disease progression or worsens clinically.

An initial CXR may be appropriate for children with moderate to severe clinical symptoms – regardless of whether they have COVID-19 – and the patient may undergo a chest CT if the results could influence clinical management.

A repeat reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for COVID-19 should be considered for children with moderate to severe symptoms whose initial laboratory result was negative but whose chest imaging findings are consistent with COVID-19.

Chest imaging may be used as a first step in the workup for suspected COVID-19 patients in resource-constrained environments where rapid triage may be needed to spare other resources, such as hospital beds and staffing.

It may be appropriate to conduct sequential CXR examinations for pediatric patients with COVID-19 to assess therapeutic response, evaluate clinical worsening, or determine positioning of life support devices, according to the authors.

Post-recovery follow-up chest imaging is not recommended for asymptomatic pediatric patients after recovery from disease that followed a mild course. Post-recovery imaging may be appropriate for asymptomatic children who initially had moderate to severe illness; the decision should be based on clinical concern that the patient may develop long-term lung injury.

Post-recovery follow-up imaging may be appropriate for children whose symptoms persist or worsen regardless of initial illness severity.

Lee and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Differences are emerging between chest imaging findings in adults and children with COVID-19 pneumonia, according to a new international consensus statement published online April 23 in Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging.

“Chest imaging plays an important role in evaluation of pediatric patients with COVID-19, however there is currently little information available describing imaging manifestations of pediatric COVID-19 and even less discussing utilization of imaging studies in pediatric patients,” write Alexandra M. Foust, DO, from the Department of Radiology, Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

The authors wrote the consensus statement to help clinicians evaluate children with potential COVID-19, interpret chest imaging findings, and determine the best treatment for these patients.

As a dedicated pediatric radiologist in tertiary care, senior author Edward Y. Lee, MD, MPH, also from Boston Children’s Hospital, said he works with many international pediatric chest radiologists, and the document provides an international perspective. Information on chest imaging for pediatric patients with COVID-19 is scarce, and clinicians are clamoring for information to inform clinical decisions, he said. He noted that the recommendations are practical and easy to use.

The first step in evaluating a child with suspected COVID-19 is to consider the larger clinical picture. “You really have to look at the patient as a person, and when you look at them, [consider] their underlying risk factors – some people we know are prone to have more serious infection from COVID-19 because they have underlying medical problems,” Lee said.

Certain findings on chest x-ray (CXR) are more specific for COVID-19 pneumonia, whereas CT is better for characterizing and confirming and for differentiating one lung infection from another, Lee explained.
 

Structured reporting

Toward this end, the authors developed tables that provide standardized language to describe imaging findings in patients with suspected COVID-19 pneumonia. Advantages of this type of “structured reporting” include improved understanding and clarity between the radiologist and the ordering provider.

The authors note that structured reporting is likely to be most useful in regions where COVID-19 is highly prevalent. The COVID-19 imaging presentation in children overlaps with some other ailments, including influenza, e-cigarette vaping–associated lung injury, and eosinophilic lung disease. Thus, the use of structured reporting in low-incidence settings could lead to false positive findings.

Commonly seen CXR findings in children with COVID-19 pneumonia include bilaterally distributed peripheral and/or subpleural ground-glass opacities (GGOs) and/or consolidation. Nonspecific findings include “unilateral peripheral or peripheral and central ground-glass opacities and/or consolidation; bilateral peribronchial thickening and/or peribronchial opacities; and multifocal or diffuse GGOs and/or consolidation without specific distribution.”

On CT, commonly seen findings in pediatric COVID-19 pneumonia include “bilateral, peripheral and/or subpleural GGOs and/or consolidation in lower lobe predominant pattern; and ‘halo’ sign early” in the disease course. Indeterminate CT findings include “unilateral peripheral or peripheral and central GGOs and/or consolidation; bilateral peribronchial thickening and/or peribronchial opacities; multivocal or diffuse GGOs and/or consolidation without specific distribution; and ‘crazy paving’ sign.”
 

Imaging recommendations

Initial chest imaging is not generally recommended for screening of symptomatic or asymptomatic children with suspected COVID-19, nor for children with mild clinical symptoms unless the child is at risk for disease progression or worsens clinically.

An initial CXR may be appropriate for children with moderate to severe clinical symptoms – regardless of whether they have COVID-19 – and the patient may undergo a chest CT if the results could influence clinical management.

A repeat reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for COVID-19 should be considered for children with moderate to severe symptoms whose initial laboratory result was negative but whose chest imaging findings are consistent with COVID-19.

Chest imaging may be used as a first step in the workup for suspected COVID-19 patients in resource-constrained environments where rapid triage may be needed to spare other resources, such as hospital beds and staffing.

It may be appropriate to conduct sequential CXR examinations for pediatric patients with COVID-19 to assess therapeutic response, evaluate clinical worsening, or determine positioning of life support devices, according to the authors.

Post-recovery follow-up chest imaging is not recommended for asymptomatic pediatric patients after recovery from disease that followed a mild course. Post-recovery imaging may be appropriate for asymptomatic children who initially had moderate to severe illness; the decision should be based on clinical concern that the patient may develop long-term lung injury.

Post-recovery follow-up imaging may be appropriate for children whose symptoms persist or worsen regardless of initial illness severity.

Lee and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Chinese man became ill from a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) 4 days after arriving in Vietnam to visit his 27-year-old son. Three days later the healthy young man was also stricken, according to a report published online Jan. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This family cluster of 2019-nCoV infection that occurred outside China arouses concern regarding human-to-human transmission,” the authors wrote.

The father, age 65 years and with multiple comorbidities including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease with stent placement, and lung cancer, flew to Hanoi with his wife on January 13; they traveled from the Wuchang district in Wuhan, China, where outbreaks of 2019-nCoV have been occurring.

On Jan. 17, the older man and his wife met their adult son in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and shared a hotel room with him for 3 days. The father developed a fever that same day and the son developed a dry cough, fever, diarrhea, and vomiting on Jan. 20. Both men went to a hospital ED on Jan. 22.

The authors say the timing of the son’s symptoms suggests the incubation period may have been 3 days or fewer.

Upon admission to the hospital, the father reported that he had not visited a “wet market” where live and dead animals are sold while he was in Wuhan. Throat swabs were positive for 2019-nCoV on real-time reverse-transcription–polymerase-chain-reaction assays.

The man was placed in isolation and “treated empirically with antiviral agents, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and supportive therapies,” wrote Lan T. Phan, PhD, from the Pasteur Institute Ho Chi Minh City and coauthors.

On admission, chest radiographs revealed an infiltrate in the upper lobe of his left lung; he developed worsening dyspnea with hypoxemia on Jan. 25 and required supplemental oxygen at 5 L/min by nasal cannula. Chest radiographs showed a progressive infiltrate and consolidation. His fever resolved on that day and he has progressively improved.

The man’s son had a fever of 39° C (102.2° F) when the two men arrived at the hospital on Jan. 22; hospital staff isolated the son, and chest radiographs and other laboratory tests were normal with the exception of an increased C-reactive protein level.

The son’s throat swab was positive for 2019-nCoV and he is believed to have been exposed from his father; however, the strains have not been ascertained.

“This family had traveled to four cities across Vietnam using various forms of transportation, including planes, trains, and taxis,” the authors wrote. A total of 28 close contacts were identified, none of whom have developed respiratory symptoms. The older man’s wife has been healthy as well.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Chinese man became ill from a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) 4 days after arriving in Vietnam to visit his 27-year-old son. Three days later the healthy young man was also stricken, according to a report published online Jan. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This family cluster of 2019-nCoV infection that occurred outside China arouses concern regarding human-to-human transmission,” the authors wrote.

The father, age 65 years and with multiple comorbidities including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease with stent placement, and lung cancer, flew to Hanoi with his wife on January 13; they traveled from the Wuchang district in Wuhan, China, where outbreaks of 2019-nCoV have been occurring.

On Jan. 17, the older man and his wife met their adult son in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and shared a hotel room with him for 3 days. The father developed a fever that same day and the son developed a dry cough, fever, diarrhea, and vomiting on Jan. 20. Both men went to a hospital ED on Jan. 22.

The authors say the timing of the son’s symptoms suggests the incubation period may have been 3 days or fewer.

Upon admission to the hospital, the father reported that he had not visited a “wet market” where live and dead animals are sold while he was in Wuhan. Throat swabs were positive for 2019-nCoV on real-time reverse-transcription–polymerase-chain-reaction assays.

The man was placed in isolation and “treated empirically with antiviral agents, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and supportive therapies,” wrote Lan T. Phan, PhD, from the Pasteur Institute Ho Chi Minh City and coauthors.

On admission, chest radiographs revealed an infiltrate in the upper lobe of his left lung; he developed worsening dyspnea with hypoxemia on Jan. 25 and required supplemental oxygen at 5 L/min by nasal cannula. Chest radiographs showed a progressive infiltrate and consolidation. His fever resolved on that day and he has progressively improved.

The man’s son had a fever of 39° C (102.2° F) when the two men arrived at the hospital on Jan. 22; hospital staff isolated the son, and chest radiographs and other laboratory tests were normal with the exception of an increased C-reactive protein level.

The son’s throat swab was positive for 2019-nCoV and he is believed to have been exposed from his father; however, the strains have not been ascertained.

“This family had traveled to four cities across Vietnam using various forms of transportation, including planes, trains, and taxis,” the authors wrote. A total of 28 close contacts were identified, none of whom have developed respiratory symptoms. The older man’s wife has been healthy as well.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Chinese man became ill from a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) 4 days after arriving in Vietnam to visit his 27-year-old son. Three days later the healthy young man was also stricken, according to a report published online Jan. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This family cluster of 2019-nCoV infection that occurred outside China arouses concern regarding human-to-human transmission,” the authors wrote.

The father, age 65 years and with multiple comorbidities including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease with stent placement, and lung cancer, flew to Hanoi with his wife on January 13; they traveled from the Wuchang district in Wuhan, China, where outbreaks of 2019-nCoV have been occurring.

On Jan. 17, the older man and his wife met their adult son in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and shared a hotel room with him for 3 days. The father developed a fever that same day and the son developed a dry cough, fever, diarrhea, and vomiting on Jan. 20. Both men went to a hospital ED on Jan. 22.

The authors say the timing of the son’s symptoms suggests the incubation period may have been 3 days or fewer.

Upon admission to the hospital, the father reported that he had not visited a “wet market” where live and dead animals are sold while he was in Wuhan. Throat swabs were positive for 2019-nCoV on real-time reverse-transcription–polymerase-chain-reaction assays.

The man was placed in isolation and “treated empirically with antiviral agents, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and supportive therapies,” wrote Lan T. Phan, PhD, from the Pasteur Institute Ho Chi Minh City and coauthors.

On admission, chest radiographs revealed an infiltrate in the upper lobe of his left lung; he developed worsening dyspnea with hypoxemia on Jan. 25 and required supplemental oxygen at 5 L/min by nasal cannula. Chest radiographs showed a progressive infiltrate and consolidation. His fever resolved on that day and he has progressively improved.

The man’s son had a fever of 39° C (102.2° F) when the two men arrived at the hospital on Jan. 22; hospital staff isolated the son, and chest radiographs and other laboratory tests were normal with the exception of an increased C-reactive protein level.

The son’s throat swab was positive for 2019-nCoV and he is believed to have been exposed from his father; however, the strains have not been ascertained.

“This family had traveled to four cities across Vietnam using various forms of transportation, including planes, trains, and taxis,” the authors wrote. A total of 28 close contacts were identified, none of whom have developed respiratory symptoms. The older man’s wife has been healthy as well.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.