COVID-19 Updates

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has issued guidelines that provide a practical road map for managing lung cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the guidelines don’t address some issues that may affect U.S. physicians.

ESMO’s lung cancer guidelines provide specific details on when to prioritize and when to delay care. However, the guidelines don’t provide recommendations for managing patients who cannot participate in telemedicine or patients who have seen their clinical trial halted because of the pandemic, two situations that may be familiar to U.S. physicians.
 

Prioritization

As with ESMO’s other disease-focused COVID-19 guidelines, the lung cancer guidelines are organized into three priority levels – high, medium, and low – which are applied to several domains of diagnosis and treatment.

High-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is either clinically unstable or whose cancer burden is immediately life-threatening. Medium-priority recommendations apply to patients in noncritical situations for whom delaying care beyond 6 weeks would likely lower the chance of a significant benefit from the intervention. Low-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is stable enough that services can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

ESMO applied the high-, medium-, and low-prioritization schema to clinically distinct domains of lung cancer management, including outpatient visits; imaging; surgical treatment and diagnostic intervention; radiation therapy; and medical oncology treatment of early, locally advanced, or metastatic lung cancer.

As an example, a high-priority outpatient visit would be a visit for a patient with a new diagnosis of lung cancer and disease-related symptoms, suspicion of advanced disease or small cell cancer, or a visit for treatment administration. Low-priority visits would be survivorship visits, follow-up for a patient with low or intermediate relapse risk, or a visit for psychological support alone. For each diagnostic and therapeutic domain, there are similarly explicit examples.
 

Strengths of the guidelines

Because of small cell lung cancer’s usually aggressive behavior, ESMO’s recommendations appropriately give high priority to the diagnosis and treatment of small cell lung cancer.

Regarding imaging of pulmonary nodules, ESMO’s guidelines are fairly faithful to the Fleischner Society’s 2017 recommendations (Radiographics. 2018 Sep-Oct;38[5]:1337-50).

Most importantly, ESMO urges oncologists to adjust their routines by amplifying telemedicine services, reducing clinic visits, delaying adjuvant radiation therapy, switching to oral therapies when possible, and taking minor liberties with the schedule and duration of immune-targeted therapy.

The guidelines contain advice on supportive therapies, particularly regarding more liberal use of myeloid growth factors for patients on cytotoxic chemotherapy and postponement of antiresorptive therapy when it is not needed urgently.
 

Unaddressed issues

ESMO’s guidelines do not suggest more liberal use of immune-targeted therapy alone for specific patient profiles, nor do the guidelines provide tips for enhancing mental and physical health of patients during this stressful time.

The guidelines put primacy on “patient safety.” However, Narjust Duma, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, noted that there may be other equally important considerations. The patient’s comfort level about management recommendations and the safety of family members are vital, especially those who are older or immunocompromised.

Dr. Duma also noted that access to care is an issue specific to the United States that is not specifically addressed in the ESMO guidelines.

Dr. Duma estimated that as many as 30%-40% of patients with lung cancer may have no access to the Internet, a smartphone, or the ability to set up a telemedicine encounter. A patient’s lack of health insurance, transportation, and shelter will also have a direct impact on a provider’s ability to implement the ESMO guidance.

In addition, ESMO’s lung cancer guidelines do not specifically address accrual of patients to research studies during the pandemic. In the United States, many institutions have decided to suspend recruitment of patients to clinical trials, and many developing studies have been put on hold.
 

Lung cancer management today

The COVID-19 pandemic poses unique challenges to cancer patient care, since cancer patients are at high risk of COVID-19-related mortality, but they also have a high risk of cancer progression and its associated morbidity and mortality. In an analysis of 355 Italian patients who died from COVID-19, 20% had active cancer (JAMA. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4683).

Patients with lung cancer may be particularly vulnerable to death from coronavirus infection caused by older age, comorbid conditions, and the frequent requirement for multiple modalities of treatment, including cytotoxic therapy. In China, among 18 patients with cancer and coronavirus infection, 28% had lung cancer, and those patients had a high risk of requiring ICU-level care (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7).

Bearing these data in mind, even the most mundane aspects of lung cancer diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up require careful risk-benefit analysis before application to individual patients.

There are always gray areas, particularly in quantifying the risk of relapse or infection for individual patients. However, the articulation of the ESMO guidelines into the chosen domains should make them easy to apply in routine practice for many patients.

The holistic approach the ESMO guidelines promote has never been more critical than during the pandemic, nor more aptly applied than to patients with lung cancer.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Duma disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca and Inivata.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has issued guidelines that provide a practical road map for managing lung cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the guidelines don’t address some issues that may affect U.S. physicians.

ESMO’s lung cancer guidelines provide specific details on when to prioritize and when to delay care. However, the guidelines don’t provide recommendations for managing patients who cannot participate in telemedicine or patients who have seen their clinical trial halted because of the pandemic, two situations that may be familiar to U.S. physicians.
 

Prioritization

As with ESMO’s other disease-focused COVID-19 guidelines, the lung cancer guidelines are organized into three priority levels – high, medium, and low – which are applied to several domains of diagnosis and treatment.

High-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is either clinically unstable or whose cancer burden is immediately life-threatening. Medium-priority recommendations apply to patients in noncritical situations for whom delaying care beyond 6 weeks would likely lower the chance of a significant benefit from the intervention. Low-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is stable enough that services can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

ESMO applied the high-, medium-, and low-prioritization schema to clinically distinct domains of lung cancer management, including outpatient visits; imaging; surgical treatment and diagnostic intervention; radiation therapy; and medical oncology treatment of early, locally advanced, or metastatic lung cancer.

As an example, a high-priority outpatient visit would be a visit for a patient with a new diagnosis of lung cancer and disease-related symptoms, suspicion of advanced disease or small cell cancer, or a visit for treatment administration. Low-priority visits would be survivorship visits, follow-up for a patient with low or intermediate relapse risk, or a visit for psychological support alone. For each diagnostic and therapeutic domain, there are similarly explicit examples.
 

Strengths of the guidelines

Because of small cell lung cancer’s usually aggressive behavior, ESMO’s recommendations appropriately give high priority to the diagnosis and treatment of small cell lung cancer.

Regarding imaging of pulmonary nodules, ESMO’s guidelines are fairly faithful to the Fleischner Society’s 2017 recommendations (Radiographics. 2018 Sep-Oct;38[5]:1337-50).

Most importantly, ESMO urges oncologists to adjust their routines by amplifying telemedicine services, reducing clinic visits, delaying adjuvant radiation therapy, switching to oral therapies when possible, and taking minor liberties with the schedule and duration of immune-targeted therapy.

The guidelines contain advice on supportive therapies, particularly regarding more liberal use of myeloid growth factors for patients on cytotoxic chemotherapy and postponement of antiresorptive therapy when it is not needed urgently.
 

Unaddressed issues

ESMO’s guidelines do not suggest more liberal use of immune-targeted therapy alone for specific patient profiles, nor do the guidelines provide tips for enhancing mental and physical health of patients during this stressful time.

The guidelines put primacy on “patient safety.” However, Narjust Duma, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, noted that there may be other equally important considerations. The patient’s comfort level about management recommendations and the safety of family members are vital, especially those who are older or immunocompromised.

Dr. Duma also noted that access to care is an issue specific to the United States that is not specifically addressed in the ESMO guidelines.

Dr. Duma estimated that as many as 30%-40% of patients with lung cancer may have no access to the Internet, a smartphone, or the ability to set up a telemedicine encounter. A patient’s lack of health insurance, transportation, and shelter will also have a direct impact on a provider’s ability to implement the ESMO guidance.

In addition, ESMO’s lung cancer guidelines do not specifically address accrual of patients to research studies during the pandemic. In the United States, many institutions have decided to suspend recruitment of patients to clinical trials, and many developing studies have been put on hold.
 

Lung cancer management today

The COVID-19 pandemic poses unique challenges to cancer patient care, since cancer patients are at high risk of COVID-19-related mortality, but they also have a high risk of cancer progression and its associated morbidity and mortality. In an analysis of 355 Italian patients who died from COVID-19, 20% had active cancer (JAMA. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4683).

Patients with lung cancer may be particularly vulnerable to death from coronavirus infection caused by older age, comorbid conditions, and the frequent requirement for multiple modalities of treatment, including cytotoxic therapy. In China, among 18 patients with cancer and coronavirus infection, 28% had lung cancer, and those patients had a high risk of requiring ICU-level care (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7).

Bearing these data in mind, even the most mundane aspects of lung cancer diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up require careful risk-benefit analysis before application to individual patients.

There are always gray areas, particularly in quantifying the risk of relapse or infection for individual patients. However, the articulation of the ESMO guidelines into the chosen domains should make them easy to apply in routine practice for many patients.

The holistic approach the ESMO guidelines promote has never been more critical than during the pandemic, nor more aptly applied than to patients with lung cancer.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Duma disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca and Inivata.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has issued guidelines that provide a practical road map for managing lung cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the guidelines don’t address some issues that may affect U.S. physicians.

ESMO’s lung cancer guidelines provide specific details on when to prioritize and when to delay care. However, the guidelines don’t provide recommendations for managing patients who cannot participate in telemedicine or patients who have seen their clinical trial halted because of the pandemic, two situations that may be familiar to U.S. physicians.
 

Prioritization

As with ESMO’s other disease-focused COVID-19 guidelines, the lung cancer guidelines are organized into three priority levels – high, medium, and low – which are applied to several domains of diagnosis and treatment.

High-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is either clinically unstable or whose cancer burden is immediately life-threatening. Medium-priority recommendations apply to patients in noncritical situations for whom delaying care beyond 6 weeks would likely lower the chance of a significant benefit from the intervention. Low-priority recommendations apply to patients whose condition is stable enough that services can be delayed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.

ESMO applied the high-, medium-, and low-prioritization schema to clinically distinct domains of lung cancer management, including outpatient visits; imaging; surgical treatment and diagnostic intervention; radiation therapy; and medical oncology treatment of early, locally advanced, or metastatic lung cancer.

As an example, a high-priority outpatient visit would be a visit for a patient with a new diagnosis of lung cancer and disease-related symptoms, suspicion of advanced disease or small cell cancer, or a visit for treatment administration. Low-priority visits would be survivorship visits, follow-up for a patient with low or intermediate relapse risk, or a visit for psychological support alone. For each diagnostic and therapeutic domain, there are similarly explicit examples.
 

Strengths of the guidelines

Because of small cell lung cancer’s usually aggressive behavior, ESMO’s recommendations appropriately give high priority to the diagnosis and treatment of small cell lung cancer.

Regarding imaging of pulmonary nodules, ESMO’s guidelines are fairly faithful to the Fleischner Society’s 2017 recommendations (Radiographics. 2018 Sep-Oct;38[5]:1337-50).

Most importantly, ESMO urges oncologists to adjust their routines by amplifying telemedicine services, reducing clinic visits, delaying adjuvant radiation therapy, switching to oral therapies when possible, and taking minor liberties with the schedule and duration of immune-targeted therapy.

The guidelines contain advice on supportive therapies, particularly regarding more liberal use of myeloid growth factors for patients on cytotoxic chemotherapy and postponement of antiresorptive therapy when it is not needed urgently.
 

Unaddressed issues

ESMO’s guidelines do not suggest more liberal use of immune-targeted therapy alone for specific patient profiles, nor do the guidelines provide tips for enhancing mental and physical health of patients during this stressful time.

The guidelines put primacy on “patient safety.” However, Narjust Duma, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, noted that there may be other equally important considerations. The patient’s comfort level about management recommendations and the safety of family members are vital, especially those who are older or immunocompromised.

Dr. Duma also noted that access to care is an issue specific to the United States that is not specifically addressed in the ESMO guidelines.

Dr. Duma estimated that as many as 30%-40% of patients with lung cancer may have no access to the Internet, a smartphone, or the ability to set up a telemedicine encounter. A patient’s lack of health insurance, transportation, and shelter will also have a direct impact on a provider’s ability to implement the ESMO guidance.

In addition, ESMO’s lung cancer guidelines do not specifically address accrual of patients to research studies during the pandemic. In the United States, many institutions have decided to suspend recruitment of patients to clinical trials, and many developing studies have been put on hold.
 

Lung cancer management today

The COVID-19 pandemic poses unique challenges to cancer patient care, since cancer patients are at high risk of COVID-19-related mortality, but they also have a high risk of cancer progression and its associated morbidity and mortality. In an analysis of 355 Italian patients who died from COVID-19, 20% had active cancer (JAMA. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4683).

Patients with lung cancer may be particularly vulnerable to death from coronavirus infection caused by older age, comorbid conditions, and the frequent requirement for multiple modalities of treatment, including cytotoxic therapy. In China, among 18 patients with cancer and coronavirus infection, 28% had lung cancer, and those patients had a high risk of requiring ICU-level care (Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21[3]:335-7).

Bearing these data in mind, even the most mundane aspects of lung cancer diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up require careful risk-benefit analysis before application to individual patients.

There are always gray areas, particularly in quantifying the risk of relapse or infection for individual patients. However, the articulation of the ESMO guidelines into the chosen domains should make them easy to apply in routine practice for many patients.

The holistic approach the ESMO guidelines promote has never been more critical than during the pandemic, nor more aptly applied than to patients with lung cancer.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Duma disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca and Inivata.

An international registry of adult and pediatric rheumatology patients is beginning to identify trends in the types of patients with COVID-19 and who is recovering.

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) has created pediatric and adult registries for health care providers to enter information on their rheumatology patients with COVID-19. The adult registry is hosted by the University of California, San Francisco, Research Electronic Data Capture system, while the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance is supporting the pediatric registry. A separate path for data entry of both adult and pediatric cases has been established through the European League Against Rheumatism for European countries and countries with EULAR member organizations.

Prior to the creation of the registries, there were no data available to guide rheumatologists in clinical decision making for their patients, noted Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, COVID-19 GRA steering committee member and chief of the division of rheumatology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. “COVID-19 has potential to severely affect those with rheumatologic diseases or those taking immunosuppressive drugs,” she said in an interview. “The GRA registries were designed to answer critical questions that will inform the medical care of this population.”

The GRA began on Twitter, with conversations between Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, of the Cleveland Clinic; Paul Sufka, MD, of HealthPartners in St. Paul, Minn.; Philip Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the Royal Brisbane (Australia) Hospital; and herself, Dr. Yazdany said. Dr. Robinson started work on the governance of the GRA, Dr. Yazdany designed the data infrastructure, and Dr. Sufka approached his professional networks and social media followings to promote the effort and ask for support. The COVID-19 GRA steering committee representatives include patients, private practice rheumatologists, and international investigators. Listed among official supporters of the alliance are the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR along with more than 290 medical societies, institutions, journals, and other organizations in rheumatology.

The goal of the registries is to examine the health outcomes of patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19 based on sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and clinical presentations of COVID-19 as well as what role taking immunosuppressive drugs prior to a COVID-19 infection play in helping or hindering outcomes. Hydroxychloroquine, used to treat lupus and arthritis, is a potential treatment candidate for COVID-19. Biologics such as tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara), which target interleukin-6, and anakinra (Kineret), which targets IL-1, are treatment candidates for patients who have experienced COVID-related cytokine storm syndrome, which researchers believe may contribute to worsening or fatal cases.

Dr. Yazdany, who is also vice chair of real-world data infrastructure, registry, and institutional review board/ethics for the GRA, said that there are some important high-level trends in the data thus far. “People with lupus and those taking hydroxychloroquine are becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, which is counter to misinformation on social media. Most people with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppression are recovering, which is great news for our patients.”

One of the major strengths of the registries is that each case is entered by the rheumatologist treating the patient and contains detailed clinical information, Dr. Yazdany said. However, the registry has no control group, it is not a population surveillance study, and it may contain selection bias through rheumatologists omitting milder, undiagnosed cases.

“The Global Alliance case reporting registry represents the collective effort of hundreds of rheumatologists across the world. I have never been more inspired by the strength and collaboration of the rheumatology community,” Dr. Yazdany said.

According to a paper published in the Lancet Rheumatology, which references data on 110 cases from the combined databases up to April 1, about three-fourths of cases presented with fever (79%) and cough (77%), and about half presented with shortness of breath (50%) and myalgia (45%).
 

Results from the global and UCSF registries

As of April 18, 334 cases were in the global and UCSF registries, with 121 patients (36%) in the database having both COVID-19 and RA, 33 patients (10%) with psoriatic arthritis, 58 patients (17%) with systemic lupus erythematosus, 28 patients (8%) with axial spondyloarthritis, 27 patients (8%) with vasculitis, and 19 patients (6%) with Sjögren’s syndrome. There were less than five cases reported for patients with the following rheumatic diseases: inflammatory myopathy, ocular inflammation, other inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, sarcoidosis, systemic sclerosis, osteoporosis, psoriasis, isolated pulmonary capillaritis, gout, and autoinflammatory disease. A majority of the patients in the registries are women (74%) aged younger than 65 years (78%) and are white (52%).

The most common comorbid conditions among patients in the registry are hypertension (33%), lung disease (18%), diabetes (11%), cardiovascular disease (10%), chronic renal insufficiency or end-stage renal disease (7%), morbid obesity (7%), and cancer (4%). Before being diagnosed with COVID-19, 219 patients (66%) in the registry were taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), which included antimalarials, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, leflunomide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid, sulfasalazine, and tacrolimus. A total of 122 patients (37%) were taking biologic DMARDs, 101 patients were taking glucocorticoids (30%), 86 patients (26%) were taking hydroxychloroquine, 41 patients (12%) were taking NSAIDs, and 18 patients (5%) were taking a Janus kinase inhibitor.

The most recent data from the registry show that 128 patients (38%) have been hospitalized for COVID-19, and 19 patients (6%) have died. Although 104 patients (31%) resolved their infections, 177 patients (53%) have a COVID-19 infection status of “unresolved,” and 53 patients (16%) have an unknown infection status.
 

EULAR registry results

As of April 21, 249 cases were in the EULAR registry, including 110 hospitalizations (44%) and 37 deaths (15%). Overall, 64% of these patients were women, and they had a median age of 60 years.

The top five diagnoses of these patients were RA (39%), psoriatic arthritis (15%), spondyloarthritis (9%), systemic lupus erythematosus (9%), and gout (5%). A total of 27% had no reported comorbidities, while lung disease occurred in 26%, hypertension in 34%, diabetes in 11%, and cardiovascular disease on 11%. The registry also reported use of any DMARD in 80%, including 62% on csDMARDs, 31% on biologics, and 2% on targeted synthetic DMARDs.

Ten authors in the Lancet Rheumatology paper reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, corporate sponsorships, advisory board memberships, investigator appointments, speaker’s bureau positions, personal fees, and consultancies for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

An international registry of adult and pediatric rheumatology patients is beginning to identify trends in the types of patients with COVID-19 and who is recovering.

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) has created pediatric and adult registries for health care providers to enter information on their rheumatology patients with COVID-19. The adult registry is hosted by the University of California, San Francisco, Research Electronic Data Capture system, while the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance is supporting the pediatric registry. A separate path for data entry of both adult and pediatric cases has been established through the European League Against Rheumatism for European countries and countries with EULAR member organizations.

Prior to the creation of the registries, there were no data available to guide rheumatologists in clinical decision making for their patients, noted Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, COVID-19 GRA steering committee member and chief of the division of rheumatology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. “COVID-19 has potential to severely affect those with rheumatologic diseases or those taking immunosuppressive drugs,” she said in an interview. “The GRA registries were designed to answer critical questions that will inform the medical care of this population.”

The GRA began on Twitter, with conversations between Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, of the Cleveland Clinic; Paul Sufka, MD, of HealthPartners in St. Paul, Minn.; Philip Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the Royal Brisbane (Australia) Hospital; and herself, Dr. Yazdany said. Dr. Robinson started work on the governance of the GRA, Dr. Yazdany designed the data infrastructure, and Dr. Sufka approached his professional networks and social media followings to promote the effort and ask for support. The COVID-19 GRA steering committee representatives include patients, private practice rheumatologists, and international investigators. Listed among official supporters of the alliance are the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR along with more than 290 medical societies, institutions, journals, and other organizations in rheumatology.

The goal of the registries is to examine the health outcomes of patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19 based on sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and clinical presentations of COVID-19 as well as what role taking immunosuppressive drugs prior to a COVID-19 infection play in helping or hindering outcomes. Hydroxychloroquine, used to treat lupus and arthritis, is a potential treatment candidate for COVID-19. Biologics such as tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara), which target interleukin-6, and anakinra (Kineret), which targets IL-1, are treatment candidates for patients who have experienced COVID-related cytokine storm syndrome, which researchers believe may contribute to worsening or fatal cases.

Dr. Yazdany, who is also vice chair of real-world data infrastructure, registry, and institutional review board/ethics for the GRA, said that there are some important high-level trends in the data thus far. “People with lupus and those taking hydroxychloroquine are becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, which is counter to misinformation on social media. Most people with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppression are recovering, which is great news for our patients.”

One of the major strengths of the registries is that each case is entered by the rheumatologist treating the patient and contains detailed clinical information, Dr. Yazdany said. However, the registry has no control group, it is not a population surveillance study, and it may contain selection bias through rheumatologists omitting milder, undiagnosed cases.

“The Global Alliance case reporting registry represents the collective effort of hundreds of rheumatologists across the world. I have never been more inspired by the strength and collaboration of the rheumatology community,” Dr. Yazdany said.

According to a paper published in the Lancet Rheumatology, which references data on 110 cases from the combined databases up to April 1, about three-fourths of cases presented with fever (79%) and cough (77%), and about half presented with shortness of breath (50%) and myalgia (45%).
 

Results from the global and UCSF registries

As of April 18, 334 cases were in the global and UCSF registries, with 121 patients (36%) in the database having both COVID-19 and RA, 33 patients (10%) with psoriatic arthritis, 58 patients (17%) with systemic lupus erythematosus, 28 patients (8%) with axial spondyloarthritis, 27 patients (8%) with vasculitis, and 19 patients (6%) with Sjögren’s syndrome. There were less than five cases reported for patients with the following rheumatic diseases: inflammatory myopathy, ocular inflammation, other inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, sarcoidosis, systemic sclerosis, osteoporosis, psoriasis, isolated pulmonary capillaritis, gout, and autoinflammatory disease. A majority of the patients in the registries are women (74%) aged younger than 65 years (78%) and are white (52%).

The most common comorbid conditions among patients in the registry are hypertension (33%), lung disease (18%), diabetes (11%), cardiovascular disease (10%), chronic renal insufficiency or end-stage renal disease (7%), morbid obesity (7%), and cancer (4%). Before being diagnosed with COVID-19, 219 patients (66%) in the registry were taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), which included antimalarials, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, leflunomide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid, sulfasalazine, and tacrolimus. A total of 122 patients (37%) were taking biologic DMARDs, 101 patients were taking glucocorticoids (30%), 86 patients (26%) were taking hydroxychloroquine, 41 patients (12%) were taking NSAIDs, and 18 patients (5%) were taking a Janus kinase inhibitor.

The most recent data from the registry show that 128 patients (38%) have been hospitalized for COVID-19, and 19 patients (6%) have died. Although 104 patients (31%) resolved their infections, 177 patients (53%) have a COVID-19 infection status of “unresolved,” and 53 patients (16%) have an unknown infection status.
 

EULAR registry results

As of April 21, 249 cases were in the EULAR registry, including 110 hospitalizations (44%) and 37 deaths (15%). Overall, 64% of these patients were women, and they had a median age of 60 years.

The top five diagnoses of these patients were RA (39%), psoriatic arthritis (15%), spondyloarthritis (9%), systemic lupus erythematosus (9%), and gout (5%). A total of 27% had no reported comorbidities, while lung disease occurred in 26%, hypertension in 34%, diabetes in 11%, and cardiovascular disease on 11%. The registry also reported use of any DMARD in 80%, including 62% on csDMARDs, 31% on biologics, and 2% on targeted synthetic DMARDs.

Ten authors in the Lancet Rheumatology paper reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, corporate sponsorships, advisory board memberships, investigator appointments, speaker’s bureau positions, personal fees, and consultancies for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

An international registry of adult and pediatric rheumatology patients is beginning to identify trends in the types of patients with COVID-19 and who is recovering.

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) has created pediatric and adult registries for health care providers to enter information on their rheumatology patients with COVID-19. The adult registry is hosted by the University of California, San Francisco, Research Electronic Data Capture system, while the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance is supporting the pediatric registry. A separate path for data entry of both adult and pediatric cases has been established through the European League Against Rheumatism for European countries and countries with EULAR member organizations.

Prior to the creation of the registries, there were no data available to guide rheumatologists in clinical decision making for their patients, noted Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, COVID-19 GRA steering committee member and chief of the division of rheumatology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. “COVID-19 has potential to severely affect those with rheumatologic diseases or those taking immunosuppressive drugs,” she said in an interview. “The GRA registries were designed to answer critical questions that will inform the medical care of this population.”

The GRA began on Twitter, with conversations between Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, of the Cleveland Clinic; Paul Sufka, MD, of HealthPartners in St. Paul, Minn.; Philip Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the Royal Brisbane (Australia) Hospital; and herself, Dr. Yazdany said. Dr. Robinson started work on the governance of the GRA, Dr. Yazdany designed the data infrastructure, and Dr. Sufka approached his professional networks and social media followings to promote the effort and ask for support. The COVID-19 GRA steering committee representatives include patients, private practice rheumatologists, and international investigators. Listed among official supporters of the alliance are the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR along with more than 290 medical societies, institutions, journals, and other organizations in rheumatology.

The goal of the registries is to examine the health outcomes of patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19 based on sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and clinical presentations of COVID-19 as well as what role taking immunosuppressive drugs prior to a COVID-19 infection play in helping or hindering outcomes. Hydroxychloroquine, used to treat lupus and arthritis, is a potential treatment candidate for COVID-19. Biologics such as tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara), which target interleukin-6, and anakinra (Kineret), which targets IL-1, are treatment candidates for patients who have experienced COVID-related cytokine storm syndrome, which researchers believe may contribute to worsening or fatal cases.

Dr. Yazdany, who is also vice chair of real-world data infrastructure, registry, and institutional review board/ethics for the GRA, said that there are some important high-level trends in the data thus far. “People with lupus and those taking hydroxychloroquine are becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, which is counter to misinformation on social media. Most people with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppression are recovering, which is great news for our patients.”

One of the major strengths of the registries is that each case is entered by the rheumatologist treating the patient and contains detailed clinical information, Dr. Yazdany said. However, the registry has no control group, it is not a population surveillance study, and it may contain selection bias through rheumatologists omitting milder, undiagnosed cases.

“The Global Alliance case reporting registry represents the collective effort of hundreds of rheumatologists across the world. I have never been more inspired by the strength and collaboration of the rheumatology community,” Dr. Yazdany said.

According to a paper published in the Lancet Rheumatology, which references data on 110 cases from the combined databases up to April 1, about three-fourths of cases presented with fever (79%) and cough (77%), and about half presented with shortness of breath (50%) and myalgia (45%).
 

Results from the global and UCSF registries

As of April 18, 334 cases were in the global and UCSF registries, with 121 patients (36%) in the database having both COVID-19 and RA, 33 patients (10%) with psoriatic arthritis, 58 patients (17%) with systemic lupus erythematosus, 28 patients (8%) with axial spondyloarthritis, 27 patients (8%) with vasculitis, and 19 patients (6%) with Sjögren’s syndrome. There were less than five cases reported for patients with the following rheumatic diseases: inflammatory myopathy, ocular inflammation, other inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, sarcoidosis, systemic sclerosis, osteoporosis, psoriasis, isolated pulmonary capillaritis, gout, and autoinflammatory disease. A majority of the patients in the registries are women (74%) aged younger than 65 years (78%) and are white (52%).

The most common comorbid conditions among patients in the registry are hypertension (33%), lung disease (18%), diabetes (11%), cardiovascular disease (10%), chronic renal insufficiency or end-stage renal disease (7%), morbid obesity (7%), and cancer (4%). Before being diagnosed with COVID-19, 219 patients (66%) in the registry were taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), which included antimalarials, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, leflunomide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid, sulfasalazine, and tacrolimus. A total of 122 patients (37%) were taking biologic DMARDs, 101 patients were taking glucocorticoids (30%), 86 patients (26%) were taking hydroxychloroquine, 41 patients (12%) were taking NSAIDs, and 18 patients (5%) were taking a Janus kinase inhibitor.

The most recent data from the registry show that 128 patients (38%) have been hospitalized for COVID-19, and 19 patients (6%) have died. Although 104 patients (31%) resolved their infections, 177 patients (53%) have a COVID-19 infection status of “unresolved,” and 53 patients (16%) have an unknown infection status.
 

EULAR registry results

As of April 21, 249 cases were in the EULAR registry, including 110 hospitalizations (44%) and 37 deaths (15%). Overall, 64% of these patients were women, and they had a median age of 60 years.

The top five diagnoses of these patients were RA (39%), psoriatic arthritis (15%), spondyloarthritis (9%), systemic lupus erythematosus (9%), and gout (5%). A total of 27% had no reported comorbidities, while lung disease occurred in 26%, hypertension in 34%, diabetes in 11%, and cardiovascular disease on 11%. The registry also reported use of any DMARD in 80%, including 62% on csDMARDs, 31% on biologics, and 2% on targeted synthetic DMARDs.

Ten authors in the Lancet Rheumatology paper reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, corporate sponsorships, advisory board memberships, investigator appointments, speaker’s bureau positions, personal fees, and consultancies for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Join us on Thursday, April 23, at 8:30 p.m. EST as we discuss how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting the mental health of psychiatry patients and providers around the world.

Our special guests include two psychiatry educators with expertise in therapeutic psychotherapy and solutions on how to help our most vulnerable populations being affected by COVID-19, Dinah Miller, MD (@shrinkraphdinah), and Elizabeth Ryznar, MD (@RyznarMD). We hope you will participate in our Twitter chat this evening, at 8:30 p.m. EST on #MDedgeChats.

Public health emergencies can affect the well-being of individuals and communities causing possible feelings of insecurity, confusion, and emotional isolation. These effects may translate into a range of emotional reactions affecting current psychiatric conditions and creating new ones, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “nearly 45% of adults across the country say that worry and stress related to the coronavirus pandemic are hurting their mental health.”

In this chat, we will discuss this topic and how COVID-19 is affecting your patients and practice. Join us tonight and feel free to share what you have experienced during this pandemic at 8:30 pm EST on #MDedgeChats.

Topics of Conversation

Question 1: How are pre-pandemic patients doing during the crisis?
Question 2: How has COVID-19 affected inpatient and outpatient care for you?
Question 3: How are our most vulnerable populations being affected by COVID-19?
Question 4: How are you doing personally and professionally as a medical professional and psychiatrist amidst this pandemic?
Question 5: What psychiatric manifestations are you seeing in your patients who have had COVID-19?

About Dr. Dinah Miller

Dr. Dinah Miller (@shrinkrapdinah) a psychiatrist with a private practice and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore. Dr. Miller is also a columnist for and a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of Clinical Psychiatry News. She is the co-author of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016) and “Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2011).

About Dr. Elizabeth Ryznar

Dr. Elizabeth Ryznar (@RyznarMD) is a psychiatry clinician-educator research fellow and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. She completed her medical training at Harvard Medical School in Boston and her residency training at Northwestern University in Chicago. Dr. Ryznar is co-editor of the new book “Landmark Papers in Psychiatry,” published by Oxford University Press, and has several peer-reviewed articles.

Resources

• Mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic
• Brief examines the COVID-19 crisis’ implications for Americans’ mental health
• COVID-19: Helping health care workers on the front lines
• Overcoming COVID-related stress
• Confessions of an outpatient psychiatrist during the pandemic
• Psychiatric patients may be among the hardest hit
• Experts hasten to head off mental health crisis

Kclark@mdedge.com

Join us on Thursday, April 23, at 8:30 p.m. EST as we discuss how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting the mental health of psychiatry patients and providers around the world.

Our special guests include two psychiatry educators with expertise in therapeutic psychotherapy and solutions on how to help our most vulnerable populations being affected by COVID-19, Dinah Miller, MD (@shrinkraphdinah), and Elizabeth Ryznar, MD (@RyznarMD). We hope you will participate in our Twitter chat this evening, at 8:30 p.m. EST on #MDedgeChats.

Public health emergencies can affect the well-being of individuals and communities causing possible feelings of insecurity, confusion, and emotional isolation. These effects may translate into a range of emotional reactions affecting current psychiatric conditions and creating new ones, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “nearly 45% of adults across the country say that worry and stress related to the coronavirus pandemic are hurting their mental health.”

In this chat, we will discuss this topic and how COVID-19 is affecting your patients and practice. Join us tonight and feel free to share what you have experienced during this pandemic at 8:30 pm EST on #MDedgeChats.

Topics of Conversation

Question 1: How are pre-pandemic patients doing during the crisis?
Question 2: How has COVID-19 affected inpatient and outpatient care for you?
Question 3: How are our most vulnerable populations being affected by COVID-19?
Question 4: How are you doing personally and professionally as a medical professional and psychiatrist amidst this pandemic?
Question 5: What psychiatric manifestations are you seeing in your patients who have had COVID-19?

About Dr. Dinah Miller

Dr. Dinah Miller (@shrinkrapdinah) a psychiatrist with a private practice and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore. Dr. Miller is also a columnist for and a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of Clinical Psychiatry News. She is the co-author of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016) and “Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2011).

About Dr. Elizabeth Ryznar

Dr. Elizabeth Ryznar (@RyznarMD) is a psychiatry clinician-educator research fellow and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. She completed her medical training at Harvard Medical School in Boston and her residency training at Northwestern University in Chicago. Dr. Ryznar is co-editor of the new book “Landmark Papers in Psychiatry,” published by Oxford University Press, and has several peer-reviewed articles.

Resources

• Mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic
• Brief examines the COVID-19 crisis’ implications for Americans’ mental health
• COVID-19: Helping health care workers on the front lines
• Overcoming COVID-related stress
• Confessions of an outpatient psychiatrist during the pandemic
• Psychiatric patients may be among the hardest hit
• Experts hasten to head off mental health crisis

Kclark@mdedge.com

Join us on Thursday, April 23, at 8:30 p.m. EST as we discuss how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting the mental health of psychiatry patients and providers around the world.

Our special guests include two psychiatry educators with expertise in therapeutic psychotherapy and solutions on how to help our most vulnerable populations being affected by COVID-19, Dinah Miller, MD (@shrinkraphdinah), and Elizabeth Ryznar, MD (@RyznarMD). We hope you will participate in our Twitter chat this evening, at 8:30 p.m. EST on #MDedgeChats.

Public health emergencies can affect the well-being of individuals and communities causing possible feelings of insecurity, confusion, and emotional isolation. These effects may translate into a range of emotional reactions affecting current psychiatric conditions and creating new ones, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “nearly 45% of adults across the country say that worry and stress related to the coronavirus pandemic are hurting their mental health.”

In this chat, we will discuss this topic and how COVID-19 is affecting your patients and practice. Join us tonight and feel free to share what you have experienced during this pandemic at 8:30 pm EST on #MDedgeChats.

Topics of Conversation

Question 1: How are pre-pandemic patients doing during the crisis?
Question 2: How has COVID-19 affected inpatient and outpatient care for you?
Question 3: How are our most vulnerable populations being affected by COVID-19?
Question 4: How are you doing personally and professionally as a medical professional and psychiatrist amidst this pandemic?
Question 5: What psychiatric manifestations are you seeing in your patients who have had COVID-19?

About Dr. Dinah Miller

Dr. Dinah Miller (@shrinkrapdinah) a psychiatrist with a private practice and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore. Dr. Miller is also a columnist for and a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of Clinical Psychiatry News. She is the co-author of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016) and “Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2011).

About Dr. Elizabeth Ryznar

Dr. Elizabeth Ryznar (@RyznarMD) is a psychiatry clinician-educator research fellow and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. She completed her medical training at Harvard Medical School in Boston and her residency training at Northwestern University in Chicago. Dr. Ryznar is co-editor of the new book “Landmark Papers in Psychiatry,” published by Oxford University Press, and has several peer-reviewed articles.

Resources

• Mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic
• Brief examines the COVID-19 crisis’ implications for Americans’ mental health
• COVID-19: Helping health care workers on the front lines
• Overcoming COVID-related stress
• Confessions of an outpatient psychiatrist during the pandemic
• Psychiatric patients may be among the hardest hit
• Experts hasten to head off mental health crisis

Kclark@mdedge.com

Across the country, psychiatrists are stepping up to provide urgent care to fellow health care workers in need amid the coronavirus pandemic. They’re offering stress management strategies, spearheading unusual partnerships, and discovering that psychotherapy and medication might not be their most helpful tools to help their colleagues at this time.

“This is completely the opposite of the way we practice psychiatry,” said Allison Cotton, MD, of the University of Nevada, Reno. “Our interventions are quite different from a psychotherapeutic standpoint.”

In March, she worked with four colleagues, Suzan Song, MD, MPH, PhD; Ben Cheng, MD; Smita Gautam, MD; and Mona S. Masood, DO, to create the Physician Support Line, a confidential and free hotline that links physicians to volunteer psychiatrists who are available to listen and offer advice on coping. The hotline (888-409-0141) is available every day from 8 a.m. to midnight Eastern time. Calls typically take 15-45 minutes; no appointment is needed, and conversations are not reportable to state medical boards. At last count, Dr. Cotton said, more than 600 psychiatrists had volunteered to take shifts to talk with fellow physicians.

Courtesy Dr. Allison Cotton

“The calls can be very intense,” Dr. Cotton said, and they’re unusual for several reasons. The hotline is not like a suicide or crisis hotline, when “a person calls because they need help, and then they can go get that help – they go to the hospital and get admitted to a psychiatric unit. Our callers don’t have that luxury.”

It’s also impossible to take an extensive history and create a sophisticated, long-term treatment plan as psychiatrists would during normal office visits. At the hotline, Dr. Cotton said, “we’re really focusing on the caller’s strengths and helping them come up with a plan for today to get through whatever they’re facing,” she said.
 

Stress management is critical

Psychiatrists at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus are embracing a similar approach to help health care workers cope, said Steven Berkowitz, MD. “We focus on stress management, and the notion that they are generally healthy and understandably struggling with extraordinary circumstances,” he said. “We are conservative in our use of medications and really only prescribe medications, such as trazodone, to help with sleep. We do not use benzodiazepines unless there is a history of more severe psychiatric problems.”

The pressure on health care workers during the pandemic is intense. A survey of 1,257 workers in 34 Chinese hospitals found high levels of symptoms of depression (50%), anxiety (45%), insomnia (35%), and distress (72%). Several groups appeared to be more vulnerable: women, nurses, front-line health care workers, and those in the coronavirus-stricken city of Wuhan (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[3]:e203976).

In Colorado, “providers are depleted,” Dr. Berkowitz said. “We are hearing about sleep disturbances and even some traumatic nightmares from ICU staff. During our support sessions, tears come most frequently when they talk about the struggle to care for their families and how they’re putting them at risk.”

Also, he said, “one of the most upsetting issues has been around language and cultural issues. Because of the language barriers, providers cannot explain why families can’t be with their sick members, which has led to acrimony.”
 

Guilt is a prevailing theme

Guilt also is a common emotion among health care workers, said psychiatrist Tia Konzer, DO, of Charlotte, N.C. “The ones on the front line question whether they were able to do enough to save someone or if they could have done more. Those of us not on the front lines feel guilty that we’re not there with our colleagues, that we don’t face the same fears and are in the safety of our outpatient clinics.”

The focus on social distancing is creating its own strains, she said. “A lot of people are recognizing the power of human touch and how comforting that is,” she said. “The healers aren’t able to comfort the loved ones of the deceased, and we’re not able to comfort each other. And people are having a hard time not being able to hug their kids and their spouses, having to ward off their kids when they come home or avoid them until they’ve showered.”

How can mental health professionals be most helpful to health care workers in need? The simple act of listening is crucial, several such professionals said in interviews.

“Your main job is to bear witness to their experiences and to hear their story, then secondarily to make sure they have a basic self-care plan to recover from what they’re doing each day,” said psychologist Leah Welch, PhD, of the Scripps Health network in San Diego. “Don’t talk too much or try to give advice too quickly before you’ve listened to what the caregiver has shared. They’re accumulating small traumas and need time and space to sort them out, and that takes patience and a listening ear on the part of the provider. Rushing in too quickly with advice deprives them of making sense of their own experience.”

She added that “they should also be thanked for what they’re doing, because it requires skill, empathy, and courage. They are being heroic, and they need to know they’re appreciated by those of us not on the front lines for what they’re putting themselves through.”
 

Partnerships are forming

At Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, psychiatry chief Lisa Fortuna, MD, MPH, MDiv, said her team has had success by working closely with the hospital’s chaplains. “A lot of the staff are not saying: ‘We’re stressing out; help us.’ The chaplains had starting rounding, asking how they’re doing, and they’d open up because there was already a relationship. The chaplains are very well trained in dealing with being support for people under situations of death, loss, and immediate stress.”

The chaplains themselves became overwhelmed, and the hospital responded by reaching out to bring in more chaplains. The psychiatry team, meanwhile, worked to partner with the chaplains to provide a continuum of support for staff. “We have an opportunity to build on the trust that they have,” said Dr. Fortuna, who is an ordained Episcopal minister. “They’re the perfect partners.”

What happens now? Dr. Fortuna has seen the long-term aftermath of a crisis. She previously worked in Massachusetts and helped to support health care workers in that state after the Boston Marathon bombing.

She cautioned that health care workers may first run on adrenaline in a crisis, spurred by “heroic high energy.” But then, the full extent of the tragedy begins to set in, and they start to process their feelings. “You have to keep people going through those phases,” she said.

Going forward, she said, “there will be a prolonged tail of stress,” especially if virus outbreaks recur. “We’ll have a long time enduring this.”

Don’t forget the self-care

There was a time during the pandemic when Dr. Cotton had become so overwhelmed by anxiety that she called the Physician Support Line to get some support from fellow psychiatrists.

“I thought, ‘Why not?’” she recalled. “I helped create the hotline. Why wouldn’t I call it?”

The calls took only a few minutes but they made a difference to Dr. Cotton, who had been severely ill with what she believed was an unconfirmed case of the novel coronavirus. “I immediately felt more like I improved my outlook by focusing on what I could control,” she said, “and accepting the things I could not control.”

Many psychiatrists are finding themselves in similar situations. Fortunately, colleagues are highlighting ways for psychiatrists to care for themselves just as they care for patients.

“One of the challenges clinicians are facing is that they are living through a shared experience in this global pandemic with their patients right now,” said psychologist Randi Pochtar, PhD, who is managing support groups for front-line workers at NYU Langone Health in New York City. “Some might find the work to be overwhelming and anxiety-inducing, and others might find their work to be helpful in managing their own anxiety and stress about the pandemic and its impact.”

Dr. Cotton said her breaking points came when she felt panic amid the pandemic. “I had watched too much news, and I’d seen protesters not taking it seriously, and I was scared for my family and myself. I just needed to feel like someone heard me feeling that way.”

The calls to the hotline were helpful, she said, and so was sharing news about her illness with friends. “So many people reached out to me and checked in on me, people I haven’t seen in years, and that was immensely helpful,” she said.

This sort of personal exposure may not come naturally to physicians and nurses, she said. “We don’t seek that kind of attention when we’re ill. Instead, we say: ‘I’m fine; how are you doing?’ That’s what we do every day of our lives at work.”

How can clinicians help themselves and one another? “Clinicians in our practice have been coping and supporting each other through peer supervision, connecting with colleagues in team meetings, and simply checking in on one another,” said Dr. Pochtar. “In addition, we can adopt many of the strategies that we are likely recommending to our patients, such as maintaining routines as much as possible, engaging in regular exercise, eating well and consistently, and connecting with friends and family.”

Managers can play important roles, said Dr. Fortuna. “I’ve been checking in with my faculty, being as supportive as I can be and highlighting the extraordinary things that people are doing, like going from zero to 100 percent in setting up telehealth.”

Dr. Konzer offered another perspective on recognizing the value of the work that psychiatrists are doing. “We’re on the front line of helping heal the front line, and in that responsibility comes an additional stress,” she said. “But there’s an additional gift of being able to contribute where we are most beneficial. We can try to be present now, versus worrying about what may happen or what lies ahead, and appreciate the beauty in the helpers and the small joys of life.”

Dr. Cotton, Dr. Berkowitz, Dr. Konzer, Dr. Welch, Dr. Fortuna, and Dr. Pochtar reported no relevant disclosures.
 

Across the country, psychiatrists are stepping up to provide urgent care to fellow health care workers in need amid the coronavirus pandemic. They’re offering stress management strategies, spearheading unusual partnerships, and discovering that psychotherapy and medication might not be their most helpful tools to help their colleagues at this time.

“This is completely the opposite of the way we practice psychiatry,” said Allison Cotton, MD, of the University of Nevada, Reno. “Our interventions are quite different from a psychotherapeutic standpoint.”

In March, she worked with four colleagues, Suzan Song, MD, MPH, PhD; Ben Cheng, MD; Smita Gautam, MD; and Mona S. Masood, DO, to create the Physician Support Line, a confidential and free hotline that links physicians to volunteer psychiatrists who are available to listen and offer advice on coping. The hotline (888-409-0141) is available every day from 8 a.m. to midnight Eastern time. Calls typically take 15-45 minutes; no appointment is needed, and conversations are not reportable to state medical boards. At last count, Dr. Cotton said, more than 600 psychiatrists had volunteered to take shifts to talk with fellow physicians.

Courtesy Dr. Allison Cotton

“The calls can be very intense,” Dr. Cotton said, and they’re unusual for several reasons. The hotline is not like a suicide or crisis hotline, when “a person calls because they need help, and then they can go get that help – they go to the hospital and get admitted to a psychiatric unit. Our callers don’t have that luxury.”

It’s also impossible to take an extensive history and create a sophisticated, long-term treatment plan as psychiatrists would during normal office visits. At the hotline, Dr. Cotton said, “we’re really focusing on the caller’s strengths and helping them come up with a plan for today to get through whatever they’re facing,” she said.
 

Stress management is critical

Psychiatrists at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus are embracing a similar approach to help health care workers cope, said Steven Berkowitz, MD. “We focus on stress management, and the notion that they are generally healthy and understandably struggling with extraordinary circumstances,” he said. “We are conservative in our use of medications and really only prescribe medications, such as trazodone, to help with sleep. We do not use benzodiazepines unless there is a history of more severe psychiatric problems.”

The pressure on health care workers during the pandemic is intense. A survey of 1,257 workers in 34 Chinese hospitals found high levels of symptoms of depression (50%), anxiety (45%), insomnia (35%), and distress (72%). Several groups appeared to be more vulnerable: women, nurses, front-line health care workers, and those in the coronavirus-stricken city of Wuhan (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[3]:e203976).

In Colorado, “providers are depleted,” Dr. Berkowitz said. “We are hearing about sleep disturbances and even some traumatic nightmares from ICU staff. During our support sessions, tears come most frequently when they talk about the struggle to care for their families and how they’re putting them at risk.”

Also, he said, “one of the most upsetting issues has been around language and cultural issues. Because of the language barriers, providers cannot explain why families can’t be with their sick members, which has led to acrimony.”
 

Guilt is a prevailing theme

Guilt also is a common emotion among health care workers, said psychiatrist Tia Konzer, DO, of Charlotte, N.C. “The ones on the front line question whether they were able to do enough to save someone or if they could have done more. Those of us not on the front lines feel guilty that we’re not there with our colleagues, that we don’t face the same fears and are in the safety of our outpatient clinics.”

The focus on social distancing is creating its own strains, she said. “A lot of people are recognizing the power of human touch and how comforting that is,” she said. “The healers aren’t able to comfort the loved ones of the deceased, and we’re not able to comfort each other. And people are having a hard time not being able to hug their kids and their spouses, having to ward off their kids when they come home or avoid them until they’ve showered.”

How can mental health professionals be most helpful to health care workers in need? The simple act of listening is crucial, several such professionals said in interviews.

“Your main job is to bear witness to their experiences and to hear their story, then secondarily to make sure they have a basic self-care plan to recover from what they’re doing each day,” said psychologist Leah Welch, PhD, of the Scripps Health network in San Diego. “Don’t talk too much or try to give advice too quickly before you’ve listened to what the caregiver has shared. They’re accumulating small traumas and need time and space to sort them out, and that takes patience and a listening ear on the part of the provider. Rushing in too quickly with advice deprives them of making sense of their own experience.”

She added that “they should also be thanked for what they’re doing, because it requires skill, empathy, and courage. They are being heroic, and they need to know they’re appreciated by those of us not on the front lines for what they’re putting themselves through.”
 

Partnerships are forming

At Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, psychiatry chief Lisa Fortuna, MD, MPH, MDiv, said her team has had success by working closely with the hospital’s chaplains. “A lot of the staff are not saying: ‘We’re stressing out; help us.’ The chaplains had starting rounding, asking how they’re doing, and they’d open up because there was already a relationship. The chaplains are very well trained in dealing with being support for people under situations of death, loss, and immediate stress.”

The chaplains themselves became overwhelmed, and the hospital responded by reaching out to bring in more chaplains. The psychiatry team, meanwhile, worked to partner with the chaplains to provide a continuum of support for staff. “We have an opportunity to build on the trust that they have,” said Dr. Fortuna, who is an ordained Episcopal minister. “They’re the perfect partners.”

What happens now? Dr. Fortuna has seen the long-term aftermath of a crisis. She previously worked in Massachusetts and helped to support health care workers in that state after the Boston Marathon bombing.

She cautioned that health care workers may first run on adrenaline in a crisis, spurred by “heroic high energy.” But then, the full extent of the tragedy begins to set in, and they start to process their feelings. “You have to keep people going through those phases,” she said.

Going forward, she said, “there will be a prolonged tail of stress,” especially if virus outbreaks recur. “We’ll have a long time enduring this.”

Don’t forget the self-care

There was a time during the pandemic when Dr. Cotton had become so overwhelmed by anxiety that she called the Physician Support Line to get some support from fellow psychiatrists.

“I thought, ‘Why not?’” she recalled. “I helped create the hotline. Why wouldn’t I call it?”

The calls took only a few minutes but they made a difference to Dr. Cotton, who had been severely ill with what she believed was an unconfirmed case of the novel coronavirus. “I immediately felt more like I improved my outlook by focusing on what I could control,” she said, “and accepting the things I could not control.”

Many psychiatrists are finding themselves in similar situations. Fortunately, colleagues are highlighting ways for psychiatrists to care for themselves just as they care for patients.

“One of the challenges clinicians are facing is that they are living through a shared experience in this global pandemic with their patients right now,” said psychologist Randi Pochtar, PhD, who is managing support groups for front-line workers at NYU Langone Health in New York City. “Some might find the work to be overwhelming and anxiety-inducing, and others might find their work to be helpful in managing their own anxiety and stress about the pandemic and its impact.”

Dr. Cotton said her breaking points came when she felt panic amid the pandemic. “I had watched too much news, and I’d seen protesters not taking it seriously, and I was scared for my family and myself. I just needed to feel like someone heard me feeling that way.”

The calls to the hotline were helpful, she said, and so was sharing news about her illness with friends. “So many people reached out to me and checked in on me, people I haven’t seen in years, and that was immensely helpful,” she said.

This sort of personal exposure may not come naturally to physicians and nurses, she said. “We don’t seek that kind of attention when we’re ill. Instead, we say: ‘I’m fine; how are you doing?’ That’s what we do every day of our lives at work.”

How can clinicians help themselves and one another? “Clinicians in our practice have been coping and supporting each other through peer supervision, connecting with colleagues in team meetings, and simply checking in on one another,” said Dr. Pochtar. “In addition, we can adopt many of the strategies that we are likely recommending to our patients, such as maintaining routines as much as possible, engaging in regular exercise, eating well and consistently, and connecting with friends and family.”

Managers can play important roles, said Dr. Fortuna. “I’ve been checking in with my faculty, being as supportive as I can be and highlighting the extraordinary things that people are doing, like going from zero to 100 percent in setting up telehealth.”

Dr. Konzer offered another perspective on recognizing the value of the work that psychiatrists are doing. “We’re on the front line of helping heal the front line, and in that responsibility comes an additional stress,” she said. “But there’s an additional gift of being able to contribute where we are most beneficial. We can try to be present now, versus worrying about what may happen or what lies ahead, and appreciate the beauty in the helpers and the small joys of life.”

Dr. Cotton, Dr. Berkowitz, Dr. Konzer, Dr. Welch, Dr. Fortuna, and Dr. Pochtar reported no relevant disclosures.
 

Across the country, psychiatrists are stepping up to provide urgent care to fellow health care workers in need amid the coronavirus pandemic. They’re offering stress management strategies, spearheading unusual partnerships, and discovering that psychotherapy and medication might not be their most helpful tools to help their colleagues at this time.

“This is completely the opposite of the way we practice psychiatry,” said Allison Cotton, MD, of the University of Nevada, Reno. “Our interventions are quite different from a psychotherapeutic standpoint.”

In March, she worked with four colleagues, Suzan Song, MD, MPH, PhD; Ben Cheng, MD; Smita Gautam, MD; and Mona S. Masood, DO, to create the Physician Support Line, a confidential and free hotline that links physicians to volunteer psychiatrists who are available to listen and offer advice on coping. The hotline (888-409-0141) is available every day from 8 a.m. to midnight Eastern time. Calls typically take 15-45 minutes; no appointment is needed, and conversations are not reportable to state medical boards. At last count, Dr. Cotton said, more than 600 psychiatrists had volunteered to take shifts to talk with fellow physicians.

Courtesy Dr. Allison Cotton

“The calls can be very intense,” Dr. Cotton said, and they’re unusual for several reasons. The hotline is not like a suicide or crisis hotline, when “a person calls because they need help, and then they can go get that help – they go to the hospital and get admitted to a psychiatric unit. Our callers don’t have that luxury.”

It’s also impossible to take an extensive history and create a sophisticated, long-term treatment plan as psychiatrists would during normal office visits. At the hotline, Dr. Cotton said, “we’re really focusing on the caller’s strengths and helping them come up with a plan for today to get through whatever they’re facing,” she said.
 

Stress management is critical

Psychiatrists at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus are embracing a similar approach to help health care workers cope, said Steven Berkowitz, MD. “We focus on stress management, and the notion that they are generally healthy and understandably struggling with extraordinary circumstances,” he said. “We are conservative in our use of medications and really only prescribe medications, such as trazodone, to help with sleep. We do not use benzodiazepines unless there is a history of more severe psychiatric problems.”

The pressure on health care workers during the pandemic is intense. A survey of 1,257 workers in 34 Chinese hospitals found high levels of symptoms of depression (50%), anxiety (45%), insomnia (35%), and distress (72%). Several groups appeared to be more vulnerable: women, nurses, front-line health care workers, and those in the coronavirus-stricken city of Wuhan (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[3]:e203976).

In Colorado, “providers are depleted,” Dr. Berkowitz said. “We are hearing about sleep disturbances and even some traumatic nightmares from ICU staff. During our support sessions, tears come most frequently when they talk about the struggle to care for their families and how they’re putting them at risk.”

Also, he said, “one of the most upsetting issues has been around language and cultural issues. Because of the language barriers, providers cannot explain why families can’t be with their sick members, which has led to acrimony.”
 

Guilt is a prevailing theme

Guilt also is a common emotion among health care workers, said psychiatrist Tia Konzer, DO, of Charlotte, N.C. “The ones on the front line question whether they were able to do enough to save someone or if they could have done more. Those of us not on the front lines feel guilty that we’re not there with our colleagues, that we don’t face the same fears and are in the safety of our outpatient clinics.”

The focus on social distancing is creating its own strains, she said. “A lot of people are recognizing the power of human touch and how comforting that is,” she said. “The healers aren’t able to comfort the loved ones of the deceased, and we’re not able to comfort each other. And people are having a hard time not being able to hug their kids and their spouses, having to ward off their kids when they come home or avoid them until they’ve showered.”

How can mental health professionals be most helpful to health care workers in need? The simple act of listening is crucial, several such professionals said in interviews.

“Your main job is to bear witness to their experiences and to hear their story, then secondarily to make sure they have a basic self-care plan to recover from what they’re doing each day,” said psychologist Leah Welch, PhD, of the Scripps Health network in San Diego. “Don’t talk too much or try to give advice too quickly before you’ve listened to what the caregiver has shared. They’re accumulating small traumas and need time and space to sort them out, and that takes patience and a listening ear on the part of the provider. Rushing in too quickly with advice deprives them of making sense of their own experience.”

She added that “they should also be thanked for what they’re doing, because it requires skill, empathy, and courage. They are being heroic, and they need to know they’re appreciated by those of us not on the front lines for what they’re putting themselves through.”
 

Partnerships are forming

At Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, psychiatry chief Lisa Fortuna, MD, MPH, MDiv, said her team has had success by working closely with the hospital’s chaplains. “A lot of the staff are not saying: ‘We’re stressing out; help us.’ The chaplains had starting rounding, asking how they’re doing, and they’d open up because there was already a relationship. The chaplains are very well trained in dealing with being support for people under situations of death, loss, and immediate stress.”

The chaplains themselves became overwhelmed, and the hospital responded by reaching out to bring in more chaplains. The psychiatry team, meanwhile, worked to partner with the chaplains to provide a continuum of support for staff. “We have an opportunity to build on the trust that they have,” said Dr. Fortuna, who is an ordained Episcopal minister. “They’re the perfect partners.”

What happens now? Dr. Fortuna has seen the long-term aftermath of a crisis. She previously worked in Massachusetts and helped to support health care workers in that state after the Boston Marathon bombing.

She cautioned that health care workers may first run on adrenaline in a crisis, spurred by “heroic high energy.” But then, the full extent of the tragedy begins to set in, and they start to process their feelings. “You have to keep people going through those phases,” she said.

Going forward, she said, “there will be a prolonged tail of stress,” especially if virus outbreaks recur. “We’ll have a long time enduring this.”

Don’t forget the self-care

There was a time during the pandemic when Dr. Cotton had become so overwhelmed by anxiety that she called the Physician Support Line to get some support from fellow psychiatrists.

“I thought, ‘Why not?’” she recalled. “I helped create the hotline. Why wouldn’t I call it?”

The calls took only a few minutes but they made a difference to Dr. Cotton, who had been severely ill with what she believed was an unconfirmed case of the novel coronavirus. “I immediately felt more like I improved my outlook by focusing on what I could control,” she said, “and accepting the things I could not control.”

Many psychiatrists are finding themselves in similar situations. Fortunately, colleagues are highlighting ways for psychiatrists to care for themselves just as they care for patients.

“One of the challenges clinicians are facing is that they are living through a shared experience in this global pandemic with their patients right now,” said psychologist Randi Pochtar, PhD, who is managing support groups for front-line workers at NYU Langone Health in New York City. “Some might find the work to be overwhelming and anxiety-inducing, and others might find their work to be helpful in managing their own anxiety and stress about the pandemic and its impact.”

Dr. Cotton said her breaking points came when she felt panic amid the pandemic. “I had watched too much news, and I’d seen protesters not taking it seriously, and I was scared for my family and myself. I just needed to feel like someone heard me feeling that way.”

The calls to the hotline were helpful, she said, and so was sharing news about her illness with friends. “So many people reached out to me and checked in on me, people I haven’t seen in years, and that was immensely helpful,” she said.

This sort of personal exposure may not come naturally to physicians and nurses, she said. “We don’t seek that kind of attention when we’re ill. Instead, we say: ‘I’m fine; how are you doing?’ That’s what we do every day of our lives at work.”

How can clinicians help themselves and one another? “Clinicians in our practice have been coping and supporting each other through peer supervision, connecting with colleagues in team meetings, and simply checking in on one another,” said Dr. Pochtar. “In addition, we can adopt many of the strategies that we are likely recommending to our patients, such as maintaining routines as much as possible, engaging in regular exercise, eating well and consistently, and connecting with friends and family.”

Managers can play important roles, said Dr. Fortuna. “I’ve been checking in with my faculty, being as supportive as I can be and highlighting the extraordinary things that people are doing, like going from zero to 100 percent in setting up telehealth.”

Dr. Konzer offered another perspective on recognizing the value of the work that psychiatrists are doing. “We’re on the front line of helping heal the front line, and in that responsibility comes an additional stress,” she said. “But there’s an additional gift of being able to contribute where we are most beneficial. We can try to be present now, versus worrying about what may happen or what lies ahead, and appreciate the beauty in the helpers and the small joys of life.”

Dr. Cotton, Dr. Berkowitz, Dr. Konzer, Dr. Welch, Dr. Fortuna, and Dr. Pochtar reported no relevant disclosures.
 

The signature electrocardiographic sign indicating ST-segment-elevation MI may be a less-consistent indicator of actual STEMI at a time when patients with COVID-19 have come to overwhelm many hospital ICUs.

Many of the 18 such patients identified at six New York City hospitals who showed ST-segment elevation on their 12-lead ECG in the city’s first month of fighting the pandemic turned out to be free of either obstructive coronary artery disease by angiography or of regional wall-motion abnormalities (RWMA) by ECG, according to a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those 10 patients in the 18-case series were said to have noncoronary myocardial injury, perhaps from myocarditis – a prevalent feature of severe COVID-19 – and the remaining 8 patients with obstructive coronary artery disease, RWMA, or both were diagnosed with STEMI. Of the latter patients, six went to the cath lab and five of those underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, of New York University, and colleagues reported.

In an interview, Dr. Bangalore framed the case-series report as a caution against substituting fibrinolytic therapy for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STE while hospitals are unusually burdened by the COVID-19 pandemic and invasive procedures intensify the threat of SARS-CoV-2 exposure to clinicians.

The strategy was recently advanced as an option for highly selected patients in a statement from the American College of Cardiology and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI).

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the main reasons fibrinolytic therapy has been pushed is to reduce the exposure to the cath-lab staff,” Dr. Bangalore observed. “But if you pursue that route, it’s problematic because more than half may not have obstructive disease and fibrinolytic therapy may not help. And if you give them fibrinolytics, you’re potentially increasing their risk of bleeding complications.

“The take-home from these 18 patients is that it’s very difficult to guess who is going to have obstructive disease and who is going to have nonobstructive disease,” Dr. Bangalore said. “Maybe we should assess these patients with not just an ECG but with a quick echo, then make a decision. Our practice so far has been to take these patients to the cath lab.”

The ACC/SCAI statement proposed that “fibrinolysis can be considered an option for the relatively stable STEMI patient with active COVID-19” after careful consideration of possible patient benefit versus the risks of cath-lab personnel exposure to the virus.

Only six patients in the current series, including five in the STEMI group, are reported to have had chest pain at about the time of STE, observed Michael J. Blaha, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

So, he said in an interview, “one of their points is that you have to take ST elevations with a grain of salt in this [COVID-19] era, because there are a lot of people presenting with ST elevations in the absence of chest pain.”

That, and the high prevalence of nonobstructive disease in the series, indeed argues against the use of fibrinolytic therapy in such patients, Dr. Blaha said.

Normally, when there is STE, “the pretest probability of STEMI is so high, and if you can’t make it to the cath lab for some reason, sure, it makes sense to give lytics.” However, he said, “COVID-19 is changing the clinical landscape. Now, with a variety of virus-mediated myocardial injury presentations, including myocarditis, the pretest probability of MI is lower.”

The current report “confirms that, in the COVID era, ST elevations are not diagnostic for MI and must be considered within the totality of clinical evidence, and a conservative approach to going to the cath lab is probably warranted,” Dr. Blaha said in an interview.

However, with the reduced pretest probability of STE for STEMI, he agreed, “I almost don’t see any scenario where I’d be comfortable, based on ECG changes alone, giving lytics at this time.”

Dr. Bangalore pointed out that all of the 18 patients in the series had elevated levels of the fibrin degradation product D-dimer, a biomarker that reflects ongoing hemostatic activation. Levels were higher in the 8 patients who ultimately received a STEMI diagnosis than in the remaining 10 patients.

But COVID-19 patients in general may have elevated D-dimer and “a lot of microthrombi,” he said. “So the question is, are those microthrombi also causal for any of the ECG changes we are also seeing?”

Aside from microthrombi, global hypoxia and myocarditis could be other potential causes of STE in COVID-19 patients in the absence of STEMI, Dr. Bangalore proposed. “At this point we just generally don’t know.”

Dr. Bangalore reported no conflicts; disclosures for the other authors are available at nejm.org. Dr. Blaha disclosed receiving grants from Amgen and serving on advisory boards for Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.

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

The signature electrocardiographic sign indicating ST-segment-elevation MI may be a less-consistent indicator of actual STEMI at a time when patients with COVID-19 have come to overwhelm many hospital ICUs.

Many of the 18 such patients identified at six New York City hospitals who showed ST-segment elevation on their 12-lead ECG in the city’s first month of fighting the pandemic turned out to be free of either obstructive coronary artery disease by angiography or of regional wall-motion abnormalities (RWMA) by ECG, according to a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those 10 patients in the 18-case series were said to have noncoronary myocardial injury, perhaps from myocarditis – a prevalent feature of severe COVID-19 – and the remaining 8 patients with obstructive coronary artery disease, RWMA, or both were diagnosed with STEMI. Of the latter patients, six went to the cath lab and five of those underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, of New York University, and colleagues reported.

In an interview, Dr. Bangalore framed the case-series report as a caution against substituting fibrinolytic therapy for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STE while hospitals are unusually burdened by the COVID-19 pandemic and invasive procedures intensify the threat of SARS-CoV-2 exposure to clinicians.

The strategy was recently advanced as an option for highly selected patients in a statement from the American College of Cardiology and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI).

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the main reasons fibrinolytic therapy has been pushed is to reduce the exposure to the cath-lab staff,” Dr. Bangalore observed. “But if you pursue that route, it’s problematic because more than half may not have obstructive disease and fibrinolytic therapy may not help. And if you give them fibrinolytics, you’re potentially increasing their risk of bleeding complications.

“The take-home from these 18 patients is that it’s very difficult to guess who is going to have obstructive disease and who is going to have nonobstructive disease,” Dr. Bangalore said. “Maybe we should assess these patients with not just an ECG but with a quick echo, then make a decision. Our practice so far has been to take these patients to the cath lab.”

The ACC/SCAI statement proposed that “fibrinolysis can be considered an option for the relatively stable STEMI patient with active COVID-19” after careful consideration of possible patient benefit versus the risks of cath-lab personnel exposure to the virus.

Only six patients in the current series, including five in the STEMI group, are reported to have had chest pain at about the time of STE, observed Michael J. Blaha, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

So, he said in an interview, “one of their points is that you have to take ST elevations with a grain of salt in this [COVID-19] era, because there are a lot of people presenting with ST elevations in the absence of chest pain.”

That, and the high prevalence of nonobstructive disease in the series, indeed argues against the use of fibrinolytic therapy in such patients, Dr. Blaha said.

Normally, when there is STE, “the pretest probability of STEMI is so high, and if you can’t make it to the cath lab for some reason, sure, it makes sense to give lytics.” However, he said, “COVID-19 is changing the clinical landscape. Now, with a variety of virus-mediated myocardial injury presentations, including myocarditis, the pretest probability of MI is lower.”

The current report “confirms that, in the COVID era, ST elevations are not diagnostic for MI and must be considered within the totality of clinical evidence, and a conservative approach to going to the cath lab is probably warranted,” Dr. Blaha said in an interview.

However, with the reduced pretest probability of STE for STEMI, he agreed, “I almost don’t see any scenario where I’d be comfortable, based on ECG changes alone, giving lytics at this time.”

Dr. Bangalore pointed out that all of the 18 patients in the series had elevated levels of the fibrin degradation product D-dimer, a biomarker that reflects ongoing hemostatic activation. Levels were higher in the 8 patients who ultimately received a STEMI diagnosis than in the remaining 10 patients.

But COVID-19 patients in general may have elevated D-dimer and “a lot of microthrombi,” he said. “So the question is, are those microthrombi also causal for any of the ECG changes we are also seeing?”

Aside from microthrombi, global hypoxia and myocarditis could be other potential causes of STE in COVID-19 patients in the absence of STEMI, Dr. Bangalore proposed. “At this point we just generally don’t know.”

Dr. Bangalore reported no conflicts; disclosures for the other authors are available at nejm.org. Dr. Blaha disclosed receiving grants from Amgen and serving on advisory boards for Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.

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

The signature electrocardiographic sign indicating ST-segment-elevation MI may be a less-consistent indicator of actual STEMI at a time when patients with COVID-19 have come to overwhelm many hospital ICUs.

Many of the 18 such patients identified at six New York City hospitals who showed ST-segment elevation on their 12-lead ECG in the city’s first month of fighting the pandemic turned out to be free of either obstructive coronary artery disease by angiography or of regional wall-motion abnormalities (RWMA) by ECG, according to a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those 10 patients in the 18-case series were said to have noncoronary myocardial injury, perhaps from myocarditis – a prevalent feature of severe COVID-19 – and the remaining 8 patients with obstructive coronary artery disease, RWMA, or both were diagnosed with STEMI. Of the latter patients, six went to the cath lab and five of those underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, of New York University, and colleagues reported.

In an interview, Dr. Bangalore framed the case-series report as a caution against substituting fibrinolytic therapy for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STE while hospitals are unusually burdened by the COVID-19 pandemic and invasive procedures intensify the threat of SARS-CoV-2 exposure to clinicians.

The strategy was recently advanced as an option for highly selected patients in a statement from the American College of Cardiology and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI).

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the main reasons fibrinolytic therapy has been pushed is to reduce the exposure to the cath-lab staff,” Dr. Bangalore observed. “But if you pursue that route, it’s problematic because more than half may not have obstructive disease and fibrinolytic therapy may not help. And if you give them fibrinolytics, you’re potentially increasing their risk of bleeding complications.

“The take-home from these 18 patients is that it’s very difficult to guess who is going to have obstructive disease and who is going to have nonobstructive disease,” Dr. Bangalore said. “Maybe we should assess these patients with not just an ECG but with a quick echo, then make a decision. Our practice so far has been to take these patients to the cath lab.”

The ACC/SCAI statement proposed that “fibrinolysis can be considered an option for the relatively stable STEMI patient with active COVID-19” after careful consideration of possible patient benefit versus the risks of cath-lab personnel exposure to the virus.

Only six patients in the current series, including five in the STEMI group, are reported to have had chest pain at about the time of STE, observed Michael J. Blaha, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

So, he said in an interview, “one of their points is that you have to take ST elevations with a grain of salt in this [COVID-19] era, because there are a lot of people presenting with ST elevations in the absence of chest pain.”

That, and the high prevalence of nonobstructive disease in the series, indeed argues against the use of fibrinolytic therapy in such patients, Dr. Blaha said.

Normally, when there is STE, “the pretest probability of STEMI is so high, and if you can’t make it to the cath lab for some reason, sure, it makes sense to give lytics.” However, he said, “COVID-19 is changing the clinical landscape. Now, with a variety of virus-mediated myocardial injury presentations, including myocarditis, the pretest probability of MI is lower.”

The current report “confirms that, in the COVID era, ST elevations are not diagnostic for MI and must be considered within the totality of clinical evidence, and a conservative approach to going to the cath lab is probably warranted,” Dr. Blaha said in an interview.

However, with the reduced pretest probability of STE for STEMI, he agreed, “I almost don’t see any scenario where I’d be comfortable, based on ECG changes alone, giving lytics at this time.”

Dr. Bangalore pointed out that all of the 18 patients in the series had elevated levels of the fibrin degradation product D-dimer, a biomarker that reflects ongoing hemostatic activation. Levels were higher in the 8 patients who ultimately received a STEMI diagnosis than in the remaining 10 patients.

But COVID-19 patients in general may have elevated D-dimer and “a lot of microthrombi,” he said. “So the question is, are those microthrombi also causal for any of the ECG changes we are also seeing?”

Aside from microthrombi, global hypoxia and myocarditis could be other potential causes of STE in COVID-19 patients in the absence of STEMI, Dr. Bangalore proposed. “At this point we just generally don’t know.”

Dr. Bangalore reported no conflicts; disclosures for the other authors are available at nejm.org. Dr. Blaha disclosed receiving grants from Amgen and serving on advisory boards for Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.

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

Clinical question: How should we care for newborns born to mothers with COVID-19?

Krzysztof Maczkowiak/Thinkstock

• Neonates should be considered persons under investigation (PUIs) if they are born to mothers with diagnosed COVID-19 or with COVID-19 tests pending at the time of delivery.
• Neonatal clinicians should attend deliveries based on their center’s policies. If clinicians are required to perform stabilization they should use airborne, droplet, and contact personal protective equipment (PPE). This includes, gown, gloves, eye protection (goggles or face shield), and N95 respirator mask or an air-purifying respirator.
• Mother and newborn should be separated to minimize the infant’s risk of postnatal infection.
• Well newborns born at or near term may be admitted to areas physically separated from newborns unaffected by maternal COVID-19. Alternatively, a mother may room-in with her infant with 6 feet of separation between mother and infant. Newborn PUIs should be bathed as soon as possible.
• Newborns requiring intensive care should be admitted to a single negative-pressure room. Alternatively, COVID-19–exposed infants should be grouped with a minimum of 6 feet of separation, or placed in air temperature-controlled isolettes.
• Until the newborn PUI’s virologic status is known, clinical staff caring for the infant should use droplet and contact PPE. This includes gown, gloves, eye protection (goggles or face shield), and a standard surgical mask. Airborne, droplet, and contact precautions should be used for infants requiring CPAP or any form of mechanical ventilation.
• COVID-19–positive mothers who want to breastfeed may feed expressed breast milk using proper breast and hand hygiene or directly breastfeed their infants wearing a mask while practicing proper breast and hand hygiene.
• If testing is available, newborns should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 using molecular arrays. If testing is unavailable, clinicians may monitor newborns clinically. Infants should be tested if they require prolonged intensive care.
• Optimal timing and extent of testing is unknown. Tests should be performed around 24 hours of life and 48 hours of life. If discharge is planned for a well appearing infant before 48 hours of life, the clinician may choose not to do the 48-hour test. A single swab should be taken from the throat followed by the nasopharynx to perform the test.
• Newborns should receive all newborn care, including circumcision if requested.
• Infants who are asymptomatic with positive or pending SARS-CoV-2 tests may be discharged home with plans for frequent outpatient follow-up through 14 days after birth. Infants with negative SARS-CoV-2 testing should be discharged to the care of a noninfected caregiver. If the mother lives in the same household, she must keep a distance of 6 feet as often as possible. When not possible, the mother should wear a mask and practice hand hygiene. The mother may resume caring for her infant normally when she has been afebrile for more than 72 hours (without antipyretics) and has been asymptomatic for 7 days. Alternatively, the mother may resume care if she has two consecutive negative SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swabs taken more than 24 hours apart.
• Visitation to infants requiring intensive care should be limited for mothers with COVID-19 until her fever has resolved for more than 72 hours and has improvement of respiratory symptoms and has had two consecutive negative SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swabs taken more than 24 hours apart.

Bottom line: Clinicians should protect themselves with contact and droplet PPE at all times until the infant’s viral status is known. Clinicians should use airborne, contact, and droplet PPE when resuscitating the infant and/or when using CPAP/mechanical ventilation. Mothers should be encouraged to feed their infants expressed breast milk while practicing proper hygiene or directly breastfeed while wearing a mask and practicing proper hygiene. Viral testing of every infant born to a mother with COVID-19 should be performed after the infant is 24 hours old. Mothers should resume caring for their infants normally after they have met criteria suggesting they are no longer actively infected.

Article citation: Puopolo KM, Hudak ML, Kimberlin DW, Cummings J. Initial Guidance: Management of Infants born to Mothers with COVID-19. 2020 Apr 2. https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/COVID%2019%20Initial%20Newborn%20Guidance.pdf. Accessed Apr 2, 2020.
 

Dr. Kumar is a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and serves as the Pediatrics Editor for The Hospitalist.

Clinical question: How should we care for newborns born to mothers with COVID-19?

Krzysztof Maczkowiak/Thinkstock

• Neonates should be considered persons under investigation (PUIs) if they are born to mothers with diagnosed COVID-19 or with COVID-19 tests pending at the time of delivery.
• Neonatal clinicians should attend deliveries based on their center’s policies. If clinicians are required to perform stabilization they should use airborne, droplet, and contact personal protective equipment (PPE). This includes, gown, gloves, eye protection (goggles or face shield), and N95 respirator mask or an air-purifying respirator.
• Mother and newborn should be separated to minimize the infant’s risk of postnatal infection.
• Well newborns born at or near term may be admitted to areas physically separated from newborns unaffected by maternal COVID-19. Alternatively, a mother may room-in with her infant with 6 feet of separation between mother and infant. Newborn PUIs should be bathed as soon as possible.
• Newborns requiring intensive care should be admitted to a single negative-pressure room. Alternatively, COVID-19–exposed infants should be grouped with a minimum of 6 feet of separation, or placed in air temperature-controlled isolettes.
• Until the newborn PUI’s virologic status is known, clinical staff caring for the infant should use droplet and contact PPE. This includes gown, gloves, eye protection (goggles or face shield), and a standard surgical mask. Airborne, droplet, and contact precautions should be used for infants requiring CPAP or any form of mechanical ventilation.
• COVID-19–positive mothers who want to breastfeed may feed expressed breast milk using proper breast and hand hygiene or directly breastfeed their infants wearing a mask while practicing proper breast and hand hygiene.
• If testing is available, newborns should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 using molecular arrays. If testing is unavailable, clinicians may monitor newborns clinically. Infants should be tested if they require prolonged intensive care.
• Optimal timing and extent of testing is unknown. Tests should be performed around 24 hours of life and 48 hours of life. If discharge is planned for a well appearing infant before 48 hours of life, the clinician may choose not to do the 48-hour test. A single swab should be taken from the throat followed by the nasopharynx to perform the test.
• Newborns should receive all newborn care, including circumcision if requested.
• Infants who are asymptomatic with positive or pending SARS-CoV-2 tests may be discharged home with plans for frequent outpatient follow-up through 14 days after birth. Infants with negative SARS-CoV-2 testing should be discharged to the care of a noninfected caregiver. If the mother lives in the same household, she must keep a distance of 6 feet as often as possible. When not possible, the mother should wear a mask and practice hand hygiene. The mother may resume caring for her infant normally when she has been afebrile for more than 72 hours (without antipyretics) and has been asymptomatic for 7 days. Alternatively, the mother may resume care if she has two consecutive negative SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swabs taken more than 24 hours apart.
• Visitation to infants requiring intensive care should be limited for mothers with COVID-19 until her fever has resolved for more than 72 hours and has improvement of respiratory symptoms and has had two consecutive negative SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swabs taken more than 24 hours apart.

Bottom line: Clinicians should protect themselves with contact and droplet PPE at all times until the infant’s viral status is known. Clinicians should use airborne, contact, and droplet PPE when resuscitating the infant and/or when using CPAP/mechanical ventilation. Mothers should be encouraged to feed their infants expressed breast milk while practicing proper hygiene or directly breastfeed while wearing a mask and practicing proper hygiene. Viral testing of every infant born to a mother with COVID-19 should be performed after the infant is 24 hours old. Mothers should resume caring for their infants normally after they have met criteria suggesting they are no longer actively infected.

Article citation: Puopolo KM, Hudak ML, Kimberlin DW, Cummings J. Initial Guidance: Management of Infants born to Mothers with COVID-19. 2020 Apr 2. https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/COVID%2019%20Initial%20Newborn%20Guidance.pdf. Accessed Apr 2, 2020.
 

Dr. Kumar is a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and serves as the Pediatrics Editor for The Hospitalist.

Clinical question: How should we care for newborns born to mothers with COVID-19?

Krzysztof Maczkowiak/Thinkstock

• Neonates should be considered persons under investigation (PUIs) if they are born to mothers with diagnosed COVID-19 or with COVID-19 tests pending at the time of delivery.
• Neonatal clinicians should attend deliveries based on their center’s policies. If clinicians are required to perform stabilization they should use airborne, droplet, and contact personal protective equipment (PPE). This includes, gown, gloves, eye protection (goggles or face shield), and N95 respirator mask or an air-purifying respirator.
• Mother and newborn should be separated to minimize the infant’s risk of postnatal infection.
• Well newborns born at or near term may be admitted to areas physically separated from newborns unaffected by maternal COVID-19. Alternatively, a mother may room-in with her infant with 6 feet of separation between mother and infant. Newborn PUIs should be bathed as soon as possible.
• Newborns requiring intensive care should be admitted to a single negative-pressure room. Alternatively, COVID-19–exposed infants should be grouped with a minimum of 6 feet of separation, or placed in air temperature-controlled isolettes.
• Until the newborn PUI’s virologic status is known, clinical staff caring for the infant should use droplet and contact PPE. This includes gown, gloves, eye protection (goggles or face shield), and a standard surgical mask. Airborne, droplet, and contact precautions should be used for infants requiring CPAP or any form of mechanical ventilation.
• COVID-19–positive mothers who want to breastfeed may feed expressed breast milk using proper breast and hand hygiene or directly breastfeed their infants wearing a mask while practicing proper breast and hand hygiene.
• If testing is available, newborns should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 using molecular arrays. If testing is unavailable, clinicians may monitor newborns clinically. Infants should be tested if they require prolonged intensive care.
• Optimal timing and extent of testing is unknown. Tests should be performed around 24 hours of life and 48 hours of life. If discharge is planned for a well appearing infant before 48 hours of life, the clinician may choose not to do the 48-hour test. A single swab should be taken from the throat followed by the nasopharynx to perform the test.
• Newborns should receive all newborn care, including circumcision if requested.
• Infants who are asymptomatic with positive or pending SARS-CoV-2 tests may be discharged home with plans for frequent outpatient follow-up through 14 days after birth. Infants with negative SARS-CoV-2 testing should be discharged to the care of a noninfected caregiver. If the mother lives in the same household, she must keep a distance of 6 feet as often as possible. When not possible, the mother should wear a mask and practice hand hygiene. The mother may resume caring for her infant normally when she has been afebrile for more than 72 hours (without antipyretics) and has been asymptomatic for 7 days. Alternatively, the mother may resume care if she has two consecutive negative SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swabs taken more than 24 hours apart.
• Visitation to infants requiring intensive care should be limited for mothers with COVID-19 until her fever has resolved for more than 72 hours and has improvement of respiratory symptoms and has had two consecutive negative SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swabs taken more than 24 hours apart.

Bottom line: Clinicians should protect themselves with contact and droplet PPE at all times until the infant’s viral status is known. Clinicians should use airborne, contact, and droplet PPE when resuscitating the infant and/or when using CPAP/mechanical ventilation. Mothers should be encouraged to feed their infants expressed breast milk while practicing proper hygiene or directly breastfeed while wearing a mask and practicing proper hygiene. Viral testing of every infant born to a mother with COVID-19 should be performed after the infant is 24 hours old. Mothers should resume caring for their infants normally after they have met criteria suggesting they are no longer actively infected.

Article citation: Puopolo KM, Hudak ML, Kimberlin DW, Cummings J. Initial Guidance: Management of Infants born to Mothers with COVID-19. 2020 Apr 2. https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/COVID%2019%20Initial%20Newborn%20Guidance.pdf. Accessed Apr 2, 2020.
 

Dr. Kumar is a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and serves as the Pediatrics Editor for The Hospitalist.

While triage of critical care resources should be a rare event during the COVID-19 crisis, failing to prepare for the worst-case scenario could have serious consequences, according to authors of recent reports that offer advice on how to prepare for surges in demand.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Even modest numbers of critically ill COVID-19 patients have already rapidly overwhelmed existing hospital capacity in hard-hit areas including Italy, Spain, and New York City, said authors of an expert panel report released in CHEST.

“The ethical burden this places on hospitals, health systems, and society is enormous,” said Ryan C. Maves, MD, FCCP, of the Naval Medical Center in San Diego, lead author of the expert panel report from the Task Force for Mass Critical Care and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Mild surges call for a focus on increasing ECMO capacity, while a moderate surge may indicate a need to focus on allocating scarce resources, and a major surge may signal the need to limit or defer use of scarce resources, according to the guidance.

“If your health care system is stretched from a resource standpoint, at what point do you say, ‘we don’t even have the capability to even safely do ECMO, and so, perhaps we should not even be offering the support’?” Dr. Keller said in an interview. “That’s what we tried to get at in the paper – helping institutions think about how to prepare for that pandemic, and then when to make decisions on when it should and should not be offered.”
 

Critical care guidance for COVID-19

The guidance from the Task Force for Mass Critical Care and CHEST offers nine specific actions that authors suggest as part of a framework for communities to establish the infrastructure needed to triage critical care resources and “equitably” meet the needs of the largest number of COVID-19 patients.

“It is the goal of the task force to minimize the need for allocation of scarce resources as much as possible,” the authors stated.

The framework starts with surge planning that includes an inventory of intensive care unit resources such as ventilators, beds, supplies, and staff that could be marshaled to meet a surge in demand, followed by establishing “identification triggers” for triage initiation by a regional authority, should clinical demand reach a crisis stage.

The next step is preparing the triage system, which includes creating a committee at the regional level, identifying members of tertiary triage teams and the support structures they will need, and preparing and distributing training materials.

Agreeing on a triage protocol is important to ensure equitable targeting of resources, and how to allocate limited life-sustaining measures needs to be considered, according to the panel of experts. They also recommend adaptations to the standards of care such as modification of end-of-life care policies, support for health care workers, family, and the public, and consideration of pediatric issues including transport, concentration of care at specific centers, and potential increases in age thresholds to accommodate surges.
 

Barriers to triage?

When asked about potential barriers to rolling out a triage plan, Dr. Maves said the first is acknowledging the possible need for such a plan: “It is a difficult concept for most in critical care to accept – the idea that we may not be able to provide an individual patient with interventions that we consider routine,” he said.

Beyond acknowledging need, other potential barriers to successful implementation include the limited evidence base to support development of these protocols, as well as the need to address public trust.

“If a triage system is perceived as unjust or biased, or if people think that triage favors or excludes certain groups unfairly, it will undermine any system,” Dr. Maves said. “Making sure the public both understands and has input into system development is critical if we are going to be able to make this work.”

Dr. Maves and coauthors reported that some of the authors of their guidance are United States government employees or military service members, and that their opinions and assertions do not reflect the official views or position of those institutions. Dr. Keller reported no disclosures related to the ECMO guidance.

chestphysiciannews@chestnet.org

SOURCES: Maves RC et al. Chest. 2020 Apr 11. pii: S0012-3692(20)30691-7. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.063; Seethara R and Keller SP. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202003-233PS.

While triage of critical care resources should be a rare event during the COVID-19 crisis, failing to prepare for the worst-case scenario could have serious consequences, according to authors of recent reports that offer advice on how to prepare for surges in demand.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Even modest numbers of critically ill COVID-19 patients have already rapidly overwhelmed existing hospital capacity in hard-hit areas including Italy, Spain, and New York City, said authors of an expert panel report released in CHEST.

“The ethical burden this places on hospitals, health systems, and society is enormous,” said Ryan C. Maves, MD, FCCP, of the Naval Medical Center in San Diego, lead author of the expert panel report from the Task Force for Mass Critical Care and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Mild surges call for a focus on increasing ECMO capacity, while a moderate surge may indicate a need to focus on allocating scarce resources, and a major surge may signal the need to limit or defer use of scarce resources, according to the guidance.

“If your health care system is stretched from a resource standpoint, at what point do you say, ‘we don’t even have the capability to even safely do ECMO, and so, perhaps we should not even be offering the support’?” Dr. Keller said in an interview. “That’s what we tried to get at in the paper – helping institutions think about how to prepare for that pandemic, and then when to make decisions on when it should and should not be offered.”
 

Critical care guidance for COVID-19

The guidance from the Task Force for Mass Critical Care and CHEST offers nine specific actions that authors suggest as part of a framework for communities to establish the infrastructure needed to triage critical care resources and “equitably” meet the needs of the largest number of COVID-19 patients.

“It is the goal of the task force to minimize the need for allocation of scarce resources as much as possible,” the authors stated.

The framework starts with surge planning that includes an inventory of intensive care unit resources such as ventilators, beds, supplies, and staff that could be marshaled to meet a surge in demand, followed by establishing “identification triggers” for triage initiation by a regional authority, should clinical demand reach a crisis stage.

The next step is preparing the triage system, which includes creating a committee at the regional level, identifying members of tertiary triage teams and the support structures they will need, and preparing and distributing training materials.

Agreeing on a triage protocol is important to ensure equitable targeting of resources, and how to allocate limited life-sustaining measures needs to be considered, according to the panel of experts. They also recommend adaptations to the standards of care such as modification of end-of-life care policies, support for health care workers, family, and the public, and consideration of pediatric issues including transport, concentration of care at specific centers, and potential increases in age thresholds to accommodate surges.
 

Barriers to triage?

When asked about potential barriers to rolling out a triage plan, Dr. Maves said the first is acknowledging the possible need for such a plan: “It is a difficult concept for most in critical care to accept – the idea that we may not be able to provide an individual patient with interventions that we consider routine,” he said.

Beyond acknowledging need, other potential barriers to successful implementation include the limited evidence base to support development of these protocols, as well as the need to address public trust.

“If a triage system is perceived as unjust or biased, or if people think that triage favors or excludes certain groups unfairly, it will undermine any system,” Dr. Maves said. “Making sure the public both understands and has input into system development is critical if we are going to be able to make this work.”

Dr. Maves and coauthors reported that some of the authors of their guidance are United States government employees or military service members, and that their opinions and assertions do not reflect the official views or position of those institutions. Dr. Keller reported no disclosures related to the ECMO guidance.

chestphysiciannews@chestnet.org

SOURCES: Maves RC et al. Chest. 2020 Apr 11. pii: S0012-3692(20)30691-7. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.063; Seethara R and Keller SP. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202003-233PS.

While triage of critical care resources should be a rare event during the COVID-19 crisis, failing to prepare for the worst-case scenario could have serious consequences, according to authors of recent reports that offer advice on how to prepare for surges in demand.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Even modest numbers of critically ill COVID-19 patients have already rapidly overwhelmed existing hospital capacity in hard-hit areas including Italy, Spain, and New York City, said authors of an expert panel report released in CHEST.

“The ethical burden this places on hospitals, health systems, and society is enormous,” said Ryan C. Maves, MD, FCCP, of the Naval Medical Center in San Diego, lead author of the expert panel report from the Task Force for Mass Critical Care and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Mild surges call for a focus on increasing ECMO capacity, while a moderate surge may indicate a need to focus on allocating scarce resources, and a major surge may signal the need to limit or defer use of scarce resources, according to the guidance.

“If your health care system is stretched from a resource standpoint, at what point do you say, ‘we don’t even have the capability to even safely do ECMO, and so, perhaps we should not even be offering the support’?” Dr. Keller said in an interview. “That’s what we tried to get at in the paper – helping institutions think about how to prepare for that pandemic, and then when to make decisions on when it should and should not be offered.”
 

Critical care guidance for COVID-19

The guidance from the Task Force for Mass Critical Care and CHEST offers nine specific actions that authors suggest as part of a framework for communities to establish the infrastructure needed to triage critical care resources and “equitably” meet the needs of the largest number of COVID-19 patients.

“It is the goal of the task force to minimize the need for allocation of scarce resources as much as possible,” the authors stated.

The framework starts with surge planning that includes an inventory of intensive care unit resources such as ventilators, beds, supplies, and staff that could be marshaled to meet a surge in demand, followed by establishing “identification triggers” for triage initiation by a regional authority, should clinical demand reach a crisis stage.

The next step is preparing the triage system, which includes creating a committee at the regional level, identifying members of tertiary triage teams and the support structures they will need, and preparing and distributing training materials.

Agreeing on a triage protocol is important to ensure equitable targeting of resources, and how to allocate limited life-sustaining measures needs to be considered, according to the panel of experts. They also recommend adaptations to the standards of care such as modification of end-of-life care policies, support for health care workers, family, and the public, and consideration of pediatric issues including transport, concentration of care at specific centers, and potential increases in age thresholds to accommodate surges.
 

Barriers to triage?

When asked about potential barriers to rolling out a triage plan, Dr. Maves said the first is acknowledging the possible need for such a plan: “It is a difficult concept for most in critical care to accept – the idea that we may not be able to provide an individual patient with interventions that we consider routine,” he said.

Beyond acknowledging need, other potential barriers to successful implementation include the limited evidence base to support development of these protocols, as well as the need to address public trust.

“If a triage system is perceived as unjust or biased, or if people think that triage favors or excludes certain groups unfairly, it will undermine any system,” Dr. Maves said. “Making sure the public both understands and has input into system development is critical if we are going to be able to make this work.”

Dr. Maves and coauthors reported that some of the authors of their guidance are United States government employees or military service members, and that their opinions and assertions do not reflect the official views or position of those institutions. Dr. Keller reported no disclosures related to the ECMO guidance.

chestphysiciannews@chestnet.org

SOURCES: Maves RC et al. Chest. 2020 Apr 11. pii: S0012-3692(20)30691-7. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.063; Seethara R and Keller SP. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202003-233PS.

SARS CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome corona-
virus 2) has challenged us all and will continue to do so for at least the next several months. This novel virus has uncovered our medical hubris and our collective failure to acknowledge our vulnerability in the face of biological threats. As government, public health, health systems, medical professionals, and individuals struggle to grasp its enormous impact, we must recognize and seize the opportunities for leadership that the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic presents to us as physicians.

For too long we have abdicated responsibility for driving change in the US health system to politicians, administrators, and those not on the front line of care delivery. We can, however, reclaim our voice and position of influence in 2 primary spheres: first, as ObGyns we have the specific clinical knowledge and experience required to help guide our institutions in the care of our patients under new and ever-changing circumstances; second, beyond our clinical role as ObGyns, we are servant leaders to whom the public, the government, our trainees, and our clinical teams turn for guidance.

Foundations for policy development

Disaster planning in hospitals and public health systems rarely includes consideration for pregnant and delivering patients. As ObGyns, we must create policies and procedures using the best available evidence—which is slim—and, in the absence of evidence, use our clinical and scientific expertise both to optimize patient care and to minimize risk to the health care team.

At this point in time there is much we do not know, such as whether viral particles in blood are contagious, amniotic fluid contains infectious droplets, or newborns are in danger if they room-in with an infected mother. What we do know is that the evidence will evolve and that our policies and procedures must be fluid and allow for rapid change. Here are some guiding principles for such policies.

Maximize telemedicine and remote monitoring

Labor and delivery (L&D) is an emergency department in which people are triaged from the outside. Systems should incorporate the best guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists while reducing infection exposure to staff, laboring patients, and newborns. One way to limit traffic in the triage area is to have a seasoned clinician perform phone triage for women who think they need evaluation for labor.

Maintain universal caution and precautions

All people entering L&D should be presumed to be COVID-19 positive, according to early evidence reported from Columbia University in New York City.¹ After remote or off-site phone triage determines that evaluation is needed in L&D, a transporter could ensure that all people escorted to L&D undergo a rapid COVID-19 test, wear a mask, and wash their hands. Until point-of-care testing is available, we must adopt safety precautions, since current data suggest that asymptomatic people may shed the infectious virus.

Both vaginal and cesarean deliveries expose everyone in the room to respiratory droplets. Common sense tells us that the laboring patient and her support person should wear a mask and that caregivers should be protected with N95 masks as well as face shields. If this were standard for every laboring patient, exposure during emergency situations might be minimized.

Continue to: Maximize support during labor...

Maximize support during labor

We should not need to ban partners and support people. Solid evidence demonstrates that support in labor improves outcomes, reduces the need for cesarean delivery, and increases patient satisfaction. We can and should protect staff and patients by requiring everyone to wear a mask.

Symptomatic patients, of course, require additional measures and personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce the risk of infection among the health care team. These should be identical to the measures the hospital infectious disease experts have implemented in the intensive care unit.

Champion continuous quality improvement

It is our responsibility to implement continuous quality improvement processes so that we can respond to data that become available, and this begins with collecting our own local data.

We have sparse data on the risks of miscarriage, congenital anomalies, and preterm birth, but there have been anecdotal reports of both early miscarriage and premature labor. Given the known increased risk for severe disease with influenza during pregnancy, we understandably are concerned about how our pregnant patients will fare. There are also unknowns with respect to fetal exposure risk. During this pandemic we must capture such data within our own systems and share aggregated, de-identified data broadly and swiftly if real signals indicate a need for change in procedures or policy.

In the meantime, we can apply our expertise and best judgment to work within teams that include all stakeholders—administrators, nurses, engineers, pediatricians, infectious disease experts, and public members—to establish policies that respond to the best current evidence.

Protect vulnerable team members

SARS CoV-2 is highly contagious. Thus far, data do not suggest that pregnant women are at higher risk for severe disease, but we must assume that working in the hospital environment among many COVID-19 patients increases the risk for exposure. With so many current unknowns, it may be prudent to keep pregnant health care workers out of clinical areas in the hospital and reassign them to other duties when feasible. Medical students nationwide similarly have been removed from clinical rotations to minimize their exposure risk as well as to preserve scarce PPE.

These decisions are difficult for all involved, and shared decision making between administrators, clinical leaders, and pregnant staff that promotes transparency, honesty, and openness is key. Since the risk is unknown and financial consequences may result for both the hospital and the staff member, open discussion and thoughtful policies that can be revised as new information is obtained will help achieve the best possible resolution to a difficult situation.

Continue to: ObGyns as servant leaders...

ObGyns as servant leaders

COVID-19 challenges us to balance individual and public health considerations while also considering the economic and social consequences of actions. The emergence of this novel pathogen and its rapid global spread are frightening both to an uninformed public and to our skeptical government officials. Beyond our immediate clinical responsibilities, how should we as knowledgeable professionals respond?

Servant leaders commit to service and support and mentor those around them with empathy and collaboration. Servant leaders have the strategic vision to continuously grow, change, and improve at all times, but especially during a crisis. COVID-19 challenges us to be those servant leaders. To do so we must:

Promote and exhibit transparency by speaking truth to power and communicating with empathy for patients, staff, and those on the front lines who daily place themselves and their families at risk to ensure that we have essential services. Amplifying the needs and concerns of the frontline workers can drive those in power to develop practical and useful solutions.

Nurses and physicians have been threatened, and some actually terminated from their positions, because they publicly disclosed their institutions’ working conditions, lack of PPE, and unpreparedness. For example, a decorated US Navy captain was stripped of his command for writing a letter to drive action in managing a COVID-19 outbreak on the confined quarters of his ship. Such public health heroes have exhibited professionalism and leadership, placing the health and well-being of their colleagues, peers, and patients above their own careers. If we all spoke up with honesty and openness, we could have profound impact.

Hold ourselves and others accountable for scientific rigor and honesty. We must acknowledge what we do not know and be straightforward in discussing risks and benefits. The uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 public health crisis has created anxiety among health care workers, public-facing workers, government officials, and the public. We should not speculate but rather speak clearly and openly about our knowledge deficits.

The US culture in health care drives us to prefer action over inaction. “Doing something” feels proactive, and we are conditioned to think of doing something as a less risky strategy than watchful waiting. In this time of uncertainty, we must be wary of unproven and potentially harmful interventions, and we must use our best judgment and expertise to study procedures and medications that have potential benefit.

Be collaborative and creative in crafting practical workarounds that can be implemented at scale. New processes implemented in the past month to accommodate our new socially and physically distant reality include telemedicine for prenatal care, home monitoring of blood pressure, remote physiologic monitoring of blood sugars for diabetic patients, reviewing digital images to provide remote wound care, and home pulse oximetry to assess COVID-19–positive patients at home.

More workarounds are needed to support women’s ongoing health needs. Our expertise should guide those strategies while we strive to optimize outcomes, minimize resource utilization, and reduce exposure risk for ourselves, our staff, and our patients.

Advocate for systems to collect and analyze robust data so we can adjust interventions rapidly as new information arises. As we navigate the pandemic, the lack of evidence to inform decisions and treatment challenges us daily. We should use the current crisis to promote strategies that will support rapid, comprehensive data collection during disasters. Knowledge truly is power, and without it we are forced to improvise and speculate.

ObGyns must insist that data collection includes all pregnancies—not only those positive for COVID-19 since the testing has been sporadic and imperfect—and that the data are stratified by age, gender, race and ethnicity, and sociodemographics. This would enable us to learn as much as possible as quickly as possible and would therefore inform our responses for the current SARS CoV-2 pandemic as well as for the next disaster.

Continue to: Acknowledge the limitations of the system...

Acknowledge the limitations of the system and be wise stewards of resources. Our health care system does not have sufficient resources to manage patients with severe COVID-19 and the “usual” emergencies like stroke, myocardial infarction, ectopic pregnancy, and broken bones.

Disaster planning should include a regional triage system that can take incoming calls and direct emergency medical technicians, ambulances, and private citizens to appropriate facilities and direct those who do not require urgent medical care away from those facilities.

We must incorporate principles from battlefield medicine, because this is a battle, and we are at war. That means there will be difficult decisions. It is better to engage a regional team of experts to create a system for triage and care delivery than for each provider and institution to be forced by a void in leadership to go it individually. We should engage with government and public health officials to optimize both cure and care. Although we are unable to save everyone, we can work to ensure comfort and care for all.

Demonstrate compassion and caring for patients and each other. During the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, we can each channel our best selves to support and protect each other physically and emotionally. Many of us chose ObGyn because it is generally a “happy” specialty. None of us entered medicine to watch people die or to be unable to comfort them, to be unable to allow their families to be with them, to be unable to “do something.”

A crucial part of disaster planning and response is to prepare for the second victims: those of us forced to keep going through our emotional distress because there is no time to debrief and process our pain. Frontline caregivers need support and help now as well as after the surge passes. We need to speak up to ensure there is adequate PPE, creative staffing, and supportive resources to help caregivers process their anxiety, fatigue, and distress.

Take the lead

Every crisis brings both risk and opportunity. The COVID-19 pandemic provides ObGyns the chance to have a louder voice and a meaningful seat at the table as new and creative policies must be implemented at every level. We can use this opportunity to recapture our roles as champions for women and leaders within our health care system.

Critical steps in servant leadership include speaking up with honesty, transparency, and openness; taking risks to disclose inequities, dangerous conditions, and inadequate resources; and committing ourselves to each other, our teams, and the public. When we take these steps, we will be the driving force for a cohesive, reasoned, structured, and compassionate response to the COVID-19 crisis. As we seize this opportunity to lead, we will rekindle our passion for medicine, caring for the sick, and protecting the well. ●

SARS CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome corona-
virus 2) has challenged us all and will continue to do so for at least the next several months. This novel virus has uncovered our medical hubris and our collective failure to acknowledge our vulnerability in the face of biological threats. As government, public health, health systems, medical professionals, and individuals struggle to grasp its enormous impact, we must recognize and seize the opportunities for leadership that the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic presents to us as physicians.

For too long we have abdicated responsibility for driving change in the US health system to politicians, administrators, and those not on the front line of care delivery. We can, however, reclaim our voice and position of influence in 2 primary spheres: first, as ObGyns we have the specific clinical knowledge and experience required to help guide our institutions in the care of our patients under new and ever-changing circumstances; second, beyond our clinical role as ObGyns, we are servant leaders to whom the public, the government, our trainees, and our clinical teams turn for guidance.

Foundations for policy development

Disaster planning in hospitals and public health systems rarely includes consideration for pregnant and delivering patients. As ObGyns, we must create policies and procedures using the best available evidence—which is slim—and, in the absence of evidence, use our clinical and scientific expertise both to optimize patient care and to minimize risk to the health care team.

At this point in time there is much we do not know, such as whether viral particles in blood are contagious, amniotic fluid contains infectious droplets, or newborns are in danger if they room-in with an infected mother. What we do know is that the evidence will evolve and that our policies and procedures must be fluid and allow for rapid change. Here are some guiding principles for such policies.

Maximize telemedicine and remote monitoring

Labor and delivery (L&D) is an emergency department in which people are triaged from the outside. Systems should incorporate the best guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists while reducing infection exposure to staff, laboring patients, and newborns. One way to limit traffic in the triage area is to have a seasoned clinician perform phone triage for women who think they need evaluation for labor.

Maintain universal caution and precautions

All people entering L&D should be presumed to be COVID-19 positive, according to early evidence reported from Columbia University in New York City.¹ After remote or off-site phone triage determines that evaluation is needed in L&D, a transporter could ensure that all people escorted to L&D undergo a rapid COVID-19 test, wear a mask, and wash their hands. Until point-of-care testing is available, we must adopt safety precautions, since current data suggest that asymptomatic people may shed the infectious virus.

Both vaginal and cesarean deliveries expose everyone in the room to respiratory droplets. Common sense tells us that the laboring patient and her support person should wear a mask and that caregivers should be protected with N95 masks as well as face shields. If this were standard for every laboring patient, exposure during emergency situations might be minimized.

Continue to: Maximize support during labor...

Maximize support during labor

We should not need to ban partners and support people. Solid evidence demonstrates that support in labor improves outcomes, reduces the need for cesarean delivery, and increases patient satisfaction. We can and should protect staff and patients by requiring everyone to wear a mask.

Symptomatic patients, of course, require additional measures and personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce the risk of infection among the health care team. These should be identical to the measures the hospital infectious disease experts have implemented in the intensive care unit.

Champion continuous quality improvement

It is our responsibility to implement continuous quality improvement processes so that we can respond to data that become available, and this begins with collecting our own local data.

We have sparse data on the risks of miscarriage, congenital anomalies, and preterm birth, but there have been anecdotal reports of both early miscarriage and premature labor. Given the known increased risk for severe disease with influenza during pregnancy, we understandably are concerned about how our pregnant patients will fare. There are also unknowns with respect to fetal exposure risk. During this pandemic we must capture such data within our own systems and share aggregated, de-identified data broadly and swiftly if real signals indicate a need for change in procedures or policy.

In the meantime, we can apply our expertise and best judgment to work within teams that include all stakeholders—administrators, nurses, engineers, pediatricians, infectious disease experts, and public members—to establish policies that respond to the best current evidence.

Protect vulnerable team members

SARS CoV-2 is highly contagious. Thus far, data do not suggest that pregnant women are at higher risk for severe disease, but we must assume that working in the hospital environment among many COVID-19 patients increases the risk for exposure. With so many current unknowns, it may be prudent to keep pregnant health care workers out of clinical areas in the hospital and reassign them to other duties when feasible. Medical students nationwide similarly have been removed from clinical rotations to minimize their exposure risk as well as to preserve scarce PPE.

These decisions are difficult for all involved, and shared decision making between administrators, clinical leaders, and pregnant staff that promotes transparency, honesty, and openness is key. Since the risk is unknown and financial consequences may result for both the hospital and the staff member, open discussion and thoughtful policies that can be revised as new information is obtained will help achieve the best possible resolution to a difficult situation.

Continue to: ObGyns as servant leaders...

ObGyns as servant leaders

COVID-19 challenges us to balance individual and public health considerations while also considering the economic and social consequences of actions. The emergence of this novel pathogen and its rapid global spread are frightening both to an uninformed public and to our skeptical government officials. Beyond our immediate clinical responsibilities, how should we as knowledgeable professionals respond?

Servant leaders commit to service and support and mentor those around them with empathy and collaboration. Servant leaders have the strategic vision to continuously grow, change, and improve at all times, but especially during a crisis. COVID-19 challenges us to be those servant leaders. To do so we must:

Promote and exhibit transparency by speaking truth to power and communicating with empathy for patients, staff, and those on the front lines who daily place themselves and their families at risk to ensure that we have essential services. Amplifying the needs and concerns of the frontline workers can drive those in power to develop practical and useful solutions.

Nurses and physicians have been threatened, and some actually terminated from their positions, because they publicly disclosed their institutions’ working conditions, lack of PPE, and unpreparedness. For example, a decorated US Navy captain was stripped of his command for writing a letter to drive action in managing a COVID-19 outbreak on the confined quarters of his ship. Such public health heroes have exhibited professionalism and leadership, placing the health and well-being of their colleagues, peers, and patients above their own careers. If we all spoke up with honesty and openness, we could have profound impact.

Hold ourselves and others accountable for scientific rigor and honesty. We must acknowledge what we do not know and be straightforward in discussing risks and benefits. The uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 public health crisis has created anxiety among health care workers, public-facing workers, government officials, and the public. We should not speculate but rather speak clearly and openly about our knowledge deficits.

The US culture in health care drives us to prefer action over inaction. “Doing something” feels proactive, and we are conditioned to think of doing something as a less risky strategy than watchful waiting. In this time of uncertainty, we must be wary of unproven and potentially harmful interventions, and we must use our best judgment and expertise to study procedures and medications that have potential benefit.

Be collaborative and creative in crafting practical workarounds that can be implemented at scale. New processes implemented in the past month to accommodate our new socially and physically distant reality include telemedicine for prenatal care, home monitoring of blood pressure, remote physiologic monitoring of blood sugars for diabetic patients, reviewing digital images to provide remote wound care, and home pulse oximetry to assess COVID-19–positive patients at home.

More workarounds are needed to support women’s ongoing health needs. Our expertise should guide those strategies while we strive to optimize outcomes, minimize resource utilization, and reduce exposure risk for ourselves, our staff, and our patients.

Advocate for systems to collect and analyze robust data so we can adjust interventions rapidly as new information arises. As we navigate the pandemic, the lack of evidence to inform decisions and treatment challenges us daily. We should use the current crisis to promote strategies that will support rapid, comprehensive data collection during disasters. Knowledge truly is power, and without it we are forced to improvise and speculate.

ObGyns must insist that data collection includes all pregnancies—not only those positive for COVID-19 since the testing has been sporadic and imperfect—and that the data are stratified by age, gender, race and ethnicity, and sociodemographics. This would enable us to learn as much as possible as quickly as possible and would therefore inform our responses for the current SARS CoV-2 pandemic as well as for the next disaster.

Continue to: Acknowledge the limitations of the system...

Acknowledge the limitations of the system and be wise stewards of resources. Our health care system does not have sufficient resources to manage patients with severe COVID-19 and the “usual” emergencies like stroke, myocardial infarction, ectopic pregnancy, and broken bones.

Disaster planning should include a regional triage system that can take incoming calls and direct emergency medical technicians, ambulances, and private citizens to appropriate facilities and direct those who do not require urgent medical care away from those facilities.

We must incorporate principles from battlefield medicine, because this is a battle, and we are at war. That means there will be difficult decisions. It is better to engage a regional team of experts to create a system for triage and care delivery than for each provider and institution to be forced by a void in leadership to go it individually. We should engage with government and public health officials to optimize both cure and care. Although we are unable to save everyone, we can work to ensure comfort and care for all.

Demonstrate compassion and caring for patients and each other. During the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, we can each channel our best selves to support and protect each other physically and emotionally. Many of us chose ObGyn because it is generally a “happy” specialty. None of us entered medicine to watch people die or to be unable to comfort them, to be unable to allow their families to be with them, to be unable to “do something.”

A crucial part of disaster planning and response is to prepare for the second victims: those of us forced to keep going through our emotional distress because there is no time to debrief and process our pain. Frontline caregivers need support and help now as well as after the surge passes. We need to speak up to ensure there is adequate PPE, creative staffing, and supportive resources to help caregivers process their anxiety, fatigue, and distress.

Take the lead

Every crisis brings both risk and opportunity. The COVID-19 pandemic provides ObGyns the chance to have a louder voice and a meaningful seat at the table as new and creative policies must be implemented at every level. We can use this opportunity to recapture our roles as champions for women and leaders within our health care system.

Critical steps in servant leadership include speaking up with honesty, transparency, and openness; taking risks to disclose inequities, dangerous conditions, and inadequate resources; and committing ourselves to each other, our teams, and the public. When we take these steps, we will be the driving force for a cohesive, reasoned, structured, and compassionate response to the COVID-19 crisis. As we seize this opportunity to lead, we will rekindle our passion for medicine, caring for the sick, and protecting the well. ●

SARS CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome corona-
virus 2) has challenged us all and will continue to do so for at least the next several months. This novel virus has uncovered our medical hubris and our collective failure to acknowledge our vulnerability in the face of biological threats. As government, public health, health systems, medical professionals, and individuals struggle to grasp its enormous impact, we must recognize and seize the opportunities for leadership that the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic presents to us as physicians.

For too long we have abdicated responsibility for driving change in the US health system to politicians, administrators, and those not on the front line of care delivery. We can, however, reclaim our voice and position of influence in 2 primary spheres: first, as ObGyns we have the specific clinical knowledge and experience required to help guide our institutions in the care of our patients under new and ever-changing circumstances; second, beyond our clinical role as ObGyns, we are servant leaders to whom the public, the government, our trainees, and our clinical teams turn for guidance.

Foundations for policy development

Disaster planning in hospitals and public health systems rarely includes consideration for pregnant and delivering patients. As ObGyns, we must create policies and procedures using the best available evidence—which is slim—and, in the absence of evidence, use our clinical and scientific expertise both to optimize patient care and to minimize risk to the health care team.

At this point in time there is much we do not know, such as whether viral particles in blood are contagious, amniotic fluid contains infectious droplets, or newborns are in danger if they room-in with an infected mother. What we do know is that the evidence will evolve and that our policies and procedures must be fluid and allow for rapid change. Here are some guiding principles for such policies.

Maximize telemedicine and remote monitoring

Labor and delivery (L&D) is an emergency department in which people are triaged from the outside. Systems should incorporate the best guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists while reducing infection exposure to staff, laboring patients, and newborns. One way to limit traffic in the triage area is to have a seasoned clinician perform phone triage for women who think they need evaluation for labor.

Maintain universal caution and precautions

All people entering L&D should be presumed to be COVID-19 positive, according to early evidence reported from Columbia University in New York City.¹ After remote or off-site phone triage determines that evaluation is needed in L&D, a transporter could ensure that all people escorted to L&D undergo a rapid COVID-19 test, wear a mask, and wash their hands. Until point-of-care testing is available, we must adopt safety precautions, since current data suggest that asymptomatic people may shed the infectious virus.

Both vaginal and cesarean deliveries expose everyone in the room to respiratory droplets. Common sense tells us that the laboring patient and her support person should wear a mask and that caregivers should be protected with N95 masks as well as face shields. If this were standard for every laboring patient, exposure during emergency situations might be minimized.

Continue to: Maximize support during labor...

Maximize support during labor

We should not need to ban partners and support people. Solid evidence demonstrates that support in labor improves outcomes, reduces the need for cesarean delivery, and increases patient satisfaction. We can and should protect staff and patients by requiring everyone to wear a mask.

Symptomatic patients, of course, require additional measures and personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce the risk of infection among the health care team. These should be identical to the measures the hospital infectious disease experts have implemented in the intensive care unit.

Champion continuous quality improvement

It is our responsibility to implement continuous quality improvement processes so that we can respond to data that become available, and this begins with collecting our own local data.

We have sparse data on the risks of miscarriage, congenital anomalies, and preterm birth, but there have been anecdotal reports of both early miscarriage and premature labor. Given the known increased risk for severe disease with influenza during pregnancy, we understandably are concerned about how our pregnant patients will fare. There are also unknowns with respect to fetal exposure risk. During this pandemic we must capture such data within our own systems and share aggregated, de-identified data broadly and swiftly if real signals indicate a need for change in procedures or policy.

In the meantime, we can apply our expertise and best judgment to work within teams that include all stakeholders—administrators, nurses, engineers, pediatricians, infectious disease experts, and public members—to establish policies that respond to the best current evidence.

Protect vulnerable team members

SARS CoV-2 is highly contagious. Thus far, data do not suggest that pregnant women are at higher risk for severe disease, but we must assume that working in the hospital environment among many COVID-19 patients increases the risk for exposure. With so many current unknowns, it may be prudent to keep pregnant health care workers out of clinical areas in the hospital and reassign them to other duties when feasible. Medical students nationwide similarly have been removed from clinical rotations to minimize their exposure risk as well as to preserve scarce PPE.

These decisions are difficult for all involved, and shared decision making between administrators, clinical leaders, and pregnant staff that promotes transparency, honesty, and openness is key. Since the risk is unknown and financial consequences may result for both the hospital and the staff member, open discussion and thoughtful policies that can be revised as new information is obtained will help achieve the best possible resolution to a difficult situation.

Continue to: ObGyns as servant leaders...

ObGyns as servant leaders

COVID-19 challenges us to balance individual and public health considerations while also considering the economic and social consequences of actions. The emergence of this novel pathogen and its rapid global spread are frightening both to an uninformed public and to our skeptical government officials. Beyond our immediate clinical responsibilities, how should we as knowledgeable professionals respond?

Servant leaders commit to service and support and mentor those around them with empathy and collaboration. Servant leaders have the strategic vision to continuously grow, change, and improve at all times, but especially during a crisis. COVID-19 challenges us to be those servant leaders. To do so we must:

Promote and exhibit transparency by speaking truth to power and communicating with empathy for patients, staff, and those on the front lines who daily place themselves and their families at risk to ensure that we have essential services. Amplifying the needs and concerns of the frontline workers can drive those in power to develop practical and useful solutions.

Nurses and physicians have been threatened, and some actually terminated from their positions, because they publicly disclosed their institutions’ working conditions, lack of PPE, and unpreparedness. For example, a decorated US Navy captain was stripped of his command for writing a letter to drive action in managing a COVID-19 outbreak on the confined quarters of his ship. Such public health heroes have exhibited professionalism and leadership, placing the health and well-being of their colleagues, peers, and patients above their own careers. If we all spoke up with honesty and openness, we could have profound impact.

Hold ourselves and others accountable for scientific rigor and honesty. We must acknowledge what we do not know and be straightforward in discussing risks and benefits. The uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 public health crisis has created anxiety among health care workers, public-facing workers, government officials, and the public. We should not speculate but rather speak clearly and openly about our knowledge deficits.

The US culture in health care drives us to prefer action over inaction. “Doing something” feels proactive, and we are conditioned to think of doing something as a less risky strategy than watchful waiting. In this time of uncertainty, we must be wary of unproven and potentially harmful interventions, and we must use our best judgment and expertise to study procedures and medications that have potential benefit.

Be collaborative and creative in crafting practical workarounds that can be implemented at scale. New processes implemented in the past month to accommodate our new socially and physically distant reality include telemedicine for prenatal care, home monitoring of blood pressure, remote physiologic monitoring of blood sugars for diabetic patients, reviewing digital images to provide remote wound care, and home pulse oximetry to assess COVID-19–positive patients at home.

More workarounds are needed to support women’s ongoing health needs. Our expertise should guide those strategies while we strive to optimize outcomes, minimize resource utilization, and reduce exposure risk for ourselves, our staff, and our patients.

Advocate for systems to collect and analyze robust data so we can adjust interventions rapidly as new information arises. As we navigate the pandemic, the lack of evidence to inform decisions and treatment challenges us daily. We should use the current crisis to promote strategies that will support rapid, comprehensive data collection during disasters. Knowledge truly is power, and without it we are forced to improvise and speculate.

ObGyns must insist that data collection includes all pregnancies—not only those positive for COVID-19 since the testing has been sporadic and imperfect—and that the data are stratified by age, gender, race and ethnicity, and sociodemographics. This would enable us to learn as much as possible as quickly as possible and would therefore inform our responses for the current SARS CoV-2 pandemic as well as for the next disaster.

Continue to: Acknowledge the limitations of the system...

Acknowledge the limitations of the system and be wise stewards of resources. Our health care system does not have sufficient resources to manage patients with severe COVID-19 and the “usual” emergencies like stroke, myocardial infarction, ectopic pregnancy, and broken bones.

Disaster planning should include a regional triage system that can take incoming calls and direct emergency medical technicians, ambulances, and private citizens to appropriate facilities and direct those who do not require urgent medical care away from those facilities.

We must incorporate principles from battlefield medicine, because this is a battle, and we are at war. That means there will be difficult decisions. It is better to engage a regional team of experts to create a system for triage and care delivery than for each provider and institution to be forced by a void in leadership to go it individually. We should engage with government and public health officials to optimize both cure and care. Although we are unable to save everyone, we can work to ensure comfort and care for all.

Demonstrate compassion and caring for patients and each other. During the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, we can each channel our best selves to support and protect each other physically and emotionally. Many of us chose ObGyn because it is generally a “happy” specialty. None of us entered medicine to watch people die or to be unable to comfort them, to be unable to allow their families to be with them, to be unable to “do something.”

A crucial part of disaster planning and response is to prepare for the second victims: those of us forced to keep going through our emotional distress because there is no time to debrief and process our pain. Frontline caregivers need support and help now as well as after the surge passes. We need to speak up to ensure there is adequate PPE, creative staffing, and supportive resources to help caregivers process their anxiety, fatigue, and distress.

Take the lead

Every crisis brings both risk and opportunity. The COVID-19 pandemic provides ObGyns the chance to have a louder voice and a meaningful seat at the table as new and creative policies must be implemented at every level. We can use this opportunity to recapture our roles as champions for women and leaders within our health care system.

Critical steps in servant leadership include speaking up with honesty, transparency, and openness; taking risks to disclose inequities, dangerous conditions, and inadequate resources; and committing ourselves to each other, our teams, and the public. When we take these steps, we will be the driving force for a cohesive, reasoned, structured, and compassionate response to the COVID-19 crisis. As we seize this opportunity to lead, we will rekindle our passion for medicine, caring for the sick, and protecting the well. ●

Delivering cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has proved particularly challenging, as minimizing the risk of infection must be balanced with maintaining optimal outcomes.

Healthcare systems and oncologists have had to reorganize standard oncologic care in order to protect vulnerable patients from exposure to COVID-19 as well as deal with pandemic-related issues of equipment and staffing shortages.

A new article now describes how seven cancer centers in Europe rapidly reorganized their oncologic services and are tackling this crisis, as well as offering guidance to other institutions.

This was a major undertaking, to work out a system where patients can still get care but in a safer manner, explained coauthor Emile Voest, MD, medical director of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

“Decisions needed to be taken based on availability of personnel, protective materials, and urgencies,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Because every country had its own speed of development of the COVID pandemic, there were different scenarios in all institutions, but all with a common factor of key expertise on how to de-escalate in a safe manner.”

The article was published April 16 in Nature Medicine.

The Netherlands Cancer Institute (the Netherlands), Karolinska Institute (Sweden), Institute Gustave Roussy (France), Cambridge Cancer Center (United Kingdom), Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (Italy), German Cancer Research Center (Germany), and Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (Spain) have been working closely together in a legal entity since 2014, and have created ‘Cancer Core Europe’ (CCE). The goal is to “maximize coherence and critical mass in cancer research,” the authors note.

The consortium represents roughly 60,000 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, delivers approximately 300,000 treatment courses, and conducts about 1.2 million consultations annually, with more than 1,500 ongoing clinical trials. In a joint effort, the centers collected, translated, and compared the guidelines that had been put in place to treat patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cancer treatment is multidisciplinary and involves many specialties including surgery, radiology, pathology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology. Coordinating care among disciplines is a very complex process, Voest noted.

“Changing treatment also means that you need to reconsider capacities and requirements,” he said. “Hospitals have installed crisis teams that were very good at coordinating these efforts.”
 

Restructuring care

Cancer care had to be reorganized on multiple levels, and the CCE centers looked at several aspects that needed to be accounted for, to ensure continuity in cancer care.

“The biggest challenge for the NHS and other healthcare systems is the surge of patients requiring oxygen and/or intensive care, and the nature and infectiousness of the virus,” said coauthor Carlos Caldas, MD, FMedSci, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. “In hospitals that are mostly run close to capacity, and where all kinds of patients are treated, this has created major resource and logistical problems.”

For regular clinical activities, the institutions with dedicated cancer centers (German Cancer Research Center, Institute Gustave Roussy, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, and Netherlands Cancer Institute) have attempted to stay COVID-19 free. This policy would in turn help ensure that sufficient clinical and intensive-care capacity could be reserved for critical cancer surgeries or management of treatment-related side effects, and allow hospitals outside of the CCE to transfer patients with cancer to these centers. The general hospitals can then focus on caring for patients with COVID-19, as well as other illnesses/injuries that require inpatient care.

As the CCE centers located within general hospitals (Cambridge Cancer Center, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology and Karolinska Institute) have to admit patients with suspected and positive cases of COVID-19, being “COVID-19 free” was never a realistic or pursued goal.

The authors note that it is the responsibility of all healthcare professionals to ensure patients are not exposed to COVID-19, and this has meant minimizing hospital visits and person-to-person contact. For example, whenever possible, consultations take place via telephone calls or over the Internet, and nonurgent appointments that would require a patient’s physical presence at the clinic have been postponed. Visitors are also not permitted to accompany patients when admitted to the hospital or during procedures.

Standard-of-care treatment regimens have been adapted across all centers to minimize the number of hospital visits and hospitalizations and prevent “anticancer treatment-induced” complications of COVID-19.

To minimize visits and hospitalizations, strategies include converting intravenous treatments to oral or subcutaneous regimens when possible; switching from cytotoxic chemotherapy to a less-toxic approach to minimize the risk of complications requiring hospitalization; or to pause therapies when possible (stable disease reached or better). In addition, nonemergency surgeries have been postponed or replaced by radiotherapy.

To prevent anticancer treatment-induced complications of COVID-19, most centers use the paradigm that the added benefit for tumor control should be weighed against the potential risk for COVID-19–related morbidity and mortality. To prevent or reduce the risk of neutropenia and lymphopenia, for example, all centers have suggested a de-escalation of cytotoxic chemotherapy or targeted treatment strategies, or to forgo second or subsequent lines of palliative treatments if response rates from up-front therapy are low.

Some of these changes may be here to stay, noted Caldas. “One of the positive messages that comes out of this is that, clearly, care can be delivered in a safe and compassionate manner without requiring as many hospital visits as in the pre-COVID-19 era,” he said. “In the future, we will take heed of the COVID-19 experience to improve delivery of cancer care.”
 

Capacity of facilities

Many healthcare systems have become overwhelmed as the pandemic has intensified, thus making it necessary to prioritize. To prepare for this possibility, CCE centers have established protocols to categorize and prioritize patients for systemic treatment or surgery. While the protocols vary by center, they are comparable with one another as they prioritize on the basis of anticipated treatment outcome, the authors note.

The guidelines in CCE centers unanimously recommend that neoadjuvant therapies and curative surgeries be the top priority, for the times when operating room and/or ICU capacity is limited. As an alternative, neoadjuvant systemic treatments may be initiated or extended to postpone surgery, and other nonsurgical interventions can be considered.

In addition, some centers agree that certain elective surgeries can be safely delayed if backed by scientific evidence. As an example, an 11-week deferment of surgery may be acceptable for patients with rectal cancer after downstaging.

Cancer centers may also need to upscale and downscale quickly, depending on how the pandemic evolves, and many have already outlined scenarios to prepare for increasing or decreasing their capacity using phased approaches.

The Netherlands Cancer Institute, for example, has defined four phases of increasing severity; in Germany, capacity planning has been coordinated among 18 hospitals and the federal ministry of health, in order to prevent shortages of cancer services.

“We note that the optimal downscaling strategies depend on country- and center-specific capacities and preferences,” they write. “Therefore, it is difficult to propose a common schedule, and it will be most effective if hospitals outline their own phase-specific downscaling strategies based on the prioritization schemes and practical handles discussed above.”
 

Future research

Better strategies will be needed to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in cancer care, and four research priorities were identified to allow for evidence-based adjustments of cancer care protocols while the pandemic continues:

• Collect real-world data about the effects of adjustment and de-escalation of treatment regimens on outcomes
• Determine the incidence of COVID-19 in both the general population and among patients with cancer who have received systemic therapies, with large-scale serological testing
• Develop an epidemiological model that will allow estimates of the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 for a patient with cancer, within a specific time frame
• Determine COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer who have been treated with systemic therapies and/or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Several projects are currently underway, such as the UK Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delivering cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has proved particularly challenging, as minimizing the risk of infection must be balanced with maintaining optimal outcomes.

Healthcare systems and oncologists have had to reorganize standard oncologic care in order to protect vulnerable patients from exposure to COVID-19 as well as deal with pandemic-related issues of equipment and staffing shortages.

A new article now describes how seven cancer centers in Europe rapidly reorganized their oncologic services and are tackling this crisis, as well as offering guidance to other institutions.

This was a major undertaking, to work out a system where patients can still get care but in a safer manner, explained coauthor Emile Voest, MD, medical director of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

“Decisions needed to be taken based on availability of personnel, protective materials, and urgencies,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Because every country had its own speed of development of the COVID pandemic, there were different scenarios in all institutions, but all with a common factor of key expertise on how to de-escalate in a safe manner.”

The article was published April 16 in Nature Medicine.

The Netherlands Cancer Institute (the Netherlands), Karolinska Institute (Sweden), Institute Gustave Roussy (France), Cambridge Cancer Center (United Kingdom), Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (Italy), German Cancer Research Center (Germany), and Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (Spain) have been working closely together in a legal entity since 2014, and have created ‘Cancer Core Europe’ (CCE). The goal is to “maximize coherence and critical mass in cancer research,” the authors note.

The consortium represents roughly 60,000 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, delivers approximately 300,000 treatment courses, and conducts about 1.2 million consultations annually, with more than 1,500 ongoing clinical trials. In a joint effort, the centers collected, translated, and compared the guidelines that had been put in place to treat patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cancer treatment is multidisciplinary and involves many specialties including surgery, radiology, pathology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology. Coordinating care among disciplines is a very complex process, Voest noted.

“Changing treatment also means that you need to reconsider capacities and requirements,” he said. “Hospitals have installed crisis teams that were very good at coordinating these efforts.”
 

Restructuring care

Cancer care had to be reorganized on multiple levels, and the CCE centers looked at several aspects that needed to be accounted for, to ensure continuity in cancer care.

“The biggest challenge for the NHS and other healthcare systems is the surge of patients requiring oxygen and/or intensive care, and the nature and infectiousness of the virus,” said coauthor Carlos Caldas, MD, FMedSci, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. “In hospitals that are mostly run close to capacity, and where all kinds of patients are treated, this has created major resource and logistical problems.”

For regular clinical activities, the institutions with dedicated cancer centers (German Cancer Research Center, Institute Gustave Roussy, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, and Netherlands Cancer Institute) have attempted to stay COVID-19 free. This policy would in turn help ensure that sufficient clinical and intensive-care capacity could be reserved for critical cancer surgeries or management of treatment-related side effects, and allow hospitals outside of the CCE to transfer patients with cancer to these centers. The general hospitals can then focus on caring for patients with COVID-19, as well as other illnesses/injuries that require inpatient care.

As the CCE centers located within general hospitals (Cambridge Cancer Center, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology and Karolinska Institute) have to admit patients with suspected and positive cases of COVID-19, being “COVID-19 free” was never a realistic or pursued goal.

The authors note that it is the responsibility of all healthcare professionals to ensure patients are not exposed to COVID-19, and this has meant minimizing hospital visits and person-to-person contact. For example, whenever possible, consultations take place via telephone calls or over the Internet, and nonurgent appointments that would require a patient’s physical presence at the clinic have been postponed. Visitors are also not permitted to accompany patients when admitted to the hospital or during procedures.

Standard-of-care treatment regimens have been adapted across all centers to minimize the number of hospital visits and hospitalizations and prevent “anticancer treatment-induced” complications of COVID-19.

To minimize visits and hospitalizations, strategies include converting intravenous treatments to oral or subcutaneous regimens when possible; switching from cytotoxic chemotherapy to a less-toxic approach to minimize the risk of complications requiring hospitalization; or to pause therapies when possible (stable disease reached or better). In addition, nonemergency surgeries have been postponed or replaced by radiotherapy.

To prevent anticancer treatment-induced complications of COVID-19, most centers use the paradigm that the added benefit for tumor control should be weighed against the potential risk for COVID-19–related morbidity and mortality. To prevent or reduce the risk of neutropenia and lymphopenia, for example, all centers have suggested a de-escalation of cytotoxic chemotherapy or targeted treatment strategies, or to forgo second or subsequent lines of palliative treatments if response rates from up-front therapy are low.

Some of these changes may be here to stay, noted Caldas. “One of the positive messages that comes out of this is that, clearly, care can be delivered in a safe and compassionate manner without requiring as many hospital visits as in the pre-COVID-19 era,” he said. “In the future, we will take heed of the COVID-19 experience to improve delivery of cancer care.”
 

Capacity of facilities

Many healthcare systems have become overwhelmed as the pandemic has intensified, thus making it necessary to prioritize. To prepare for this possibility, CCE centers have established protocols to categorize and prioritize patients for systemic treatment or surgery. While the protocols vary by center, they are comparable with one another as they prioritize on the basis of anticipated treatment outcome, the authors note.

The guidelines in CCE centers unanimously recommend that neoadjuvant therapies and curative surgeries be the top priority, for the times when operating room and/or ICU capacity is limited. As an alternative, neoadjuvant systemic treatments may be initiated or extended to postpone surgery, and other nonsurgical interventions can be considered.

In addition, some centers agree that certain elective surgeries can be safely delayed if backed by scientific evidence. As an example, an 11-week deferment of surgery may be acceptable for patients with rectal cancer after downstaging.

Cancer centers may also need to upscale and downscale quickly, depending on how the pandemic evolves, and many have already outlined scenarios to prepare for increasing or decreasing their capacity using phased approaches.

The Netherlands Cancer Institute, for example, has defined four phases of increasing severity; in Germany, capacity planning has been coordinated among 18 hospitals and the federal ministry of health, in order to prevent shortages of cancer services.

“We note that the optimal downscaling strategies depend on country- and center-specific capacities and preferences,” they write. “Therefore, it is difficult to propose a common schedule, and it will be most effective if hospitals outline their own phase-specific downscaling strategies based on the prioritization schemes and practical handles discussed above.”
 

Future research

Better strategies will be needed to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in cancer care, and four research priorities were identified to allow for evidence-based adjustments of cancer care protocols while the pandemic continues:

• Collect real-world data about the effects of adjustment and de-escalation of treatment regimens on outcomes
• Determine the incidence of COVID-19 in both the general population and among patients with cancer who have received systemic therapies, with large-scale serological testing
• Develop an epidemiological model that will allow estimates of the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 for a patient with cancer, within a specific time frame
• Determine COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer who have been treated with systemic therapies and/or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Several projects are currently underway, such as the UK Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Delivering cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has proved particularly challenging, as minimizing the risk of infection must be balanced with maintaining optimal outcomes.

Healthcare systems and oncologists have had to reorganize standard oncologic care in order to protect vulnerable patients from exposure to COVID-19 as well as deal with pandemic-related issues of equipment and staffing shortages.

A new article now describes how seven cancer centers in Europe rapidly reorganized their oncologic services and are tackling this crisis, as well as offering guidance to other institutions.

This was a major undertaking, to work out a system where patients can still get care but in a safer manner, explained coauthor Emile Voest, MD, medical director of the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam.

“Decisions needed to be taken based on availability of personnel, protective materials, and urgencies,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Because every country had its own speed of development of the COVID pandemic, there were different scenarios in all institutions, but all with a common factor of key expertise on how to de-escalate in a safe manner.”

The article was published April 16 in Nature Medicine.

The Netherlands Cancer Institute (the Netherlands), Karolinska Institute (Sweden), Institute Gustave Roussy (France), Cambridge Cancer Center (United Kingdom), Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (Italy), German Cancer Research Center (Germany), and Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (Spain) have been working closely together in a legal entity since 2014, and have created ‘Cancer Core Europe’ (CCE). The goal is to “maximize coherence and critical mass in cancer research,” the authors note.

The consortium represents roughly 60,000 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, delivers approximately 300,000 treatment courses, and conducts about 1.2 million consultations annually, with more than 1,500 ongoing clinical trials. In a joint effort, the centers collected, translated, and compared the guidelines that had been put in place to treat patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cancer treatment is multidisciplinary and involves many specialties including surgery, radiology, pathology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology. Coordinating care among disciplines is a very complex process, Voest noted.

“Changing treatment also means that you need to reconsider capacities and requirements,” he said. “Hospitals have installed crisis teams that were very good at coordinating these efforts.”
 

Restructuring care

Cancer care had to be reorganized on multiple levels, and the CCE centers looked at several aspects that needed to be accounted for, to ensure continuity in cancer care.

“The biggest challenge for the NHS and other healthcare systems is the surge of patients requiring oxygen and/or intensive care, and the nature and infectiousness of the virus,” said coauthor Carlos Caldas, MD, FMedSci, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. “In hospitals that are mostly run close to capacity, and where all kinds of patients are treated, this has created major resource and logistical problems.”

For regular clinical activities, the institutions with dedicated cancer centers (German Cancer Research Center, Institute Gustave Roussy, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, and Netherlands Cancer Institute) have attempted to stay COVID-19 free. This policy would in turn help ensure that sufficient clinical and intensive-care capacity could be reserved for critical cancer surgeries or management of treatment-related side effects, and allow hospitals outside of the CCE to transfer patients with cancer to these centers. The general hospitals can then focus on caring for patients with COVID-19, as well as other illnesses/injuries that require inpatient care.

As the CCE centers located within general hospitals (Cambridge Cancer Center, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology and Karolinska Institute) have to admit patients with suspected and positive cases of COVID-19, being “COVID-19 free” was never a realistic or pursued goal.

The authors note that it is the responsibility of all healthcare professionals to ensure patients are not exposed to COVID-19, and this has meant minimizing hospital visits and person-to-person contact. For example, whenever possible, consultations take place via telephone calls or over the Internet, and nonurgent appointments that would require a patient’s physical presence at the clinic have been postponed. Visitors are also not permitted to accompany patients when admitted to the hospital or during procedures.

Standard-of-care treatment regimens have been adapted across all centers to minimize the number of hospital visits and hospitalizations and prevent “anticancer treatment-induced” complications of COVID-19.

To minimize visits and hospitalizations, strategies include converting intravenous treatments to oral or subcutaneous regimens when possible; switching from cytotoxic chemotherapy to a less-toxic approach to minimize the risk of complications requiring hospitalization; or to pause therapies when possible (stable disease reached or better). In addition, nonemergency surgeries have been postponed or replaced by radiotherapy.

To prevent anticancer treatment-induced complications of COVID-19, most centers use the paradigm that the added benefit for tumor control should be weighed against the potential risk for COVID-19–related morbidity and mortality. To prevent or reduce the risk of neutropenia and lymphopenia, for example, all centers have suggested a de-escalation of cytotoxic chemotherapy or targeted treatment strategies, or to forgo second or subsequent lines of palliative treatments if response rates from up-front therapy are low.

Some of these changes may be here to stay, noted Caldas. “One of the positive messages that comes out of this is that, clearly, care can be delivered in a safe and compassionate manner without requiring as many hospital visits as in the pre-COVID-19 era,” he said. “In the future, we will take heed of the COVID-19 experience to improve delivery of cancer care.”
 

Capacity of facilities

Many healthcare systems have become overwhelmed as the pandemic has intensified, thus making it necessary to prioritize. To prepare for this possibility, CCE centers have established protocols to categorize and prioritize patients for systemic treatment or surgery. While the protocols vary by center, they are comparable with one another as they prioritize on the basis of anticipated treatment outcome, the authors note.

The guidelines in CCE centers unanimously recommend that neoadjuvant therapies and curative surgeries be the top priority, for the times when operating room and/or ICU capacity is limited. As an alternative, neoadjuvant systemic treatments may be initiated or extended to postpone surgery, and other nonsurgical interventions can be considered.

In addition, some centers agree that certain elective surgeries can be safely delayed if backed by scientific evidence. As an example, an 11-week deferment of surgery may be acceptable for patients with rectal cancer after downstaging.

Cancer centers may also need to upscale and downscale quickly, depending on how the pandemic evolves, and many have already outlined scenarios to prepare for increasing or decreasing their capacity using phased approaches.

The Netherlands Cancer Institute, for example, has defined four phases of increasing severity; in Germany, capacity planning has been coordinated among 18 hospitals and the federal ministry of health, in order to prevent shortages of cancer services.

“We note that the optimal downscaling strategies depend on country- and center-specific capacities and preferences,” they write. “Therefore, it is difficult to propose a common schedule, and it will be most effective if hospitals outline their own phase-specific downscaling strategies based on the prioritization schemes and practical handles discussed above.”
 

Future research

Better strategies will be needed to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in cancer care, and four research priorities were identified to allow for evidence-based adjustments of cancer care protocols while the pandemic continues:

• Collect real-world data about the effects of adjustment and de-escalation of treatment regimens on outcomes
• Determine the incidence of COVID-19 in both the general population and among patients with cancer who have received systemic therapies, with large-scale serological testing
• Develop an epidemiological model that will allow estimates of the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 for a patient with cancer, within a specific time frame
• Determine COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer who have been treated with systemic therapies and/or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Several projects are currently underway, such as the UK Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.