Reports have emerged about the unique vulnerability of psychiatric hospitals to the ravages of COVID-19.

In a South Korea psychiatric hospital, 101 of 103 patients contracted SARS-CoV-2 during an outbreak; 7 eventually died.^1,2 This report, among a few others, have led to the development of psychiatric COVID-19–positive units (PCU). However, it remains highly unclear how many are currently open, where they are located, or what their operations are like.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear to us that, as a public health measure, it would be necessary to test all patients for COVID-19 who were being considered for admission to our inpatient psychiatric units. We knew that we could not allow a medically asymptomatic “covertly” COVID-19–positive patient to be introduced to the social community of our inpatient units because of the risks of transmission to other patients and staff.

In coordination with our health system infection prevention experts, we have therefore required a confirmed negative COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction nasal swab performed no more than 48 hours prior to the time/date of acute psychiatric inpatient admission. Furthermore, as part of the broad health system response and surge planning, we were asked by our respective incident command centers to begin planning for a Psychiatric COVID-19–positive Unit (PCU) that might allow us to safely care for a cohort of patients needing such hospitalization.

It is worth emphasizing that the typical patient who is a candidate for a PCU is so acutely psychiatrically ill that they cannot be managed in a less restrictive environment than an inpatient psychiatric unit and, at the same time, is likely to not be medically ill enough to warrant admission to an internal medicine service in a general acute care hospital.

We have identified eight principles and critical decision points that can help inpatient units plan for the safe care of COVID-19–positive patients on a PCU.

1. Triage: Patients admitted to a PCU should be medically stable, particularly with regard to COVID-19 and respiratory symptomatology. PCUs should establish clear criteria for admission and discharge (or medical transfer). Examples of potential exclusionary criteria to a PCU include:

• Respiratory distress, shortness of breath, hypoxia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, or requirement for respiratory therapy breathing treatments.
• Fever, or signs of sepsis, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome.
• Medical frailty, significant medical comorbidities, delirium, or altered mental status;
• Requirements for continuous vital sign monitoring or of a monitoring frequency beyond the capacity of the PCU.

Discharge criteria may also include a symptom-based strategy because emerging evidence suggests that patients may be less infectious by day 10-14 of the disease course,³ and viral lab testing is very sensitive and will be positive for periods of time after individuals are no longer infectious. The symptom-based strategy allows for patients to not require retesting prior to discharge. However, some receiving facilities (for example residential or skilled nursing facilities) may necessitate testing, in which case a testing-based strategy can be used. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides guidelines for both types of strategies.⁴

2. Infection control and personal protective equipment: PCUs require modifications or departures from the typical inpatient free-ranging environment in which common areas are provided for patients to engage in a community of care, including group therapy (such as occupational, recreational, Alcoholics Anonymous, and social work groups).

• Isolation: PCUs must consider whether they will require patients to isolate to their rooms or to allow modified or limited access to “public” or “community” areas. While there do not appear to be standard recommendations from the CDC or other public health entities regarding negative pressure or any specific room ventilation requirements, it is prudent to work with local infectious disease experts on protocols. Important considerations include spatial planning for infection control areas to don and doff appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and appropriate workspace to prevent contamination of non–COVID-19 work areas. Approaches can include establishing clearly identified and visually demarcated infection control “zones” (often referred to as “hot, warm, and cold zones”) that correspond to specific PPE requirements for staff. In addition, individuals should eat in their own rooms or designated areas because use of common areas for meals can potentially lead to aerosolized spread of the virus.
• Cohorting: Generally, PCUs should consider admitting only COVID-19–positive patients to a PCU to avoid exposure to other patients. Hospitals and health systems should determine protocols and locations for testing and managing “patients under investigation” for COVID-19, which should precede admission to the PCU.
• PPE: It is important to clearly establish and communicate PPE requirements and procedures for direct physical contact versus no physical contact (for example, visual safety checks). Identify clear supply chains for PPE and hand sanitizer.

3. Medical management and consultation: PCUs should establish clear pathways for accessing consultation from medical consultants. It may be ideal, in addition to standard daily psychiatric physician rounding, to have daily internal medicine rounding and/or medical nursing staff working on the unit. Given the potential of COVID-19–positive patients to rapidly devolve from asymptomatic to acutely ill, it is necessary to establish protocols for the provision of urgent medical care 24/7 and streamlined processes for transfer to a medical unit.

Clear protocols should be established to address any potential signs of decompensation in the respiratory status of a PCU unit, including administration of oxygen and restrictions (or appropriate precautions) related to aerosolizing treatment such as nebulizers or positive airway pressure.

4. Code blue protocol: Any emergent medical issues, including acute respiratory decompensation, should trigger a Code Blue response that has been specifically designed for COVID-19–positive patients, including considerations for proper PPE during resuscitation efforts.

• Telehealth: Clinicians (such as physicians, social workers, occupational therapists) should leverage and maximize the use of telemedicine to minimize direct or prolonged exposure to infectious disease risks.
• Nursing: It is important to establish appropriate ratios of nursing and support staff for a COVID-19–positive psychiatry unit given the unique work flows related to isolation precautions and to ensure patient and staff safety. These ratios may take into account patient-specific needs, including the need for additional staff to perform constant observation for high-risk patients, management of agitated patients, and sufficient staff to allow for relief and break-time from PPE. Admission and routine care processes should be adapted in order to limit equipment entering the room, such as computer workstations on wheels.
• Medication administration procedures: Develop work flows related to PPE and infection control when retrieving and administering medications.
• Workspace: Designate appropriate workspace for PCU clinicians to access computers and documents and to minimize use of non–COVID-19 unit work areas.

6. Restraints and management of agitated patients: PCUs should develop plans for addressing agitated patients, including contingency plans for whether seclusion or restraints should be administered in the patient’s individual room or in a dedicated restraint room in the PCU. Staff training should include protocols specifically designed for managing agitated patients in the PCU.

7. Discharge processes: If patients remain medically well and clear their COVID-19 PCR tests, it is conceivable that they might be transferred to a non–COVID-19 psychiatric unit if sufficient isolation time has passed and the infectious disease consultants deem it appropriate. It is also possible that patients would be discharged from a PCU to home or other residential setting. Such patients should be assessed for ability to comply with continued self-quarantine if necessary. Discharge planning must take into consideration follow-up plans for COVID-19 illness and primary care appointments, as well as needed psychiatric follow-up.

8. Patients’ rights: The apparently highly infectious and transmissible nature of SARS-CoV-2 creates novel tensions between a wide range of individual rights and the rights of others. In addition to manifesting in our general society, there are potentially unique tensions in acute inpatient psychiatric settings. Certain patients’ rights may require modification in a PCU (for example, access to outdoor space, personal belongings, visitors, and possibly civil commitment judicial hearings). These discussions may require input from hospital compliance officers, ethics committees, risk managers, and the local department of mental health and also may be partly solved by using video communication platforms.

References

1. Kim MJ. “ ‘It was a medical disaster’: The psychiatric ward that saw 100 patients with new coronavirus.” Independent. 2020 Mar 1.

2. Korean Society of Infectious Diseases et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Mar 16;35(10):e112.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptom-based strategy to discontinue isolation for persons with COVID-19. Decision Memo. 2020 May 3.

4. He X et al. Nature Medicine. 2020. 26:672-5.
 

Dr. Cheung is associate medical director and chief quality officer at the Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Strouse is medical director, UCLA Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital and Maddie Katz Professor at the UCLA department of psychiatry/Semel Institute. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Li is associate medical director of quality improvement at Yale-New Haven Psychiatric Hospital in Connecticut. She also serves as medical director of clinical operations at the Yale-New Haven Health System. Dr. Li is a 2019-2020 Health and Aging Policy Fellow and receives funding support from the program.

Reports have emerged about the unique vulnerability of psychiatric hospitals to the ravages of COVID-19.

In a South Korea psychiatric hospital, 101 of 103 patients contracted SARS-CoV-2 during an outbreak; 7 eventually died.^1,2 This report, among a few others, have led to the development of psychiatric COVID-19–positive units (PCU). However, it remains highly unclear how many are currently open, where they are located, or what their operations are like.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear to us that, as a public health measure, it would be necessary to test all patients for COVID-19 who were being considered for admission to our inpatient psychiatric units. We knew that we could not allow a medically asymptomatic “covertly” COVID-19–positive patient to be introduced to the social community of our inpatient units because of the risks of transmission to other patients and staff.

In coordination with our health system infection prevention experts, we have therefore required a confirmed negative COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction nasal swab performed no more than 48 hours prior to the time/date of acute psychiatric inpatient admission. Furthermore, as part of the broad health system response and surge planning, we were asked by our respective incident command centers to begin planning for a Psychiatric COVID-19–positive Unit (PCU) that might allow us to safely care for a cohort of patients needing such hospitalization.

It is worth emphasizing that the typical patient who is a candidate for a PCU is so acutely psychiatrically ill that they cannot be managed in a less restrictive environment than an inpatient psychiatric unit and, at the same time, is likely to not be medically ill enough to warrant admission to an internal medicine service in a general acute care hospital.

We have identified eight principles and critical decision points that can help inpatient units plan for the safe care of COVID-19–positive patients on a PCU.

1. Triage: Patients admitted to a PCU should be medically stable, particularly with regard to COVID-19 and respiratory symptomatology. PCUs should establish clear criteria for admission and discharge (or medical transfer). Examples of potential exclusionary criteria to a PCU include:

• Respiratory distress, shortness of breath, hypoxia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, or requirement for respiratory therapy breathing treatments.
• Fever, or signs of sepsis, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome.
• Medical frailty, significant medical comorbidities, delirium, or altered mental status;
• Requirements for continuous vital sign monitoring or of a monitoring frequency beyond the capacity of the PCU.

Discharge criteria may also include a symptom-based strategy because emerging evidence suggests that patients may be less infectious by day 10-14 of the disease course,³ and viral lab testing is very sensitive and will be positive for periods of time after individuals are no longer infectious. The symptom-based strategy allows for patients to not require retesting prior to discharge. However, some receiving facilities (for example residential or skilled nursing facilities) may necessitate testing, in which case a testing-based strategy can be used. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides guidelines for both types of strategies.⁴

2. Infection control and personal protective equipment: PCUs require modifications or departures from the typical inpatient free-ranging environment in which common areas are provided for patients to engage in a community of care, including group therapy (such as occupational, recreational, Alcoholics Anonymous, and social work groups).

• Isolation: PCUs must consider whether they will require patients to isolate to their rooms or to allow modified or limited access to “public” or “community” areas. While there do not appear to be standard recommendations from the CDC or other public health entities regarding negative pressure or any specific room ventilation requirements, it is prudent to work with local infectious disease experts on protocols. Important considerations include spatial planning for infection control areas to don and doff appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and appropriate workspace to prevent contamination of non–COVID-19 work areas. Approaches can include establishing clearly identified and visually demarcated infection control “zones” (often referred to as “hot, warm, and cold zones”) that correspond to specific PPE requirements for staff. In addition, individuals should eat in their own rooms or designated areas because use of common areas for meals can potentially lead to aerosolized spread of the virus.
• Cohorting: Generally, PCUs should consider admitting only COVID-19–positive patients to a PCU to avoid exposure to other patients. Hospitals and health systems should determine protocols and locations for testing and managing “patients under investigation” for COVID-19, which should precede admission to the PCU.
• PPE: It is important to clearly establish and communicate PPE requirements and procedures for direct physical contact versus no physical contact (for example, visual safety checks). Identify clear supply chains for PPE and hand sanitizer.

3. Medical management and consultation: PCUs should establish clear pathways for accessing consultation from medical consultants. It may be ideal, in addition to standard daily psychiatric physician rounding, to have daily internal medicine rounding and/or medical nursing staff working on the unit. Given the potential of COVID-19–positive patients to rapidly devolve from asymptomatic to acutely ill, it is necessary to establish protocols for the provision of urgent medical care 24/7 and streamlined processes for transfer to a medical unit.

Clear protocols should be established to address any potential signs of decompensation in the respiratory status of a PCU unit, including administration of oxygen and restrictions (or appropriate precautions) related to aerosolizing treatment such as nebulizers or positive airway pressure.

4. Code blue protocol: Any emergent medical issues, including acute respiratory decompensation, should trigger a Code Blue response that has been specifically designed for COVID-19–positive patients, including considerations for proper PPE during resuscitation efforts.

• Telehealth: Clinicians (such as physicians, social workers, occupational therapists) should leverage and maximize the use of telemedicine to minimize direct or prolonged exposure to infectious disease risks.
• Nursing: It is important to establish appropriate ratios of nursing and support staff for a COVID-19–positive psychiatry unit given the unique work flows related to isolation precautions and to ensure patient and staff safety. These ratios may take into account patient-specific needs, including the need for additional staff to perform constant observation for high-risk patients, management of agitated patients, and sufficient staff to allow for relief and break-time from PPE. Admission and routine care processes should be adapted in order to limit equipment entering the room, such as computer workstations on wheels.
• Medication administration procedures: Develop work flows related to PPE and infection control when retrieving and administering medications.
• Workspace: Designate appropriate workspace for PCU clinicians to access computers and documents and to minimize use of non–COVID-19 unit work areas.

6. Restraints and management of agitated patients: PCUs should develop plans for addressing agitated patients, including contingency plans for whether seclusion or restraints should be administered in the patient’s individual room or in a dedicated restraint room in the PCU. Staff training should include protocols specifically designed for managing agitated patients in the PCU.

7. Discharge processes: If patients remain medically well and clear their COVID-19 PCR tests, it is conceivable that they might be transferred to a non–COVID-19 psychiatric unit if sufficient isolation time has passed and the infectious disease consultants deem it appropriate. It is also possible that patients would be discharged from a PCU to home or other residential setting. Such patients should be assessed for ability to comply with continued self-quarantine if necessary. Discharge planning must take into consideration follow-up plans for COVID-19 illness and primary care appointments, as well as needed psychiatric follow-up.

8. Patients’ rights: The apparently highly infectious and transmissible nature of SARS-CoV-2 creates novel tensions between a wide range of individual rights and the rights of others. In addition to manifesting in our general society, there are potentially unique tensions in acute inpatient psychiatric settings. Certain patients’ rights may require modification in a PCU (for example, access to outdoor space, personal belongings, visitors, and possibly civil commitment judicial hearings). These discussions may require input from hospital compliance officers, ethics committees, risk managers, and the local department of mental health and also may be partly solved by using video communication platforms.

References

1. Kim MJ. “ ‘It was a medical disaster’: The psychiatric ward that saw 100 patients with new coronavirus.” Independent. 2020 Mar 1.

2. Korean Society of Infectious Diseases et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Mar 16;35(10):e112.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptom-based strategy to discontinue isolation for persons with COVID-19. Decision Memo. 2020 May 3.

4. He X et al. Nature Medicine. 2020. 26:672-5.
 

Dr. Cheung is associate medical director and chief quality officer at the Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Strouse is medical director, UCLA Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital and Maddie Katz Professor at the UCLA department of psychiatry/Semel Institute. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Li is associate medical director of quality improvement at Yale-New Haven Psychiatric Hospital in Connecticut. She also serves as medical director of clinical operations at the Yale-New Haven Health System. Dr. Li is a 2019-2020 Health and Aging Policy Fellow and receives funding support from the program.

Reports have emerged about the unique vulnerability of psychiatric hospitals to the ravages of COVID-19.

In a South Korea psychiatric hospital, 101 of 103 patients contracted SARS-CoV-2 during an outbreak; 7 eventually died.^1,2 This report, among a few others, have led to the development of psychiatric COVID-19–positive units (PCU). However, it remains highly unclear how many are currently open, where they are located, or what their operations are like.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear to us that, as a public health measure, it would be necessary to test all patients for COVID-19 who were being considered for admission to our inpatient psychiatric units. We knew that we could not allow a medically asymptomatic “covertly” COVID-19–positive patient to be introduced to the social community of our inpatient units because of the risks of transmission to other patients and staff.

In coordination with our health system infection prevention experts, we have therefore required a confirmed negative COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction nasal swab performed no more than 48 hours prior to the time/date of acute psychiatric inpatient admission. Furthermore, as part of the broad health system response and surge planning, we were asked by our respective incident command centers to begin planning for a Psychiatric COVID-19–positive Unit (PCU) that might allow us to safely care for a cohort of patients needing such hospitalization.

It is worth emphasizing that the typical patient who is a candidate for a PCU is so acutely psychiatrically ill that they cannot be managed in a less restrictive environment than an inpatient psychiatric unit and, at the same time, is likely to not be medically ill enough to warrant admission to an internal medicine service in a general acute care hospital.

We have identified eight principles and critical decision points that can help inpatient units plan for the safe care of COVID-19–positive patients on a PCU.

1. Triage: Patients admitted to a PCU should be medically stable, particularly with regard to COVID-19 and respiratory symptomatology. PCUs should establish clear criteria for admission and discharge (or medical transfer). Examples of potential exclusionary criteria to a PCU include:

• Respiratory distress, shortness of breath, hypoxia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, or requirement for respiratory therapy breathing treatments.
• Fever, or signs of sepsis, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome.
• Medical frailty, significant medical comorbidities, delirium, or altered mental status;
• Requirements for continuous vital sign monitoring or of a monitoring frequency beyond the capacity of the PCU.

Discharge criteria may also include a symptom-based strategy because emerging evidence suggests that patients may be less infectious by day 10-14 of the disease course,³ and viral lab testing is very sensitive and will be positive for periods of time after individuals are no longer infectious. The symptom-based strategy allows for patients to not require retesting prior to discharge. However, some receiving facilities (for example residential or skilled nursing facilities) may necessitate testing, in which case a testing-based strategy can be used. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides guidelines for both types of strategies.⁴

2. Infection control and personal protective equipment: PCUs require modifications or departures from the typical inpatient free-ranging environment in which common areas are provided for patients to engage in a community of care, including group therapy (such as occupational, recreational, Alcoholics Anonymous, and social work groups).

• Isolation: PCUs must consider whether they will require patients to isolate to their rooms or to allow modified or limited access to “public” or “community” areas. While there do not appear to be standard recommendations from the CDC or other public health entities regarding negative pressure or any specific room ventilation requirements, it is prudent to work with local infectious disease experts on protocols. Important considerations include spatial planning for infection control areas to don and doff appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and appropriate workspace to prevent contamination of non–COVID-19 work areas. Approaches can include establishing clearly identified and visually demarcated infection control “zones” (often referred to as “hot, warm, and cold zones”) that correspond to specific PPE requirements for staff. In addition, individuals should eat in their own rooms or designated areas because use of common areas for meals can potentially lead to aerosolized spread of the virus.
• Cohorting: Generally, PCUs should consider admitting only COVID-19–positive patients to a PCU to avoid exposure to other patients. Hospitals and health systems should determine protocols and locations for testing and managing “patients under investigation” for COVID-19, which should precede admission to the PCU.
• PPE: It is important to clearly establish and communicate PPE requirements and procedures for direct physical contact versus no physical contact (for example, visual safety checks). Identify clear supply chains for PPE and hand sanitizer.

3. Medical management and consultation: PCUs should establish clear pathways for accessing consultation from medical consultants. It may be ideal, in addition to standard daily psychiatric physician rounding, to have daily internal medicine rounding and/or medical nursing staff working on the unit. Given the potential of COVID-19–positive patients to rapidly devolve from asymptomatic to acutely ill, it is necessary to establish protocols for the provision of urgent medical care 24/7 and streamlined processes for transfer to a medical unit.

Clear protocols should be established to address any potential signs of decompensation in the respiratory status of a PCU unit, including administration of oxygen and restrictions (or appropriate precautions) related to aerosolizing treatment such as nebulizers or positive airway pressure.

4. Code blue protocol: Any emergent medical issues, including acute respiratory decompensation, should trigger a Code Blue response that has been specifically designed for COVID-19–positive patients, including considerations for proper PPE during resuscitation efforts.

• Telehealth: Clinicians (such as physicians, social workers, occupational therapists) should leverage and maximize the use of telemedicine to minimize direct or prolonged exposure to infectious disease risks.
• Nursing: It is important to establish appropriate ratios of nursing and support staff for a COVID-19–positive psychiatry unit given the unique work flows related to isolation precautions and to ensure patient and staff safety. These ratios may take into account patient-specific needs, including the need for additional staff to perform constant observation for high-risk patients, management of agitated patients, and sufficient staff to allow for relief and break-time from PPE. Admission and routine care processes should be adapted in order to limit equipment entering the room, such as computer workstations on wheels.
• Medication administration procedures: Develop work flows related to PPE and infection control when retrieving and administering medications.
• Workspace: Designate appropriate workspace for PCU clinicians to access computers and documents and to minimize use of non–COVID-19 unit work areas.

6. Restraints and management of agitated patients: PCUs should develop plans for addressing agitated patients, including contingency plans for whether seclusion or restraints should be administered in the patient’s individual room or in a dedicated restraint room in the PCU. Staff training should include protocols specifically designed for managing agitated patients in the PCU.

7. Discharge processes: If patients remain medically well and clear their COVID-19 PCR tests, it is conceivable that they might be transferred to a non–COVID-19 psychiatric unit if sufficient isolation time has passed and the infectious disease consultants deem it appropriate. It is also possible that patients would be discharged from a PCU to home or other residential setting. Such patients should be assessed for ability to comply with continued self-quarantine if necessary. Discharge planning must take into consideration follow-up plans for COVID-19 illness and primary care appointments, as well as needed psychiatric follow-up.

8. Patients’ rights: The apparently highly infectious and transmissible nature of SARS-CoV-2 creates novel tensions between a wide range of individual rights and the rights of others. In addition to manifesting in our general society, there are potentially unique tensions in acute inpatient psychiatric settings. Certain patients’ rights may require modification in a PCU (for example, access to outdoor space, personal belongings, visitors, and possibly civil commitment judicial hearings). These discussions may require input from hospital compliance officers, ethics committees, risk managers, and the local department of mental health and also may be partly solved by using video communication platforms.

References

1. Kim MJ. “ ‘It was a medical disaster’: The psychiatric ward that saw 100 patients with new coronavirus.” Independent. 2020 Mar 1.

2. Korean Society of Infectious Diseases et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Mar 16;35(10):e112.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptom-based strategy to discontinue isolation for persons with COVID-19. Decision Memo. 2020 May 3.

4. He X et al. Nature Medicine. 2020. 26:672-5.
 

Dr. Cheung is associate medical director and chief quality officer at the Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Strouse is medical director, UCLA Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital and Maddie Katz Professor at the UCLA department of psychiatry/Semel Institute. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Li is associate medical director of quality improvement at Yale-New Haven Psychiatric Hospital in Connecticut. She also serves as medical director of clinical operations at the Yale-New Haven Health System. Dr. Li is a 2019-2020 Health and Aging Policy Fellow and receives funding support from the program.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pomalidomide (Pomalyst, Bristol-Myers Squibb) for the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi sarcoma that is resistant to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) or that occurs in HIV-negative patients.

Pomalidomide is the only oral agent and first new treatment option for Kaposi sarcoma in more than 20 years, according to the company.

The drug, a thalidomide analogue, is already marketed for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Pomalidomide has “shown positive results in Kaposi sarcoma patients, regardless of their HIV status,” said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch, National Cancer Institute, in a press statement.

The conditional approval is based on the 71% overall response rate observed in a phase 1/2 open-label, single-arm clinical trial that involved 28 patients, 18 of whom were HIV positive and 10 of whom were HIV negative.

Most of the responses were partial (57%; 16/28); 14% (4/28) were complete. Median duration of response was 12.1 months. Additionally, for half of the patients who showed a response, that response was maintained for more than 12 months.

Patients received 5 mg of pomalidomide once daily for 21 of 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 11% (3/28) of patients.

Adverse reactions (≥20%) included maculopapular rash (71%), constipation (71%), fatigue (68%), nausea (36%), diarrhea (32%), cough (29%), dyspnea (29%), peripheral edema (29%), upper respiratory tract infection (29%), muscle spasms (25%), hypothyroidism (21%), dry skin (21%), and chills (21%).

Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions included maculopapular rash (3.6%), diarrhea (3.6%), and peripheral edema (3.6%).

Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥5%) that worsened from baseline included decreased absolute neutrophil count (50%), decreased phosphate level (25%), elevated glucose level (7%), and elevated creatine kinase level (7%).

As a thalidomide analogue, pomalidomide includes a boxed warning in the prescribing information; thalidomide is a known human teratogen that causes severe birth defects or embryo-fetal death. Deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke can occur in patients treated with pomalidomide; thromboprophylaxis is recommended.

Pomalidomide is available only through a restricted distribution program, Pomalyst REMS.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pomalidomide (Pomalyst, Bristol-Myers Squibb) for the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi sarcoma that is resistant to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) or that occurs in HIV-negative patients.

Pomalidomide is the only oral agent and first new treatment option for Kaposi sarcoma in more than 20 years, according to the company.

The drug, a thalidomide analogue, is already marketed for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Pomalidomide has “shown positive results in Kaposi sarcoma patients, regardless of their HIV status,” said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch, National Cancer Institute, in a press statement.

The conditional approval is based on the 71% overall response rate observed in a phase 1/2 open-label, single-arm clinical trial that involved 28 patients, 18 of whom were HIV positive and 10 of whom were HIV negative.

Most of the responses were partial (57%; 16/28); 14% (4/28) were complete. Median duration of response was 12.1 months. Additionally, for half of the patients who showed a response, that response was maintained for more than 12 months.

Patients received 5 mg of pomalidomide once daily for 21 of 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 11% (3/28) of patients.

Adverse reactions (≥20%) included maculopapular rash (71%), constipation (71%), fatigue (68%), nausea (36%), diarrhea (32%), cough (29%), dyspnea (29%), peripheral edema (29%), upper respiratory tract infection (29%), muscle spasms (25%), hypothyroidism (21%), dry skin (21%), and chills (21%).

Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions included maculopapular rash (3.6%), diarrhea (3.6%), and peripheral edema (3.6%).

Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥5%) that worsened from baseline included decreased absolute neutrophil count (50%), decreased phosphate level (25%), elevated glucose level (7%), and elevated creatine kinase level (7%).

As a thalidomide analogue, pomalidomide includes a boxed warning in the prescribing information; thalidomide is a known human teratogen that causes severe birth defects or embryo-fetal death. Deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke can occur in patients treated with pomalidomide; thromboprophylaxis is recommended.

Pomalidomide is available only through a restricted distribution program, Pomalyst REMS.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pomalidomide (Pomalyst, Bristol-Myers Squibb) for the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi sarcoma that is resistant to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) or that occurs in HIV-negative patients.

Pomalidomide is the only oral agent and first new treatment option for Kaposi sarcoma in more than 20 years, according to the company.

The drug, a thalidomide analogue, is already marketed for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

Pomalidomide has “shown positive results in Kaposi sarcoma patients, regardless of their HIV status,” said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch, National Cancer Institute, in a press statement.

The conditional approval is based on the 71% overall response rate observed in a phase 1/2 open-label, single-arm clinical trial that involved 28 patients, 18 of whom were HIV positive and 10 of whom were HIV negative.

Most of the responses were partial (57%; 16/28); 14% (4/28) were complete. Median duration of response was 12.1 months. Additionally, for half of the patients who showed a response, that response was maintained for more than 12 months.

Patients received 5 mg of pomalidomide once daily for 21 of 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Permanent discontinuation because of an adverse reaction occurred in 11% (3/28) of patients.

Adverse reactions (≥20%) included maculopapular rash (71%), constipation (71%), fatigue (68%), nausea (36%), diarrhea (32%), cough (29%), dyspnea (29%), peripheral edema (29%), upper respiratory tract infection (29%), muscle spasms (25%), hypothyroidism (21%), dry skin (21%), and chills (21%).

Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions included maculopapular rash (3.6%), diarrhea (3.6%), and peripheral edema (3.6%).

Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥5%) that worsened from baseline included decreased absolute neutrophil count (50%), decreased phosphate level (25%), elevated glucose level (7%), and elevated creatine kinase level (7%).

As a thalidomide analogue, pomalidomide includes a boxed warning in the prescribing information; thalidomide is a known human teratogen that causes severe birth defects or embryo-fetal death. Deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke can occur in patients treated with pomalidomide; thromboprophylaxis is recommended.

Pomalidomide is available only through a restricted distribution program, Pomalyst REMS.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

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

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

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

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

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

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

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

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

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

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

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

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

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

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

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

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

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

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

Office preparation and safety including:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ablative laser surgery

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

PPE

HRAUN/E+

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

Office preparation and safety including:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ablative laser surgery

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

PPE

HRAUN/E+

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

Office preparation and safety including:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ablative laser surgery

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

PPE

HRAUN/E+

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

The provider experience during COVID-19

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

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

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

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

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

The patient experience during COVID-19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The provider experience during COVID-19

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

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

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

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

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

The patient experience during COVID-19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The provider experience during COVID-19

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

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

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

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

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

The patient experience during COVID-19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

alanpoulson/iStock/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

alanpoulson/iStock/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

alanpoulson/iStock/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
 

mlesney@mdedge.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
 

mlesney@mdedge.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
 

mlesney@mdedge.com

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